A zombie in possession of brains must be in want of more brains »« Sarah Palin’s farewell speech, as read by William Shatner

A war on many fronts

I’m promoting my own comments elsewhere in conversation with Zdenny to a post proper, because they are large enough and have enough links as to merit their own post. The main reason I promote this line of argumentation is that the fronts on which we battle are so varied and diverse as to cover a hell of a lot more ground than the original post, which was a mere Youtube video. That earlier post is here. I will also take snippets from the original comment thread, wherein I feel Zdenny has either conceded the point or has neglected to sufficiently respond. I will also attempt to sort them by topic.

I congratulate you, Zdenny. You’re putting forth a decent effort. However, you’re not answering all my charges, and this usually implies to an outside observer that the points that are missed, are either too strong to directly attack, or are being conceded. In the event that I miss any of yours, please do not misconstrue me as conceding the point unless I outright say so.

Additionally, you need to learn to provide supporting evidence of your positive claims, even if it’s just a link to a website that you got the argument from. These criticisms only come from a desire to shape you into someone worth debating against, because otherwise the repetitive nature of your arguments gets on peoples’ nerves.

abortion

Since 1960 the seculars have dominated our society and as a result America has ended the lives of 60 million kids through abortion. Secularism is dangerous!

Here are some assertions that you have to prove in order to have any credibility with this claim. First, prove that these abortions were done by secularists. Second, prove that these abortions were unnecessary (or at least in what percentage they were not medically indicated). Third, prove that these abortions would not have happened otherwise (e.g. by illegal abortion methods). Fourth, prove that these fetuses that were aborted were viable to begin with (as in, they weren’t aborted for medical reasons, such as because they had no brains or no heart or no head). Fifth, prove that this abortion rate is at all on the increase (as evidence suggests abortion in the US has declined since the 1960s significantly). Sixth, prove that this supposed increase in abortion rate is due to secularism (which will be hard since abortion is on the decline). These assertions are for you to prove. Not us.

Additionally, what does the bible say about abortion?

Abortion is not murder. A fetus is not considered a human life.

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. — Exodus 21:22-23

The Bible places no value on fetuses or infants less than one month old.

And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. — Leviticus 27:6

Fetuses and infants less than one month old are not considered persons.

Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD. — Numbers 3:15-16

And that’s not even showing all the instances on that page where God His Damn Self either ordered the abortion or caused it by his own magical sky hand.

Christians support adult stem cells; however, they are against ending the life of a fetus who has a unique sequence of DNA by which it is defined for life.

Are you therefore against fertility treatment, where a number of embryos are created and the best one(s) are implanted, then the remainder taken to the incinerator? At what point do you define a fetus as a baby, and a baby as alive? How many cells does it take to call it alive? What criteria do you use to suggest that the baby is viable? Is it mere blood coursing through the veins? Are you also against abortion when the baby is already potentially dead or dying (e.g. born with spina bifida or anencephaly), and the birth could kill the mother? If you are pro life, you must always choose the course of action that will save the largest number of people. Why kill the mother just to avoid aborting an already dead (though it still has a heartbeat, up until after birth) child?

Additionally, if you’d prefer to save the most lives (as the pro-life position would imply), is it acceptable to sacrifice a small cluster of cells that does not yet have any human features, in order to research how to save untold millions of humans’ lives later? Is it acceptable to condemn everyone in the future with a disease to death, because we’re unwilling to perform research on a blastocyst of cells that is otherwise due for incineration anyway? Is it more acceptable to incinerate that blastocyst that was rejected from the fertility treatment rather than also inspecting it for its potential ability to save lives later, or is it more acceptable to consider fertility treatment a form of mass murder where ten lives are started then stopped just to get one or two going “for real”, and deny that it happen at all?

rape

Classic mistake! The Bible descriptions of what happened are not prescriptions for us. If a newspaper records a rape, does that mean that the newspaper is recommending it?

Your being a dishonest with Scripture.

Lemme get this straight. God rewarding and sparing Lot for allowing his daughters to be raped, substituting his innocent and defenseless daughters for God’s holy soldiers that are probably ethereal and not able to be cornholed to begin with, is not proof that God’s okay with rape? How about, then, the bible setting out the rule that if a woman is raped, she is to be afterward married by the rapist (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)? How about Deuteronomy 22:23-24, where if a woman who is married, is raped inside a city, both she and the rapist are to be stoned to death, the woman because she obviously must not have screamed loud enough to get rescued (seriously, what the fuck?). How about Judges 5:30, where God approves of the taking of women as spoils of war? How about Zechariah 14:1-2, where God actively assists in women being taken and “ravished” as spoils of war? Or Exodus 21:7-11, where God sets out the rules for selling your daughter as a sex slave?

Who’s being dishonest with scripture? The fact that we atheists do not believe in any revealed scripture as being unvarnished truth and are capable of seeing these passages for what they are, and yet you, who believes in your Bible as inerrant revealed truth, make apologies for and claim dishonesty in others who point out what your God condones and condemns, suggests to me that you have to be on the outside of your religion in order to be honest about it.

homosexuality

No one can argue that homosexuality is not destructive to the individual themselves. They have very high suicide rates. We don’t wish this lifestyle upon anyone because it is opposed to God’s design for their life. We even say this out of love for them based on our common humanity.

If you were told all your life that what you are, your very nature, is evil and sinful and wrong, you would have the same level of cognitive dissonance that causes suicide to be higher. I think that puts religious folks like you at fault for the higher suicide rates. Imagine for a moment that one person’s interpretation of an ambiguous Bible quote, considered blonde-haired folks to be sinful and claimed that God said they must dye their hair brown in order to be right with the Lord. Of course, dying one’s hair doesn’t change the fact that their hair is naturally blonde — they are merely pretending to be brunettes to appease you. And I say you, not the Lord, since the Lord if he exists loves everyone equally regardless of how he made them, and since he made them blonde, it’s kind of his own fault.

Now, in my example, imagine that being blonde felt good and right, but being brunette felt false and wrong. Yet, you scrupulously died your hair every single morning to keep any hint of roots from showing. Then one morning you were tired of it, and you decided to skip a day. On that day, someone noticed your blonde roots, beat the hell out of you, tied you to a fence and left you to die. All because you have naturally blonde hair. This is what’s happening to gays. They are being discriminated against, hurt, and killed, all because they are naturally something different from you. This is what that hate crime law is for — not to keep your preachers from standing at the pulpits and saying that blondes are evil and sinful, but to keep people from going out and hurting and maiming and killing everyone who has blonde hair just because they have blonde hair. The fact that any blonde is equally a target makes it a hate crime.

And guess what? People only get the idea that being blonde is bad because some guy is standing at the pulpit flogging his interpretation of an ambiguous Bible quote that suggests that blondes are bad. While I’d argue that hate speech is horrible, I’d never argue that people who perform hate speech should be thrown in jail just for that. Otherwise, pretty well every one of us who disagrees with another’s position could be thrown in jail for daring to speak out against one another. That bill that you’re fighting so strongly is about people hurting others physically. It is about stopping the terrorism (by which I mean, hurting a member of a group to make the rest of the group fear the same violence) that intolerance breeds. It is not about stopping the intolerance itself.

cosmology / astronomy

Cosmology is certainly not settled science.

Nothing in science is settled. Science is not a dogmatic religion wherein a science textbook was written two thousand years ago and people have been massaging the evidence to fit that textbook ever since. Science is, by definition, the study of how the universe actually works and the development of mathematical equations or theories that accurately predict how certain events unfold, and as new and better evidence becomes available, the alteration of these equations and theories until such point that they make accurate predictions in as many cases as possible. It would be like if every Christian were to peer-review and contribute to the writing and rewriting of every aspect of the Bible until the Bible agreed with all available evidence and didn’t make claims that had to be taken on faith alone.

In fact, we have not even observed a star being formed in the universe.

The tools with which we peer through the shroud of nebulae are improving exponentially. We have observed stellar formation in our own galaxy, though we cannot yet observe stellar formation in other galaxies. That we don’t see stars popping out of nothing instantaneously is actually proof against an interventionist God, and another trope along the lines of “why don’t we see fossils of a half-man-half-monkey” — it is a handwaving obfuscation of the actual theory and outright refutation of the evidence.

