Where is the conservative outrage over this expense?

[BigPapaVol]

Out of curiosity, with respect to the ongoing argument, are you religious, BPV? I know where IP stands, just wondering your opinion.

I am.

 

[tvolsfan]

I am.

I thought I remembered you saying that. I feel like it's something to be noted when this debate arises.

 

[sjt18]

Please. I'm not interested in text and you haven't answered anything. You've tried to marginalize my opinion by saying I'm not a theologian or that I don't know history.

No. I'm simply establishing that you cannot interpret the Bible as it best suits your argument then assign that interpretation to me.

Next, forget the argument about my discriminating against your discrimination, which is patently absurd, even for this board.

You keep stating conclusions but refuse to deal with the substance of what you are disagreeing with. I'm sorry if it frustrates you that I have accurately identified your sophistry and dishonest tactics....

But it is what it is.

 

[sjt18]

I am.

All the more reason you should be willing to actually discuss the text rather than assign beliefs to me.

 

[BigPapaVol]

All the more reason you should be willing to actually discuss the text rather than assign beliefs to me.

No it isn't. It makes no sense that you're denying that you know the text.

 

[droski]

No. I'm simply establishing that you cannot interpret the Bible as it best suits your argument then assign that interpretation to me.

i think he is arguing you are interpreting hte bible to best suit your argument.

 

[BigPapaVol]

No. I'm simply establishing that you cannot interpret the Bible as it best suits your argument then assign that interpretation to me.

bull. You specifically dismissed the argument regarding vagrancy by saying I'm not a theologian.

You keep stating conclusions but refuse to deal with the substance of what you are disagreeing with. I'm sorry if it frustrates you that I have accurately identified your sophistry and dishonest tactics....

But it is what it is.

you haven't accurately identified anything. You've tried your hardest to justify some discrimination. Saying you've discredited me doesn't make it true nor does it make your discrimination right. Acting as if your tactics are somehow more honest or more substantive is simply weak. It's the CashVallin method of declaring victory out of nothingness. I'll grant you that it's cute.

 

[IPorange]

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that none of them are as capable of adaptation as their common ancestor was.

How have you arrived at this conclusion? Is this kind of like the claims of the "storm of the century" or "trial of the century" that have been made each decade? You can't know that these current animals are more or less adaptable than their ancestor when the ancestor got tens of millions of years, and these modern species have gotten the time since we labeled them as a species. There is no reasoning whatsoever to back up this assertion, other than it's convenience

First and foremost, they are related to each other genetically and share many traits. The genetic coding differences are much better explained by deletions and mutations which CAN BE reproduced by experiment than novel additions to any of the genomes which have not been. Even if they somehow do occur, it is very obvious that they do not occur frequently enough to be observed... which means they likely do not occur often enough to help a species survive sudden environmental changes.

frequently enough to be observed? Are you implying that we should be able to observe changes that occur over thousands to hundreds of thousands of generations? Well, we can. In bacteria. We obviously have limitations on observing species with longer generational cycles, given that we are mortal ourselves. You are taking the observations of humans over the last 150 years, and trying to draw conclusions on intervals of millions of years. It makes no sense.
Second and already alluded to, we can reproduce this process. Man has done so through breeding for thousands of years. You rightly called it artificial but the mechanism can and does explain adaptation and the mechanics of natural selection if you allow it to.

Natural selection means from the pressures of the environment alone, with no conscious input. You said you believed that God was behind these mutations, changes, and deletions (which you also said couldn't have led to the changes necessary for speciation, but I guess you are assuming God magically did it faster when we weren't looking)-- that's not natural selection then, it's artificial selection just as much as when we breed a wolf into a German Shepherd.

 

[sjt18]

i think he is arguing you are interpreting hte bible to best suit your argument.

That might be an approach for him to try but he hasn't established anything like that. He has not even cited a specific text to see whether I am consistent in the way I treat the text. He simply makes a whole bunch of assumptions then a conclusion about what I "MUST" be doing.

 

[Vols520]

I honestly have no idea why people care if gay people get married. Or why people would care if they adopt.

Get over it already.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[sjt18]

How have you arrived at this conclusion? Is this kind of like the claims of the "storm of the century" or "trial of the century" that have been made each decade? You can't know that these current animals are more or less adaptable than their ancestor when the ancestor got tens of millions of years, and these modern species have gotten the time since we labeled them as a species. There is no reasoning whatsoever to back up this assertion, other than it's convenience

This is a remarkably hypocritical response. Your side presumes that previous generations have been less complex and their adaptability has come from a build up of mutations over time. Virtually everything TOE is built around assumes that ancestors were NOT more complex... because it is necessary for the theory to be true and NOT because there is an ounce of direct evidence for it. Yet when I start with a different presupposition and premise, you howl that I can't "know" that.

