's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Let's get some things straight.(69 posts)

Let's get some things straight.lotterypick
Aug 18, 2003 10:33 AM
To teach Creation, for lack of a better non-religious name, you don't need the BIble.

In fact, let's call it Intelligent Design.

I can assure you that non-Christians strongly follow this as Phillip Johnson met me and strongly assured me that he was no Creationist (Bible wise).

Evolution is not scientifically proven nor really supported by things like the fossil evidence (what could be more important).

Check out the Intelligent Design world, it's not Creation, but it sure ain't evolution.

Now for the other question about me teaching evolution in church. I do. And I point out it's obvious flaws.

As a UCLA graduate in biology I'm decently qualified to understand the issue and different techniques to arrive at the conclusions.
Few people take ID seriously.czardonic
Aug 18, 2003 10:46 AM
It simply exists to legitimize Creationism by giving it a scientific veneer, and to attack Evolutionary theory by focusing on a few gaps yet to filled in a fossil record that spans millions of years. Bottom line, ID itself fairs far worse under the extreme skepticism that ID believers reserve for Evolution.
You must be a free thinkerlotterypick
Aug 18, 2003 11:00 AM
Problems for evolution exist in every facet and class of science. Meaning, foundational problems.

Evolution is confused and disjointed because there is no proof for it. Meaning, any theory can be supported.

Let me ask you. Did evolution happen slowly? If you say yes, I'll give you a whole camp of evolutionist that says your wrong.

You say it happened fast, again I'll give you a whole camp that says you're wrong.

How can that be? Easy, there is no proof so neither can be disputed. Dream on. Ignore and name call all you want, it doesn't make evolution fly.
You must be a free thinkerTri_Rich
Aug 18, 2003 11:03 AM
The mechanics of evolution are an open question; it's existence is not.
I'm surelotterypick
Aug 18, 2003 11:28 AM
You take that with blind faith.
I'm sureTri_Rich
Aug 18, 2003 11:34 AM
No, it is a physical phenomena like plant growth or the immune response or gravity or weather, all of which are not 100% understood but do exist.

Any questioning of evolution is based on a discomfort with the idea that we share a common ancestor with all other life.
I've noticed you do that a lotlotterypick
Aug 18, 2003 12:25 PM
You state phenomena that we CAN SEE and CAN TEST, and then come in with evolution like it's the same.

It's not. Evolution, animal type changing into another, is something NEVER seen nor seen in fossil records.

Thanks for illustrating a common evolution tactic.

Crodidile Steve: "What a beauty, see those teeth, see her beautiful color, that's a beaut of a rattlesnake.

Millions of years ago she had no rattles and now look, long beautiful rattles."

Evolution always starts with the thing you can see and then links the fairy tale.
reasoning and informationDougSloan
Aug 18, 2003 12:32 PM
The reasoning behind evolution is sound. We know genes mutate and new organisms are formed. No doubt about that. We know that many organisms have common traits, suggesting a common ancestor.

Micro-evolution is fairly well accepted. Macro-evolution is more difficult. I think here the problem is proof. There is, as you suggest, little proof that over millions of years lower life forms evolved into more complex ones. Proof would probably require much more evidence that we ever could discover, evidence that disappeared long ago.

Here is a question -- what evidence *could* prove macro-evolution? If you can't define what the proof would be, then there is no sense discussing it.

However, even if the so-called proof were found, someone could just as easily claim that God created the proof in that form, or that God created evolution as a means of populating the earth. Can't get around that one with reason -- either you believe it or you don't.

reasoning and informationlotterypick
Aug 18, 2003 12:43 PM
This is my solution.

Evolution cannot be proven.
Intelligent Design cannot be proven.
Both have SCIENTIFIC points that support them as seen and tested.