With 100 trillion observed stars in our galaxy, and roughly as many in the observable galaxies of our corner of the universe, there’s a lot of stuff to see. Much of the star formation has probably already happened and is slowing down now, but it’s fascinating that there’s still a lot going on in pretty well every “star factory” we’ve observed. This might give us a projection for how many billions of years we have until the entropic heat-death of the universe. Of course, that projection may be grossly inaccurate, the chances of us surviving til the end of the universe as a species are pretty slim.

The age of a star is based on presuppositions that haven’t been proven.

You can’t “prove” anything in science, at all. Ever. You can make observations and develop equations and theories that fit the available evidence. You can derive a close approximation of the truth in much the same way that one guesses-and-tests numbers in order to hand-derive the square root of a number. Try deriving the square root of 2 by hand, and see how long it takes you to get it exactly right and determine that it ends successfully, or when you decide “that’s close enough for me”. Compare this with a 2000-year-old book claiming the square root of 2 is exactly 1.2 — close by varying degrees of the word “close”, but definitely nowhere near accurate. Science is striving toward a perfect understanding of the universe, but whether a perfect understanding can ever be achieved, it’s getting a hell of a lot closer than your old book, the basis on which you believe you have “perfect understanding” of the nature of the universe.

Additionally, the estimates of a star’s age are derived from how luminous it is, how large it is, how it moves in space, and its composition, all of which are not presupposed but rather can be tested from here on Earth or out in space by our tools which improve, as I said, by the day. Read the Wikipedia article for our current knowledge on stars and stellar formation — it seems to be relatively thorough and I haven’t yet seen anything in this article that disagrees with my intro-level university astronomy course, so I’d wager it’s a pretty good and accurate account of the state of our level of science.

Their is a ton of evidence that the universe may be young

No. There isn’t. I’m sorry, there just isn’t. All the evidence available to us presently points to a very old universe when taken in toto, rather than cherry-picked for what’s most convenient to someone trying to fit the square evidence available into the round hole of the bible.

various sciences

In archaeology, there never has been a finding that disagreed with the Bible. Still hitting perfect in this field.

Off the top of my head, what about the Canaanite city Ai that Joshua supposedly destroyed? Would this not leave some measure of archaeological evidence to be discovered at its supposed site, et-Tell? So why didn’t it? Could it rather be that authors of the Bible knew stories of an impressive ruin and the legend of it being a destroyed city, and included it into the Bible as a way of incorporating the local myths into the Christian story? Or, how about the story of Exodus leaving absolutely no evidence behind — a million emigrants wandering the desert for 40 years ought to leave an impressive footprint, you’d think.

Atomic Theory is at a dead point right now because they are unable to observe the sub-atomic field.

Not with our eyes, we can’t. And my point is, each of those fields is a pillar on which evolution stands. To knock evolution over as a theory, you have to knock out at least one of these pillars. Which do you choose?

They have set up Stern to observe atom collisions but they haven’t got much farther than that at this point. I look forward to seeing what develops in this field.

Do you mean the Stern-Gerlach atomic experiments in 1922? Or do you mean the supercollider produced by CERN, the Large Hadron Collider, which is in itself a larger-scale example of other existing supercolliders like the one at Fermilab? We’ve been smashing atoms for decades now, and observing subatomic particles as a result.

Chemistry? I am not sure anyone has a problem with chemistry.

Biology? I am not sure anyone has a problem with Biology

Both are pillars on which evolution stands. “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, according to Theodosius Dobzhansky. And we have an amazing amount of evidence suggesting that the line between “mere” chemistry, and biology, is extraordinarily fuzzy. In fact, when you get into the realm of amino acids’ ability to self-arrange spontaneously in a favorable environment with sufficient constituent materials from which to draw, and the ability for amino acids to form base peptides under the right conditions, and the ability of these acids and peptides to reproduce, and the ability of these reproductive organs to undergo random mutation due to the fuzzy and random nature of the replication process, and the propensity for any self-replicating and mutating structure to form a meritocracy where the more-able reproduce more often or more quickly or survive environmental hazards more readily, it’s pretty hard to distinguish this level of chemistry from biology is it not?

evolution

I am not aware of any evidence for macro evolution.

Please, educate yourself. That link is a concise compilation of the evidence regarding what you call “macroevolution”, and what biologists and evolutionists alike call speciation.

I am aware of evidence for micro evolution by which you have variations within a species.

Can you walk across the room? What’s to stop you, then, from walking down the block, or from walking to the next city? “Microevolution” and “macroevolution” is a false dichotomy that says you can walk across the room but if you try to walk down the block it is impossible because an invisible wall will prevent it. There is no proof of a border between the two.

Variations take place within a context but have never been shown to go outside of their species or to go beyond the capability of the current gene pool.

The variations humankind sees over various diverse regions, are due to speciation events that were given insufficient time to provide genetic incompatibility. That these “races” are still genetically compatible with one another and create children that have some aspects of the appearance of both races, proves that not enough time was given. If you were to take a race of people, send them off into space for a hundred thousand years, then afterward rejoin them, we might not afterward be genetically compatible, or if we are, might produce sterile children as with horses and donkeys. It’s for this same reason that the universe of Star Trek, where one can have a half-Vulcan half-human, is grossly unlikely.

In fact, I am also not against teaching evolution; however, I think we should teach it critically because we have a ton of people who accept it uncritically.

This is a failure of our school system, that it teaches by rote — if only we could teach our kids to rationally examine all the best available evidence then explain why the consensus of scientists agree that one particular interpretation fits all the evidence the best presently. But teaching by rote is necessary sometimes, so you can skip re-arguing the evidence every time. Don’t think this means the evolutionary theory goes unchallenged — it has stood up to over 150 years of attempts to disprove it. There are few theories in fact as well supported as evolution. We know even less about the theory of gravity than we do about the theory of evolution, in fact — laughably less. There is however a difference between the law of gravity — the observed fact that you don’t go flying off into space — and the theory of gravity — the attempted explanation as to WHY you don’t go flying off into space. Likewise with the observed fact of evolution as evidenced by the fossil record and the genetics behind what you call “microevolution”, and the theory of evolution, the attempted overarching explanation of why it all happens.

I think we need to also be open to an act of Creation as a possibility because an act of Creation is a real possibility and it should not be ruled out.

I am an agnostic atheist. I believe it is not possible to know, for certain, one way or the other, whether God exists, as (in my view) God has to exist either outside the scope of the universe, or is the universe itself. I also believe that due to the total lack of physical evidence of God’s existence as defined by your revelations, that your interpretation of God is extraordinarily unlikely. Scientists are open to all possibilities provided the evidence supports it. If you could show someone unequivocal evidence that a deity is responsible, and that this deity has anthropomorphic qualities, and that its name is God or Allah or Yahweh or whatever, then I’d believe it. Unfortunately the Bible is not an adequate starting point. It is proof that someone wrote a book. That someone was likely a human being, or a number of them. There is no proof, by the Bible’s existence, that it was inspired by any deity, except that it says it was inspired. And one cannot take one’s own word at a fact. Likewise, you cannot take my word that I have a ten foot penis at face value, regardless of the fact that I have written it on my webpage. Even if two thousand years from now someone were to discover my claims to a ten foot cock, it wouldn’t be proof of such, only proof that I had once written it.

religious views of science

I am not sure what your point is. Christians love science.

Like you say atheists are incapable of love, I contend that Christians are incapable of loving science. Christians merely appreciate science, except and until where it contradicts their views.

It was the Catholic church that first started all the Universities and got the ball rolling.

What about all the universities, colleges, schools, etc., that existed prior to Christianity? What about all the universities in non-Catholic / non-Christian / non-Abrahamic countries? Just because universities were formed within Catholic communities, and just because the Catholic churches contributed, does not a priori mean that all universities are religious, nor does it mean that all religions or sects of religions are for knowledge, nor does it mean that all knowledge that comes from these universities are accepted by the religious (witness Galileo as a good for-instance).

Christians love science because we love to examine the design in nature.

Bias alert. Not starting from first principles. Starting from the principle that God exists and was involved in designing the universe. False conclusions will be drawn from doing so. Also, prove that all Christians love science, that all Christians love to examine design (or give any critical thought at all to design, or anything else).