The process of simpler life forms becoming more complex has NOT been demonstrated by experimental means. A workable mechanism has NOT been repeated in observed nature or the lab. The "millions of years" is nothing more than convenient cover for the fact that if these mutations indeed provide useful and novel information/biological systems... it cannot be observed in real time.

You are not turning the same criticism toward your own beliefs. Evolution is a "plausible" story. Models are produced within the scope of the theory then discoveries are "fit" into the model. Sometimes they are force fit. Occasionally they are so intractable that major parts of the theory must be reworked.

A great example in current news is the once supposed "junk dna". It was touted as a great proof of evolution's ability to "predict" things in applied science... until researchers discovered that it is vital to gene expression.

The difference between what the Christian theorists have done here and what you have chosen to believe is that there is a workable, testable mechanism for producing the kind of change I have suggested. Man has known about it and used it for all of recorded history. We KNOW that selective breeding can change the genome of a population of animals. Whereas husbandry uses artificial design, natural selection uses natural causation but I believe the same fundamental mechanisms.

Oh... and I know this will just light you up... It does not take millions of years but under some conditions can occur in only a few generations.

FTR because I know you'll probably be tempted to throw a contemptuous "6000 years" out there... I do not believe the universe or especially our world and the life on it are as old as you all demand. I am also skeptical of Bishop Ussher's calculations. Several biblically faithful Bible scholars suggest his methods were very flawed. He basically used geneologies and ages. There is both internal and external evidence from the Bible that contradict that method.

 

[BigPapaVol]

That might be an approach for him to try but he hasn't established anything like that. He has not even cited a specific text to see whether I am consistent in the way I treat the text. He simply makes a whole bunch of assumptions then a conclusion about what I "MUST" be doing.

I won't be trying it because I don't care. If you're intellectually consistent...nevermind. You shifted from biblical justification to research data to mass approval. You're not. Why should other passages matter. You're going to pick the rationalization du jour to keep living in your Eden.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[sjt18]

you haven't accurately identified anything. You've tried your hardest to justify some discrimination.

Yes. I have and so what?

We all discriminate. You do. I do. IPOrange does. droski does.

Very consistently I have said that discrimination on the basis of a benign characteristic is wrong and that gov't can play a beneficial role in addressing it. I have just as consistently said that discrimination against things identified by self-declaration or behavior are different.

What you and others here have decided is that your bigotry toward those who choose to hold a different value set concerning human sexuality is justified whereas their discrimination against those who live contrary to their beliefs are not.

Just live and let live.

One question you have not asked through all of your accusations and name calling is how I actually treat homosexuals or would treat them.

Saying you've discredited me doesn't make it true nor does it make your discrimination right. Acting as if your tactics are somehow more honest or more substantive is simply weak. It's the CashVallin method of declaring victory out of nothingness. I'll grant you that it's cute.

Not so. I have invited your repeatedly to actually discuss the substance of what we believe and why we believe it. I have already gone several levels deeper than you have regarding a justification for what I believe.

Your basic response has been to get angry, belligerent then stereotype me to justify your response.

 

[sjt18]

I won't be trying it because I don't care. If you're intellectually consistent...nevermind. You shifted from biblical justification to research data to mass approval. You're not. Why should other passages matter. You're going to pick the rationalization du jour to keep living in your Eden.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Are you serious? You CANNOT BE CONSISTENT unlees your biblical and evidential reasoning agree with each other. I could be absolutely wrong about the way I read the Bible or interpret seemingly very direct data sets... but to say that agreement between the conclusions derived from the two means I am inconsistent is absurd in the extreme.

I did not say that I would change my mind if my state voted to allow homosexual marriage. I said that it was the right of the populace to determine how this particular privilege should be applied.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Yes. I have and so what?

We all discriminate. You do. I do. IPOrange does. droski does.

Very consistently I have said that discrimination on the basis of a benign characteristic is wrong and that gov't can play a beneficial role in addressing it. I have just as consistently said that discrimination against things identified by self-declaration or behavior are different.

What you and others here have decided is that your bigotry toward those who choose to hold a different value set concerning human sexuality is justified whereas their discrimination against those who live contrary to their beliefs are not.

Just live and let live.

One question you have not asked through all of your accusations and name calling is how I actually treat homosexuals or would treat them.

Not so. I have invited your repeatedly to actually discuss the substance of what we believe and why we believe it. I have already gone several levels deeper than you have regarding a justification for what I believe.

