Where is the conservative outrage over this expense?

[IPorange]

You just gave a "how" answer to a "why" question.

No I didn't.

 

[IPorange]

Worked so far. You nor IP have offered anything like a reasoned argument to prove that you aren't suggesting religious bigotry as a substitute for what you term bigotry against homosexuals.

It's like your argument consists of "nanner-nanner boo-boo, I can't hear you."

 

[BigPapaVol]

It's like your argument consists of "nanner-nanner boo-boo, I can't hear you."

His arguments have been majority rule and our discrimination against his religiously driven bigotry. Those are owerwhelming. I'd proclaim others inadequate too.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[KingNick865]

It's like your argument consists of "nanner-nanner boo-boo, I can't hear you."

His arguments always consist of something like this.

 

[sjt18]

Looks like you said it to me.

I did not say that there are no serious thinkers that disagree with my notions. You generalized something that I didn't.

You are using the term "faith" very loosely. I hardly think the faith it requires to believe in a divine being is equal to faith that if I flip a coin fifty times, there is a 50/50 chance of it being heads or tails either time.

No. I am using it by its accepted English definition. You are simply trying to parse the word to avoid the truth that you believe in something that is NOT completely or perhaps even mostly empirical in nature.

Mathematics and probability are not faith.

The use of mathematics to say something "could" happen is not faith. To say that something that "could" happen, did in fact happen for no other good reason than it supports your theory... is very much faith.

Your criticism of the Big Bang theory based on entropy (you mentioned needing to see a perpetual motion machine, implying that the Big Bang Theory breaks the second law of thermodynamics) is thought to be invalid by many physicists.

Glad to see you honestly use the word "many". Many also disagree with and think they have disproven the model that you suggested.

The universe constitutes EVERYTHING. There is no "outside the system" or "other system"

Really? I suppose you have proof for this? I'm going to ask a question for reference that may sound offensive but I don't intend it that way. You do understand the Big Bang model don't you?

for energy to escape or transfer to on that scale, there is no drag or resistance on the system. Because energy can neither be created NOR destroyed, all energy continues in the universe, with the net system having a constant state of entropy. As the universe expands, background radiation energy seems to decrease as it is the same amount of energy over a wider space. if the universe contracts, energy would seem to increase as more energy was compressed into a smaller area. The net energy would be the same, however. Voila, there is your perpetual energy machine: you are living in it.

So because you have a model... a model that even materialistic cosmologists disagree with... you think you have definitively answered the question?

What part of the universe do you actually believe we have studied? You are aware that both Christian and secular science have come up with a wide range of theoretical and mathematical models that account for the occurrences you cite, right?

IF I started with a presupposition of naturalism/materialism then I would probably limit alternatives too. While claiming the intellectual high ground... folks with those presuppositions actually shutdown inquiry arbitrarily. Since I start with a presupposition of supernaturalism... I do not have to preclude either naturalistic or supernatural explanations. I can actually follow the evidence wherever it seems to lead. Your metaphysical presuppositions will not allow you to.

I can, and have in the past, reconciled the evolutionary model to an otherwise Christian and biblical worldview. I was not turned just because of the text of the Bible. I was turned when I found compelling reasons to a) not believe in evolutionary models and b) reasonable explanations by Christians that did not depend on just "God in the gap" declarations.

 

[sjt18]

It's like your argument consists of "nanner-nanner boo-boo, I can't hear you."

As far as I know, I've tried to answer you point by point. I am pressing some points because you keep evading them.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Nope. I am saying that neither you nor I have the right to answer this particular question for each other or someone else.

Tolerance isn't accepting my pov and applying it to everyone. Tolerance is allowing each of us to have and act on our pov without gov't interference. If someone's business disagrees with your pov, punish them through boycotts. Use your free speech rights to convince others to avoid them. Start a business and put them out of business... but don't trample their right to disagree with you.

You are, by definition, discriminating against a pov. You may feel justified because you think they discriminated unjustly first... but you are suggesting discrimination. Wow. Why am I not surprised that someone else resorts to this type of tactic? That straw man simply has no merit.

Race is a benign characteristic not subject to personal choices at all.

I have not proposed anything like enslavement of homosexuals or even subjugation of their rights.

You on the other hand have suggested that if someone disagrees with you about what they should do on their property and with their choices of associates... they should be punished.



Worked so far. You nor IP have offered anything like a reasoned argument to prove that you aren't suggesting religious bigotry as a substitute for what you term bigotry against homosexuals.

