Posted on 04/15/2003 at 03:34 PM
Lediah was my friend and you’re right, Deborah was brave to not blame everyone else for Lediahs accident. Lediah was one of those crazy kids who’d do anything for a good laugh, and the place where we live isnt very fun so he was constantly coming up with new ways to entertain us. I miss him a lot, R.I.P. LAS.
Posted on 04/15/2003 at 03:11 PM
Exactly! (and yes, it made perfect sense) This is something everyone should read! Well done!
While I do some research before I post my insane blathering, I do not consider myself the voice of authority on ANY subject, and do not consider myself objective enough to be a worthy journalist (not that objectivity seems to be all that important to journalism now days - Fox news). I like coming here and posting because it forces me to think and let’s me blow off steam and if I can draw anyone else into a debate (or shouting match) so much the better.
Yeah. *nodding head* Hey, enjoy that 80 degree weather, Les! Have a great one! 
You are preaching to the choir there brother.
I advocate a flat tax - no loopholes tax structure so EVERYONE has to shoulder the burden and pays according to their earnings. You or I might not ever be picking out $3000.00 shower curtains for a house in the Hamptons, but we also shouldn’t be paying the lion’s share of the tax revenue (which I base on a per capita percentage rate, not a strict dollar to dollar accounting). Obviously a large corporate entity will pay more in dollars and cents than (most) private individuals even while they pay a much smaller percentage. Companies like GM get corporate welfare and tax breaks to keep them in the U.S. in theory to supply jobs and keep the economy strong, but as long as they are enjoying the benefits from selling their products in our country they should also be paying their fair share like everyone else. Otherwise they are nothing more than extremely wealthy parasites.
That’s hard to say and I think a lot of that would depend on where you ask that question. Word has it that in Tikrit, which benefited greatly under Saddam’s rule, there were no cheering crowds welcoming the troops and the statues of Saddam still stand.
Those who were most oppressed will naturally welcome the removal of Saddam and it’s clear that there are large groups of people who were pretty heavily oppressed, but not everyone was oppressed and not everyone, even among the oppressed, is happy about the change.
Posted on 04/15/2003 at 08:52 AM
I do not have to much to say. I know one thing though, and that is our political counter parts need to address important issues. I know this. The budget cuts will have a great impact on the disabled. If they make the cuts they have planed, we will see more homeless people in the land of plenty. The working class are taking on the brunt of the tax load, while the rich have loop holes made easy by the government. If there is no changes soon, we are headed for some very rocky times, not that we have had them already. Man has surely dominated man to his injury. Thank you.
True they’re not happy about the looting and feeling that the US isn’t any better - but i’m sure if they were asked, “Would you like to return to how things were 6 months ago, or deal with this?” - they would go with the way things are… I’m sure what they’re adjusting to now is much better than the hell they were in…
That’s my attitude, too, regarding whether or not folks read my site. I figure it’s a release valve for me, more than anything else, and if other folks are willing to discuss things, then that’s more than fine by me.
We’re supposed to hit high 70’s, maybe 80, ourselves, today.
What happened to spring? We had snow last Monday!
Posted on 04/14/2003 at 06:49 PM
In a recent poll taken over who would make a better president, a box of lime flavored tic-tacs beat out our residing (read: residing as in just barely staying president because he’s gonna get us all blown up and be the president of fuck-all) president, George W. Bush by a 70/30% victory, with 17575 more votes than him. I daresay that unless anyone brings a above-average candidate to the next election, tic-tacs will be the winner by write-in. It isn’t enough that he has to make himself “feel like a real man” by bombing the shit out of people, but he acts all cowboy about it. A real cowboy would kick Bush’s ass outta office and run this country right. Then we would have a pirate V.P., and a ninja treasurer. Things would get done like that *snaps fingers*. No more communists trying to invade our country. North Korea (the REAL problem, you idoit Bush!) would be taken care of before they fucked us in the ass while we were looking in the wrong direction. Jesus, the next thing Bush is gonna do is open up ANWR. Not stopping there, of course, the great plains will be drilled for oil and the national symbol will become a bull with a cowboy hat and a pistol in its hand...hoof...thing. Woo… kinda was more of a rant there than anthing else… im gonna leave now…
the poll was taken from -http://maddox.xmission.com/tictacs.html
Posted on 04/14/2003 at 02:04 PM
I unfortunately moved to Texas almost eleven months ago. I have fought this bill and similar bills since they were announced in November 2002. I have testified at public hearings, written countless letters, lobbied elected officials in person and written letters-to-the-editor. I have been quoted in at least two major Texas newspapers and was briefly on TV the evening of the Senate hearing.
I have a 5th grader in the public schools and under no circumstances will she participate in any religious exercise that masquerades as a moment of silence. Nor will she pledge allegiance to the state of Texas, which has done its utmost to violate her first amendment rights. The thought of my child declaring any kind of loyalty to a state tyranny is ludicrous and I won’t allow it.
As for the mandatory national pledge: she isn’t doing that one either, thanks to two little words that force the reciting child to swear an oath to monotheism. My own protest long predates the 9th Circuit decision. I haven’t said the pledge on those grounds since 1971 and my daughter doesn’t say it either.
As for that “parental permission” clause. That’s a load of crap too. The 1943 SCOTUS West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette decision unequivocably ruled that no one can be forced to say the pledge, including children. States are using the permission clause to circumvent that 1943 landmark decision and I think it should be challenged. If a high school junior, for instance, feels that he cannot in all honesty say that pledge, but his parents don’t agree and won’t write a note, he will be forced to recite it or will be disciplined if he doesn’t. That is wrong.
