Thursday, July 24, 2008

(Kooky Kern, left)

According to The Associated Press, an Oklahoma state lawmaker who was made infamous by an anti-gay tantrum was prohibited from entering the state Capitol Wednesday when she was found to have a loaded pistol in her purse.

A Highway Patrol spokeswoman Chris West said Republican Rep. Sally Kern was not charged because there did not appear to be any "malicious intent" behind her actions. West said officers are allowed to "use their brains" when determining if an arrest should be made in such instances. Unfortunately, we are still waiting for Kern to use her brain - or discover if she actually has one. Clearly, the woman is dumb as rocks. She can't even remember if she packed a pistol. Didn't she notice her purse was a tad heavy?

West also confirmed that Kern is a habitual gun runner with this the second incident in which Kern made it into the building with a gun in June. Kern, the loopy legislator, whined earlier this year of receiving death threats after an audio clip was posted on YouTube in which she calls homosexuality a bigger threat to the U.S. than terrorism. Clearly, she's just an all-around paranoid and should have her head examined.

Guns and knives are prohibited in the State Capitol and those who enter must pass through an airport-style security checkpoint, including a metal detector and an X-ray machine. It is a misdemeanor to bring a weapon inside. Kern told The Associated Press Wednesday that both incidents were simple mistakes. (So was the parking ticket I got while I was in Oklahoma City. But, I got no special break after the meter expired)

The first time, the weapon got through the security checkpoint, she said. "I got all the way up to my office before I realized I had it, so I reported it," she said.

On Wednesday, she said she forgot to take the .380 caliber semiautomatic handgun out of her purse after she stopped to talk to a colleague. "It was an honest mistake from being out of my routine, you know," she said. Kern said she had a permit for the gun and had carried it long before the YouTube controversy.

To the good people of Oklahoma: Can't you elect anyone better than this clown or the new weirdo who writes ant-gay cartoons?

83 Comments:

Wayne, you used the term "anti-gay" twice in this post. How do you define that term? And how would you define "anti-Christian," "anti-American," and "anti-Semitic." Thanks!
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/24/2008 1:14 PM  

I say she is a Dan White waiting to pounce. Danger. I think it safe to say ANTI gay is AGAINST gay people. ANTI American is AGAINST equality for everyone and ANTI semitic is AGAINST Jews usually at the hands of fanatical right wing Christian groups. Do tell me if i have it wrong anyone?
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/24/2008 1:35 PM  

By the way i do not eat squirrel soup. Does that make me anti southerners or just a pigheaded northeastern elistist wannabee interested in being bicoastal only?
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/24/2008 1:38 PM  

As a resident of Oklahoma, I feel compelled to say I think you may have a factual error in your report. According to last night's news, it wasn't a .380 caliber, it was a .357. And yes, that is bigger (much bigger) and heavier (much heavier) and much more difficult to "forget" you had in your purse.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what the news said.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/24/2008 2:00 PM  

Who but a right wing neocon would behave that way! This woman isn't well, something definitely wrong with her. Why do these people spend so much of their precious time bashing and denigrating gay people and using their cultist belief system to justify it? What is eating them up that they even have to post on a gay blogsite? Why are they trolling these sites I wonder? Deeply-rooted prurient interest perhaps or is their self-loathing not adequate enough?

Religious cults are always the last refuge for the desperate, those who have met with some unfortunate circumstances in their lives let alone accept themselves. Its so transparent. You have to feel sorry for them, pity them even. A waste of life and energy when they could be doing so much more helping their fellow men and women who are downtrodden, the disadvantaged, finding homes for orphans, fighting poverty, selling ALL they have to give to the poor, all the christian things they are supposed to do but never do to be a true follower of their socalled scripture and leader. Do you see the leaders of all the major religious cults selling off and divesting themselves of all they possess to help mankind, and what of the Sally Kerns, Pat Robertsons, Lon Mabons, Don Wildmons, Hagees of this world, when will they do just that to show us what they're made of and to justify their belief in scripture? We're waiting!
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/24/2008 2:15 PM  

With the hoped-for election of Barack Obama, the gun-toting, Bible-beating fanatic will have completely lost his or her stranglehold on our political system and upon our nation's sacred soul. I wish I could say it more eloquently, but this woman is simply a small-minded nut job, a hick if you will, who is just not taken seriously by intelligent people.

Robert, I have come to believe that many insecure people, like her, use Christianity as a way to define and categorize themselves in a confusing and troubled world. It's about the false security of group-identity which takes the place of developing an individual identity based upon healthy self-esteem.

Ironically, embracing Christianity is their way of serving themselves and their own psychological, sociological needs. It isn't about justice for the poor or downcast. I know that you and I have experienced them, and they are undeniably nothing like the Jesus that they claim to follow.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/24/2008 2:39 PM  

Ewe says that "anti-gay" means to be "against gay people." Well, that clears everything up! Let me guess, you got F's in English 101 and Elementary Logic? Also, since when is "America" synonymous with "equality"?

Robert, got a couple sites for you to check out so as to alleviate future straw-man fallacies:

http://www.tumainiinternational/org/

http://www.iteams.org/wws/europe/athens_lostcoin.shtml

http://www.prisonfellowship.org/contentindex.asp?ID=7223

http://www.samaritanspurse.org/index.php/Relief_and_Development

I know top leaders and on-the-ground workers in every one of these Christian ministries. They all do what you claim they don't do enough of, and they all believe homosexuality is a sin.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/24/2008 2:57 PM  

Theo:

Prison fellowship. Isn't that the Chuck Colson racket? In my view, these prisoners were better off before they entered the program. Once they adopt Colson's views, they are a threat to the Constitution. America was a better place when Colson was the one in jail.
posted by  Wayne Besen, at 7/24/2008 3:01 PM  

Theo, apparently you need to read more of Ayn Rand, most notably when she said:

"Faith, as such, is extremely detrimental to human life: it is the negation of reason."

"The alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short circuit destroying the mind."

"Faith is the worse curse of mankind, as the exact antithesis and enemy of thought."
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/24/2008 3:15 PM  

Wayne, Prison Fellowship USA was indeed formed by Chuck Colson after his (well-deserved) time in prison. It's mission is "to mobilize and assist the Christian community in its ministry to prisoners, ex-prisoners, victims, and their families; and in the advancement of restorative justice."

Your references to "adopting Colson's views" and "threat to the Constitution" only demonstrate your own myopic views of the organization.

The organization helps establish and fund churches in prisons, finds and equips volunteer medical professionals who provide assistance to prisoners, and assists the children and families of prisoners. This past Christmas I had the privilege of participating in Prison Fellowship's Angel Tree Program, a Christian outreach to the children of prisoners at Christmas, surprising them with gifts bought by their parents who are in prison and sharing a meal with them.

As for Ayn Rand's hostility toward "faith" and championing of "reason," it's ironic, as well as quite absurd. For, as G.K. Chesterton pointed out, it's "idle to talk always of the alternative of reason and faith. Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all."

Still, I find Rand's writings paradoxically attractive. I am a follower of Jesus Christ - a Christian hedonist in fact. That's probably why her works are alluring to me. She had her own brand of hedonism. It was not the traditional hedonism that says whatever gives you pleasure is right. Hers was far more complex than that. Her view seems so close and yet so far to what I find in the Sacred Scriptures.

That said, I don't think that Ayn Rand's philosophy has to be entirely scrapped by the Christian. Rather, it needs to take ALL of reality into account, including the infinite and sovereign and just and merciful God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/24/2008 6:10 PM  

Ewe,

So you are anti gay if you think being gay is wrong but still support gays' rights to marry? You are anti gay if you think being gay is wrong but still hire, rent to, have friends that are gay, support their families etc...?
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/25/2008 1:02 AM  

Theo,

I, too, am a christian and enjoy Ayn Rnad tremendously. I'll re-read her books from time to time just for the fun.

Don't worry about Wayne. He's making quite name for himself as being the embarrassment and contradiction to his own philosphies.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/25/2008 1:06 AM  

I think this is somewhat newsworthy. On John Paulk's business website, he posts some gay friendly links and no rightwing ones. What is up?

http://www.mezzaluna.biz/link-exchange.php
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/25/2008 2:23 AM  

Theo: If you cannot figure out the definition of Anti and need to ask then you are not the sharpest pencil around. It appears that narcism best describes you.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/25/2008 3:28 AM  

Ewe,

Your constant name calling is getting a bit borish. Besides, I asked you to define that - not Theo.

And what's wrong with posting gay friendly sites or businesses on your website?

Let's see, JP is a christian, ex gay, owns and operates his own business, and puts gay friendly websitews on his own. Hmmmmmm. Sounds like business to me. Oh wait, just because you are ex gay means you can't have gay friends or gay business relationships???

Hmmmmmm. Someone's been telling lies to the gay people again.