I am not claiming the right to tell homosexuals what they can and cannot do on their own property, time, and dime. I am defending that same right for those who disagree with homosexuality.

Your separation of sexual preference based on this benign characteristic language is pathetic. Until you prove sexual orientation to be a choice, which is beyond ludicrous, homosexuality is innate and those dealing with it should be treated as such. The burden shouldn't be on the subjected to prove their innocence.

Your first paragraph is fantasyland. You are advocating denial of a marriage license. Nobody else is. Our views aren't simply offsetting. I'm for allowing people legal rights that you're for denying.

Your last paragraph us essentially the same argument and is still wrong. You're defending right to an opinion and advocating active denial of something available to everyone else.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[sjt18]

His arguments have been majority rule and our discrimination against his religiously driven bigotry. Those are owerwhelming. I'd proclaim others inadequate too.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Nope. But I can see how convenient that type of handwaving would be for you.

 

[IPorange]

I did not say that there are no serious thinkers that disagree with my notions. You generalized something that I didn't.
No. I am using it by its accepted English definition. You are simply trying to parse the word to avoid the truth that you believe in something that is NOT completely or perhaps even mostly empirical in nature.

The use of mathematics to say something "could" happen is not faith. To say that something that "could" happen, did in fact happen for no other good reason than it supports your theory... is very much faith.

Glad to see you honestly use the word "many". Many also disagree with and think they have disproven the model that you suggested.

Really? I suppose you have proof for this? I'm going to ask a question for reference that may sound offensive but I don't intend it that way. You do understand the Big Bang model don't you?



So because you have a model... a model that even materialistic cosmologists disagree with... you think you have definitively answered the question?

What part of the universe do you actually believe we have studied? You are aware that both Christian and secular science have come up with a wide range of theoretical and mathematical models that account for the occurrences you cite, right?

IF I started with a presupposition of naturalism/materialism then I would probably limit alternatives too. While claiming the intellectual high ground... folks with those presuppositions actually shutdown inquiry arbitrarily. Since I start with a presupposition of supernaturalism... I do not have to preclude either naturalistic or supernatural explanations. I can actually follow the evidence wherever it seems to lead. Your metaphysical presuppositions will not allow you to.

I can, and have in the past, reconciled the evolutionary model to an otherwise Christian and biblical worldview. I was not turned just because of the text of the Bible. I was turned when I found compelling reasons to a) not believe in evolutionary models and b) reasonable explanations by Christians that did not depend on just "God in the gap" declarations.

Here's what I don't think you understand: not believing in a God does not mean I have to have an unshakable scientific alternative for every element of this existence. It simply means I reject the notion of just chalking it up to something that there is no evidence for at all. From what you shared in this thread, you are completely dependent on "God in the gap" thinking.

I would love to hear "compelling reasons" to not believe in evolutionary models. If science got to pick it's arena to battle superstition and myth, it would be evolution every time. I just hope you don't say "compelling reasons" and mean fossil gaps and eyeballs.

 

[sjt18]

Your separation of sexual preference based on this benign characteristic language is pathetic. Until you prove sexual orientation to be a choice, which is beyond ludicrous, homosexuality is innate and those dealing with it should be treated as such. The burden shouldn't be on the subjected to prove their innocence.

A) I specifically said that I do not know if some people are born with more of an impulse toward homosexuality or not. I have said that 60 years of clinical attempts to prove it biological have failed to the degree that researchers have been pushed in the other direction.

B) Whether the source of the desires are innate or environmental, a person has a choice in whether they engage someone sexually or not.

C) Homosexuals have successfully left the homosexual lifestyle, cultivated a desire for women that was not present before, and sustained that new lifestyle. I know that you can claim that they were never "really" homosexual to start with... but that isn't what they say.

D) Not once have I said that any right should be denied to homosexuals. I have repeatedly said their rights should be protected. Their rights do not include forcing others to agree with their view of sexual morality... or to behave as if they do.

Your first paragraph is fantasyland. You are advocating denial of a marriage license. Nobody else is. Our views aren't simply offsetting. I'm for allowing people legal rights that you're for denying.

There is no right to marry. Not for heterosexuals. Not for homosexuals. With respect to the state, marriage is a standard contract. The people of each state have a right through their legislature to limit that contract as they choose. Since there is no right to start with... there is none being denied.