We need to remain open minded and follow the facts; however, until all the facts are known, a final decision cannot be made on a rational level.

That’s the nice thing about science. It relies not on dogma, but on a self-correcting, self-ameliorating model of human knowledge that is not likely to stop accumulating as long as we as a species continue to exist.

Copernicus was a Christian.

So? So were most of his contemporaries. One does not have to subscribe to a particular religion or philosophy to be right about something. Darwin was a Christian too, until the evidence led him to believe that much of what he was taught of creation was demonstrably wrong. The point is, Copernicus discovered something through the scientific method that discredited a part of the biblical account of creation (the geocentric universe model, with Earth at the centre, the planets and sun and moon orbiting it in crazy-eccentric patterns, and a “firmament” blanket of stars above it). He did not announce his views until very late in his life, very shortly before dying, for fear of being persecuted or put to death by the church, as was their particular idiom. Galileo supported this theory, and was likewise persecuted, and at 68 was tortured until he recanted his support. The church only apologized for Galileo, not Copernicus (as he escaped persecution by dying), and this only three-hundred-odd years after his death, in 1992.

You did a good job bringing forward more counterarguments this time, but unfortunately most of them are easily knocked down because they are unsupported by evidence, much less by others suggesting them first. This is not to say that you are not allowed original thought, that you must cite every claim you make, but if the evidence does not support the claim, it does not stand up to scrutiny.

I am also a bit upset that you have said nothing of the various proofs I have offered. I make an effort to link you to the best available evidence where it is in my power to do so. Please have enough respect for your debating opponent to do likewise.


Update: I have rearranged each argument into subcategories for easier reading, and included a few rebuttals that have not been answered yet.

Comments

  1. says

    Your article on Baby stars only demonstrates that their is in fact stars. The “young star” idea is a mystery to scientist because there is very little matter in that area. In other words, the circumstances don’t support the idea that they are in fact young stars. You can always tell the bias of the writer when they argue in this fashion. This is what I mean by saying that the age of stars is based on presuppositions that have not been proven.

    Since the “young star” idea doesn’t fit with the facts in the article, they just accept it on faith without any supporting evidence because it fits the popular paradigm.

    This is what I mean by uncritically accepting something as true and not really looking at the evidence.

    Did you really read this article through. There is absolutely no evidence of actual stars forming. I would love to see an actual article if you got one that proves they have observed a star forming.

    With Billions and Billions and Billions of stars, you think we could observe just one!! If you have one example, you will know more than all the astro-physists in the field… This article fails to prove your point.

    You didn’t answer my argument about stars dying. The fact that the universe is 14 billions years old means that stars should be dying in the hundreds of thousands every day; however, we have only found 600 dying stars….VERY STRANGE!!!! The method they used to find dying stars is valid in my opinion.

    Jason, are you really being honest with the facts or are you assuming the age of the universe and then interpreting the age of the universe in light of your theory? You see when you accept evolution on faith, you end up believing things that don’t fit with the fact simply because it fits the false paradigm…

  2. says

    That isn’t the totality of the research out there on stellar formation by any stretch of the imagination. And having successfully spotted 600 dying stars does not imply that 600 dying stars is all there was. You are aware of how much of the sky we are able to look at with the instruments capable of detecting distant supernovae, at any one point in time, right? So any death we spot is due to sheer chance or due to it being close enough to happen such that we can see it because it’s in our immediate neighborhood.

    Saying “there should be hundreds of thousands of deaths a day” is disingenuous. How much evidence is enough? Why do creationists keep moving the goalposts? Please, name me a scientific hypothesis that suggests there should be 100,000+ stellar deaths per day (in what scope, the galaxy? The entire universe?), that has been falsified by our observation of only 600 so far.

    Also, where did you get your 600 number? I can’t find any specific number anywhere myself.

    Here’s a good, recent paper about stellar birth and death rates as observed from secondary evidence (since, yes, we aren’t particularly likely to be able to fly to a nebula and witness stellar formation first-hand anytime soon). http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0602101v1 (PDF) You can read it with me. I’ve read only the abstract and the first two pages or so thus far.

    I am indeed being honest with my assumptions. When all the evidence points toward an old universe, we can use that as an honest presupposition before making further arguments related to it. This presupposition is necessary because one does not want to have to argue everything in the scope of the entire universe and the age of the entire universe just to prove that man and ape have a common ancestor (for instance). Once the side arguments are accepted by science, they can afterward be used as presuppositions. The only “faith” that I have is the honest belief that the scientific method of physical evidence and reasoned logic is the best way to come to true knowledge of a phenomenon. Outside of that, I do not take it on faith that any particular field of human knowledge is by necessity “absolute truth”. If good enough evidence comes along to disprove any of the many, interconnected scientific theories that exist presently, then I am more than willing to return to first principles and start over to find a set of theories that fit the evidence better. And by extension, when one theory is scuttled on which other theories depend in their interconnected, interlocking manner, then I am willing to revisit them as well.

    Do you have any answers to anything else I’ve written? I took great care to present a great deal of evidence and so far you’ve but challenged my evidence, and presented none of your own. This is an annoying habit that you have, that I am forced to remind you of with every one of your comments.

  3. says

    “And having successfully spotted 600 dying stars does not imply that 600 dying stars is all there was. You are aware of how much of the sky we are able to look at with the instruments capable of detecting distant supernovae, at any one point in time, right?”

    You are not famaliar with the methods that are used to watch stars die. Each night they take a picture of several thousand galaxies. They are able to see a star dying because it goes super bright which can be caught by comparing photos which is done by a computer that notes the difference.

    The first fact is that there is no proof of watching a star form. That is just a noted fact. You came up with an honest answer in noting that they only have secondary evidence which implies that they have to use unproven assumptions.

    Alan P. Boss is a United States astrophysicist. Educated at the University of South Florida and the University of California, Santa Barbara, Boss is now a world leader in stellar and planetary system formation and the study of extrasolar planets, having published dozens of articles in this and related fields. He is currently a Staff Member at the Carnegie Institution for Science.

    Here is what Alan P. Boss said,

    “What are the early stages in the formation of a star? What determines whether a cloud of star-forming matter will evolve into one, two or several stars? Because clouds of gas, dust and debris largely obscure all but the initial and final stages of the birth of a star, these questions have so far not been answered by direct observation….it has been impossible to date to view the cloud as it collapses through this range of densities. Consequently stars cannot be observed as they form.”

    Jon A Covey BA, MT said, “The problems associated with the idea that stars can form from the gravitational infalling of a massive volume of nebular gas are great. Star formation by this route is physically impossible.”

    The idea of gravitational infalling is full of problems which most atheist are not honest about. The real issue is not infalling; rather, the mode of Creation.

    The initial force of creation would have to be powerful enough to cause dark energy to heat and compress into hydrogen. This is true no whether you are a big bang guy or a fluctuation guy.

    The initial force would have to be infinitely significant in power. The force could not come from dark energy since dark energy itself is too ethereal. The force couldn’t come from hydrogen because this is what was being formed. Something cannot cause its own existence which is a basic law of physics. If the force could not come from either dark energy or hydrogen itself, it could only come from something outside our universe.

    The only force that could account for the intial force that resulted in the formation of a element, hydrogen, from dark energy would be God who spoke pure energy (dark energy) into existence who exists outside the universe causing it to compress as it warped resulting in galaxies that were made simulatenously. If you try to say that there is a natural force outside the universe, you still have to eventually ask the question of how dark energy compressed itself in the ‘outside’ event resulting in an infinite series which is impossible due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

    A compression of dark energy could only have taken place if God spoke it into existence warping space resulting in the formations of galaxies. The intial compression of dark energy could not compress itself because it lacks sufficient mass to even begin a compression.

    This is the dilemma for all atheist…How do you start with dark energy with cannot compress itself and end up with a universe. Hydrogen has already been proven not to be the most basis element in the universe. Dark Energy is the most basic so where do you go from here?

    The second fact I think is even more illuminating in that dark energy exist based on the information contained in its form. Dark Energy is not even the most basic element; rather, information is that informs the mode of existence of Dark Energy.

    The only thing that can account for information that exists outside our universe is a mind. A mind that informed the creation which resulted in an awesome design.

  4. says

    You are not famaliar with the methods that are used to watch stars die.