Also, I have already informed my elected officials that my daughter will not observe a moment of silence either. That simply will not happen and if the school tries to impose discipline, I will take decisive action.
That one is tricky. The only way that a student can’t participate in a moment of silence is to stand outside the school building during the ceremony. Moving to another room won’t do it, because the kid is still technically observing the minute. If the ritual is performed at the beginning of the day, I will have to keep my child outside the school walls until it’s over. She will no doubt be listed as tardy. She is a straight-A Gifted and Talented student without a disciplinary blemish on record in any of the four states she has lived in so far, but I cannot in conscience comply with a law that is hostile to religious freedom and expression.
If the damn thing is signed into law before this school year is up, it could be in force immediately, in which case I will have to begin my civil disobedience campaign. Otherwise it will be implemented at the beginning of the next year. My child will not attend a Texas public school next year. I have had all I can take of Texas.
This bill isn’t the only legislative attempt to trash church/state separation in Texas and impose un-American intrusions upon personal and private conscience. There are many other bills that have been approved by the originating chamber and will no doubt become law in this dispicable state. The religious extremists, or the “Texas Taliban,” as they are called here, run Texas now.
Posted on 04/14/2003 at 10:52 AM
I just have bloggerrhea; I’ve tried taking something for it, but it doesn’t help!
Thanks, though.
I was wondering how long it would be before I started attracting Comment Trolls. Looks like I need to find a nice big can of “Troll-B-Gone.”
Ahh, but as a warblogger told me yesterday, “It’s only been a month. Give it time.”
Yeesh.
Posted on 04/14/2003 at 09:18 AM
i think that fat people neet to peddle all day and quit being lazy. Jesus christ i feel sorry for their kids who have to be their slaves because they are lazy
Posted on 04/14/2003 at 08:53 AM
That’s the funniest thing I have heard all week.
Today is Monday, though.
Posted on 04/14/2003 at 08:46 AM
Yeah, I liked it too. Anybody know where i can download it?
Posted on 04/14/2003 at 08:44 AM
[snort] I nearly spit out my coffee on that one. Too true.
Posted on 04/14/2003 at 06:51 AM
if i had a chance to kill the son of a bitch i’d kill him slowly for the people he’s hurt!
Thanks to both of you for this information. Perhaps it’ll encourage more folks to get involved.
Still trying to organize protest about this, whether via letters, flyers, or an actual demonstration.
Come visit us at www.ChargePadilla.org, and help out.
At the very least, there’s advice on writing to your federal reps, and a link to an online petition.
Posted on 04/12/2003 at 06:03 PM
I have no clue where the right-wingers are coming from on the whole get-an-abortion-and-develop-breast-cancer thing. As for cloning I don’t think anyone (outside of a few fringe groups) is advocating for cloning as a form of reproduction, but the drive to ban all cloning of any kind for any reason could seriously impact a number of different potential medical breakthroughs.
If they can manage to clone your kidney, for example, you could be your own donor for a replacement should yours develop problems. Or heart for that matter. In theory the chance of rejection should be close to nil as it would be a clone of your own organs. The Bush administration would ban ALL research into cloning of any kind and that’s a bit shortsighted if you ask me.
And, ultimately, it won’t stop someone somewhere in the world from going through with a full-clone if it’s possible anyway.
Posted on 04/12/2003 at 03:16 PM
Hi Les It seems the more I learn, the less I know. Does that make sense? It makes me feel very disappointed in myself. I’ve always considered myself to be fairly enlightened about things ... but the more I read, the more I realize how wrong I was, and I don’t like what I’m learning. I haven’t read the rest of the article yet ... I’m not sure that I would be able to absorb it all at the moment (headache), but I will definitely read it when I can fully concentrate on what I’m reading. Regarding a couple of the issues addressed in your post—I don’t see how it’s possible that abortion could in any way cause breast cancer! That’s just stupid. And human cloning? Sorry, I have to agree with the position that it’s not a good thing. But then, I’m speaking from a mother’s perspective who had a hard time becoming a mother and considers the creation of human life as something akin to sacred. So there ya’ go! 
Posted on 04/12/2003 at 02:50 PM
A law compelling your allegiance and forcing you to observe a moment of silence… what will they force us to do next? What whim of the government will we be forced to comply with tomorrow? When did the people give up all of their rights so we could have such a wonderfully parental ruling body?
Posted on 04/12/2003 at 02:33 PM
As little as I feel like laughing after reading that article I am reminded of a Simpson’s episode where Dr. C. Everett Koop, former Surgeon General stood up and cried “She’s a witch!” when Lisa was blathering on about the science of pheromones. I laughed then because of the absurdity of the comment especially in the context that it was during a science convention. I worry that it will not be so funny in the very near future.
Posted on 04/12/2003 at 02:19 PM
No doubt they will rewrite the rules so the person giving the prayer has to be an elected or appointed head of a recognized religion. Atheism in that case, not being a religion, could then be excluded based on the law.
I can’t be more specific than that because the law needs to be vague enough that they can use it to exclude any religion they could paint as ‘unrecognized’.
Posted on 04/12/2003 at 02:12 PM
Well, if nothing else Bush is hell bent on making his mark on history. It is like we gave a monkey a gun and now that he figured out how to pull the trigger his only focus is on unloading it. Regardless of the damage he is causing.
Of course it didn’t help that after he stole the election there was very little challenge mounted against him. I feel that he is encouraged by the American publics lethargic reaction and will continue to push until he gets slapped down and shown what his limits are. Right now there aren’t enough people who care enough to stop him so I can’t wait to see what he tries to force on us next!
Posted on 04/11/2003 at 05:17 PM
gosh, soulmates!
just got an email with some silly “facts” and went to my favorite site - http://www.snopes.com - I just LOVE hitting reply all and posting the link that disproves the theory that deoderant causes cancer, or whatever the warning du jour is.