Your last paragraph us essentially the same argument and is still wrong. You're defending right to an opinion and advocating active denial of something available to everyone else.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

No. You have a "right" not to invite me to dinner, loan me money, give me a job, talk to me on the street, accept me as your child's tutor, etc. if you disagree with my morals, opinions, and especially my behaviors. The state has no right at all to compel you to make you extend privilege to me.

I do not have a "right" to your food or home... your money... to associate with you... to beneifit directly from your property... to influence those over whom you have jurisdiction.

Not only do I not have those rights... no one else regardless of their sexual orientation does either.

 

[IPorange]

Show me a legitimate scientific study that has found homosexuality to be a "choice."

The American Psychological Association certainly doesn't believe it is, and doesn't agree with conversion therapy (which is quite dubious, despite what you imply).

 

[Cash Vallin]

There is no right to marry. Not for heterosexuals. Not for homosexuals. With respect to the state, marriage is a standard contract. The people of each state have a right through their legislature to limit that contract as they choose. Since there is no right to start with... there is none being denied.

Ever known a heterosexual couple denied the "privilege" of marriage by the state??? Until then, stop with this nonsense.

 

[Oldvol75]

Ever known a heterosexual couple denied the "privilege" of marriage by the state??? Until then, stop with this nonsense.

But there should!

 

[Cash Vallin]

But there should!

that might be the case..... still doesn't change the fact it hasn't happened

 

[IPorange]

But there should!

That's actually a fair observation...



I would be down with the government just abandoning the marriage business entirely. No recognition, no tax breaks based solely on that, no legal rights based solely on that. Switch to civil unions, let couple call themselves whatever they want.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Nope. But I can see how convenient that type of handwaving would be for you.

Because you say so? Please. You advanced a moral absolute, when shot down you gave us majority rule then rolled out a bunch of research nonsense that wasn't at all applicable.

Waht I do like is that we can apply your reasoning to vagrancy, given it's moral issues as dictated by the bible.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[sjt18]

Here's what I don't think you understand: not believing in a God does not mean I have to have an unshakable scientific alternative for every element of this existence. It simply means I reject the notion of just chalking it up to something that there is no evidence for at all.

Agreed. Now simply agree that you take many things on faith... faith that there is a naturlistic answer perhaps. You have faith in a metaphysical presupposition. I disagree with it... but do understand it and its merits.

From what you shared in this thread, you are completely dependent on "God in the gap" thinking.

How much have I actually shared on this thread?

Do I think that all creationist arguments are good? No. Some are downright embarrassing. Do I think there's a good argument for everything? No. But close to those given by secular science.

IMHO, cosmology is more murky both from a textual and scientific standpoint. However I think design and direct creation of original "kinds" of animals are both more reasonable than Darwinist answers.

I would love to hear "compelling reasons" to not believe in evolutionary models.

Information to start with. I do not think you can reasonably call the theories for the origin of information promoted by evolutionists "impossible"... but they are very improbable.

It would be the only known occurrence of spontaneous information in the natural world... The order of complexity makes the proposition appear absurd.

The mechanisms proposed for the appearance and advancement of information have never been shown to work sufficiently to supply the information required for earth's biological diversity. Beneficial mutations are rare. Most if not all successful, observed adaptations involve mutations or deletions that actually turn "off" capabilities. None involve anything that could be characterized as a net increase in genetic complexity.

Another thing is more indirect... but I don't like being deceived. Science books are not honest about the assumptions and limitations of radiometric dating.

Another is the pervasive denial of the role philosophical presuppositions play in the treatment of the evidence. Dawkins is actually refreshing in this regard since he full well acknowledges that his atheism full well supplies him with the presuppositions he approaches evidence with.

If science got to pick it's arena to battle superstition and myth, it would be evolution every time.

I suppose that's why the science education establishment suppresses criticism of evolution in the classroom and outright opposes the teaching of other theories in comparison, right? If what you say is true then evolutionists would be dying to line their ideals up beside those of dissenters. They would relish the opportunity to answer criticism. That simply isn't what we see.

I just hope you don't say "compelling reasons" and mean fossil gaps and eyeballs.

There are fossil gaps. They exist... to say otherwise is a denial of reality. It does not in and of itself prove or disprove anything. There are also countless recorded and even celebrated occurrences where a fossil was declared to fit in one spot on the supposed evolutionary tree only to have other evolutionists themselves disprove the idea.