Your basic response has been to get angry, belligerent then stereotype me to justify your response.

I'm not angry. You simply haven't shown anything and you've set up this benign characteristic argument as if the facts are in or you know about the choice.

Denying marriage licenses based yours and Powell's benign characteristic strawman is garbage. You have not offered anything save weakly positioned justification for your duscrimination. Continue telling me you have and declaring victory, but it's still discriminatory and it's nothing remotely akin to live and let live. It's live according to the Bible and popular opinion because one of the two always represents a moral absolute.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[BigPapaVol]

Are you serious? You CANNOT BE CONSISTENT unlees your biblical and evidential reasoning agree with each other. I could be absolutely wrong about the way I read the Bible or interpret seemingly very direct data sets... but to say that agreement between the conclusions derived from the two means I am inconsistent is absurd in the extreme.

I did not say that I would change my mind if my state voted to allow homosexual marriage. I said that it was the right of the populace to determine how this particular privilege should be applied.

I disnt say anything about the two agreeing meaning anything. I said tgat you've waffled between the two for your justification and that neither work.

It was also the right of the populace to continue slavery too.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[sjt18]

frequently enough to be observed? Are you implying that we should be able to observe changes that occur over thousands to hundreds of thousands of generations? Well, we can. In bacteria. We obviously have limitations on observing species with longer generational cycles, given that we are mortal ourselves. You are taking the observations of humans over the last 150 years, and trying to draw conclusions on intervals of millions of years. It makes no sense.

Do you not see why this would objectionable to a skeptic of your pov? It is quite "convenient" that the mechanism your system absolutely depends on is unobservable.

Your bacteria example provides far more problems than answers. For one, the bacteria do not become something else or develop new biological systems. At best, there is a balanced equation within the genome... at worst (as far as providing proof for you), it is simply a magnification of an existing trait within the genome due to environment... IOW's, not a new trait at all but one not easily found within the population.
Tell me, do believe that for something to be scientific it must be testable and subject to being disproven?

 

[IPorange]

This is a remarkably hypocritical response. Your side presumes that previous generations have been less complex and their adaptability has come from a build up of mutations over time. Virtually everything TOE is built around assumes that ancestors were NOT more complex... because it is necessary for the theory to be true and NOT because there is an ounce of direct evidence for it. Yet when I start with a different presupposition and premise, you howl that I can't "know" that.

The process of simpler life forms becoming more complex has NOT been demonstrated by experimental means. A workable mechanism has NOT been repeated in observed nature or the lab. The "millions of years" is nothing more than convenient cover for the fact that if these mutations indeed provide useful and novel information/biological systems... it cannot be observed in real time.

You are not turning the same criticism toward your own beliefs. Evolution is a "plausible" story. Models are produced within the scope of the theory then discoveries are "fit" into the model. Sometimes they are force fit. Occasionally they are so intractable that major parts of the theory must be reworked.

A great example in current news is the once supposed "junk dna". It was touted as a great proof of evolution's ability to "predict" things in applied science... until researchers discovered that it is vital to gene expression.

The difference between what the Christian theorists have done here and what you have chosen to believe is that there is a workable, testable mechanism for producing the kind of change I have suggested. Man has known about it and used it for all of recorded history. We KNOW that selective breeding can change the genome of a population of animals. Whereas husbandry uses artificial design, natural selection uses natural causation but I believe the same fundamental mechanisms.

Oh... and I know this will just light you up... It does not take millions of years but under some conditions can occur in only a few generations.

FTR because I know you'll probably be tempted to throw a contemptuous "6000 years" out there... I do not believe the universe or especially our world and the life on it are as old as you all demand. I am also skeptical of Bishop Ussher's calculations. Several biblically faithful Bible scholars suggest his methods were very flawed. He basically used geneologies and ages. There is both internal and external evidence from the Bible that contradict that method.

Wrong. Evolution does not in any WAY assume previous generations have been less complex, and are gaining in complexity. Sometimes that is the case, sometimes it is not. What evolution assumes is that the traits that are most advantageous are the ones that get passed on, and the most well-adapted individuals are the ones that succeed. You are DEAD, D-E-A-D WRONG on evolution. More evolved does not equal more complex, necessarily.

Evolutionary biologists have made predictions concerning the fossil record that have been proven correct several times. The only way one can make sense of the fossil record is with evolution. Furthermore, changes to the genetic makeup of isolated populations has been observed in the laboratory, which discredits your assertion that modern species are "less adapatable" than their ancestors, given the difference in time frames.