Found this site looking for something official-sounding about Alfred H.’s bellybutton.
didn’t realize there were so many others out there who don’t believe everything they read. I feel better about the future of the world!
Posted on 04/11/2003 at 01:30 PM
Now I just have to find out what movies it might be playing with. Hrm.
Posted on 04/11/2003 at 11:27 AM
Normally I avoid rushing out to see trailers, especially when I know that I still have a wait before it is out (LOTR being a notable exception). Now you got me wanting to go see this movie so damn bad! The FX get me wet. Oh wait, that was the olestra in the chips I had for lunch...gotta go!
Posted on 04/11/2003 at 09:44 AM
Ah, such witty and insightful banter. Nothing like brand-name snobs for insightful discourse.
Posted on 04/11/2003 at 07:10 AM
Ps2 sucks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It’s a very scary thing that is happening to that man. I blogged about it on March 30, after Sea Doc told me about it.
There’s a full article at
Please read www2.warblogging.com/archives/000582.php
Frightening.
Posted on 04/10/2003 at 08:34 PM
I didn’t even know, the first time I played Adventure, that those things WERE dragons. Now when I play it on my emulator, I constantly find myself thinking aloud “Somebody get this freakin’ duck away from me!” Good times.
Anyway, I absoultely LOVE homestarrunner.com It’s my top favorite site, and even though I’ve checked out all the archived stuff by now, I’m sure I missed a few hidden Easter eggs. And the stuff is so great, that even after you’ve found everything, and seen all the toons and Strong Bad e-mails, you’ll want to do it all again and again. Homestar and the gang reign supreme.
“Homestar Runner.Net....’It’s Dot Com’” -Homestar
Posted on 04/10/2003 at 07:54 PM
Yeah, Happy Tree Friends is one of those guilty little pleasures that I am never sure if I should be laughing at (kind of like the paraplegic or Leprosy jokes when I was a kid). However the HTF are MUCH funnier than those!
I always figured that the pretzel incident was widely known or I certainly would have shared it with you earlier. Just so you know I am not ridiculing him for choking on food, I have had my close calls with that, but I never ended up looking like I was robbed and beaten. Good god man, it’s a salty snack not Mike Tyson!
Posted on 04/10/2003 at 06:18 PM
Hey Les…
I haven’t had a chance to read all of your responses, but from what I’ve read it appears that all I can do at the level I’m at is pray for you. I know that you can reach the same truth I’m at if you do further research(being skeptical of all “realities")...but I doubt I can offer you any more help without having to spend time in more research myself. We can can go on forever claiming our realities are truth...your truth is your truth and my truth is my truth...and even though I know that my faith is more than just blind faith(as yours is as well)...you follow your faith(science) just as passionately as I follow mine(Christ), if not more than I do...so our conversation seems like it’s going to be a full time job, and I really don’t have any more time right now.
Maybe after I graduate here in a few weeks...I’ll come back and see how you’re doing(not to say that you need me or anything)...but as much as I’d love for you to be able to go beyond the wisdom of man and put faith, as an adult, in the Lord and experience what I’ve experienced...there’s only so much I can do, the rest is up to the Lord and your heart.
From your comments though...it is very obvious that you didn’t pay attention when you read the Bible...any of the 4 times, so you might try reading it again because you are way off on a few areas(Satan is not confined to hell yet, for one example where you’re off)...and I’ve only heard a very few areas from your standpoint and interpretation of the Bible.
God bless you Les...I’ll continue to pray for you, and I only hope that God will give you the same opportunity he gave my uncle to have someone pray for him as an intercessor just before he had to meet the Lord.
Take care and feel free to email me if you ever do encounter the Lord or have any questions that you think I might be able to find out for you. I’ve only been dedicated to the Lord less than a year and He’s already done amazing things in my life...but, I’m sorry that my purpose has not enlightened you and I’m sorry if I have taken up much of your time. I appreciate what you have taught me about Atheists and I can say I definitely learned a lot from our interaction. I learned that you’re all lost and haven’t got a clue...only kidding. Hope to hear from you in the future.
Posted on 04/10/2003 at 05:08 PM
I have a few moments to squeeze some more comments in so I’ll put them to good use. Let’s see, where were we?
I’ve heard your argument against Hovind about a million times…and that’s fine and everything, but he’s not the scientist doing the research to devastate evolution…he’s merely the educator, explaining what professional scientists and true science has taught him.
Considering that I can’t think of any scientists involved in the study of evolution who have suggested much of anything that “Dr.” Kent Hovind is putting forth as “the truth” I can only ask whom the good “Dr.” is using as his sources. About the only sources he credits on a regular basis are The Bible and other creationists. Show me, for example, a SINGLE geologist who is willing to claim that Loch Ness is big enough to hold 5 billion dead people completely under its surface. That number amounts to the majority of the Earth’s population, by the way. That’s just one glaring example of his tendency to just make shit up to support his argument. I can spew out nonsense theories all day too, but that doesn’t mean they should be taught in public schools or seriously considered by anyone in the field of study as something worth looking into.
He does make a few contradictions here and there and I’ve written to tell him about some, but he’s not perfect…he’s not God, and he never claims to be.
It’s not a question of whether he’s perfect or not and I honestly think that’s the last thing most people consider him to be. If anything I’m suggesting that he’s so flawed in his thinking as to make his theories complete rubbish.
As far as his arguments with Ken Ham…who cares? Ken Ham’s opinions of what arguments are valid and what are not are just his opinions.
Considering that these two fellows seem to be your primary source of study I’d imagine you would care, but it appears I may be wrong about that.