    Wrong. I was and am familiar. Your description is essentially correct. However, as I asked, how much of the sky can we see at a time, in the resolution and depth necessary to be able to spot distant supernovae that happened quite some time ago (as it takes some time for the light to arrive here)?

    Recently four new supernovae, two of which are extremely faint, distant, and *old*, were discovered in patches of sky that have been observed for several consecutive years. The fact that we had to watch these patches of sky for several years to notice this, indicates to me that finding supernovae is not as easy as looking up and seeing a starburst. Not because they are not common, because they probably are — but where in the hell are you getting the 100,000+ number? And again, where are you getting the 600 number? According to this site: http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/vandyk/supernova.html — 1270 supernovae have been discovered since we started recording them in the 1880s. And our technology has not been terribly sophisticated for very long. While atmospheric distortion can be compensated for, especially with computers, now that we have telescopes in space we’re already finding more and more supernovae. But we’re also looking into the distant past, the further out we look, because the speed of light is finite. There could very well be hundreds of thousands of supernovae happening daily but the majority are happening far out enough that it might take quite some time for their light to reach us.

    The first fact is that there is no proof of watching a star form.

    What’s amusing to me is that all the evidence of stars forming suggest it takes place over a long period of time, and can be observed only through secondary evidence, much like evolution, which creationists also have a hard time with.

    I’m also amused by your two consecutive Appeals to Authority, and your quote-mining Boss. When did he say what you quoted? The “to date” is important. Also, I do not disagree with anything he has said in the quote you posted, however I suspect you got it all from http://ldolphin.org/stars.html which I actually found and read, then closed, while looking for something accurate to my knowledge and in layman’s terms on what we know about stellar formation. I ended up posting the Wikipedia article instead, as it does not argue from the principle of creationism.

    The initial force of creation would have to be powerful enough to cause dark energy to heat and compress into hydrogen.

    [citation needed]

    Actually, [citation needed] on the next three paragraphs as well. I’d love to see a peer-reviewed paper that suggests that dark energy must be God’s doing.

    This is the dilemma for all atheist…How do you start with dark energy with cannot compress itself and end up with a universe. Hydrogen has already been proven not to be the most basis element in the universe. Dark Energy is the most basic so where do you go from here?

    Are you saying dark energy is made up of sub-atomic particles? As in, not even hydrogen, but the components that make up hydrogen? Well, if there is something smaller than subatomic particles, that’s where I’d go. Oh wait, there is, those are quarks and muons and leptons and everything the LHC and Fermilabs are looking for.

    The second fact I think is even more illuminating in that dark energy exist based on the information contained in its form. Dark Energy is not even the most basic element; rather, information is that informs the mode of existence of Dark Energy.

    The only thing that can account for information that exists outside our universe is a mind. A mind that informed the creation which resulted in an awesome design.

    It’s abundantly clear you do not know what dark energy is, and you are insistent on an appeal to ignorance as an excuse for “God did it”. Your god is, again, a god of the gaps — only you just happened to use a different gap than most others use. That’s fine, if you’re okay with your god being such, and your position is internally consistent and does not contradict available evidence and does not make wild leaps of supposition e.g. that God = Love and atheists therefore deny the existence of love and therefore are incapable of it. I do not think you’re capable of that level of intellectual honesty.

    As for information, best evidence right now suggests that at least very shortly after the Big Bang, the universe in its expanding shape was made up of a nearly uniform, nearly uniformly hot gas. Entropy is change and disorder within a system. A pure, uniform mist of exactly the same substance, is order. Everything that happens afterward is disorder, no matter how convenient it may seem to life forms. Entropy in a closed system always decreases. For the moment, because we have no direct evidence of outside influence from let’s say other planes of existence in a multiverse, assume the universe is a closed system. Eventually it will run out of steam and become uniformly cold and inert. In the meantime, suns that burn provide solar radiation and add energy to the not-closed-system of the Earth. Once the sun runs out, so too does any possibility of life on this planet because it becomes a closed system and entropy in a closed system only increases until it is so disordered as to prevent order from emerging on its own.

    Learn to thermodynamics.

  5. says

    Abortion:

    Does Scripture supports abortion? This is an old argument that has already been disproven. I really didn’t think you were being honest in your attack with this; however, it may be that you are being very honest and just misinformed. The chuch is super unified on the pro-life issue because the Bible is very clear that one is to value life since each life is a unique design of God.

    Here is a link to check it out for an indept answer. This is old news and an old argument

    http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/786-does-exodus-21-sanction-abortion

    Lev 27 and Numbers 3 are mere illusions of atheist who are unable to read something in context. Certainly a grasping at straws.

    In addition, I don’t support the destructions of embryos because each unique DNA combination is a human being. I have a unique DNA pattern now which is the same DNA pattern that I had when I was conceived. The fact is I would not exist if my DNA pattern had been destroyed by a mommy who cared more about eating ice cream than caring for a baby.

    The second argument concerning abortion is the declining rate of abortions. It doesn’t matter if it is increasing or decreasing, 60 million are dead. The fact that it is legal means lives are being ended by the Secularist and the courts so I am not sure where you are going with this. Christians certainly would never support a pro-abortion policy and in fact we stand against it…only the Secularist who believe that babies are nothing but biological organism on the level of animals like dogs and rabbits would reach such a conclusion.

    Your questions that follow demonstrate that you have a very low view of life. When do you stop killing DNA patterns? When the baby is 5 months old, 9 months old, 5 years old or how about 18 years old. Do you end the babies life if they have a disease, can’t walk or can’t see? Perhaps God has a purpose in allowing us to see the effects of sin in this world?

    If you believe it is fine to end life, then where do you draw the line to begin and stop the deaths? Your argument is merely a mirror that can be flashed back at the Secularist showing how cruel and heartless they really are and the low view of life they have as a result of a godless philosophy.

    I appreciate the effort on your part though. I guess I have not responded to many of your arguments because I am looking for some good honest arguments! The above are not new…

  6. says

    Jason said, “It’s abundantly clear you do not know what dark energy is, and you are insistent on an appeal to ignorance as an excuse for “God did it”.”

    It is not a God of the Gaps argument. Dark Energy has a form which causes it to be dark energy. The argument rest on the fact that only a mind with infinite power could have created the universe. Information as the grounds of dark energy and the need for a force that could result in the creation of galaxies successively and immediately can explain the facts that we see in the universe.

    Your argument was “As for information, best evidence right now suggests” Well, thanks for a suggestion. If all you have is suggestions, then you certainly cannot rule out the existence of God and you have rightly said you are an agnostic because an atheist cannot make a statement like this. Atheist are certain that God does not exist.

    All reality is based on information. Information found in the DNA, found in the universal constants and the information found in the form (not the formation) of dark energy. Information such a information found in specified and complex sentenses from your mind prove that reality comes from a mind.

    The 100,000 number is based on the fact that the universe is 14 billion years old. Instead of seeing one star die in a galaxy in a year, we should be seeing thousands upon thousands of them dying each day. Suns don’t burn forever and most of them don’t burn for 14 billion years.

  7. says

    Macro evolution still has to be proven in order to be true. Thanks for your illustration; however, an illustration does not constitute proof.

    Christians believe in micro-evolution. Without micro-evolution there would be no diversity in our world. God who is the Creator is also creative. In order for me to be unique in the world and a unique design, micro-evolution has to be reality.

    Too bad there are people who would like to see me dead in the name of population control. Christians don’t support population control efforts though…Secularist do…Did you see Obama’s new science czar? He believes in forced abortions, forced sterilizations and a World governing body to control population! He will be a huge hit with the women…

    thanks for the discussion…

  8. says

    You have a good deal more stamina than I do, I’ll give you that. I suppose it helps that I have to research my rebuttals a significant amount more than you do, as I am not blessed with a perfect understanding of science the way you are evidently blessed with a perfect understanding of scripture. Replies will be forthcoming, I promise.

  9. says

    Jason said:

    “…because otherwise the repetitive nature of your arguments gets on peoples’ nerves.”

    Already much too late for that. ZDENNY gets on my nerves every time I read another response.

    For the moment, I’ll pick one thing at random:

    “Macro evolution still has to be proven in order to be true. Thanks for your illustration; however, an illustration does not constitute proof.Christians believe in micro-evolution. Without micro-evolution there would be no diversity in our world.”