I'm not sure how you can even turn to the field of genetics at all in trying to discredit evolution. It was the rediscovery of genetics that was the theory of evolution's greatest supporter, as it provided the mechanism for the the selection and passing on of traits.

 

[sjt18]

I'm not angry. You simply haven't shown anything and you've set up this benign characteristic argument as if the facts are in or you know about the choice.

Denying marriage licenses based yours and Powell's benign characteristic strawman is garbage. You have not offered anything save weakly positioned justification for your duscrimination. Continue telling me you have and declaring victory, but it's still discriminatory and it's nothing remotely akin to live and let live. It's live according to the Bible and popular opinion because one of the two always represents a moral absolute.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

What exactly here aren't you getting? I have said that I do not KNOW if homosexuals have some innate tendency. That simply does NOT dictate chosen behavior.

Race is not chosen. It is not a moral choice. It is not a behavioral choice. It isn't even an impulse.

Until you actually want to engage in a discussion of biblical text, that "point" you keep trying to make is moot.

 

[sjt18]

Wrong. Evolution does not in any WAY assume previous generations have been less complex, and are gaining in complexity. Sometimes that is the case, sometimes it is not. What evolution assumes is that the traits that are most advantageous are the ones that get passed on, and the most well-adapted individuals are the ones that succeed. You are DEAD, D-E-A-D WRONG on evolution. More evolved does not equal more complex, necessarily.

This is interesting. So you do not believe that all life on earth now ultimately descended from simpler life forms?

Evolutionary biologists have made predictions concerning the fossil record that have been proven correct several times.

And many times wrong... for instance "Lucy's" feet. The first remains had no feet but based on suppositions concerning the leg joints Lucy was assigned human like feet. Later, very ape-like, arboral feet were found.

The only way one can make sense of the fossil record is with evolution.

No it isn't. That simply isn't true at all.

All of the remains of the supposed human ancestors would fit into the bed of a small pick up. To say there is only one way to explain that scant evidence is ridiculous. I'm sorry a good guy like you has bought it.

Regarding the record generally, fossil graveyards are fairly common. Some are massive. Things do not fossilize unless they are buried very, very quickly in sediment. There are only a few natural means for providing that volume of sediment, that quickly.

It is NOT surprising that large groups of the same kind of animals would appear together... or that different species would appear together while others would not. If Yellowstone was catestrophically covered with sediment in a few hours... a future scientist could NOT make the assumption that Polar Bears did not live at the same time as Grizzlies.

The fossil record is made up geologically speaking of about as many anomalous fossils as normal ones. Fossils shift within strata randomly by known mechanisms... meaning it cannot provide a "rule" for anything. Further, there are fossilized trees that cut through several strata... did they somehow die and remain un-decayed for millions of years while sediment gradually built up around them?

Furthermore, changes to the genetic makeup of isolated populations has been observed in the laboratory, which discredits your assertion that modern species are "less adapatable" than their ancestors, given the difference in time frames.

No it doesn't. I did not say that they could not change. I suggested that previous generations with more robust genomes could change more drastically and more quickly.

This is an idea that has been suggested by scientists who believe in evolution. They believe the abundance of information came from some past natural event as opposed to my belief that the information was created within the first "kinds" of animals... but I'm NOT way out on some limb here.

Moreover, one of the more prominent evolution apologists (maybe Hawkin- punctuated equillibrium guy, right?) said that the fossil record is less like a tree than a yard full of grass. IOW's, you can go back a few branches and find a common ancestor but prior to that the record does not give connectors between the large groups.

This is precisely how what I've suggested would look in the fossil record minus evolutions model of natural histories timeframe.

I'm not sure how you can even turn to the field of genetics at all in trying to discredit evolution. It was the rediscovery of genetics that was the theory of evolution's greatest supporter, as it provided the mechanism for the the selection and passing on of traits.

I'm sorry but no. Evolution has an explanation for genetics but evolution does NOT provide alot of accurate predictions in genetics. Genetics does NOT by any stretch depend on evolution to be true... not in the macro sense which is what creationists object to.

Moreover, evolution really, really has to stretch to cover how well genetics lines up with information theory AND yields itself so seamlessly to reverse engineering. These things point much more to a Designer than to a series of random events.

 

[IPorange]

This is interesting. So you do not believe that all life on earth now ultimately descended from simpler life forms?
Of course I do. But all life is not necessarily getting more and more complex.

And many times wrong... for instance "Lucy's" feet. The first remains had no feet but based on suppositions concerning the leg joints Lucy was assigned human like feet. Later, very ape-like, arboral feet were found. What is your Biblical explanation for "Lucy"? No it isn't. That simply isn't true at all.