It doesn’t hurt to throw out theories or information if it’ll help stimulate the mind and get people to do more research.
Ah, this is where we get into defining a “good” theory versus a “bad” theory. The time and resources any particular scientist or group of scientists may have access to is finite. If they waste time pursuing every hypothesis they, or someone else, dreams up they may never get around to pursuing the ones that actually might lead somewhere. Part of the scientific process involves using deduction to try and weed out a bad hypothesis before trying to construct an experiment to test it. Part of that deductive process involves utilizing knowledge of what has come before in that field of study.
In short, simply saying “I have a theory that all humans are the creation of hyper-intelligent 14 dimensional beings that popped into this universe for a party and forgot to clean up afterwards before going back home” is not going to pass much muster as a “good” theory. By the same token simply saying “God did it” isn’t a good theory either.
Whenever psychologists run correlational studies which show two variables having a high positive correlation…no matter how strong the correlation, they can never conclude causation…all that the correlation can do is suggest that maybe there is a relationship between the variables.
Not sure how psychologists got into a debate on creationism/evolution, but OK, fair enough.
This stimulates the scientific arena to do further research to see if there is indeed a causal relationship between the variables. So if you didn’t get the point of all that I said there…all I’m basically saying is that Ken Ham disagrees with what Hovind uses as arguments, simply because he thinks that they aren’t as solid as other arguments. But I say that if Hovind has a little information about something that may stimulate further research…he shouldn’t be persecuted for bringing certain ideas to the surface.
Unless those ideas are patently ridiculous in light of what is already known about the field being studied. You act like the ideas Hovind and Ham are proposing are just minor quibbles on a larger theory when in fact they are demanding to have dogma (e.g. God did popped it all into existence by just thinking about it) that has no supporting evidence beyond what’s in the Bible taught as being equal to a theory that has had, literally, decades of research and evidence gathering backing it up. They’d prefer that it replaced the teaching of evolution, honestly, but barring that they demand that it at least be taught in addition to evolution. They’re not trying to spur further research, they’re trying to suppress what’s already been done and replace it with their own personal religious beliefs. When asked to back up their ideas with some form of hard data they resort to spurious arguments and plain old making shit up to try and justify it. Seriously, have you actually read an entire book by Hovind? Some of what he writes makes me wonder how he escaped from the looney bin.
You can dress a pile of shit up in a three piece suit, but it don’t get rid of the stink or make you wanna dance with it.
As a Bible believer…I like to seek out information that supports my beliefs, but I’m not biased to ignore information that challenges my beliefs either.
That’s fine if all you want to do is reinforce your beliefs, but it doesn’t make for good science. Every time a scientist allows his desire for something to be true override his objectivity in performing his experiments you end up with junk science. A scientist attempts to discover the truth, not invent it. A good one modifies his views to fit the facts, not the facts to fit his views. Neither Ken Ham nor Kent Hovind are good scientists or even science educators.
I like to hear both sides of the story. I believe that the Bible is infallible, but scientific theories that suggest or even prove otherwise will simply not be able to dilute my faith because of the personal experiences I’ve had with the Lord.
It would be easy to suggest here that you are reality-immune, but that would be an overly broad generalization. There are a number of Christians who accept the theory of evolution as true and just rationalize it away as being the mechanism through which God works, which is not an unreasonable point of view to take. I suspect that most creationists are driven more by a sense of hubris over the idea of “just being another animal” than any real evidence that creationism is true. That is just my personal speculation, however.
My only reason to study scientific theories and worldly knowledge now is because I don’t think it’s intelligent for Christians to preach to people that they should have blind faith and follow God, without being able to give a reason for their hope other than that they will be rewarded in heaven for it.
Some would argue that faith alone should be enough. Faith shouldn’t require proof. Science, however, does.
Blind faith works for me, but if I am to fulfill what Jesus has commanded me to do, which is go to the ends of the earth, to preach the gospel and make disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Sprit…I know I better have knowledge of what keeps people in doubt and serving other gods if I’m to make any impact in the lives of God’s lost children.
It would help, however, if you had a good counter-argument beyond what you’ve gotten from the likes of Ken Ham and Kent Hovind.
Jesus said whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it. You believed as a child because you didn’t have the lies of the world to sway your heart.
I believed as a child for the same reasons I believed in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy: Because I was told to believe in them by people I loved and trusted. The “lies of the world” had nothing to do with it. In the end Santa, the bunny and the fairy had provided more proof of their existence then God ever has and they all turned out to be myths. Believing in fairy tales as a child is fine, but as an adult I’d rather confront an uncomfortable truth than to continue to live a comfortable lie.
When you leaned on your own understandings and sought the knowledge of the world to explain your scriptural dilemmas…you were lead astray.
You obviously aren’t reading what I’ve written. You are once again trying to dictate to me how I handled the situation because you can’t accept the idea that I might have done everything I was taught a good Christian should do in times of doubt and it didn’t work. I leaned on God in the manner I had been instructed when my scriptural dilemmas surfaced and found there was nothing to lean on.
Unless you have that child-like faith…you can’t see the kingdom.
You know what strikes me as funny? The little elf girl in The Santa Clause says almost exactly the same thing to Tim Allen. Problem is, I’m not a child. I’m an adult. I can pretend to have child-like faith, but I’m not capable of it for real because I’m not a child.