    What happens when one group within a species is no longer able to reproduce with another group within that species? You get a new species. That’s called speciation.

    Allopatric speciation: During allopatric speciation, a population splits into two geographically isolated allopatric populations (for example, by habitat fragmentation due to geographical change such as mountain building or social change such as emigration). The isolated populations then undergo genotypic and/or phenotypic divergence as they (a) become subjected to dissimilar selective pressures or (b) they independently undergo genetic drift. When the populations come back into contact, they have evolved such that they are reproductively isolated and are no longer capable of exchanging genes.

    Observed instances Island genetics, the tendency of small, isolated genetic pools to produce unusual traits, has been observed in many circumstances, including insular dwarfism and the radical changes among certain famous island chains, like Komodo and Galápagos, the latter having given rise to the modern expression of evolutionary theory, after being observed by Charles Darwin. Perhaps the most famous example of allopatric speciation is Darwin’s Galápagos Finches.

    Peripatric speciation: In peripatric speciation, new species are formed in isolated, small peripheral populations which are prevented from exchanging genes with the main population. It is related to the concept of a founder effect, since small populations often undergo bottlenecks. Genetic drift is often proposed to play a significant role in peripatric speciation.

    Observed instances: Mayr bird fauna, The Australian bird Petroica multicolor, Reproductive isolation occurs in populations of Drosophila subject to population bottlenecking. The London Underground mosquito is a variant of the mosquito Culex pipiens which entered in the London Underground in the nineteenth century. Evidence for its speciation include genetic divergence, behavioral differences, and difficulty in mating.

    Parapatric speciation: In parapatric speciation, the zones of two diverging populations are separate but do overlap. There is only partial separation afforded by geography, so individuals of each species may come in contact or cross the barrier from time to time, but reduced fitness of the heterozygote leads to selection for behaviours or mechanisms which prevent breeding between the two species.

    Ecologists refer to parapatric and peripatric speciation in terms of ecological niches. A niche must be available in order for a new species to be successful.

    Observed instances: Ring species: The Larus gulls form a ring species around the North Pole; The Ensatina salamanders, which form a ring round the Central Valley in California; The Greenish Warbler (Phylloscopus trochiloides), around the Himalayas. The grass Anthoxanthum has been known to undergo parapatric speciation in such cases as mine contamination of an area.

    Sympatric speciation: In sympatric speciation, species diverge while inhabiting the same place. Often cited examples of sympatric speciation are found in insects which become dependent on different host plants in the same area. However, the existence of sympatric speciation as a mechanism of speciation is still hotly contested. People have argued that the evidences of sympatric speciation are in fact examples of micro-allopatric, or heteropatric speciation. The most widely accepted example of sympatric speciation is that of the cichlids of Lake Nabugabo in East Africa, which is thought to be due to sexual selection. Sympatric speciation refers to the formation of two or more descendant species from a single ancestral species all occupying the same geographic location.

    Until recently, there has a been a dearth of hard evidence that supports this form of speciation, with a general feeling that interbreeding would soon eliminate any genetic differences that might appear. But there has been at least one recent study that suggests that sympatric speciation has occurred in Tennessee cave salamanders.[7]

    The three-spined sticklebacks, freshwater fishes, that have been studied by Dolph Schluter (who received his Ph.D. for his work on Darwin’s finches with Peter Grant) and his current colleagues in British Columbia, provide an intriguing example that is best explained by sympatric speciation. They have found:

    Two different species of three-spined sticklebacks in each of five different lakes. a large benthic species with a large mouth that feeds on large prey in the littoral zonea smaller limnetic species — with a smaller mouth — that feeds on the small plankton in open water.DNA analysis indicates that each lake was colonized independently, presumably by a marine ancestor, after the last ice age.DNA analysis also shows that the two species in each lake are more closely related to each other than they are to any of the species in the other lakes.Nevertheless, the two species in each lake are reproductively isolated; neither mates with the other.However, aquarium tests showed that the benthic species from one lake will spawn with the benthic species from the other lakes andlikewise the limnetic species from the different lakes will spawn with each other.These benthic and limnetic species even display their mating preferences when presented with sticklebacks from Japanese lakes; that is, a Canadian benthic prefers a Japanese benthic over its close limnetic cousin from its own lake.Their conclusion: in each lake, what began as a single population faced such competition for limited resources thatdisruptive selection — competition favoring fishes at either extreme of body size and mouth size over those nearer the mean — coupled withassortative mating — each size preferred mates like it – favored a divergence into two subpopulations exploiting different food in different parts of the lake.The fact that this pattern of speciation occurred the same way on three separate occasions suggests strongly that ecological factors in a sympatric population can cause speciation.

    Sympatric speciation driven by ecological factors may also account for the extraordinary diversity of crustaceans living in the depths of Siberia’s Lake Baikal.

    Okay, ZDENNY, your homework assignment is this: Macroevolution, part of the Evolution 101 course online at Berkeley. Not that I even expect you to read it, because I know you won’t, because you already have your mind made up for you by your holy book. You are a dogmatic fool at best. You are a dishonest, lying, willfully ignorant fool in my estimation. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother.

  10. says

    Zdenny, you’re right about one thing — any time I argue about how scripture says something is okay, I am being purposefully disingenuous. (Not dishonest.) My point about it is not, and never was, that any particular activity is acceptable because the Bible says so, but rather, as with every other point I make, everyone’s holy book — no matter which holy book you’re talking about — is subject to interpretation and prone to getting stuff grossly wrong or only right for its authors’ temporal contemporaries. Atheists, agnostics, and scientists, do not believe in any form of revealed truth. Therefore, whatever you say your bible says (be it that gays are evil or abortion is wrong or the Earth is the centre of the universe) is based off of a false premise to begin with, one that we do not accept, being its divinely inspired nature (because we don’t even believe necessarily in a divine entity to begin with).

    Proving that your Bible is open to interpretation, interpretation that leaves your revealed scripture ambiguous, or in need of re-re-re-retranslation, is but a parlor trick to prove you a hypocrite for believing in it. It is not an honest attempt at opening dialogue in interpreting your holy book, because, again, WE DON’T BELIEVE IT.

    Also, Dan J = Space Marine.

    Probably even more, later, as I recharge the batteries.

  11. says

    I understand your objection to the Bible and I am not trying to convince you that Jesus is God or that he rose from the dead. I don’t really expect you to believe it because faith is a gift of God to those who love Him.

    Since you obviously don’t have any love for God, you are not under the mercy of God; rather, you will continue under the judgement. I really don’t expect you to have faith unless God were to call you. I know the Love of God in my life and wouldn’t trade it for the world and I wish everyone knew it; however, some will never know.

    You might not have noticed but the death rate is 100% and that sickness, disease and basic evil fill our earth which is what happens to a world that is under judgement.

    Interpretation is an issue that I haven’t addressed as it is not really relevant to the discussion at this point. I mean, I could argue that all your articles are subject to interpretation and that it is meaningless for anyone to read your blog because it is subject to interpretation. Interpretation then becomes the foundation for ignorance because the meaning in this blog is ambiguous…:)

  12. says

    Dan hit an interesting subject about speciation! Speciation does not result in new information be added to the gene pool as this has never been shown. Instead, speciation results in the loss of information to the gene pool. As the gene pool decreases in information, new species are formed.

    Macro evolution on the other hand requires the expansion of the gene pool, the addition of new genes and new traits moving from the simple to complex. Speciation is simply micro evolution and not macro evolution at work. If speciation took place too many times, it actually results in new limitations to explore new environment. In fact, extinction is a more likely long term rather than evolution.

    I like the web-site that you recommended. It confirm this when it states, “over 99% of the species that have ever lived on Earth have gone extinct.” Macro-evolution just doesn’t happen and has never been demonstrated, observed or does not fit with the facts!

    I really appreciate the links though!

  13. says

    I honestly do not understand creationists’ insistence that there is “information” here at all. First off, “dark energy” is energy that is hypothesized but not directly observed, in an effort to explain how the universe is expanding in the manner that suggests it all came from a Big Bang — so you’re accepting part of the Big Bang argument just because it’s convenient to you and you understand nothing about it.