All of the remains of the supposed human ancestors would fit into the bed of a small pick up. To say there is only one way to explain that scant evidence is ridiculous. I'm sorry a good guy like you has bought it.

Regarding the record generally, fossil graveyards are fairly common. Some are massive. Things do not fossilize unless they are buried very, very quickly in sediment. There are only a few natural means for providing that volume of sediment, that quickly.

It is NOT surprising that large groups of the same kind of animals would appear together... or that different species would appear together while others would not. If Yellowstone was catestrophically covered with sediment in a few hours... a future scientist could NOT make the assumption that Polar Bears did not live at the same time as Grizzlies.

The fossil record is made up geologically speaking of about as many anomalous fossils as normal ones. Fossils shift within strata randomly by known mechanisms... meaning it cannot provide a "rule" for anything. Further, there are fossilized trees that cut through several strata... did they somehow die and remain un-decayed for millions of years while sediment gradually built up around them?
Wow. The fossil record is all just a big goof. And fits in a pickup truck. Okay.
No it doesn't. I did not say that they could not change. I suggested that previous generations with more robust genomes could change more drastically and more quickly.

This is an idea that has been suggested by scientists who believe in evolution. They believe the abundance of information came from some past natural event as opposed to my belief that the information was created within the first "kinds" of animals... but I'm NOT way out on some limb here.

Moreover, one of the more prominent evolution apologists (maybe Hawkin- punctuated equillibrium guy, right?) said that the fossil record is less like a tree than a yard full of grass. IOW's, you can go back a few branches and find a common ancestor but prior to that the record does not give connectors between the large groups.

This is precisely how what I've suggested would look in the fossil record minus evolutions model of natural histories timeframe.

Why would a divine being create things just to have them go extinct with no descendants, before his sentient creation even entered the picture? Why is there no mention of any of this in the story of Creation?



I'm sorry but no. Evolution has an explanation for genetics but evolution does NOT provide alot of accurate predictions in genetics. Genetics does NOT by any stretch depend on evolution to be true... not in the macro sense which is what creationists object to.

Moreover, evolution really, really has to stretch to cover how well genetics lines up with information theory AND yields itself so seamlessly to reverse engineering. These things point much more to a Designer than to a series of random events.

I couldn't disagree more with this last assertion. There is nothing about genetics that lends to there having to be a creator, unless the creator has terrible craftsmanship.

 

[BigPapaVol]

What exactly here aren't you getting? I have said that I do not KNOW if homosexuals have some innate tendency. That simply does NOT dictate chosen behavior.

but this doesn't beget your exclusionary view on homosexual partnerships. You've essentially written them off as sex based or presumed it's a choice and ruled homosexuality out of your benign characteristic strawman circle based upon that presumption.

Race is not chosen. It is not a moral choice. It is not a behavioral choice. It isn't even an impulse.

so? You've set up that strawman, not me. It's easy for you because you aren't going to be denied anything for acting upon your sexual impulses, which is exactly what you're maligning homosexuals for doing. Regardless, that strawman isn't at issue. You're trying to make it so.

Until you actually want to engage in a discussion of biblical text, that "point" you keep trying to make is moot.

I'm not interested in that. It was simply presented to make the point that you can't use your Bible in making our laws or defending this asymmetrical and essentially arbitrary application of civil union rules. I do find it interesting that I haven't seen you clamoring for all of the biblical absolutes out there to be written into our laws.

 

[sjt18]

I disnt say anything about the two agreeing meaning anything. I said tgat you've waffled between the two for your justification and that neither work.

No I didn't. Both justifications are applicable in at least some respects.

It was also the right of the populace to continue slavery too.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Non sequitur. Just because you refuse to see the obvious distinction between discrimination based on behavioral choices and benign characteristics does not mean they do not exist.

 

[sjt18]

but this doesn't beget your exclusionary view on homosexual partnerships. You've essentially written them off as sex based or presumed it's a choice and ruled homosexuality out of your benign characteristic strawman circle based upon that presumption.

No. I have not presumed anything. I have affirmed a self-evident fact. Whether a person's impulse to prefer the same sex is environmental or innate, the choice to engage in sex acts is absolutely a choice. That is true of heterosexuals and homosexuals.

AND, whether sexual preference is innate for some people or not, people CAN cultivate alternate desires. Straight people CAN cultivate same sex desires if they choose to and vice versa.

 

[sjt18]

I couldn't disagree more with this last assertion. There is nothing about genetics that lends to there having to be a creator, unless the creator has terrible craftsmanship.

Or... unless He has perfect craftsmanship that has been corrupted and been in a state of decay for many generations.