The story told by evolutionists about the development of eyeballs is not very compelling. It actually requires that we suspend natural selection for long periods while other components needed for higher complexity independently develop. Is it categorically impossible? I guess not. Is it likely? No. Do I expect you to believe it? Yes. Why? Because it agrees with your presuppositions concerning the way things have happened.

And yes, I do find Behe's irreducible complexity arguments to be pretty strong. Most who have taken him on have descended to taking personal shots at him and his credibility rather than answering his objections.

 

[sjt18]

Because you say so? Please. You advanced a moral absolute, when shot down you gave us majority rule then rolled out a bunch of research nonsense that wasn't at all applicable.

Nope. I believe in a moral absolute concerning homosexuality. I do NOT believe that you nor I have the right to impose our moral absolute concerning homosexual marriage onto everyone else. My preferred method if the point is pushed would be to get the state completely out of marriage rather than choosing whose ox to gore.

Waht I do like is that we can apply your reasoning to vagrancy, given it's moral issues as dictated by the bible.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

That's interesting. You presume a biblical position for me then use it to argue against something totally different. Should I step out of the way and let you argue with yourself?

 

[IPorange]

Behe essentially believes in all the processes involved in evolution, except the random parts to him are not random. It's not even science.

 

[sjt18]

Ever known a heterosexual couple denied the "privilege" of marriage by the state??? Until then, stop with this nonsense.

It isn't non-sense. In most states, heterosexual cousins cannot marry... mothers and sons cannot marry... minors cannot marry. Married heterosexuals cannot marry other people.

All of these restrictions are a product of what people commonly accept as legitimate restrictions. Thousands of orthodox Mormons disagree with Missouri's polygamy law. Do you question the majorities collective right to define the parameters of that privilege concerning them? I'm sure if we looked hard enough we'd find a father-daughter couple who wanted the legitimacy of marriage. Does the majority not have the right to say no to that?

 

[IPorange]

Wait wait, tell me about your objections to radiometric dating. This is something I am very familiar with in my line of research.

 

[sjt18]

Behe essentially believes in all the processes involved in evolution, except the random parts to him are not random. It's not even science.

You're partly right. It isn't "science" to assume either way. Behe "gets it". He understands there are presuppositions that govern the treatment of the evidence and nature of the explanation of it.

I don't agree with him obviously on many, many things... but I appreaciate his honesty concerning the metaphysical presuppositions made by scientists of all stripes.

 

[tvolsfan]

Gay marriage is probably the most annoying debate in the country...

The far right goes to far when they compare gay marriage to bestiality and incest, and the far left goes too far when trying to label people against gay marriage as freedom hating bigots, while trying to compare gay marriage to the struggle of blacks in the 50's. The bible worshiping right wingers can be annoying as hell when they try to display their false sense of moral superiority, and it's sickening to see the incredbily smug, self-worshiping leftists claim they're freedom fighters attempting to rid the world of some great inequality, when they're really just extremists on the other side of the spectrum.

Personally, I think gay marriage is fundamentally wrong, but it's not that big of a deal to me. I feel like this is a debate my side will eventually lose, seeing as society grows more tolerant of almost everything over time, but I'll take comfort in the fact that it will mean the end of a ridiculously annoying debate over an issue that effects such a small percentage of the population.

 

[BigPapaVol]

That's interesting. You presume a biblical position for me then use it to argue against something totally different. Should I step out of the way and let you argue with yourself?

given your moral absolutes steeped in your bible, I know vagrancy is morally wrong for you. Otherwise, you're picking and choosing, which makes you hypocritical only.

Given that you know vagrancy is dead wrong, I want you making this same weak argument for me against it. Down with free cash.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[sjt18]

Wait wait, tell me about your objections to radiometric dating. This is something I am very familiar with in my line of research.

You presume a starting point for the ratio of mother-daughter elements. Samples taken from recent volcanic eruptions invalidate that practice by "appearing" much older than they are.

Radiometric dates are given ranges based on the strata in which they are found. The age range of those strata are determined by where they fit on the column... That column exists rarely in the order it appears in theoretical models and NEVER in the proportions used as a rule.

Strata are also validated by what fossils "generally" seem to appear in them... anomalous fossils are disregarded though they are sometimes the rule rather than the exception in the wrong strata.

So in the end, radiometric dating is governed by geological models which are validated by the presumption of which fossils should mostly appear in them and... the radiometric dating. IOW's, there are alot of assumptions along the way but the end destination is circular.