    Secondly, DNA, as much as it’s responsible for creating a particular life form as its “blueprint”, is not REALLY “genetic code”, it’s not REALLY a programming language. When you break it all down to its base components, the amino acids, they are merely chemicals that happen to react a certain way around other chemicals. Since all the chemical constituent components necessary for life as we know it, happen to be in the environment, life in the form of these amino acids happened to arise, and because three billion years worth of natural selection has been applied to these amino acids they have evolved into some truly unique creatures, we humans included.

    Nothing about this universe suggests that the laws by which these chemicals happen to react in such a way as to create these novel, self-perpetuating, biological machines was actually designed. Nor are the machines themselves designed — otherwise we wouldn’t be so full of crazy flaws, like the ability to anthropomorphize and perceive design in processes that happen naturally, like what you’re doing with the whole of the universe.

    Again, the anthropic principle suggests that these laws just so happen to provide for our type of life, because we’re around. Is this the only type of life (e.g. “life as we know it”) that is possible under these rules that make up the universe? Probably not. And it would be incredible to discover life made up of something different other than the amino acids we understand, self-arranging themselves into new and novel structures that may or may not be anything like our DNA. It’s a damn shame that space is so utterly vast that the chances of us ever meeting any other life anywhere else in the universe are stacked so highly against us. Unless and until we can start detecting signs of life on planets remotely, via telescope, then specially design ways to ferry us across the vast gulfs to those planets to examine that life, we’re probably going to be alone in our tiny corner of this vast universe forever (or until we’re wiped out by some global catastrophe or by our own doing).

    This conversation is really all over the map. There are too many topics to argue here, so as to give the appearance that both sides are conceding points. I lament that I do not have the stamina to counter every one of your fallacious arguments or arguments from ignorance or arguments from assumed design. It’s sad that someone coming in after us will read this conversation and not know where to start. To you, gentle reader, who is joining us only now — there are a million threads in this conversation, please feel free to pick one and give it a good yank.

  14. says

    Jason said, DNA is”merely chemicals that happen to react a certain way around other chemicals”

    In other words, all chemicals that are reacting to one another is a life form? Wow, that is a huge jump.

    The DNA code stays the same in my body for my whole life; however, you think it is just chemicals reacting.

    Based on your reasoning, everytime we mix chemicals we are dealing with life. I don’t think a rational person would accept your argument here.

    It is the information in the DNA code that is both specified and complex determines the form of your body. Without the information contained in the DNA, you would not be Jason. Your body would not be a process that results in a life cycle that is consistent for all humanity.

    When you construct sentences, those sentences are complex and specified. The sentences then have a life of their own carrying inherent meaning for minds. Your words can even make a person feel special or mad. Proof of the thoughts in your mind is not proven by direct observation; rather, we know Jason has thoughts in his brain because he can create meaningful sentences that are both specified and complex.

    In order to show that their is a mind behind reality, all I have to do is show that reality or even a single thing in reality is both specified and complex. The anthropic principle is sufficient as well as the DNA in your body which informs the structure and processes of your body.

    The fact that a mind exist behind reality is really basic to all reality and this is hard to deny unless you surpress that truth by simply ignoring the evidence.

    Your argument seems to scream against reason and reality in this case…

    I know you are getting tire of trying to defend an atheistic worldview and I don’t blame ya. It is hard to defend something on this level.

  15. says

    Jason said on homosexuality: “If you were told all your life that what you are, your very nature, is evil and sinful and wrong, you would have the same level of cognitive dissonance that causes suicide to be higher. I think that puts religious folks like you at fault for the higher suicide rates.”

    Wow, in other words, my happiness is dependent on what someone else thinks about me!!

    The Logic

    In order to be happy, a person must be liked by all.
    If a person is not like by all, they will commit suicide.
    Jason doesn’t like Kevin
    Therefore, Kevin will commit suicide.

    I really don’t believe anyone will buy this logic. I disagree with all three premises.

    In reference to Hate Crimes Bill you stated, it keeps a person from “killing” and “maiming” others. My response: Killing and Maiming are already against the law. Both of these are always done out of hate. Hate Crimes is not about crime, it is about elevating behavior to the level of skin color. It is a legal thing whereby activist are going to try to shut down people who disagree with them. This is what is happening in Canada where activist are now dragging people into court over speech issues.

  16. says

    In other words, all chemicals that are reacting to one another is a life form? Wow, that is a huge jump.

    No, you’re the one making this illogical leap, not me, by constructing this strawman.

    Not *all* chemicals are capable of self-replication in this manner. Amino acids are, though. Any chemical compound, created from a number of constituent chemicals present in the environment, that can catalyze these constituent chemicals into being something approximating the original, is an example of a self-replicating chemical. The only such self-replicating chemicals we know about presently are amino acids, though they duplicate themselves imperfectly because chemical processes are way fuzzier than something organized and digital and designed.

    So, now that you have something that is capable of self-arranging, and catalyzing other base components in the environment into becoming something like itself (thus self-replicating), you have the basis for the beginning of life. DNA is what happens if you fast-forward that process that led to us, far enough that the really successful organisms have evolved to have certain advantages over one another.

    All you need for evolution to produce us or any other higher taxon of animal on any given planet, is: a) self-replication of an “organism”, b) random mutation due to the chemical processes being more fuzzy than you’d expect of something intentionally designed, c) the constituent materials available in the environment, d) a whole shitload of time.

    My sentences are constructed by a mind, out of constituent components (letters and words and clauses), which are not naturally present in the environment — they are made up of imaginary symbols and a shared learning of these symbols which do not exist by themselves. Also, these sentences do not self-replicate and are not subject to natural selection — though I wish some of your own sentences would submit to mine’s superior logic and be consumed for their letters to be reused in more cogent ways, this does not happen. Likewise, these sentences are not subject to random mutations during this non-existent self-replication process. Nor do we have the appropriate time frame to give these sentences to self-replicate.

    The life we see on Earth, is the end result of a very very very long chemical chain reaction that operates by the rules of this universe. The only teleological argument you have is that these rules (if they were created at all) must have been created by someone vastly intelligent, and that because you believe they WERE created, this lends support to your imagined deity, whom you believe is responsible for the universe’s creation and outcome thus far. I contend that the evidence that this universe’s rules culminate in life, and we’re around to see it, is not proof at all that this universe was specifically designed to harbor life. First, we do not know how rare life IS in this universe. Second, we do not know how many other universes have come before or after or concurrent to it, with different cosmological constants, nor can we ever know this. Third, because we cannot know anything about other universes, we do not know whether other cosmological constants have been tried, and whether or not any of these other constants have culminated in life.

    Saying how improbable life is, after it has already sprung up, is like telling someone who just hit the lottery three times in a row that it is astronomically impossible for him to do so, like it’s a one in a trillion chance or something. This is meaningless to that person, because they already HAVE won three times in a row, so to that person, the chances of it happening are 1 in 1, because it ALREADY HAS. Saying that the universe culminating in life is vastly improbable, is a meaningless proposition, because the universe ALREADY HAS LIFE, and we don’t know how many times before this universe that those particular “dice” have been rolled.

    Beyond all this, complexity does not a priori argue design. Can you prove that any combination of randomness, natural selection, and a vast gulf of time, CANNOT result in complexity? No, because it already HAS resulted in complexity. Also, does each diamond or snowflake’s unique structure and symmetry and beauty and order, by necessity mean that God spends all his time whittling beautiful snowflakes in any sort of manner similar to how you are built out of your DNA? No, it does not imply this at all — because we know and understand the processes by which diamonds and snowflakes are formed, and they follow natural patterns as set forth by our particular universe’s rules.

    In order to show that their is a mind behind reality, all I have to do is show that reality or even a single thing in reality is both specified and complex.

    You need to show a hell of a lot more than that. Like, everything I said above.

    I know you are getting tire of trying to defend an atheistic worldview and I don’t blame ya. It is hard to defend something on this level.

    No. I only tire of having to explain stuff that intellectual giants have wrestled with for the thousands of years since your personal Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Universe was written, and of having to counter your same arguments repeatedly.

  17. jthibeault says

    Wow, in other words, my happiness is dependent on what someone else thinks about me!!

    The Logic

    In order to be happy, a person must be liked by all.
    If a person is not like by all, they will commit suicide.
    Jason doesn’t like Kevin
    Therefore, Kevin will commit suicide.