Here's the truth. It's okay to be a christian who thinks homosexuality is wrong and still have gay friends. There- it's said.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/25/2008 3:47 AM  

Hey have you been to Oregon lately? Pretty liberal up there

And did you read the disclaimer? Here - I'll paste it for you.

the links below are people who have agreed to exchange links with us. We do not necessarily recommend their services

WOW - another reporting job that was half way researched.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/25/2008 3:52 AM  

Theo, name one renowned prominent leader of a religious cult who has done exactly what I had stated in keeping with scripture? How are they living, under what circumstances and how are their followers living? Importantly, how are YOU living? Writing a check to support your church and sitting back and doing nothing, do you really consider yourself a christian? Did you sell all you have to follow JC as scripture demands? Answer the question.

Why don't you do yourself a huge favor please...COME OUT, love yourself, find some inner peace and be happy!

To Chris.....well said!
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/25/2008 8:05 AM  

I should elaborate on my previous post. If you follow this link:

http://www.mezzaluna.biz/link-exchange.php

You will notice that the gay friendly posts are odd in that they promote not one, but two gay counseling services. Not ex-ex-closeted ("ex-gay") sites, but sites that counsel gays to accept their sexuality. We are talking about counselors that are far more likely to suggest the book "The joy of Gay Sex" then the Bible.

Don't get me wrong, I commend J. Candy Paulk for promoting these sites. I also commend him for having a cadre of gay friends. This could allow him to have an occasional release (followed by a hasty prescheduled repentance). I think that he is coming around. I am just wondering what James I-like-to-shower-with-my-son Dobson would think of this.

nuf sed
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/25/2008 10:54 AM  

For those who use scripture to justify homophobia, they'd better take a leaf out of the "good book" before they deign to even consider themselves "christians". Check out the reference from the gospel according to Luke. I see none of them doing what scripture dictates.

http://bible.cc/luke/18-22.htm
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/25/2008 10:57 AM  

Theo, you are mistaken. Reality is demonstrably knowable. The assertion that "Reason is itself a matter of faith ...(and it is) an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all" is absurd and is scurrilously anti-mind. However, it is not surprising that you must attack reason and logic in your defense of faith.

If reality is unknowable, if our thoughts cannot have any relation to reality whatsoever, why are you asserting your views on this blog if you believe that there is no reason? Isn't reality knowable? Tragically, you are a mystic.

All religions had a "day one:", a man or woman woke up one morning simply invented a story based on nothing other than their own mental whims. What believers fail to grasp is that religion was invented as a way of explaining the world around us. Largely in the 20th century, religion's explanations were clearly and simply proven to be dead wrong.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/25/2008 11:29 AM  

Robert, you asked for one name, so I'll gladly give you one name - Franklin Graham, president and CEO of Samaritans Purse, an international Christian relief organization. There is no one who I've seen balance Christian orthodoxy and Christian orthopraxy in a more scriptural way that Graham.

Since YOU brought it up Robert, I have a question: The command in Luke 18:22, who was that command to?

Chris L., where did I say that "reality is unknowable" and that I don't "believe in reason." I of course never said that, so I wonder why you apply that to me? Did you read what I wrote, or did you simply project what you wanted me to say?

Now, it seems you believe that spiritual or religious faith is "believing things for which there is no empirical evidence." But contained within this erroneous definition of faith is the very seed of its fallacy - for it demands of the spiritual and immaterial realm that it be subject to the measurements, the rules, and the limitations of the material realm, and presupposes the non-existence of anything beyond that which has the ability to be empirically determined.

You're the one Chris who is boxed in. It's your worldview that allows for nothing but that which the eye can see and the hand can touch. Yours is quite a straight-jacketed state of mind!

Reason detached from the transcendent - the very same reason upon which your rest your insubstantial security - must itself be the subject of skepticism were you to be consistent. For in your purposeless, deterministic world of random chance and unordered events, who are you to say that reasoned thought and scientific inquiry is anything but the random neural energy of an accidental life-form, no more connected to cause and effect than the spark which shuffled amino acids like cards into something we now call "life"?

If you are really as much a believer in "reason" absent ANY connection to faith as you see to claim, then you must sooner or later ask yourself the question, "Why should ANYTHING go right - even my observations and deductions? Why shouldn't good logic be as misleading as bad logic? After all, they are both movements in the brain of a bewildered ape?"

Your problem is that your worldview is incomplete, leading it to be irrational, arbitrary, and inconsistent. There's NOTHING wrong with reason at all, and I've never demonstrated any hostility towards it. What you don't understand is that (a) your reasoning already assumes faith and (b) a complete and rational and justifiable and consistent worldview understands the relationship between, and works to more fully integrate, faith, reason, experience and revelation.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/25/2008 1:04 PM  

To those who believe in the "scriptures", lets put aside the scant two references to homosexuality in Leviticus and see what else it states, things that the religious christian bigots conveniently and deliberately cherry-pick and again, conveniently omit from their belief system or practice thereof. This of course is the old testament and christian cultists will even argue that it doesn't apply to them because it is the Jewish testament. Here goes:

One keeps kosher (ch. 11) — as part of keeping kosher, you may eat no fat and no blood (3:16-17, 7:22, 17:10-16), meaning no potato chips, no French fries, no rare steak, etc.; you may eat no lobsters, clams, oysters, octopus, shrimp, or crawfish (11:12), no tuna casserole (mixes “meat” and milk), and no ostrich (11:16) or crocodile meat (11:30).

You may wear no cotton-polyester blends, or any other kind of blend of fabrics (19:19).

You shall not “defer to the great,” making President Bush's pandering to the wealthy explicitly sinful (19:15).

You must observe Rosh Hoshanah, Yom Kippur, and the festival of Booths (23:23-43).

If an insect or lizard crawls across your cook pot, you must break your cook pot into pieces and throw it away. (11:30) When this rule was written, cook pots were molded out of clay by the lady of the house. Today most cook pots are stainless steel or aluminum — but if you're going to insist on 18:22 and 20:13, you must also insist on 11:30.

You may not cross-breed animals (19:19). There's nothing in the Bible against cloning, however.
o You must stone all astrologers and all mediums (19:26-27, 19:31, 20:6, 20:27).

You may not have a tattoo (19:28).

You must put Jenna Bush and her sister Barbara to death for the sin of sex outside of wedlock (20:10-16). Also most other citizens of the U.S. over the age of about 16 — there's no statute of limitations in the Bible.

A God-fearing man may not marry a divorcée or a rape victim (21:7). (Most of the rules in Leviticus pertain only to men, since women are considered subhuman by many of the authors the Bible.)

If the daughter of a priest becomes a prostitute, she must be burned to death (21:9). How compassionate the priestly authors of Leviticus were!

You will be exiled if you see a close relative naked, even accidentally (20:17-22).

No priest may have acne or any other kind of blemish or physical imperfection (21:16-23).

Anyone who blasphemes — Marilyn Manson for example — must be stoned to death (24:13-23).

When a prisoner is executed in a capital punishment case, the executioner must also be put to death. Ditto for whoever puts the executioner to death. And so on, ad infinitum. (24:17, 21)

It's perfectly all right with “the gods” (elohim) if you want to own slaves, but they may not be of the same nationality as yourself. Leviticus recommends that the U.S. obtain its slaves from Mexico, Russia, Cuba, and Greenland. (25:44-46; not Canada, because Canada is a dominion rather than a nation.)

If the christian scriptural cultists don't follow these rules, and many others, as scrupulously as they (like Theo and others)insist on applying these two verses of Leviticus, then they are indeed dangerous, ignorant hypocrites, and may safely be ignored.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/25/2008 1:13 PM  

Christopher Hitchens is correct. There is NO evidence of a god. None. It is all beleif; usually inherited from ones parents and reaffirmed by ones culture referance.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/25/2008 1:24 PM  

Theo, you wrote: If you are really as much a believer in "reason" absent ANY connection to faith as you see to claim, then you must sooner or later ask yourself the question, "Why should ANYTHING go right - even my observations and deductions? Why shouldn't good logic be as misleading as bad logic? After all, they are both movements in the brain of a bewildered ape?"

The fact that you were even able to type that sentence proves you wrong. You are correct in saying that reason, in and of itself, is insufficient. It requires proof. But the fact, yes, fact, that we can prove, and indeed recreate the results of our theories, is what makes reason a more desired goal than faith. You don’t ‘have faith’ than when you type an ‘N’ of your keyboard an ‘N’ will appear onscreen, you know it should. If it doesn’t, your first thought isn’t “Oh, I guess I didn’t believe enough”, it’s “What’s wrong with my keyboard”. The same could be said for walking off a cliff. I may ‘believe’ my god will save me, but reason tells me that I am going to probably be killed.

Let me put this another way. You ‘believe’ that your ‘Cosmic Muffin’, or what have you, brought everything into creation. Assuming such a feat were possible, given all that we now know about cosmology, physics, quantum mechanics, yadda yadda, it would seem that any sentience capable of such an act would be able to direct his ‘chosen people’ with no problem. Why, then, do we have so many issues? Is it about free will? Human independence of thought? Reason? Back in the Old Testament, God was pretty much throwing flood, storms, and anything else around the place like a hyperactive 2 year old, but not so much in the last couple of thousand years. What happened, he go on Ritalin? Or maybe that book was just an attempt to impose order on a world that no one understood.