Teach both as potentials. That's it. Simple.
But why only the Judeo-Christian view of ID/Creationis?sn69
Aug 18, 2003 12:52 PM
If ID/Creation, by your admission, cannot be proven, then why teach only one relgiously founded viewpoint as an alternative. Surely there are other options, including Buddism and Hinduism, the followers of which far outnumber the Jews and Christians of this world. How about the subtle differences of Suffi Mysticism? For that matter, there is a diverse abundance of aborriginal creation theories, many of which are far more artistic that the Western Standard.

Again, my point isn't to nit-pick. Rather, if one is to argue about the fairness of representation in a supposedly free society, then one has the moral obligation to represent more than his/her faith. We are a nation of many faiths; that much is worth keeping in mind.
Science <i>is</i> taught as a potential.czardonic
Aug 18, 2003 12:57 PM
Potentiality is at the heart of science. Ideas are put forward and judged by the potential endowed on them by evidence.

Again, you are confusing the issue because you are falsely equating science and religion, which are apples and oranges. In the realm of faith, science appears conspicuously unable to provide answers with absolute certainty. In the realm of science, religion appears conspicuosly unable to provide evidence of its certain answers.

Ultimately, Creationism does not deserve equal time in our schools with Evolution because science education is not about teaching a creation myth. It is about teaching the methods by which theories about that which we do not yet understand are drafted and supported.
Science <i>is</i> taught as a potential.lotterypick
Aug 18, 2003 1:14 PM
Let me ask you.

If a theory came out that explained why no fossil intermediates are seen. (fossils actually support theory)
How order doesn't have to come from chaos. (maintain thermodynamic LAWS)
Why you don't need spontaneous generation to have created the first life. (Spontaneous generation is never seen)
Why the big bang is wrong, (Order from chao is wrong.

All with scientific support, would that be enough for you to support it as POSSIBLE or having POTENTIAL to be valid.

Let's see how open minded you are.
Yes. Obviously. (nm)czardonic
Aug 18, 2003 1:35 PM
I forgot one thinglotterypick
Aug 18, 2003 1:58 PM
The source of the answer is not naturalistic.

Oh, well, there goes a perfectly good theory down the drain for you.
Huh? (nm)czardonic
Aug 18, 2003 2:02 PM
Any real scientist's answer would be that they didn't know.czardonic
Aug 18, 2003 11:11 AM
So right away, both of your camps are disqualified from serious consideriation as scientists. Evolution does not pretend to have the answers, it simply has theories of which those that the preponderance of available evidence supports are held onto for further study.

This is the problem when religious absolutism is falsely equated to science. By definition, there are no gaps in the case for Creationism as viewed by Creationists, because they can be explained away by the "mysterious ways" of the Lord. Science affords no such cop out.

Face it: If you read the Bible with the same extreme skepticism that you reserve for Evolutionary theory, you would have decided long ago that the whole Christianity thing doesn't "fly".
So you're saying thatlotterypick
Aug 18, 2003 11:33 AM
Stephen Gould and Richard Dawkins are not serious.

One says it happened fast, the other it happened slow...and they don't agree regarding your myriad of proof for evolution.

They as Tri Rich believe. They don't know about mechanics (as they lack proof) but they sure as Hell believe it happened.

Doesn't that sound ridiculous.

It goes like this. There's a dead body on the ground.

There is no evidence of foul play but, one expert camp says the butler did it, the other expert says the wife did it yet,

they both laugh at Columbo when he comes in and says "maybe the guy died of natural causes." Meaning, murder never happened.

Evolution never happened and the evidence supports that that MAY be true.
Your analogy is flawed....Tri_Rich
Aug 18, 2003 11:38 AM
In the case of evolution the body would have a large knife in his back; While scientists look for the killer, creationists claim he is not dead.
I'll bitelotterypick
Aug 18, 2003 12:29 PM
What in goodness sake is your knife in the back for evolution? I'm ready for a good laugh.
I doubt your characterization of Gould and Dawkins.czardonic
Aug 18, 2003 11:49 AM
Find me a quote where they represent these positons with the same degree of absolute certainty that Creationists endow their superstitions with. I'm sure they have their theories about how evolution happened. I am also sure that those theories are based on evidence that they have found to be convincing.