Okay…now for the scripture you introduced as being unscientific…everyone knows that rabbits chew the cud, snails melt, and snakes eat dirt…duhh! j/k I’ve heard these arguments before, not paying much attention to them, but for you I’ll try my best to shed some light. As far as rabbits go it seems that they do chew the cud
Actually, they don’t. They do ingest dung and it is for a similar purpose, but that’s not the same thing. The phrase translated in the KJV of the Bible as ‘chew the cud’ is actually translated as ‘bring up the cud’ according to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Rabbits don’t bring up anything; they let it go all the way through, then eat it again. Considering that there is a perfectly acceptable Hebrew word for ‘dung’ (galal or gelel—again from Strong’s) one would think that they would have used it if that’s what they had meant. The truth is that rabbits do appear to chew cud and as such the people who wrote the Bible wrote what they thought was happening.
Assuming they even had knowledge of the fact that rabbits were actually eating their own dung, and again one would wonder why they wouldn’t say as much if they did know instead of likening it to what cows do, the fact that it’s done for a reason similar to why cows chew their cud would probably be lost on them as it’s only though modern knowledge of chemistry that we understand why. Knowledge they are unlikely to have held. At the very least you would think that God would have known one way or the other and dictated a more appropriate wording of the sentence, assuming it is the infallible word of God.
You’d also think the fact that rabbits eat their own shit would be reason enough to declare them as “unclean” without trying to confuse the issue. Been reading Dr. Norman Geisler’s When Critics Ask, eh?
Now for snails melting…the Psalms are supposed to be poetic, so I wouldn’t take everything literally…words are used as metaphors and expressions that stimulate a different dimension of thought. If poetry was all literal…it’d just be a story…and less interesting. There has been some poetry written today that is ridiculously unscientific...but that’s not the author’s intention. They’re trying to paint a picture lyrically...and maybe that picture worked for them back in the B.C.’s.
One of your sources, Ken Ham, believes the Bible is literal. Regardless it’s pretty common knowledge that, at the time, most folks believed snails did melt as they moved and they took as evidence for that belief the existence of empty shells.
Some have argued that Psalms was written without the divine inspiration of God, but as homage to him. Fine, but then what is it doing in a book that is supposedly the “word of God” to be used as a guidebook for your life for the next couple of thousand years? That’s like reading a VCR manual and suddenly having it include a haiku for no apparent reason.
And finally we come to the snakes that eat dirt. God never said that dirt would be the food for the snake…as if it would get all it’s nutrition from dirt. The meaning behind this scripture is that God cursed the animal that Satan chose to disguise himself as to show that Satan is indeed below all animals and when God said that we are to have dominion over all creation as we were created in God’s image, Satan will always be below us and have to submit to our authority…as long as we are living righteously for God…that’s why God told Satan that he will have to bow down so low and kiss the dirt…because he’s lower than the lowest creature. Thus he’ll always be “eating dirt” being that he’ll never be allowed to have dominion over any creation of God’s and have to be in that submissive state forever.
GEN 3:14; (KJV) And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
Dunno, sounds to me like God is saying the serpent will eat dust to me. Perhaps it was just the one snake and he’s dead now anyway. Probably didn’t take long with a diet like that. Incidentally, some of the newer versions of the Bible translate this as “lick the dust”, which at least can be passed off as semi-plausible.
As you know he was once God’s second in command and had great authority…so this curse upon Satan is quite a devastating blow of perpetual punishment.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t Satan already damned to Hell? How is the above a more devastating punishment than being damned to Hell?
Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understandings. When you start to doubt God’s word by your own understanding without first asking God for clarification…you trust yourself more than God and that’s not very wise…considering He is all knowing.
Again you are assuming that I didn’t trust in the Lord with all my heart at one time or that I didn’t ask God for clarification. Ask, hell, I practically begged for it at the height of my confusion.
Don’t expect clarification by your timing either…if it’s important He’ll reveal it to you.
How long should I wait? Will he bother to clarify it before the end of my life? What could be more important than catching a soul on the verge of losing his faith who’s begging for clarification from the God he believes to exist? I have two conclusions to draw from your statements: 1) God doesn’t consider my faith or my soul important or 2) God doesn’t exist in the first place. Either possibility is equally plausible I suppose, but I can’t think of what I might have done to piss God off so I’ll have to assume it’s number 2.
These scriptures are very irrelevant to the main message of the Bible.
Perhaps, but they are very good examples of why the Bible is not a good starting point when proposing scientific theories. This is the point I was making when I quoted those passages.
Look at the big picture, not the minor details. Humans don’t know everything…we don’t even know half of everything…and if you allow details like this to jeopardize your faith…you’re not looking at the big picture…you’re focusing on the details that make it impossible to tell what you’re looking at.
I have looked at the Bible from a number of viewpoints, including both macro and micro. It was that exploration that led me away. What part of that can’t you understand? Here you are suggesting that I ignore details in favor of the big picture which to me sounds the same as saying “don’t look too closely or you’ll lose your faith.” If the Bible is the infallible word of God then one would think that the more one looks at the details the more one’s faith would be strengthened by the beauty of its infallibility. Careful study shouldn’t destroy the very thing the Bible is purported to build: Faith.
I’ll take a look at Gould’s book this summer and see what he has to say about evolution. Since you gave me a review about the Case for Christ…here’s a review about The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. In the mean time…have you read Darwin’s Black Box?
I have not read Darwin’s Black Box as of yet. If I get some spare time I may look into it.
So you really think that the Big Bang theory isn’t an evolutionary theorist explanation of origins?
I have yet to hear someone giving a lecture on evolution bother to bring it up and most Universities teach each subject as part of a different course. As far as I am aware they are considered separate and distinct fields of study.
I understand that biology instructors will not necessarily give a lecture on the Big Bang…but if they believe in evolution, call me crazy, but I guarantee they’re not going to say God created the heavens and the earth...and I really doubt they would say, “Gee, I never thought about it…let’s go ask a cosmologist”. C’mon Les…
Whether or not a biology instructor has an opinion one way or the other on the Big Bang theory doesn’t make said theory an extension of, are a part of, the theory of evolution. I’m sure if you looked hard enough you’d find several biology instructors who do believe God created everything as well as some Cosmologists who don’t buy into the theory of evolution.