Faith is a wonderful thing, but it cannot be proven. And for me, fact is more important than fiction.
posted by  MirrorMan, at 7/25/2008 1:30 PM  

Robert in NYC, don't you think that's a little harsh? I mean, if every Christian were to follow all the religious laws that they keep foisting on other people, there wouldn't...be...any..of..them....left......to........

Never mind.
posted by  MirrorMan, at 7/25/2008 1:35 PM  

Robert, do we really get to stone the Bush twins with the Lord's blessing?! :)

Theo, you quoted G.K. Chesterton in a way that attempted to destroy the validity of logic, or at least to place it on par with faith, which is anti-science.

Regarding my view of the Universe, I never said that things were of "random chance" and "unordered events." Far from it, the evolution of the human species reveals that there are definite reasons for humankind's existence in our present form, and that the events were anything but unordered.

They were ordered by many things, not the least of which are survival of the fittest and natural selection. We were not created as we are, however. We are that human prototype which didn't die off as did what might have been countless others who were unable to survive and thrive in the conditions which presented themselves on our planet.

And I never said there is no supernatural, just that I have never seen any evidence of such whatsoever; not a single strand of evidence. However, the Jesus story is just ridiculous. It is fiction. The story of God that we were taught as children, of some old man with a gray beard sitting on a throne watching us is preposterous. They simply made it up out of thin air.

Now, I am anxious to see what comes of the Large Hadron Collider! If "God" is "truth", then scientists and physicists are the real men of the cloth in my book.

Which leads me to a question for you: What if they discover life on Mars, something that seems very possible as of late (not aliens, but basic life). Would you then say that life got there because a Deity put it there?
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/25/2008 2:08 PM  

One more time Robert since YOU brought it up, please answer my question: The command in Luke 18:22, who was that command to?

Concerning your all references to the Law of Moses, it as a unit has all been invalidated and has completely ceased to function as an authority over individuals. No commandment of the Law of Moses has continued beyond the death of the Messiah of Israel - Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ.

The Law of Moses has been done away with, and Christians are now under a new law. This new law is called the Law of Christ in Galatians 6:2, and the Law of the Spirit of Life in Romans 8:2. This is a brand new law totally separate from the Law of Moses. The Law of Christ contains all the commandments applicable to a New Testament believer.

Speaking of evidence in relation to Christopher Hitchens, it's interesting to note that in his book god is not Great, Hitchens declares that "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence," thus granting the critic carte blanche to legitimately dismiss the greater portion of Hitchens's own book.

One would assume, however, that having staked out such a position, Hitchens would have been careful to supply substantial evidence in support of all of his arguments. Sadly, this is not the case. I counted over fifty assertions that are made by Hitchens that are made completely sans evidence, at least one in every single chapter of god is not Great.

So, since we are reliably informed by Mr. Hitchens that assertions made without evidence can be refuted without the need to supply any refuting evidence, all fifty+ statements - which amount to a large portion of his book - are hereby dismissed with prejudice.

MirrorMan, you are doing exactly what I stated we shouldn't do. It's irrational to constantly allude to the alleged disparity "reason" and "faith." Not only do humans possess both and use both to a greater or lesser extent, but "reason" is itself a matter of faith. You are committing an act of faith when you assert that your thoughts have any relation to reality whatsoever. That's the point. It's not reason vs. faith. It's not either reason or faith. It's both reason and faith, working together.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/25/2008 2:14 PM  

shut up the theo(il)logical debate already. It is pointles to debate something that is beyond human knowledge. Who thinks Sally Kearn will be re-elected. I think that she is out of touch with the zeitgeist of the younger electorate. The battle is won.

With each year that passes there will be more, not less, acceptance of gays across the boards including most all religious traditions. There will be more, not fewer gays comming out of the closet with more families accepting them. There will be more legal protections of gays across the country and the world, not less. There will be more political protection,i.e. antidiscrimination laws in the U.S., not less. Gay marriage will be legal in more jurisdictions then there is now, not fewer.

We have won. Go out and celebrate.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/25/2008 2:22 PM  

AJ is that you?
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/25/2008 2:27 PM  

Theo said, "The Law of Christ contains all the commandments applicable to a New Testament believer" so I will therefore, on his very own premise, offer the following scripture:

"Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet,' and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Romans 13:8-10)
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/25/2008 2:39 PM  

I will no longer address any questions regarding my comments by people who do not identify themselves. You are a hypocrite Anonymous. Get a damn handle and stop hiding behind the anonymity of anonymous which is used by many people not just yourself. Name calling as you accuse me of doing is a lot more noble than your cowardice. Thats it. I am no longer addressing anonymous posts who pose questions to my comments.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/25/2008 2:50 PM  

"Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet,' and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Romans 13:8-10)

Unless you are somehow 'different', of course, or you have a different belief system, in which case Theo and his All-Religious-Zealot Marching Band and Kazoo Society will trample your rights and convert you into believing in the One, True Kazoo, because he is right and you are wrong. You know this because he told you so, and any other belief systems are also wrong. Because he says so, his god said so, so you know it’s true.

Somebody needs some Prozac…..
posted by  MirrorMan, at 7/25/2008 2:52 PM  

Chris L., you brought up logic in relation to faith and science. Do you believe there are laws of logic? If so, are they universal and are they material in nature?

You referred to the "evolution of the human species," and noted that the concepts of "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" were ordering mechanisms in this process. Natural selection, or "survival of the fittest," is tautologous (i.e., the concept uses circular reasoning) because it says that the fittest individuals leave the most offspring. But how does it define the fittest individual? As those that leave the most offspring. How do you deal with this?

You may see that as merely semantic wordplay, and I would agree to some extent. But it's still an issue Darwinists and neo-Darwinists need to deal with.

The real issue, and real problem, is the nature of the variations. Darwinists and neo-Darwinists have an information problem. One of the major weaknesses of Darwinism and neo-Darwinism is the sources of the new information that are required.

You claim that "the Jesus story is just ridiculous. It is fiction." Do you believe Jesus of Nazareth existed at all?

Your question related to Mars is an excellent one. First, IF "life" was discovered on the planet Mars, it would NOT prove that "life" had evolved there in a Darwinian or neo-Darwinian sense, for at least two reasons. We first couldn't rule out that Earth was origin for that life. After all, if rocks can be blasted from Mars to Earth, it is possible to blast them the other way. A less dramatic possibility, which scientists have considered for years, is that spores from Earth were pushed out of the upper atmosphere into space by light pressure, especially during a solar flare. Therefore, the alleged Martian life could originally have been seeded by Earth life. Also, Darwinists and neo-Darwinists have still not succeeded in showing how non-living matter can jump the many hurdles required to form living cells.

To get more to why you asked ME this question Chris, it's important to note that the Bible does not explicitly say that no life was created outside the Earth.

It does say that the Earth was created purposely to be a home for humans. It was on Earth that humans rebelled against their Creator and brought the cosmos under the curse of death and decay. It was the Earth where the Creator took on the nature of one of His creatures, died for their sins, and rose from the dead.

Based on this, it's understandable why some Christians - many Christians actually - find it hard to reconcile intelligent life on other planets with the Fall of man and the Incarnation of God. To them, it would also seem odd for God to create microscopic life on other planets.

However, I don't think Christians should not be dogmatic on this point. The Bible does not explicitly say that no life was created outside the Earth. Why go beyond that? If there's evidence of life on other planets, let's see it. It wouldn't disprove Christianity in any way.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/25/2008 2:56 PM  

People who follow the law are still quite capable of remaining bigots. It is unacceptable and we have every right to confront those that stand in front of all of us as public servants paid by a variety of constituents particularly when they go out of their way to promote hate and not serve those they are employed to. If people want to infect our secular government with their religion, we have a right to throw them into THEIR houses of worship and out of OUR public buildings.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/25/2008 2:57 PM  

I obviously agree with that verse Chris L., and if we can live by this rule and truly love our neighbor, we fulfill the Law.

But have you ever lied, stolen, hated, or looked with lust on your neighbor? If you have, you've sinned and broken God's Law, and you haven't loved those you have lied to, stolen from, etc.

And because the New Testament makes clear that homosexuality is a sin and a violation of God's law, to engage in homosexual activity is not loving your neighbor.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/25/2008 3:13 PM  

“Natural selection, or "survival of the fittest," is tautologous (i.e., the concept uses circular reasoning) because it says that the fittest individuals leave the most offspring. But how does it define the fittest individual? As those that leave the most offspring. How do you deal with this?”

Well, no, you have this one wrong. How does it define the fittest individual? Being the one that best adapts to its’ environment. By doing that, it increases the chances of it’s’ offspring’s survival, it by no means guarantees it. Mice have several offspring, but few reach to adulthood because their environment is very hostile. By using ‘reasoning’, man has reduced or eliminated hostile elements in his environment, thus surviving.