What you've got to try to wrap your mind around is the idea of uncertainty. Just becaus a scientist forwards a theory does not mean that he or she is certain of it to the exclusion of all others.

But again, any aspect of current mainstream evolutionary theory is infinitely more plausible than central events that are described in the Bible.
So contradictory opinions are, in and of themselves,sn69
Aug 18, 2003 12:26 PM
grounds for dismissal of a specified theory or train of thought?

Kinda like Jesus is God, or Allah is God, or Jeshua is God, or Buddah, etc?

Thus far, Lottery, your arguments have all suffered the same fatal flaw, regardless of the particular subject. Simply, your assumptions are predicated on the "piety" (honest; no pun intended) of your stance, based on the implied and stated assumption that yours is the only basis of truth; the baseline of reality for all of us as defined by you. You offer no opportunity for flexibility, counterpoint, etc within your own argument(s).

Now, if that is the basis of your faith I can understand it. I don't agree with it, but I can understand. There are lots of opinion/faith-based issues that lend themselves to that level of irrational belief.

I hope you believe this, though--I don't say that to offend, attack or belittle. Your faith is yours. Again, I don't agree with it personally, but I would never deny you your right to it.
ha!dr hoo
Aug 18, 2003 1:55 PM
"Problems for evolution exist in every facet and class of science. Meaning, foundational problems. "

Sounds nice. No specifics. Null content.

"Evolution is confused and disjointed because there is no proof for it. Meaning, any theory can be supported. "

WHAAAA? There is plenty of evidence for it. Gaps in the fossil record are being filled every year. You can even test central concepts in the lab. Bacteria. Add poison. Theory says that any bacteria that survive will produce more bacteria that will also be able to survive the poison.

If those bacteria produce offspring that are LESS able to survive, that would contradict the theory. See, something that would FALSIFY the theory. Falsifiablity is a cornerstone of science (go Karl Popper!). Is creationism, or ID, falsifiable? What test could be performed to falsify it?

With your degree from UCLA you should be able to answer this, and extra credit will be given if you can connect the notion of falsifiability with the reason for the null/alternative hypothesis format in the experimental method.

"Let me ask you. Did evolution happen slowly? If you say yes, I'll give you a whole camp of evolutionist that says your wrong.
You say it happened fast, again I'll give you a whole camp that says you're wrong. "

There is more than one mechanism working in evolution. Selection of slightly different characteristics tends to work slowly. Bigger beak makes it easier to crack nuts, makes for more food, and eventually you have .... birds with big beaks eating a lot of nuts. Some mechanisms can work fast, like mutation. So it is not an either or but can easily be both fast AND slow.

Like they say, Cs get Degrees. You *may* have a degree, but you clearly did not pay attention in your studies.
Hey freshmanlotterypick
Aug 18, 2003 1:59 PM
You're talking variation not evolution.
hey shallow troll:dr hoo
Aug 18, 2003 2:42 PM
Go for a ride without a helmet, improve the gene pool and meet your designer at the same time!
You must be a free thinkerDuane Gran
Aug 19, 2003 6:08 AM
Let me ask you. Did evolution happen slowly? If you say yes, I'll give you a whole camp of evolutionist that says your wrong. You say it happened fast, again I'll give you a whole camp that says you're wrong

By your logic, as long as two people disagree about something it invalidates the whole. I think nearly every scientific pursuit has some rifts where scholars gravitate to one of many positions. The goal, in theory, is that enough investigation and research will reveal the better of the opinions over time.
BTW. How does <i>this</i> jive with biblical literalism? (nm)czardonic
Aug 18, 2003 11:00 AM
Aug 18, 2003 10:52 AM
One of the great questions in philosophy is not the existence of God, but the nature of God. Is "God the Creator" also God who listens to my prayers, or simply the clock-maker? While the Bible seems to tell us in no uncertain terms, independent reasoning could yield similar or contrary results.