    I really don’t believe anyone will buy this logic. I disagree with all three premises.

    Wrong, wrong, WRONG. Fractal fail.

    My logic is as follows.

    Christianity tells people that they are broken from birth, and the only way to unbreak themselves is to follow the laws of the Bible. This is okay for people that do not have a fundamental natural conflict with the laws of the Bible, or for people whose conflicts (e.g. wanting to have sex) can be relatively easily subsumed. For people who have natural inclinations toward homosexuality, because their unique DNA has “coded” it into them, they are being told that WHAT THEY ARE is evil, not that WHAT THEY DO is sinful. Though, I could argue that people who are told that sex without marriage is evil are also subjected to this cognitive dissonance, gays are doubly so, because they are made to feel that — like the blondes in my example — something they have no control over is directly responsible for them going to hell. At least in the case of heterosexuals, they can get married in order to engage in their natural drive to love someone and have sex with them.

    For these people, trying to “unbreak” themselves in the eyes of the Church involves more than just suppressing the urge temporarily, it involves completely subjugating the urge altogether. The cognitive dissonance between being gay and thinking gays are evil leads to ridiculous situations like Pastor Ted Haggard and the myriad other anti-gay crusaders that are themselves gay. And it leads to some people for whom the cognitive dissonance is so great that they feel the only way out is suicide. You propose to help these people by teaching them that being gay is what leads to suicide — and you’re wrong. Being told that gayness is wrong is what leads them to suicide, and you’re just telling them that being gay is wrong yet again.

    In reference to Hate Crimes Bill you stated, it keeps a person from “killing” and “maiming” others. My response: Killing and Maiming are already against the law.

    The difference is that in some cases it is done out of hate for a trait of a person, rather than the person themselves. The difference is that anyone else who happens to have that trait is equally a target. Any gay could have been killed equally. Thus, when this person is brought to justice, they should be treated differently from someone who could just have killed the one person — they should be treated like a potential mass-murderer and harmful element to have running around in society. Because they are a harmful element to have running around in society — since there are lots of gay people around who could potentially become his next victim the next time he realizes they’re gay.

    This is what is happening in Canada where activist are now dragging people into court over speech issues.

    I have huge issues with hate speech laws. I do not believe that being ignorant of other cultures merits jail time. I do believe that saying hateful things intentionally about other cultures should be frowned upon, and people who ACT on these hateful speeches should be cracked down on, and hard. I’m the first person in the world who will side with you against any kind of limit to speech on public property. I do not believe anti-blasphemy laws or anti-speech laws have any place in a rational society, and I also feel that these laws come from an attempt at “political correctness”, or the crazier side of liberalism.

    Likewise, I feel that the crazier end of conservatism is responsible for a good deal of hate speech against people who are different from you (thus you’re trying to “conserve” the status quo). There are crazy wings on both our sides. I fear that you are a bit too swayed by your particular crazy wing in trying to defend assaults against hate CRIME laws as being assaults on SPEECH. The people who claim this are wrong on so many levels, and I only wish that you’d see this eventually.

  18. says

    Jason said, “Christianity tells people that they are broken from birth, and the only way to unbreak themselves is to follow the laws of the Bible. This is okay for people that do not have a fundamental natural conflict with the laws of the Bible, or for people whose conflicts (e.g. wanting to have sex) can be relatively easily subsumed. For people who have natural inclinations toward homosexuality, because their unique DNA has “coded” it into them, they are being told that WHAT THEY ARE is evil, not that WHAT THEY DO is sinful.”

    I am not sure where the breakdown in the logic I provided is. You seem to tell me I am wrong and then repeat the argument.

    In order to be happy, a person must be liked by all.
    Jason said, (Christianity tells people that they are broken from birth, and the only way to unbreak themselves is to follow the laws of the Bible.)
    If a person is not liked by all, they will commit suicide.
    Jason: WHAT THEY ARE is evil, not that WHAT THEY DO is sinful.”
    Jason doesn’t like Kevin
    Therefore, Kevin will commit suicide.
    (Example is valid).

    In other words, Jason argues that my happiness is dependent on what another person tells me about me.

    In order to be clear, this is exactly what happens in a Secular society because everyone shares a false illusion that happiness is dependent on everyone else. In a Christian society, happiness is dependent on the love of God. I have a ton of people that hate me; however, I have the love of God that fills me and makes me non-dependent on others. I really don’t care what anyone says. A person living in bondage doesn’t have the love of God and they blame everyone else for their internal problems inside of looking in the mirror.

    The fact that homosexuals and every other non-Christian (including nominals) out there doesn’t have the love of God means that they are trying to find happiness in other people. PEOPLE WILL FAIL!!! When a person depends on people who fail, they fall into depression and become suicidal realizes that chemicals don’t really love chemicals.

    Christians have a ton of ministries trying to reach out to homosexuals as well as all other that are caught up in different types of bondages due to our sin nature. I am sure you have heard of alcoholics, cleptos, drug addicts, etc…

    Since man is fallen, everyone has a sin nature to contend with including myself. God didn’t make a sin nature, we created it when we decided to love ourselves more than God. Sin is the cause and Christ is the ultimate solution. You have to participate in the divine nature in order to overcome sin which involves being filled with the Love of God.

    Ironically, they still haven’t been able to find a homosexual gene or an alcoholic gene. Homosexuality seems to increase due to psychological abnormalities rather than genetics. Sin makes everyone a little pyscho and that is why we need to participate in the divine nature in order to find completion, love, joy and peace!

    An American Psychological Association publication includes an admission that there’s no homosexual “gene” — meaning it’s not likely that homosexuals are born that way.

    Link for story: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=528376

  19. says

    Love the Space Marine poster!!!

    Unfortunately, I give up. ZDENNY has been bathed in the “light of the lord” for too many years to ever open up his mind to anything different. His mind is closed, locked, welded shut, hermetically sealed in a mayonnaise jar on Funk and Wagnall’s porch.[1]

    People like this are not reachable by science. They disdain any scientific results that do not fit their already-written-in-stone ideas about how the universe works. I truly do feel sorry for them. They’ve been misled by people hungry for money and power for millenia. The lies have worked all too well.

    To these people, I only have this to say:

    God is dead and no one cares.

    This is how I feel when dealing with people like ZDenny.

    httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fuDDqU6n4o

                                

    [1] (old “Tonight Show” reference)

  20. says

    I am not sure where the breakdown in the logic I provided is. You seem to tell me I am wrong and then repeat the argument.

    This is because you fail to read between the lines. I will enlighten you accordingly, by correcting your flowchart.

    In order to be happy, a person must like him or herself.
    Christianity tells people that they are broken from birth, and the only way to unbreak themselves is to follow the laws of the Bible.
    If a person thinks he is broken and cannot fix that brokenness, they will commit suicide.
    Kevin believes in the Bible, because he was raised to believe in it and his belief in it is reinforced by his friends, family and pastor.
    The Bible *might* say homosexuality is wrong (if you follow the interpretations used by Kevin’s friends and family).
    Kevin is homosexual, and cannot change his sexuality to “fix” himself. He agrees with the Bible, his friends, and his family, that he is sinful and wrong.
    Therefore, Kevin will commit suicide.

    Get it now? Gays that do not believe they are broken and sinful, that are not persecuted by others, do not generally commit suicide. Gays that are persecuted or taught to believe that they are broken and sinful and it is impossible for them to “fix” themselves, commit suicide more frequently.

    The fact that they are gay does not lead into suicide. The fact that they are taught that what they are is wrong, does. No need for a “love of God” to fill you up, because that “love of God” is what overrides your sense of normalcy and replaces it with a sense of fundamental brokenness.

    An American Psychological Association publication includes an admission that there’s no homosexual “gene” — meaning it’s not likely that homosexuals are born that way.

    When you get your science news from scientists or people who sympathize with science, you get better quality science. When you get your news from religious apologetic networks like OneNewsNow, you get skewed and biased reporting. What they reported on is factually accurate — there is no *one* gay gene. However, there is probably a number of genes that, when arranged just so together, combined with some few environmental factors thrown in just so, result in homosexuality. http://www.brighthub.com/science/genetics/articles/7033.aspx

    Christians have a ton of ministries trying to reach out to homosexuals as well as all other that are caught up in different types of bondages due to our sin nature. I am sure you have heard of alcoholics, cleptos, drug addicts, etc…

    Yeah. So what you’re saying is that being blonde is evil. Oh, sorry, I mean, being gay is evil. And you can de-gay people using your “outreach programs”.