After all, didn’t you say that Kent Hovind was a science teacher for 15 years? He obviously doesn’t buy into either theory and yet he managed to hold a job teaching science.
I had a lot more to say initially when I was in deep contemplation of what to write back in response…but I think that’s good for now. Finally, I’d just like to remind you that man is definitely fallible, and Socrates, being one of the most brilliant minds in history said that if he knew anything…it was that he knew nothing at all.
I would like to remind you that I have not once in this entire discussion implied that I felt man was infallible or that we held all the answers and I’d really appreciate it if you’d stop reminding me of things I am already well aware of and which I have not contested.
The whole friggin’ point of science is the pursuit of understanding the unknown! If we held all the answers there’d be no friggin’ NEED for science. This is another basic concept that some people just don’t seem to understand.
As you are so skeptical about the Bible’s truth and the existence of God(actually doesn’t atheism claim, beyond doubt, that there is no God whatsoever…hence making you different from an agnostic?), I sure hope you have the same skepticism towards science…especially that which is only known as a theory.
Depends on how detailed a definition you want to get into about atheism. Agnosticism is referred to by some as “weak” atheism whereas “atheism” is referred to as “strong atheism.” Some strong atheists do claim there is no doubt that God doesn’t exist, but that point of view in my eyes is about as useful as the person who claims the existence of God is undeniable. Both are laying claim to definitively knowing something that can’t be, by definition, known positively.
Most atheists define atheism as “The absence of belief in a God or Gods.” That’s how I define my stance. I am not arrogant enough to claim I can possibly know for certain one way or the other anymore, but based on the facts I have at hand and my own personal experiences I have no reason beyond wishful thinking to hold a belief in the idea of a God or Gods.
I have the same skepticism towards any idea that lays claim to concepts that are “supernatural” or “paranormal” of which God is only one such idea. I hold psychics under the same glaring scrutiny I hold creationists or the UFO nuts or practitioners of homeopathy or American Idol fans. OK, that last bit isn’t true. I try my best not to think about American Idol fans.
Allow me to address your last sentence: especially that which is only known as a theory. You say this as though the status of being a “theory” somehow diminishes the likelihood of it being true.
A theory, by definition, is “a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.”
Gravity is “just a theory” and I again welcome anyone who thinks that something being “just a theory” reduces its likelihood of being true to jump off of a building or two until they gain a little enlightenment. Pretty much ALL of science is “just a theory” with some “theories” being more widely accepted than other “theories.” Over the years the number of once highly regarded “theories” that have ended up being completely scrapped when faced with some new “theory” that had completely overwhelming evidence in support of it is innumerable. NO theory or law in science is beyond reconsideration in the light of new knowledge EVER. As an example: While large chunks of Einstein’s special theory of relativity have been repeatedly tested and shown to have good evidence in support of them there are whole OTHER sections that have been all but abandoned because they have not withstood the passage of time and the advancement of knowledge. The passing of his incorrect theories in no way diminishes the impact of his correct theories, but even they can be subject to question if new evidence should give cause to do so.
This is diametrically opposed to how religion deals with new ideas wherein more often than not facts are bent to fit the beliefs of the particular religion and when they can not be bent they are suppressed. Christianity in particular has had to be dragged kicking and screaming through every major advance in scientific understanding in history and the battle over “Intelligent Design” is just one more example of it clinging desperately to dogma past the point of reason. It’s no different than when it was first discovered that the Earth moves around the Sun instead of being the center of the Universe. Back when the Christians first took over Rome one of the first things they did was destroy the aqueducts because they were “heathen” and “pagan” and they set themselves and that empire back almost 500 years bringing back a life of filth and disease that killed them off by the thousands before they realized that bathing just might be a good idea. Of course that’s the kind of thinking you get when you go through life without questioning things.
I would also like to point out that you’ve been hyping the creationism viewpoints of Ken Ham and “Dr.” Kent Hovind as being valid theories despite the rather dismissive attitude you appear to have towards things that are “just theories.” Isn’t that a little self-defeating?
Posted on 04/10/2003 at 05:07 PM
I am shocked to discover I am missing out on critical and highly impactful news! How come no one told me about this pretzel incident???
Posted on 04/10/2003 at 01:22 PM
As appalled as I am at the fact that they’re trying to make the Patriot Act permanent I still have to admit that I was rolling on the floor over Happy Tree Friends.
Posted on 04/10/2003 at 12:02 PM
Either have “none” or “all…
Either No religious leader/chaplin or a a team of them: one Christian, one Buddist, one Muslim, One Jewish, one Hindu, and at least one other Pagan Faith Leader. All or none, simple… be tolerate and respectful of all or leave each to his own…
Oh joy… IS joy normally accompanied by cold shirvers?
“Oi”
just “oi”
Posted on 04/10/2003 at 11:54 AM
err… “very” not every, but you get the idea.
Posted on 04/10/2003 at 11:53 AM
Be afraid, every afraid…
i am:-(
My personal favorite was the crucifixion of Jesus with the banner line - Death ruled “carpentry accident”. Exactly the kind of reporting I would expect to find on Fox.
Ooh, great follow-up piece. I only saw the original last night via Atrios. Damn, and he stands by his remarks?
This is a powder keg ready to explode.
Yeah, the “apparent suicide” had me howling with laughter. It’s so dead-on.
I also loved Geraldo giving away the plans regarding the Trojan Horse.