“The real issue, and real problem, is the nature of the variations. Darwinists and neo-Darwinists have an information problem. One of the major weaknesses of Darwinism and neo-Darwinism is the sources of the new information that are required.”

What the hell are you talking about? New adaptations? What information are you referring to?

“You claim that "the Jesus story is just ridiculous. It is fiction." Do you believe Jesus of Nazareth existed at all?”

Which Jesus? I am certain that there were quite a few people with that name back then. To which one are you referring to? If you are talking about the guy in the book, I think there may have been one really smart guy, along the lines of MLK, or Gandhi, who realized that force wasn’t the answer. But coming back from the dead? Please.

Your question related to Mars is an excellent one. First, IF "life" was discovered on the planet Mars, it would NOT prove that "life" had evolved there in a Darwinian or neo-Darwinian sense, for at least two reasons. We first couldn't rule out that Earth was origin for that life. After all, if rocks can be blasted from Mars to Earth, it is possible to blast them the other way. A less dramatic possibility, which scientists have considered for years, is that spores from Earth were pushed out of the upper atmosphere into space by light pressure, especially during a solar flare. Therefore, the alleged Martian life could originally have been seeded by Earth life. Also, Darwinists and neo-Darwinists have still not succeeded in showing how non-living matter can jump the many hurdles required to form living cells.”

Interesting theory, although it then blows Genesis right out of the water. And if your book starts out wrong, what else might be screwed up therein? And life could have come from outside our solar system as well. And as far as ‘jumping the many hurdles’, did you hear the one about the monkeys, the typewriters, and Shakespeare?
posted by  MirrorMan, at 7/25/2008 3:15 PM  

The version of the human being that exists today doesn't exist because we were created in present form. It is likely that there were many versions, but the weaker ones, of which there may have been very many, couldn't maintain survival. Simplistically speaking, humans without eyes died off. Humans without arms died off, ad infinitum. Possibly countless ones died off.

WE were the version of the human being that survived because we were most able to survive in the environment that already existed. The environment was not created for us. Rather, the only life that was able to survive was that which could survive in the environment as it already existed.

But one last question: If it is reasonable to posit that life could have been transported to Mars by spores from Earth, and therefore any life found on Mars would by your own admission not be the direct action of the deity, then is it not possible and logical that life on Earth also came from spores from another planet or some other transport, and was indeed not created by a deity?
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/25/2008 3:17 PM  

Theo said " You are committing an act of faith when you assert that your thoughts have any relation to reality whatsoever. ".

How profoundly idiotic. The relation of our thoughts to reality is proven day in and day out by the results we experience in life, unlike your faith in Jeebus. If our thoughts bore no resemblence to reality we wouldn't be able to survive in a complex and dangerous world. That we do is proof that you are batshit insane.
posted by  Priya Lynn, at 7/25/2008 3:21 PM  

"to engage in homosexual activity is not loving your neighbor."

You can bet this Theo guy has a closet full of sexual deviancies. This is why he's pushing all of his issues on you guys.

BTW, he's REALLY interested in everyone else's sex lives, isn't he?
posted by  S., at 7/25/2008 3:22 PM  

There is no such thing as reason. Bridges are held up by faith. nuclear reactors require no science to build. They are prayed into existance.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/25/2008 3:38 PM  

I love committing "homosexual acts" with my neighbor! But seriously, just because a bunch of wide-eyed fanatics wrote seemingly anti-gay things 2,000 years ago doesn't mean it's so. Any they aren't even anti-gay, but that's another story.

But you may want to stop marginalizing gay people by reducing our falling in love and getting married to a sexual act. Doing so is as absurd as would be reducing your parents relationship to a "heterosexual act." Funny how people like you only see the sex. Hmmmmmmmm!!!
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/25/2008 3:43 PM  

Here is a helpful link for Theo aka aj:

http://www.brainphysics.com/ocd-christians.php

If you would like info on clearing the clutter in your mind, might I recommend Ekhart tolle? His book "The power of Now" changed my life.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/25/2008 3:44 PM  

There is no point. The gentleman doesn't "believe" in the "pseudo-science" of psychology. He only believes in the Bible. :) I will now go home and get ready to watch Dr. Phil.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/25/2008 4:00 PM  

Chris you are as bad as he is. You are likely struggling with this Christian theological stuff.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/25/2008 4:12 PM  

MirrorMan, I actually have no inherent problem with "natural selection," except when Darwinists and neo-Darwinists define it sloppily and imprecisely.

And contrary popular belief, most creationists - both young-earth and old-earth - do not reject natural selection per se. They do so when Darwinists and neo-Darwinists use natural selection in a tautological sense.

What I meant by the information problem is this: As you know, inside every living thing there is a code that is written with chemical letters on the back of the molecule most know about - DNA. This code carries the information which makes possible the cell's mechanism to construct the physical components that make up a living thing.

One of the many unknowns which intellectually honest Darwinists struggle with is how this code could begin in their naturalistic and materialistic scenario of the origins of life.

True information does not arise from a natural process. If you object to this, please provide a factual, documented example. Furthermore, a code is completely worthless to the receiver without the knowledge of the language. So let's say that the imaginary "first protocell" to develop on the Darwinist's theoretical "primitive Earth" had indeed, inexplicably, developed the information coding for the production of a single functional protein. Bear in mind that natural selection is no help until we first have a self-replicating organism. As a result, chance would have to organize thousands of letters in a specific sequence, which is an astronomically outlandish accomplishment.

But even conceding this enormous "head start," possessing such a code would be completely worthless UNLESS there was already in place the complex machinery which RECOGNIZED every one of the DNA molecule's chemical "letters" and at the same time TRANSLATED them into the right amino acids. I could intercept messages from the enemy on the battlefield. But if I don't speak and read the enemies language, those message are useless to me. Without the "translation machinery" - without the knowledge of the language and the way it was being applied - the enemies message is only a sequence of meaningless sound symbols.

The whole notion of molecules-to-man "evolution" is, by any stretch of logical reasoning, devoid of a justifiable foundation. Darwinism and neo-Darwinism can't even get off the ground at that early hypothetical stage. Efforts to resolve this problem are destined for disappointment.

Chris L., that scenario doesn't change the debate at all. The question would still be how did life originate. That's the real issue.

Priya Lynn, you say that "the relation of our thoughts to reality is proven day in and day out by the results we experience in life." But those experiences are the reality spoken of! And so it's still an act of faith to assert that your thoughts have any relation to the very experiences you speak of. You're essentially saying that the proof that our thoughts have a relation to reality is reality (i.e., your experiences). If you can't see the fallacy in that, I can't help you.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/25/2008 5:59 PM  

Theo you most certainly can't "help" me. There is no compelling theory that suggests our thoughts have no relation to reality, nothing that fits the evidence well or at all that would suggest one should take such an idea seriously. What you're suggesting is that your faith in Jeebus is equivalent to believing one's thoughts have a relation to reality - absolutely absurd and you know it. Billions of people have doubt that Jeebus is god, but not a single person on the planet doubts that their thoughts have a relation to reality which would be the case if they were as you laughingly suggest are similar leaps of faith. In contrast there are alternative theories to "god" that well fit the evidence observed. To suggest the two are similar leaps of faith is preposterous.
posted by  Priya Lynn, at 7/25/2008 6:10 PM  

“True information does not arise from a natural process. If you object to this, please provide a factual, documented example.”

What? You make a statement and then expect me to provide the proof of it? I have a better idea. Since you made the statement, prove it, prove that true information does not arise from a natural process, and show your work.

“Bear in mind that natural selection is no help until we first have a self-replicating organism.”

Why? Natural selection and self-replicating have zero to do with each other. Evolution and self-replication, yes. Natural selection is basically taking a pan full of pasta, throwing it on a wall, and seeing what sticks. That isn’t evolution. Evolution is what happens to the pasta so it sticks better. Are we clear now?

“As a result, chance would have to organize thousands of letters in a specific sequence, which is an astronomically outlandish accomplishment.”

No more than some ‘Cosmic Muffin’ creating the universe single-handedly. It’s a really, really big universe, and it has had billions and billions (sorry, Carl) of years to attempt to organize those numbers you speak of. Looks like we are back to the typewriters, again.

“But even conceding this enormous "head start," possessing such a code would be completely worthless UNLESS there was already in place the complex machinery which RECOGNIZED every one of the DNA molecule's chemical "letters" and at the same time TRANSLATED them into the right amino acids. I could intercept messages from the enemy on the battlefield. But if I don't speak and read the enemies language, those messages are useless to me. Without the "translation machinery" - without the knowledge of the language and the way it was being applied - the enemy’s message is only a sequence of meaningless sound symbols.”

You are assuming DNA started out as the huge, intense thing it is now, but it only took one amino acid to get the ball rolling. And as it has been stated already, they had untold millennia to keep trying before they got it right. Who knows what other forms of life might have ALMOST evolved, had their machinery been working correctly sooner.