I think of those people who do not believe in God, they do so largely because they cannot accept a God who intervenes in the minutia of life; they might be more amendable to a God who sets things in motion, winds the clock now and then, and then let's us do our own thing.

Aug 18, 2003 11:19 AM
I guess the belief that things working out, when they should have been worse, was just coincidence is a common thing.

But for me personally, I became a Christian initially because this guy, who I hated, said give God a chance.

I said okay I'll give him a chance and check it out. That simple.

Now let me tell you that life on the external looked great. Wife, baby, house in Santa Barbara, good job, etc. but in truth life sucked.

I was a selfish husband, had no real friends and had no real foundation in anything.

Once I became a Christian, read about things. looked at things in the past and now, and trust God, things just came together.

I ahd wisdom on how to handle real life issues and built a life that was full of the good things, the meaningful things in life.

Now life is great. I have a wife (who became a Christian after me) that's great, wonderful amazing kids, a life full of challenges, etc. but I've got confidence and strength to handle the bad times and reminders of humility and circumstances to deal with good things too.

If people looke at their lives for how they've really done on their own they'd see "it's not that great nor that fulfilling".

Yet giving God a chance, has proven to be the best decision I've ever made. He does come through and show He's real. It ain't coincidence.
Sounds much like my story.jesse1
Aug 18, 2003 11:30 AM
Could be a pattern developing here.
Excellent story, but could you answer Czar? (nm)eyebob
Aug 18, 2003 12:27 PM
Excellent story, but could you answer Czar? (nm)lotterypick
Aug 18, 2003 12:32 PM
I try not to mix Bible stuff with evolution debate as it just flames things that are not pertinent with the debate.

We are talking all science here. sorry.
God is an explanation for ignoranceContinental
Aug 18, 2003 1:26 PM
Mankind has always created gods to explain the unknown. So, the nature of God depends on mankind's ignorance. God used to directly cause the sun to move, the rain to fall, and the rainbow to form. Now rational, educated people do not believe that God directly and immediately intervenes in the operation of nature. God has been relegated to a creator because we are ignorant about creation. Atheist can admit their ignorance. Theist need a God.
Amen to that. (nm)czardonic
Aug 18, 2003 1:37 PM
could say that science is an explanation for ignorance, tooDougSloan
Aug 18, 2003 1:55 PM
Your message sounds condescending and arrogant. Many millions of perfectly rational, highly intelligent people not only believe in God, but are very religious.

The fact that God is not scientifically provable does not mean that He does not exist.

The fact that people have historically believed in various types of gods does not prove that all beliefs in god(s) are wrong. People once believed that the earth was flat and at the center of the universe, even so-called "scientists", but obviously were wrong. Einstein thought that the universe was static and had no beginning, and later admitted being wrong. Do we throw out all scientific thought because some is wrong, even ludicrous in hindsight?

Science can not <i>preclude</i> faith.czardonic
Aug 18, 2003 2:13 PM
There will always be gaps in our scientific understanding of the Universe because there are limits to what humans can observe. Thus, there will always be room God in the beliefs of even highly intellligent people. That room will either continue to decrease as more articles of faith are replaced by a preponderance of scientific evidence, or it will evolve into a "God created science" stance.

Funny, most of the "wrong" science you cite was inspired by religion. To answer you question, when further study reveals theory to be ludicrous in hindsight, it is thrown out. Isn't that the rational thing to do? Pray tell; what does religion do when religious thought is proven wrong, even ludicrous in hindsight? (A: execute the messenger.)
Science is always wrong.Continental
Aug 18, 2003 5:26 PM
Einstein admitted his hypothesis was wrong because Edwin Hubble produced clear logical evidence that the universe was expanding. He admitted he was wrong after Bohr, Heisenberg, Shroedinger, Dirac produced clear logical evidence that physics is based on chance, not structure. No scientific theory is fact. That is the scientific method in beautiful action.