Posted on 04/10/2003 at 06:59 AM
I understand your contempt for Ken Ham and Kent Hovind…they are pretty radical, but definitely not the only means of my information. I listed them because they are science educators.
Considering some of the statements they have made I disagree with your assessment that they are “science” educators. They are certainly religious educators, but science is not something they promote.
They research the information and supply it for those who want the truth or at least have an open mind to accept another possible theory.
Your statement implies here that these two men are the only ones promoting “the truth.” Again, I would disagree with that statement. Perhaps they are promoting what they “believe” to the truth, but that’s about all the credit I’d be willing to give them.
Dr. Hovind has his degree in education and that’s all he should be expected to do…educate. Sooo many people bash his doctorate and university in attempt to discredit everything he says.
Let’s set the record straight: Kent Hovind’s PhD, according to the University itself, is in Christian Education, not just Education or even Science Education. The question of his credentials is a valid one if you’re serious about accepting his statements as worthwhile with regard to a scientific proposition. Hovind doesn’t just try to educate, he attempts to put forth his own theories and he demands they be accepted as being as valid as any evolutionist’s theories.
Patriot is accredited only by the American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions, which Steve Levicoff in Name It and Frame It: New Opportunities in Adult Education, and How to Avoid Being Ripped off by ‘Christian’ Degree Mills classifies as an “accrediting mill” (Levicoff, Chapter 12). The US Dept of Education does not recognize AAATI as an accrediting agency (US Dept of Education, September 1998, p 28). Hovind´s PhD clearly does not meet even minimally respectable academic standards.
Having said that I do agree that not having a valid degree doesn’t mean that someone can’t make a meaningful contribution to a field of study. However “Dr.” Kent Hovind tends to throw his status as a PhD around as though it actually means something and if he insists it does then it makes the question of who granted that PhD and how worthwhile that degree happens to be a very valid one. Especially so if that person is proposing theories radically opposed to what most scientists in that field are currently supporting. This isn’t simply bashing, this is a valid consideration.
The problem with this argument is that he’s not the scientist coming up with his information. All he does is research scientific information and make it available. He cites his resources and I’d say does a very good job at teaching.
From what I’ve seen his research is somewhat flawed. I don’t dispute that he may be a very good teacher, it’s what he is teaching that I am questioning.
He was a science teacher for 15 years…and I’d say that’s enough experience to have credibility as an educator…regardless of his doctorate.
As an educator? Perhaps, though we don’t know what his record as a science teacher may be without checking with the school(s) he taught at. As a scientist claiming that evolution is completely wrong? Sorry, 15 years as a science teacher doesn’t qualify as a good reason to discredit a whole field of study simply because it conflicts with the Bible.
He never claims his doctorate to be in science, and he never claims to be the originator of all his information…he makes it clear what his theories are and what the scientific facts are.
Let’s take a closer look at some of the “scientific facts” that Dr. Hovind likes to throw around. All of the following are taken from his book Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution.
- The Smithsonian Institute [sic] has 33,000 sets of human remains in their basement ... Many of them were taken while the people were still alive. They were so desperate to find missing links, so desperate to prove their theory that they murdered people to prove it. It was the philosophy of evolution that drove them (Hovind, Ch 4).
That’s quite a claim he’s making here. That officials as the Smithsonian engaged in murder to prove Evolution? Better get the police involved.
- Five billion people [yes, he says billion] could drown in Loch Ness, and no one would show above the surface. It is a big lake. . . . As of the 1960s, there were over 9,000 sightings of the Loch Ness Monster. Today, there have been over 11,000 such sightings (Hovind, Ch 2).
Evolution isn’t real, but the Loch Ness monster is? And he thinks the lake is big enough to hold 5 billion people without a trace?
- The Trail of Tears was where the Cherokee Indians were driven out of the Chattanooga area all the way to Oklahoma. ... Evolution is responsible for what happened to the Indians. How any Indian can believe in evolution just blows my mind. ... [T]he evolution theory is what destroyed them (Hovind, Ch 4).
That bit still boggles the mind. I have no idea what it is he’s trying to prove with that one. Let alone the fact that The Trail of Tears occurred in America in the 1830s. Darwin´s The Origin of Species was not published in England until 1859. History, obviously, is not what “Dr.” Hovind has his PhD in.
- I believe the Great Pyramid was built to be the Bible in stone. The Egyptians did not build it. (Hovind, Ch 6).
No, of course not. The Raelians did. You can ask them yourself.
- Adam and Eve probably had hundreds of children. They lived 800 years, and one could have a lot of children in 800 years (Hovind, Ch 6).
And he has the scientific facts to back that statement up too. I suppose this means that incest should be OK, doesn’t it? I mean, who the hell else were they having sex with?
- There has been research that indicates nearly all homosexuals come from families that have a weak father figure, and a dominant mother ... research shows that there is a social link where the children are raised to be wimps or whatever (Hovind, Ch 6).
Research directly disputes that fact. Regardless, it’s hardly a condemnation of evolution.
- My first question [to God, after Hovind goes to heaven], believe it or not, will be, ´Did Adam and Eve have a belly button?´ I don´t know why, but that has bothered me for years (Hovind, Ch 6).
It’s good to see he wants to answer the really important questions.
- The only book that I have read that really struck home with me giving a possible explanation for UFOs was . . .The Cosmic Conspiracy by Stan Deyo. . . . Deyo, a Christian, is a genius who wrote the book way over my head. . . . He says that Satan has always used that mode of transportation to get around because the devil can only be at one place at one time . . . I do not know if it is true, but it is an interesting theory (Hovind, Ch 6).
But of course, anything not a miracle from God must be the Devil out to fool people. The Raelians are going to be pissed.