“The whole notion of molecules-to-man "evolution" is, by any stretch of logical reasoning, devoid of a justifiable foundation. Darwinism and neo-Darwinism can't even get off the ground at that early hypothetical stage. Efforts to resolve this problem are destined for disappointment.”

How do you figure? Just because we haven’t found that missing link yet, or because your book says so? I guess it really depends on whether you are a pessimist, or an optimist.
posted by  MirrorMan, at 7/25/2008 6:40 PM  

Being a christian does not believing in science. It does not mean you have to believe in creation - I am a christian and believe in evolution. Being a christian does not mean you are homophobic or anti-gay - it means you think homosexuality is a sin for you. What others do with that bible is up to them. It will be interpreted (and has been so) to justify all sort of evils.

There will be christians that speak with their mouth and do devious horrible things. That means they are sinful and lying to people. It does not mean that all christians do thos things. The media often highlights the worst in people - mmmm - like the gay parades they always show on the news the most outrageous thing. Not all gay people walk around in their thongs on Saturday morning. Some do. Some don't.

This vilifying a whole group based on a few or using a few examples is just as misleading as the christians who focus on the few gays who are disruptive to the group no matter what group they are in. Same with christians - there are some really well known people who call themselves christians, brainwash the masses and take all their money. Gays to the same thing.

When is everyone going to wake up and smell the coffee - not brewed by either side?

Geez!!! Gays are starting to act like the christians. And everyone is calling themself a victim.

In the name of reason - STOP.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/25/2008 6:43 PM  

I'll take the gays who walk around in their thongs on Saturday morning over pious christians any day. lol
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/25/2008 8:08 PM  

Everything that Theo has posted here has been ripped from the website of the kook, Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis. Few places have fewer answers to the origins of life then kens amusement park, the Creation Museum.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/25/2008 8:17 PM  

while we are ripping,

The Intelligent Design argument, which holds that the development of organic life must be guided by some higher-order intelligence responsible for the incredibly complex designs of particular structures (e.g., the human eye), is entirely compatible with the theory of evolution (although not with Darwin's account of how evolution works). All one has to concede is that the process governing evolution is supernatural rather than natural. This is not a scientific position, of course, since any invocation of non-natural causation in explanations about nature lies outsides the methods of science. But it is one way to believe in evolution without abandoning a faith in god or gods.

Given the relatively simple claims of the Intelligent Design argument, it obviously provides no direct encouragement for any particular system of belief or set of creation stories. All it states is that there must some higher entity or entities guiding the process.

The argument against Intelligent Design has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. It stems from the logical problem (pointed out long ago by Spinoza and Kant) that one can make no reliable inferences about supernatural entities on the basis of natural observations. The wonderful complexity and symmetry in nature may well encourage faith in a supernatural designer, but those qualities do not enable one to make firm conclusions about the existence of such a divine presence or about any attributes such a presence might or might not possess.

Those who wish to put Intelligent Design into a school curriculum are clearly wrong when they want it to be part of a science or a philosophy curriculum, since the concept is basically irrelevant or of minimal interest to either subject area. Where it belongs is in any curriculum devoted to the History of Science, for the idea has played an extremely important role in the historical development of modern science. There are, no doubt, many advantages to teaching science historically, but such courses are usually in short supply, especially in secondary schools
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/25/2008 8:31 PM  

Well I don't particularly like either - thongs or the pious. Both are a bit too paradey for me.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/26/2008 2:04 AM  

Stille Ewe has not answered to anon abut his/her remarks about what is anti gay exactly.

Guess Ewe got ...... mad since he/she was called out o his/her name calling????
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/26/2008 2:06 AM  

Mirror Man, a world without christian fundamentalist bullies and fascists, among others...aahh, now wouldn't that be great?

Theo....those references in Luke are aimed at people like you. Franklin Graham???? NEVER HEARD OF HIM, hardly world renowned!

People....I have a suggestion and its one that some of us will find hard to implement. Since people such as Theo come here to rant about scripture....lets do one thing if we can...IGNORE HIM. He gets off on it, maybe gives himself a handjob doing it since that is probably the only sexual activity he engages in although its condemned in his book of fables....lets not empower him and others like him any more, he's not worth our energy or time, he's outnumbered as all of them are.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/26/2008 6:27 AM  

Priya Lynn, I wasn't talking about the Christian faith in particular on this issue. That's a different issue.

One commits a simple (not necessarily a Christian) act of faith when they assert and truly believe that their thoughts have any relation to reality. In disputing my point, you (1) committed a logical fallacy, (2) went off on a rant about Jesus, (3) committed another logical fallacy, and (4) began talking about "leaps of faith," assumingly in a Kierkegaardian sense (and even that seems to be misunderstood). Care to try again?

MirrirMan, I made a statement that true information doesn't arise from a natural process. Why? Because there is no proof and no evidence of this. None. Zero. That's a major problem for your worldview. If my statement is wrong, then please provide the proof or the evidence that will help your side's case. And concerning my need to offer to prove anything related to this statement, that's an interesting shifting of the burden of proof. Sorry, won't bite. Keeping running though.

MirrorMan wrote: "Natural selection and self-replicating have zero to do with each other."

Actually they do. One of the problems Darwinists and neo-Darwinists have is the enormous improbability that self-replicating organisms could have ever been created from a purely random set of interactions.

To address this problem, some have put forward the idea that an organizing principle was involved. The late-Francis Crick, who was a co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA-molecule, posited that the mechanism of natural selection may offer an answer to the problem. To say that the concepts have nothing to do with one another is simply not true MirrorMan. You may not think so, but others do. And they need to be addressed as well.

And the fact remains that a unit that is able to self-replicate is necessary before natural selection can function. It's only then that the necessary changes that are the outcome of mutations and environmental pressures come about, which then allegedly result in the ascendancy of units with the best prospect of both continued existence and reproduction.

And of course, as I pointed out, this view doesn't offer any details as to the enormous complexity that the first entity would had to have had - apparently formed itself by random fluctuations, yet BEFORE natural selection had the chance to take over!

MirrorMan wrote: "You are assuming DNA started out as the huge, intense thing it is now, but it only took one amino acid to get the ball rolling."

And where, and in what context, did that "one amino acid" arise from? And how did it come to the point of complexity that it would necessarily have had to have?

Robert wrote: "[T]hose references in Luke [18:22] are aimed at people like you."

Really? Reading comprehension Robert? Context Robert? Any of that ring a bell?

"When Jesus heard this, He [Jesus] said to him [the rich young ruler Jesus was already having a conversation with], 'One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.'"

The point in context (and please read the context Robert)? Money and wealth were this man's god, and Jesus nailed Him on it. And with Robert I wholeheartedly say to all professing Christians, if the shoe fits, wear it. But that verse and message in Luke 18 does not mean that all Christians can't own things, etc.

So you've never heard of Franklin Graham? Son of Billy Graham? Missionary? Evangelist? President and CEO of what may be the largest Christian relief organization in the world as well as the most well-known evangelistic organization? On TV often?

I've got a pretty good idea why you've never heard of him Robert. To paraphrase Simon and Garfunkel, "...all lies and jest, still the man see what he wants to see and disregards the rest..."
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/26/2008 10:46 AM  

Theo, stop remolding and distorting scriptural quotes to suit your own agenda. You and your kind have lost the cultural war, that's why your making these desperate attempts to rant and spew the religious bile that nobody on gay blogsites ever believes for one minute.

That's the trouble with you fundamentalists, you ignore most of the quotes that apply to people like you (www.fallwell.com) because you couldn't possibly live up to let alone by what scripture dictates.

Why don't you come out of the deep dark closet in which you are hiding and accept yourself, love yourself, and stop this obsession with gay sex, gay issues, gay websites, blogsites, who we choose to love and what we do in the privacy of our bedrooms. Maybe if your own life were more fulfulling in the bedroom, maybe you wouldn't waste so much of your precious time coming here. Get your own house in order first instead of poking your nose in other people's business that is of no concern to you or anybody else. There is a lot of work for you to do in the straight world, one in two marriages failing, children born out of wedlock, philandering husbands some of whom are politicians, wife beaters, rapists, hetero pedophiles, sex traffickers, hookers, pimps, war mongers (your boys McCain, Bush and Cheney< who has an openly gay daughter for starters)...preach to them, they're in far more need of it than we are or ever will be.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/26/2008 12:22 PM  

Theo is a very angry woman. I thought Christians are slow to anger. The rage inside her is evident to any first semester psychology student. She will rant here for a while longer then do what all these tiresome evangelists do, which is to offer their believer or burn ultimatum. This serves the purpose of clearing her mind of any guilt that she wasn’t here to save our souls all along. Theo is not here to convince us. She is here to try to convince herself. As with any fanatic, the more they doubt the more they redouble their efforts to convince them selves. Theo must admit that there is a huge leap between no evolution and the empty toumb..
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/26/2008 12:54 PM  

Theo - I am the anon who is also christian and ex gay - and I can tell you - that your method of trying to reach people - regardless of what you think - is un christ like. You make a mockery of people such as myself. I still sin and make mistakes everyday. And alot of it has nothing to do with sex or sexuality. You're unwillingness to point "log out" as it were to take the log of your own eye first is shameful.