Assigning attributes to God and eliminating all hypotheses that contradict those attributes is the antithesis of science. It is the definition of superstition. So, for scientists God is reduced to something that may or may not exist, but cannot have any attributes assigned to Him.

Millions of quite rational, highly intellegent, wonderful people are superstitious. It would be condescending of me to say otherwise. I'll gladly plead guilty of arrogance.
Now THIS is funny.MR_GRUMPY
Aug 18, 2003 10:56 AM
"As a UCLA graduate in biology I'm decently qualified to understand the issue and different techniques to arrive at the conclusions".
What a waste of money...........................
I'm sad for you.lotterypick
Aug 18, 2003 11:26 AM
You're a classless jerk.

By the way, I met my wife at UCLA, so the money and time was well spent.
If you are married...Tri_Rich
Aug 18, 2003 11:40 AM are involved in non-random mating which by definition must mean that certain characteristics are being selected for, and hence you are causing evolution.
Aug 18, 2003 1:17 PM
Unlike yours apparently, my kids are wonderful human boys. As their boys, and their boys and their boys..... will be ad nauseum boys.

My great great great great.....was a person.
Yours was a monkey.
Lets do some math....Tri_Rich
Aug 19, 2003 5:07 AM
since geology, biology, et al do not hold enough evidence. If at any given time a population has an equal percentage of alleles for a given gene, the inheritance of those alleles can be represented by a punit square. Call the alleles A and a as is standard, you will see that the offspring will be 1/4 AA 1/2 Aa and 1/4 aa. Meaning that the allelic frequency remains 1/2 A and 1/2 a, i.e. no evolution.
However this mathematical model requires a few thing to be true, first all mating must be entirely random, second there can be no selective advantage to one of the alleles, third there can be no genetic drift (unequal death rate due to factors other than these alleles), fourth there must be no net movement of individuals into or out of the population.
If any of these situations occur there is evolution.

This explanation is known, I believe as the Hardy-Wienberg equilibrium, and should be easily found if you want to look for it.
Here's a linkTri_Rich
Aug 19, 2003 5:11 AM
Classless ????? Hardly.......MR_GRUMPY
Aug 18, 2003 4:27 PM
I may be low-class, but that is still a class. Every time I start reading one of these nature of god, arm wrestling matches, I have to laugh. Just which god are you talking about. Mr Nice, or Mr Smite? At one time, when "bad god" was in power, you would get wacked if you stepped out of line. Now that "good god" has taken over, it's all love and kisses. Will the real god, please stand up.
If you want to believe some nonsence, that's fine by me. But please don't try to convince other people with your silly logic.
Have a nice day.
What's really funny is...jesse1
Aug 18, 2003 11:43 AM
...trying to get someone, anyone, to explain how the eye evolved. If we evolved from the single cell swimming in primordial soup, how did the eye evolve (just for one example)?
Something inside it must have determined that at some point the creature would need to see. So over time(eons?),some kind of "opening" would begin to develope, at the same time that a sphere of some kind of liquid, with a retina and optic nerve to follow. And naturally the area of the brain to process all this. Does this really sound plausible? How would this creature know to grow an eye and not a foot?
And in addition, if we finally evloved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
Your understanding of evolution is pretty flawed.czardonic
Aug 18, 2003 11:57 AM
    "Something inside it must have determined that at some point the creature would need to see."

Incorrect. Evolution does not happen when and organism "decides" that it needs a new feature. Random features that happen to provide an advantage in breeding naturally become more common. Being able to react to light seems an obvious advantage.
    "So over time(eons?),some kind of "opening" would begin to develope"

Why would you assume that? Why couldn't it have been a covering that developed to protect a relatively sensitive organ. Such mutations would clearly provide an evolutionary advantage.
    "How would this creature know to grow an eye and not a foot? "

Again, you are not even in the ball park as far as evolutionary theory.
    "And in addition, if we finally evloved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

Because there are still habitats where monkeys can be monkeys and thrive.
Unfortunatly, we may live to see more evolution53T
Aug 19, 2003 8:56 AM
"Because there are still habitats where monkeys can be monkeys and thrive."