I am out of time this morning to take this any further, but I will attempt to pick up from where I’ve left off later.
Posted on 04/10/2003 at 12:23 AM
I understand your contempt for Ken Ham and Kent Hovind…they are pretty radical, but definitely not the only means of my information. I listed them because they are science educators. They research the information and supply it for those who want the truth or at least have an open mind to accept another possible theory. Dr. Hovind has his degree in education and that’s all he should be expected to do…educate. Sooo many people bash his doctorate and university in attempt to discredit everything he says. The problem with this argument is that he’s not the scientist coming up with his information. All he does is research scientific information and make it available. He cites his resources and I’d say does a very good job at teaching. He was a science teacher for 15 years…and I’d say that’s enough experience to have credibility as an educator…regardless of his doctorate. He never claims his doctorate to be in science, and he never claims to be the originator of all his information…he makes it clear what his theories are and what the scientific facts are. I’ve heard your argument against Hovind about a million times…and that’s fine and everything, but he’s not the scientist doing the research to devastate evolution…he’s merely the educator, explaining what professional scientists and true science has taught him. He does make a few contradictions here and there and I’ve written to tell him about some, but he’s not perfect…he’s not God, and he never claims to be.
As far as his arguments with Ken Ham…who cares? Ken Ham’s opinions of what arguments are valid and what are not are just his opinions. It doesn’t hurt to throw out theories or information if it’ll help stimulate the mind and get people to do more research. Whenever psychologists run correlational studies which show two variables having a high positive correlation…no matter how strong the correlation, they can never conclude causation…all that the correlation can do is suggest that maybe there is a relationship between the variables. This stimulates the scientific arena to do further research to see if there is indeed a causal relationship between the variables. So if you didn’t get the point of all that I said there…all I’m basically saying is that Ken Ham disagrees with what Hovind uses as arguments, simply because he thinks that they aren’t as solid as other arguments. But I say that if Hovind has a little information about something that may stimulate further research…he shouldn’t be persecuted for bringing certain ideas to the surface.
As a Bible believer…I like to seek out information that supports my beliefs, but I’m not biased to ignore information that challenges my beliefs either. I like to hear both sides of the story. I believe that the Bible is infallible, but scientific theories that suggest or even prove otherwise will simply not be able to dilute my faith because of the personal experiences I’ve had with the Lord. My only reason to study scientific theories and worldly knowledge now is because I don’t think it’s intelligent for Christians to preach to people that they should have blind faith and follow God, without being able to give a reason for their hope other than that they will be rewarded in heaven for it. Blind faith works for me, but if I am to fulfill what Jesus has commanded me to do, which is go to the ends of the earth, to preach the gospel and make disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Sprit…I know I better have knowledge of what keeps people in doubt and serving other gods if I’m to make any impact in the lives of God’s lost children. Jesus said whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it. You believed as a child because you didn’t have the lies of the world to sway your heart. When you leaned on your own understandings and sought the knowledge of the world to explain your scriptural dilemmas…you were lead astray. Unless you have that child-like faith…you can’t see the kingdom.
Okay…now for the scripture you introduced as being unscientific…everyone knows that rabbits chew the cud, snails melt, and snakes eat dirt…duhh! j/k I’ve heard these arguments before, not paying much attention to them, but for you I’ll try my best to shed some light. As far as rabbits go it seems that they do chew the cud. Now for snails melting…the Psalms are supposed to be poetic, so I wouldn’t take everything literally…words are used as metaphors and expressions that stimulate a different dimension of thought. If poetry was all literal…it’d just be a story…and less interesting. There has been some poetry written today that is ridiculously unscientific…but that’s not the author’s intention. They’re trying to paint a picture lyrically…and maybe that picture worked for them back in the B.C.’s. And finally we come to the snakes that eat dirt. God never said that dirt would be the food for the snake…as if it would get all it’s nutrition from dirt. The meaning behind this scripture is that God cursed the animal that Satan chose to disguise himself as to show that Satan is indeed below all animals and when God said that we are to have dominion over all creation as we were created in God’s image, Satan will always be below us and have to submit to our authority…as long as we are living righteously for God…that’s why God told Satan that he will have to bow down so low and kiss the dirt…because he’s lower than the lowest creature. Thus he’ll always be “eating dirt” being that he’ll never be allowed to have dominion over any creation of God’s and have to be in that submissive state forever. As you know he was once God’s second in command and had great authority…so this curse upon Satan is quite a devastating blow of perpetual punishment. Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understandings. When you start to doubt God’s word by your own understanding without first asking God for clarification…you trust yourself more than God and that’s not very wise…considering He is all knowing. Don’t expect clarification by your timing either…if it’s important He’ll reveal it to you. These scriptures are very irrelevant to the main message of the Bible. Look at the big picture, not the minor details. Humans don’t know everything…we don’t even know half of everything…and if you allow details like this to jeopardize your faith…you’re not looking at the big picture…you’re focusing on the details that make it impossible to tell what you’re looking at.
I’ll take a look at Gould’s book this summer and see what he has to say about evolution. Since you gave me a review about the Case for Christ…here’s a review about The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. In the mean time…have you read Darwin’s Black Box?
So you really think that the Big Bang theory isn’t an evolutionary theorist explanation of origins? I understand that biology instructors will not necessarily give a lecture on the Big Bang…but if they believe in evolution, call me crazy, but I guarantee they’re not going to say God created the heavens and the earth...and I really doubt they would say, “Gee, I never thought about it…let’s go ask a cosmologist”. C’mon Les…
I had a lot more to say initially when I was in deep contemplation of what to write back in response…but I think that’s good for now. Final
<< Back to main or Click to go to this entry.