Maybe you think youhave a heart for gays - but maybe really you have a hatred for them? I'm not sure. But if you do - perhaps any ministry work you are involved with would be better served to those you can love, empathize with , and where you can make a difference.

The shaking finger thing is old and shows your pharasitic views. Are you any cleaner than those you mock? I don't think so. Can you name your own sins here in public since you are so willing to name other people's sins for them?
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/26/2008 6:31 PM  

Previous post,

You may be Christian, but you are not ex gay. You may be a bisexual who made a choice of monogamy or you may be celibate but the ex gay thing is nonsense. You are not here because you are ex gay. If you were straight you would refer to yourself as straight and you would be at some other site. You sucked dick because you liked dick and you still do. If you convert to Judaism, you will be an ex pork eater but you will still be a pork lover. That can't be prayed away. Just a little reality here. There is a difference between orientation and action, but sorry, you are still a homosexual. you are just not too gay about it. Please do some poor unfortunate woman a favor and don't marry her. Straight women disserve straight pussy hungry men. sheesh
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/26/2008 7:29 PM  

Hey to the person who just wrote that post - knock it off. You are as gross as any. You may not like the term I used - but for lack of another one that's it. And I'm not here for people like you. I was talking to Theo. You may not like my life or what it represents to you - but I have never supported any person demeaning you nor going against your rights.

You have every right to be crude and mean etc... That's fine. But just think if someone did that to you? You'd scream bigot.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/26/2008 8:47 PM  

Dude I have no problem with your life and I wish you the best. I presume too much in my post, but I am just trying to impart some reality. I have no problem with you supporting anyone who does not buy into the gay agenda. I am a log cabin republican and I must say I have held my nose more then once in the voting booth when I pull the republican lever, lol.As far as the crude accusation, I must plead guilty. I have an irreverent sense of humor I must admit and am often curt. As far as the screaming bigot thing is concerned, I am pretty thick skinned. I don't really care what others say I’m a free speech libertarian. I just try to impart some reason. Peace bro and I wish you the best in your search for wholeness. But gosh lighten up.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/27/2008 12:55 AM  

Very cool. Just stop the nasty talking - it's kind of uncalled for.

Being a log cabiner must get you into some arguments!!! LOL - well being a liberal conservative christian - I've had a few myself.

Take care.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/27/2008 1:49 AM  

Anonymous the Log Cabiner, can you explain why you as a gay man supports the GOP, a party that votes to ban marriage equality and other equality issues pertaining to the LGBT community? Why would you do that when it is clearly a party that really doesn't like who you are, what you do in the privacy of your bedroom or for merely existing? They don't want to us have equality, they don't want us adopting children, teaching in schools, serving in the military. Why on earth would any gay person want to continue supporting a party that believes in discrimination? Makes no sense. I know many gay republicans don't like government interfering in their lives, don't want to pay higher taxes, don't want universal health care for all because it smacks of socialism, yet the police, military, high school system, public libraries, public transporation are all government funded. I just don't get the logic in voting for such a screwed up party. Why is it that closeted gay politicians vote to enact legislation to bar us from marrying and your straight republican brothers espouse family values and religious beliefs while committing adultery and fathering children in the process, as well as soliciting sex in airport bathrooms, frequenting escort services (prostitutes). I just don't get it.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/27/2008 12:20 PM  

In voting republican and often libertarian, I draw the line at the extra chromosone, i.e. Trent Lot, type of republicans. I won't vote for them. They are a small minority. My big issues are the support for welfare which as done terrable damage to society. Hit has filled our prisons, to say the least. My position on welfare is more libertarain. I believe welfare should be ended and replaced with nothing. I regards to taxes and property rights and most economic and military reasons I am republican. On social issues I am to the left of Democrats. I would legalize pot, for example. GAy adoption should be allowed and encouraged. to put it in a nutshell pepole have the right to drink smoke and fuck, just don't make me pick up the pieces.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/27/2008 3:18 PM  

Anonymous, I appreciate your explanation. What makes no sense to me, even though you are on the left as far as gay matters are concerned, is that to continuously vote for the leader of the GOP, whoever that may be, only reinforces the right wing's agenda and others to support and legislate a ban on marriage equality among other equality issues. Most in your party also want DADT to remain in effect. Those two things alone would deter me from ever supporting anything the GOP represents and to me, it is a party of hate and exclusion when it comes to our rights.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/28/2008 6:16 AM  

Scott,....Theo or Aj as one of the "anonymous" posters tells us, is gay.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/28/2008 6:30 AM  

As I stated, I don't vote for any republican no matter who they are (i.e. I won't vote for a Lott). Instead I vote Libertarian. DADT is a big improvement over what we had before. Gay marriage should be decided by the states in my mind. Problem is you can't get everything you want and don't want (affirmative action is something I don't want).
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/28/2008 10:44 AM  

Theo. Your answers to questions are far from being rooted in fact or truth. It is just your belief system. What makes you annoying is that you continually attempt to shove it down peoples throats so let me be the first to shove it up your backhind. Seems appropriate to me.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/28/2008 11:21 AM  

Anonymous, thanks. Are you voting for McCain in November? Did you vote for Bush? If so, why? Both are against your right to marry the person you love, among other things, both are against your right to serve openly in the military. If you vote for them, you're voting against your fellow LGBT people, no?
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/28/2008 1:22 PM  

I don't think the lines are ase clear as they used to be. Who votes republican or democrat etc...?

I vote the person. I don't vote along gay values or family value and vote more along the lines of economic plans, oil ties (no votes if you are too tied to the oil industry), what their voting record in the past has been etc... Today it is more about financial concerns, international strengths - ties, understandings, and and how they plan to take care of health conserns in our own country.

I don't care what they think about gays, abortion, etc.... I want a place where I and my kind can have a home, domestic tranquility and health care.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/28/2008 5:42 PM  

Anonymous, fine. However, under a GOP administration, you'll NEVER get access to health care unless its provided by an employer and not all employers provide it nor are they mandated to. More than 46million Americans will continue to have no access and that figure will only increase if McCain is elected. Your party doesn't want everyone covered if it involves government subsidies. How are they going to resolve it?
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/29/2008 8:44 AM  

Anonymous, further to my last comment, what if you had no job and couldn't afford to pay the exorbitnat health insurance premiums. How would you get access to health care? Since republicans believe in privatizing everything, wouldn't it make sense for them to get rid of medicare, medicaid and do what it does best, outsource to private companies? Who is going to cover the unemployed and their families in the absence of medicaid?

Its interesting to note that in the previous two democratically controlled admininstrations, both left office with a net surplus. Bush 41 left office with a soaring debt, as did Reagan and Bush 43 will leaves us with more than half a trillion dollars in debt, a debt that is primarily owned by China. What if China calls in that loan, a loan that is financing the debt?
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/29/2008 10:32 AM  

from Theo,

What you may be asking is whether a Roman Catholic who strictly adheres to the specific Roman Catholic faith (i.e., accepts the Council of Trent and at least Vatican I), and whether a Jew strictly adheres to the post-32 A.D. Jewish faith (for the orthodox Jew should logically accept Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah, given that He fulfilled the prophecies), and whether a Mormon who strictly adheres to the Mormon faith, will go to hell.

If that's your question, the answer is yes, they will go to hell, in that they by definition reject the provision described above.


Nuff said. considering that half the country is catholic and only 5% are gay. Why is Theo wasting his time here?

Theo off the 12 step program?
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/30/2008 6:11 PM  

One thread not enough Anonymous? Or is this a fallacy by repetition?
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/30/2008 6:55 PM  

Theo, I wrote "Natural selection and self-replicating have zero to do with each other." I should have added "as far as existence is concerned." A creature has to first exist before it can replicate, and natural selection defines what can or cannot exist within a certain environment. Those that cannot, perish, those that can, survive, and those that thrive, and can reproduce, will succeed. It IS that simple, no matter what your little books tell you.

You also wrote: “And where, and in what context, did that "one amino acid" arise from? And how did it come to the point of complexity that it would necessarily have had to have?”

You are being a little thick about this, so I will try it again. Where did that Amino Acid come from? Mutation. We know there were lightning storms all over the planet during its’ formative years, and untold billions of groups of chemicals were subjected to high voltage charges. It only takes one mutation to start the ball rolling. As the chain of DNA grew more complex, which took untold eons of time since no one was there to watch the clock, variations occurred, each driven my natural selection, those that could best adapt to their environment thrived. And then reproduced, carrying those adaptations to succeeding generations. That is why we have the vast variety of plant and animal life that we do, adaptation and evolution, not because the Flying Spaghetti Monster thought it would be great to have 43 species of parrots!