-for now
understanding evolution theoryDougSloan
Aug 18, 2003 12:03 PM
Evolution does not take place by genes mutating in response to a need. In other words, there was no organism that "needed" to see, so that its genes mutated and created a being with eyes.

Rather, as I understand it, beings with and without eyes existed. The eyes, at that point, may have been nothing more than some nerve endings that were stimulated by light. They, then, were more successful at reproducing themselves. Over eons, the same pattern of events occurred, such that more and more complex beings and tissues became better able to reproduce compared to the "lesser qualified" beings.

The theory requires millions of years and billions of generations for complex beings to evolve. Along the way, there must have also been billions of other beings existing that were not successful in reproducing in sufficient numbers to further evolve or survive so that we, now, can discover them.

It's not at all unlikely that more and less successful species could survive, such as humans and monkeys. Besides, chances are, in evolution theory, humans did not evolve from what we know to be monkeys/primates, but rather both likely had a common ancestor and the further evolved along different branches of the genetic tree.

Evolution theory is not necessarily inconsistent with Biblical accounts, either, unless you take Genesis very literally.

perhaps god is a single celled protoplasm? nmrufus
Aug 18, 2003 12:19 PM
I'd say the antithesis of that -- the sum of all the universe nmDougSloan
Aug 18, 2003 12:24 PM
I'd say he's the lighting in the primordial soup. (nm)czardonic
Aug 18, 2003 12:38 PM
Czar & Doug.jesse1
Aug 19, 2003 2:22 AM
As a matter of fact, I at one time (in my "evolution" of beliefs, which btw includes my personal StarTrek Theory, PRIOR to that show), thought that God had created all by evolution. And I still don't rule out that planets & stars evolved from hot spinning gasses. And I do see the points you've made about the theory of evolution - such as an eye was developed for the purpose of mating or/and was a nerve endings that may have responded to light. But why not creatures such as worms that have been around about as long as dirt (maybe not literally)? They do surface from time to time (as moles who have eyes)and would no doubt feel the radiant heat from the sun. Everything sounds too much like "design" to me.
As with the monkeys, earthworms exist in their current form. . .czardonic
Aug 19, 2003 9:32 AM
. . .because their is a habitat in which that form provides them an advantage in survival and procreation. Eyes and wings would not help them burrow around in the dirt.

Moreover, evolution happens on all levels, not just those that impress humans. What makes you think that earthworms of today have not evolved to increase the range of climates that they can survive in, or increase the range of nutrients that they can subsist on?
Science establishment is afraid of CreationistsContinental
Aug 18, 2003 1:00 PM
I agree that theory of evolution is full of holes and is probably wrong just as Newton's Laws of Gravity were wrong. Most of the science educators, especially teachers in public schools, are afraid to openly criticize evolutionary theories becuse they think that they need to maintain a united front against the Creationist, or the creationist will be teaching their myths in our schools. Real scientific debate about the origin life and the development of species is stifled because the Creationist have huge political power and an agenda to teach their fervent but absurd beliefs.
Hate to inform you but...lotterypick
Aug 18, 2003 1:25 PM
Intelligent Design is not taught in schools, the Ten Commandments are out, God is out, prayer is out, etc.

It's the humanists and their ACLU watchdog that makes sure of that.

Please complete your homework with your data shown. Then you would have easily known your statement was wrong.
You are missing the pointContinental
Aug 18, 2003 1:35 PM
Creationist apply constant pressure to get their agenda taught in schools. I have no doubt that this pressure from the religious right consolidates educators around the theory of evolution and stifles teaching and debate.