You also wrote: MirrirMan, I made a statement that true information doesn't arise from a natural process. Why? Because there is no proof and no evidence of this. None. Zero. That's a major problem for your worldview. If my statement is wrong, then please provide the proof or the evidence that will help your side's case. And concerning my need to offer to prove anything related to this statement, that's an interesting shifting of the burden of proof. Sorry, won't bite. Keeping running though.”

Sorry, dude, but you made the statement first. I can counter it, though, with a simple thing called gravity. I can prove gravity exists by picking up a rock and dropping it. It doesn’t get more natural than that! Oh, yes, you can argue that because I picked up the rock, I am interfering with the process, so let’s just say I watched rocks fall off a cliff. Same difference, same fact, same TRUE INFORMATION DERIVED FROM A NATURAL PROCESS! The truth? Gravity sucks. The process? Erosion. I can get the same information from a rainfall, or watching water go downstream. We see, in the fossil record, evidence of evolution. But that probably won’t work for you, so let’s try the seasons. It gets cooler, the days get shorter, then it starts getting warmer, the days get longer, and so on and so on. That isn’t a natural process? As I said before, prove you point and show your work, or stop making ridiculous comments based on some lame interpretation of what some centuries-removed pseudo-biographer thought your sky-Grandpa was telling you when an earthquake hit.

Now stop being dense, please. It truly is a bore.
posted by  MirrorMan, at 7/30/2008 7:37 PM  

Nice try MirrorMan. Classic equivocation and bait-and-switch.

You're presenting your defense of Darwinism in two different ways. First, you defend it by alluding to small, observable changes (e.g., natural selection, speciation, adaptation).

Then, when the time is right, you defend it by slipping in claims concerning large, unobservable changes (e.g., molecules-to-man evolution). You list "evidence" for the first way and then conclude that this proves that the second way took place. Nice try!

Unfortunately, as our understanding of genetics has improved, it has become increasingly clear that mutations + time + chance do not equal Darwinism. Why? Because nearly all OBSERVED (i.e., that crucial and necessary part of true science) mutations demonstrate a LOSS of genetic information from the genetic code (some are neutral).

Darwinist claims that their theory of origins and progress has no direction or goal. Yet if we OBSERVE the intricacy and complexity of the "first" organism, you would have to accept that an enormous amount of information has been produced to explain the variety of life we OBSERVE today. However, mutations do not have the ability to generate new genetic information. Therefore, mutations cannot be used to explain how Darwinians "evolution" has proceeded from a cell with less information than is present in modern cells.

I do also have a few questions for you, because you're missing a few of my challenges:

1. Where did matter come from?

2. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?

3. Are there "laws" in the universe (e.g., gravity, inertia)? If yes, where did these laws come from?

4. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

I've got more, but I'll stop there.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/30/2008 9:01 PM  

Theo:

Evolution exists. Deal with it. Get over it.

I feel bad that your barbaric, simplistic, churlish belief system (sadly affixed with the label Christian - thus giving a bad name to the religion) conflicts with real science. I'm sorry that you were brainwashed so that you are unable to accept the truth and must dissemble at length on this popular website.

There is no debate among real scientists or thinking, educated people in regard to evolution. The only people left that disagree are whiny, pea-brain, right wing zealots who are embittered because their foolish drink-the-Koolade views conflict with reality.

Theo - it is time to grow up and realize that there is a rational world that the vast majority of us choose to inhabit. You can bitch and moan all you want, but the human race (if free of religious coercion) has looked at your arguments and laughed at them. You have lost. The world has moved on. Hurry up before civilization further passes you by.

The truth is, you present crude, outdated, unscientific talking points, spin and sophistry - not sophisticated, thought-provoking arguments backed by figures or facts.

Theo, it is clear that you find the real world threatening and therefore have created a perverse, alternative universe where up is down and down is up. This george W. Buh type fantasy world has badly damaged this nation.

It is time we return to the reality-based community and leave Bible-thumping buffoonery behind. (Note, this does not extend to non-fundamentalist religious people. Just the Pat Robertson/Bush crowd)

Theo, some people say I don't believe in God. This is not accurate. I thank God each night, before I turn in, that I can think for myself and have not ended up like you. Living with your Neanderthal mindset (no offense Neanderthals) would be worse than living in prison.

Yes, I thank God I'm not you and never will descend into such an intellectual abyss.

Amen
posted by  Wayne Besen, at 7/31/2008 1:09 AM  

Wayne, just one word

TOUCHE
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/31/2008 12:19 PM  

So Wayne, yes or no: Can one be a "scientist" and NOT be a Darwinist or neo-Darwinist? Again, yes or no. Thanks!
posted by  Anonymous, at 8/01/2008 11:41 AM  

Theo:


1. Where did matter come from? The previous universe. Where and why did it all start? I don’t know, and neither do the scientists. More research needs to be done. Not proof of a supernatural being. Next!

2. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter? Well, if was ‘dead’, then it had to be ‘alive’ before. Stop with the circular reasoning already, you’ll get dizzy. See the previous answer. Still not proof of a supernatural being. Next!

3. Are there "laws" in the universe (e.g., gravity, inertia)? If yes, where did these laws come from? Yes. They are a naturally occurring phenomenon arising from an Einsteinian based physical universe. In a different reality, the rules of physics could also be different. Still not proof of a supernatural being. Next!

4. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing? What organizing? As I said, it is a naturally occurring phenomenon, and if you are talking life forms, you call this planet organized?

You are a poor debater who relies on their faith in a Cosmic Muffin to win their arguments rather than reasoned fact. You would argue that a lack of knowledge about a certain occurrence implies, and therefore demands, unquestioning faith in otherworldly powers. I flat-out reject that! Earlier, your religion insisted, and indeed punished and killed people, for daring to suggest that the Earth revolved around the Sun rather than the opposite. Advanced knowledge tells us that these ‘heretics’ were actually right. And now you become a modern day version of that same philosophy by insisting that evolution and natural selection are a fraud. We have untold history that shows that your viewpoint, and those wonderful little fables in that book that believe in so deeply, were wrong, misguided, and hurtful. We have grown, we have evolved, and we have broken free of our birth home and strode upon our moon. We have sent probes to our celestial neighbors and beyond, learning more of what awaits us in JUST OUR GALAXY!!! I am not even mentioning the countless other galaxies that surround us. And you, with your book, continue to expound about the presence of a centuries old fantasy. Maybe you are too frightened of the prospect of the grand adventure that lies before us, the great mysteries of how and why this great massive universe came into existence, that you must believe in fables and fairy tales and Sky-Grandpa’s and what-have-you. If so, I pity you. You are the child who is afraid to take the training wheels off their bicycle because they might fall. Well, you will never know the wonder of balance, the freedom from fear, the satisfaction of accomplishment, because all you will ever know is not what you have accomplished, but rather what your little fable did for you. “God allowed me to get this promotion”, “God cured my cancer”, “God led me the perfect mate”, “Thank God for surviving that horrible traffic accident”. Well, maybe you got the promotion because you earned it, maybe the advances in drugs and cancer research cured the cancer, maybe your perfect mate isn’t so perfect, and maybe your reflexes or that of the other person driving had something to do with it. And maybe the other person, who is just as faithful and devoted as you, didn’t get the promotion, and instead lost their job, or died of cancer despite their prayers to their ‘merciful God’, married an abusive spouse, or didn’t survive the crash.

Your ‘religion’, and your ‘God’, doesn’t seem to be very discriminating about handing out bonuses or punishments, and in fact seems completely random in it’s actions, despite what some of your ‘God’s’ most zealous proponents would argue. Katrina was not about Southern Decadence. The wildfires in California were not some punishment for homosexuality. The recent earthquake was not a response to marriage equality. And Sally Kern IS a hateful, spiteful fleck of filth upon humanity. And you, sir, and you ‘God’, and you religion, are a fraud. And with your religion’s history of torment, torture, bigotry and ignorance, have no place here. Now, if you will excuse me, I have work to do. Now do us all a favor and shut up and go away.
posted by  MirrorMan, at 8/01/2008 12:18 PM  

花蓮入口網|花蓮|花蓮民宿|花蓮民宿訂房諮詢服務|花蓮美食|花蓮民宿|花蓮旅遊|花蓮|花蓮電影|花蓮|花蓮民宿|花蓮海洋公園|花蓮縣長|花蓮遠來飯店|花蓮提拉米蘇|花蓮客運|蜂蜜|花蓮太魯閣|花蓮廣告|花蓮旅遊|花蓮地圖|花蓮旅遊|花蓮民宿|花蓮房屋|花蓮旅遊|花蓮民宿|花蓮汽車|花蓮餐廳|花蓮旅館|花蓮瑞穗牧場|花蓮名產|花蓮民宿|花蓮租屋|花蓮理想大地|花蓮民宿|花蓮廣告|花蓮黃頁 網路電話簿|花蓮民宿|花蓮計程車|花蓮餐廳|花蓮租車旅遊資訊網|花蓮入口網 IN HUALIEN 吃喝玩樂樣樣通|花蓮旅遊|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮花蓮|花蓮民宿|花蓮|花蓮民宿|花蓮民宿|花蓮美食|花蓮旅遊|花蓮|花蓮租車|花蓮就業|花蓮房屋|花蓮旅遊|花蓮旅遊花蓮|花蓮民宿|花蓮旅遊|花蓮美食|花蓮住宿|花蓮飯店|花蓮旅館|花蓮|花蓮民宿|花蓮民宿推薦|花蓮民宿市區|花蓮民宿王|花蓮民宿網|花蓮民宿資訊網|花蓮民宿悠遊網|花蓮民宿交流網|花蓮海景民宿|花蓮海邊民宿|花蓮海岸民宿|花蓮旅遊民宿|花蓮|花蓮旅遊|花蓮廣告|花蓮民宿|花蓮房屋|花蓮汽車旅館|花蓮飯店|花蓮民宿|花蓮美食|花蓮餐廳|花蓮小吃|花蓮名產|花蓮工作|花蓮新聞|花蓮民宿訂房|花蓮入口網 in hualien 吃喝玩樂樣樣通|花蓮旅遊|花蓮旅遊|花蓮旅遊景點|花蓮旅遊|花蓮旅遊景點|花蓮旅遊|花蓮旅遊景點|花蓮美食|花蓮餐廳|花蓮小吃|花蓮名產|花蓮縣長|花蓮民宿|花蓮民宿|花蓮計程車花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮
posted by  Anonymous, at 5/03/2009 9:59 AM  

There is a cool range of nike air force 1 available including the latest Classic Cardy Style in Black, mens prada shoes, Oatmeal or Cream. These ugg store are almost impossible to get anywhere in the UK and sold out on the cheap Tiffany website within weeks. They are incredibly popular ugg store and its easy to see why. ugg discount is a really versatile boot UGG Bailey Button boots. The three chunky wooden ugg boots Boots Salep the side mean that you can wear them either buttoned up or down and they look great with buy ugg boots.he ultimate in luxury designer clothing has to still be the online shopping Australia boots. These timeless classics are available in nike shoes, Black and Sand these converse shoes really are the last word in comfort footwear. These ugg discount are made entirely from sheepskin with a light Eva sole there is nothing quite Tiffany earring like the feeling of slipping your feet into a brand new pair of ugg boots! But not only do they feel great cheap ugg they look great ugg discount too and can be worn tall or ugg down to expose the sheepskin fur.If you're looking for wholesale supplier for a special lady,discount af1 shoes sale recommend UGG Suburb Crochet from the prada shoesCollection-they have the qualities of great fashion ugg boots online and practicality combined-along with exquisite comfort. If you want to purchase the Tiffany jewelry, please visit ugg classic our online buy ugg boots shop. Welcome to select and buy ugg store!was shocked. But here was a statement ugg shoes that could be checked against future events retail supplies.
posted by  Unknown, at 12/28/2009 3:31 PM  

MULTICOLORE WHITE MINI SAC HL
Multicolore White Pochette GM
Multicolore White Pochette MM
MULTICOLORE WHITE PORTE TRESOR INTERNATIONAL
MULTICOLORE WHITE PORTE-MONNAIE BILLETS VIENNOIS
Multicolore White Porte-Monnaie Plat
MULTICOLORE WHITE POUCHETTE
Multicolore White Priscilla
Multicolore White Rift
MULTICOLORE WHITE SHIRLEY
MULTICOLORE WHITE SMALL RING AGENDA
MULTICOLORE WHITE SOLOGNE
MULTICOLORE WHITE SPEEDY 30
MULTICOLORE WHITE THEDA GM
MULTICOLORE WHITE TROUVILLE
Multicolore White Ursula
posted by  Anonymous, at 1/06/2010 10:19 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

January 16, 2005   January 23, 2005   January 30, 2005   February 06, 2005   February 13, 2005   February 20, 2005   February 27, 2005   March 06, 2005   March 13, 2005   March 20, 2005   March 27, 2005   April 03, 2005   April 10, 2005   April 17, 2005   April 24, 2005   May 01, 2005   May 08, 2005   May 15, 2005   May 22, 2005   May 29, 2005   June 05, 2005   June 12, 2005   June 19, 2005   June 26, 2005   July 03, 2005   July 10, 2005   July 17, 2005   July 24, 2005   July 31, 2005   August 07, 2005   August 14, 2005   August 21, 2005   August 28, 2005   September 04, 2005   September 11, 2005   September 18, 2005   September 25, 2005   October 02, 2005   October 09, 2005   October 16, 2005   October 23, 2005   October 30, 2005   November 06, 2005   November 13, 2005   November 20, 2005   November 27, 2005   December 04, 2005   December 11, 2005   December 18, 2005   December 25, 2005   January 01, 2006   January 08, 2006   January 15, 2006   January 22, 2006   January 29, 2006   February 05, 2006   February 12, 2006   February 19, 2006   February 26, 2006   March 05, 2006   March 12, 2006   March 19, 2006   March 26, 2006   April 02, 2006   April 09, 2006   April 16, 2006   April 23, 2006   April 30, 2006   May 07, 2006   May 14, 2006   May 21, 2006   May 28, 2006   June 04, 2006   June 11, 2006   June 18, 2006   June 25, 2006   July 02, 2006   July 09, 2006   July 16, 2006   July 23, 2006   July 30, 2006   August 06, 2006   August 13, 2006   August 20, 2006   August 27, 2006   September 03, 2006   September 10, 2006   September 17, 2006   September 24, 2006   October 01, 2006   October 08, 2006   October 15, 2006   October 22, 2006   October 29, 2006   November 05, 2006   November 12, 2006   November 19, 2006   November 26, 2006   December 03, 2006   December 10, 2006   December 17, 2006   December 31, 2006   January 07, 2007   January 14, 2007   January 21, 2007   January 28, 2007   February 04, 2007   February 11, 2007   February 18, 2007   February 25, 2007   March 04, 2007   March 11, 2007   March 18, 2007   March 25, 2007   April 01, 2007   April 08, 2007   April 15, 2007   April 22, 2007   April 29, 2007   May 06, 2007   May 13, 2007   May 20, 2007   May 27, 2007   June 03, 2007   June 10, 2007   June 17, 2007   June 24, 2007   July 01, 2007   July 08, 2007   July 15, 2007   July 22, 2007   July 29, 2007   August 05, 2007   August 12, 2007   August 19, 2007   August 26, 2007   September 02, 2007   September 09, 2007   September 16, 2007   September 23, 2007   September 30, 2007   October 07, 2007   October 14, 2007   October 21, 2007   October 28, 2007   November 04, 2007   November 11, 2007   November 18, 2007   November 25, 2007   December 02, 2007   December 09, 2007   December 16, 2007   December 23, 2007   December 30, 2007   January 06, 2008   January 13, 2008   January 20, 2008   January 27, 2008   February 03, 2008   February 10, 2008   February 17, 2008   February 24, 2008   March 02, 2008   March 09, 2008   March 16, 2008   March 23, 2008   March 30, 2008   April 06, 2008   April 13, 2008   April 20, 2008   April 27, 2008   May 04, 2008   May 11, 2008   May 18, 2008   May 25, 2008   June 01, 2008   June 08, 2008   June 15, 2008   June 22, 2008   June 29, 2008   July 06, 2008   July 13, 2008   July 20, 2008   July 27, 2008   August 03, 2008   August 10, 2008   August 17, 2008   August 24, 2008   August 31, 2008   September 07, 2008   September 14, 2008   September 21, 2008   September 28, 2008   October 05, 2008   October 12, 2008   October 19, 2008   October 26, 2008   November 02, 2008   November 09, 2008   November 16, 2008   November 23, 2008   November 30, 2008   December 07, 2008   December 14, 2008   December 21, 2008   December 28, 2008   January 04, 2009   January 11, 2009   January 18, 2009   January 25, 2009   February 01, 2009   February 08, 2009   February 15, 2009   February 22, 2009   March 01, 2009   March 08, 2009   March 15, 2009   March 22, 2009   March 29, 2009   April 05, 2009   April 12, 2009   April 19, 2009   April 26, 2009   May 03, 2009   May 10, 2009   May 17, 2009   May 24, 2009   May 31, 2009   June 07, 2009   June 14, 2009   June 21, 2009   June 28, 2009   July 12, 2009   July 19, 2009   July 26, 2009   August 02, 2009   August 09, 2009   August 16, 2009   August 23, 2009   August 30, 2009   September 06, 2009   September 13, 2009   September 20, 2009   September 27, 2009   October 04, 2009   October 11, 2009   October 18, 2009   November 01, 2009   November 08, 2009   November 15, 2009   November 22, 2009   December 06, 2009   December 13, 2009   December 20, 2009   December 27, 2009   January 17, 2010   January 24, 2010   January 31, 2010   February 07, 2010   February 14, 2010   February 21, 2010   March 21, 2010   April 18, 2010   June 06, 2010   July 18, 2010   July 25, 2010   October 31, 2010   December 19, 2010   April 10, 2011