You're right. We've won many battles against the few fundementalist Christians who want to impose their agenda on all of us, but you blindly persist as True Believers.
I'm pretty scary when I first get up each morn. (nm)jesse1
Aug 19, 2003 2:26 AM
You guys are in a bottomless pit.OldEdScott
Aug 18, 2003 3:55 PM
Discussion with a True Believer.

A feckless undertaking.
Maybe, someone who just likes to argue?MR_GRUMPY
Aug 18, 2003 4:36 PM
I could care less if I convinced someone that my view of things were the "true way." What happens to the True Believer, if you take god out of the equation ????
Mr. Grumpy, may I ask the same of you?94Nole
Aug 19, 2003 4:47 AM
What happens to the Non-Believer, if you put God IN the equation? I know you ask, what business is it of ours, to care about what you do or not do, believe or not believe? You're right, it is none of our business.

Number me among the ignorant, but if those who refute the foundation of what we believe could only feel the love of a True and Living God, the things that Lottery spoke of, hearts and lives would change. Probably another foreign and unproven concept, that we call love. I guess that is another entire debate.

But then maybe many are content with the misery in which they exist. I know, as does Lottery, that the misery indeed does exist. I have lived it too. Maybe one should think sometimes with his heart.
Which god (or gods) ?????MR_GRUMPY
Aug 19, 2003 5:02 AM
If the "real" god is Mr Smite, I'm in big trouble. If the "real" god is Mr Nice, or one of the many others, I think that I'll be OK.
If it's true that the belief in gods is just a primitive hold over from times gone past, I'll be OK also.
Aug 18, 2003 4:37 PM dearth, paucity and malingering.... Words we don't exercise enough.

'Dearth, paucity and malingering.'OldEdScott
Aug 18, 2003 5:48 PM
Are you criticizing our MILITARY, young Scott??


HITLER would have said ...
'Dearth, paucity and malingering.'sn69
Aug 18, 2003 6:25 PM
Not at all; rather, I'm simply stating admiration for your choice of verbage. Personally, I often try to incorporate big, multi-syllabic words into all of my official paperwork. It tends to confuse the Boat Schoolers.

As for critizing our military? Hmmm. Sometimes I let my silence speak for me, other times I'm vocal. Mostly, however, this public forum isn't the right place...that and I'm doin' my best to keep faith with my buddies still over in that cess-pool.
I never criticize the grunts. I rarelyOldEdScott
Aug 19, 2003 5:13 AM
criticize the Generals, although in my view most Generals are insane. (There's nothing closer to a god on earth than a general on a battlefield, right? That's enough to make you insane, and in fact it might be asserted you have to BE insane to take the job.)

I save my criticism for the civilian leadership and the defense-industry complex, which is the biggest black hole of corruption, arrogance and stupidity this side of Rigel. I say this in the most non-partisan way too. 'Twas always thus.
Yup, although I hear Rigel cleaned itself up nicely. nmsn69
Aug 19, 2003 6:50 AM
Betelgeuse is still a scum-pit though. nmOldEdScott
Aug 19, 2003 6:58 AM
Bottomless, but not by design.53T
Aug 19, 2003 9:05 AM
As I explained here once before, the perserverance of this type of religeous belief is a product of evolution (and there students, we see a real live example of irony).

The religious edicts of Judeism, Christianity, Islam, and the druids and pagans before them, are key to the survival of early societies of pre-humans and humans. The social skills taught and enforced by religion allowed man to emerge as superior to other beasts, and thrive.
Ain't over 'till its over.czardonic
Aug 19, 2003 12:30 PM
While religion has benefited humanity by enforcing certain social norms, it has also attempts to inoculate man from adaptation -- a sure ticket to evolutionary oblivion.
I agree53T
Aug 20, 2003 5:24 PM
"When stupidity is no longer fatal, evolution stops."
- A bumper sticker

Religion does indeed protect the weakest rather than vanquish the weak, but the civil institutions that we have built on religious ideals do much the same, but with better funding.