    How well did that work for Ted Haggard, by the way?

    DanJ:

    People like this are not reachable by science. They disdain any scientific results that do not fit their already-written-in-stone ideas about how the universe works. I truly do feel sorry for them. They’ve been misled by people hungry for money and power for millenia. The lies have worked all too well.

    Hear hear. The problem is, I just can’t leave well enough alone. He’s fouling up my blog with his falsehoods and dogma, and his misinterpretation and misrepresentation (deliberate or otherwise) of science and scientific positions and scientifically proven facts, so I feel the need to correct the record for anyone else who comes across this post in order to keep them from getting the wrong idea about this universe and how it works. I wish I had a thorough and perfect understanding of science so I could counter this nonsense with mere backhands, but I can’t, and I have too much concern for future visitors to let them think Zdenny is right about any of these points. I’m not exactly the greatest “gatekeeper of what’s legitimate and what isn’t”, but I’ll take up that mantle on this tiny corner of the interwebs at least.

  21. says

    A self-replicating chemical is still a chemical.

    Amino acids are a special subset of the superset chemicals, that can self-replicate and self-arrange.

    Your argument: All amino acids are chemicals. All life is made of amino acids. Therefore all chemicals are life.

    This is exactly like: All cows are female. Your mother is female. Therefore, your mother is a cow.

    To test whether you understand this, what is the difference between the self-replicating chemicals that make up our cells, and the chemicals you play with in your chemistry set? And please don’t say “goddidit”.

  22. says

    I’m not completely well-versed in the majority of the sciences, myself. I do, however, know how to research. I have a thirst for knowledge about such a wide variety of subjects that there just don’t seem to be enough hours in the day to get everything done that needs to be, and still have time to read about the daily advances science makes in understanding our Universe.

    That’s where the Christians fail, in my estimation. They only want to go to one particular book to find all the answers. They try to apply 2000-year-old reasoning to modern discoveries, and—guess what?—it doesn’t work.

    It’s okay with me if you want to believe in god, whatever his or her name might be, but your holy books cannot be used to explain science. The scientific method works in such a way that preconceived notions like the existence of a deity who interferes with the Universe in undiscoverable ways are not allowed. What is allowed is new data informing us about what is correct and what is incorrect in previous scientific studies. We learn.

    I don’t believe in evolution. Presented with the existing scientific evidence, I have come to the conclusion that the evolutionary theory is the best possible explanation for the diversity of life on our planet at the current time. If evidence and studies in the future shed light on currently unknown mechanisms which give better explanations, then those mechanisms will become the leading theories. Belief has absolutely nothing to do with it. Thought has everything to do with it.

    Science has a built-in capacity for admitting that it was wrong about something. Religion doesn’t need such a thing because religion, god, the bible, etc., is never wrong. Just ask a fundamentalist Christian, they’ll certainly confirm this.

  23. says

    In order to be happy, a person must like him or herself.
    (In other words, a person should act on their impulses.)

    Christianity tells people that they are broken from birth, and the only way to unbreak themselves is to follow the laws of the Bible.

    (We are not only broken; rather, we are all sinners.)

    If a person thinks he is broken and cannot fix that brokenness, they will commit suicide.

    (The broken can be fixed with the love of God. Secularism results in total hopelessness. This is what is so cruel about secularism, it says that people can’t change. They have to act on the impulses and be true to themselves no matter what those impulses are.)

    Kevin believes in the Bible, because he was raised to believe in it and his belief in it is reinforced by his friends, family and pastor.

    (In other words, Kevin doesn’t have a mind of his own and everyone is determining his beliefs. Atheist generally don’t argue this way because they believe in first principles)

    The Bible *might* say homosexuality is wrong (if you follow the interpretations used by Kevin’s friends and family).

    The Bible does says that Homosexuality is a sin.

    Kevin is homosexual, and cannot change his sexuality to “fix” himself. He agrees with the Bible, his friends, and his family, that he is sinful and wrong.

    This is the thing with seculars. They don’t believe anybody should change because they are the product of evolution. If you have impulses to kill, then you should kill. If you have impulses to steal then that is o.k. too. It is an impulse and a person should be true to themselves.

    Therefore, Kevin will commit suicide.

    I think it is important to note that suicide is the most selfish thing a person could ever do. When a person commits suicide, it is incontroverible evidence that they were selfish and never knew the love of God.

    Ted Haggard had impulses to sin just like the rest of us. That is the whole point of Christianity. It is honest and says people are evil and do evil things. We can’t rise above the evil in our lives without the love of God.

    When Ted started living according to his selfish desires rather than living in the love of God, he fell into sin.

    The American Psychological Association is a secular organization that once supported the idea of a “gene” however, they have had to reject it because their is no proof. Even your article is highly speculative. There is no gene for homosexuality and it certainly has not been proven.

    Behavior is always a choice even if genetic. Skin color is not. The American Psychological Association is just being honest with the evidence.

  24. says

    “I don’t believe in evolution. Presented with the existing scientific evidence, I have come to the conclusion that the evolutionary theory is the best possible explanation for the diversity of life on our planet at the current time. If evidence and studies in the future shed light on currently unknown mechanisms which give better explanations, then those mechanisms will become the leading theories”

    In other words Dan is saying that he will stomach whatever the leading theory is amongst Secularists. Belief based on popularity! Very interesting!

    If Darwinians could even come up with one example, you at least would have something to go on; however, they haven’t been able to demonstrate even one example to date. It is just a theory. I find that most Darwinians don’t even understand that gene pools get smaller providing less chance for adaptation to environment as gene pools lose information. Darwinian theory really is a theory about extinction rather than moving from simple to complex organism through macro evolution.

  25. says

    “Amino acids are a special subset of the superset chemicals, that can self-replicate and self-arrange.”

    In other words, Amino acids have information in them that informs the replication process. Amino acids are different than mere chemicals because they contain information that direct a more complicated process. Amino acids are specified directing a process and they are complex because they allow replication.

    In other words, Amino are evidence of design because the Amino acids are specified and complex.

    I guess you could also look at it this way. Your body receives it form from the DNA contained in your cells. Your body is informed by the DNA. DNA is informing the form of your body as to its structural make up. As such, your DNA contains information that informs the form and processes of your body.

    Using the principle of uniformity, whenever you find replication, you always find information that informs the replication process.

    As such, information is not dependent on the form and processes of matter; rather matter is dependent on information for its form and processes.

    This is the big problem with atheism. It only allows matter. It does not allow for information. Without information in the cells, we would not have different things in our unverse such as grass and trees. The cells have information that inform the structural existence of each biological organism. Without this information, nothing specified and complex could ever exist.

    Evolution certainly has not been shown to provide new information; rather, information had to exist first in order to inform matter.

    Dawkins was a materialist and couldn’t see into the real world that is directed by information within the cells. Darwin himself was not able to see inside the cell in order to see the self-directing process that it acts on that is controled by the information in the genome.

    Materialist have this one huge problem because evolution without information end Darwinian evolution. Information is necessary in order for a cell to inform matter. As such, information is more basic to our reality than matter.

    Just think about it…. :)

  26. says

    In order to be happy, a person must like him or herself.
    (In other words, a person should act on their impulses.)

    What does a person’s feeling of self-worth have to do with acting on impulses? You’re not being very coherent with this reply.

    We are not only broken; rather, we are all sinners.

    I have no idea what this means. This statement has absolutely nothing to do with reality.

    The broken can be fixed with the love of God. Secularism results in total hopelessness. This is what is so cruel about secularism, it says that people can’t change. They have to act on the impulses and be true to themselves no matter what those impulses are.

    Have the love of god come over and replace the blower motor on my external air conditioning unit, as I think the bearing is going out. Where on earth did you come up with the notion that secularism results in total hopelessness? If that were true, there would be no secularists for you to debate with as we would have all gone out and committed suicide already. You really have no concept of what it is to not believe in a god. Who says people can’t change? I’ve never heard a secularist say such a thing. People change. They grow. They learn. Their ideas and attitudes change to match their experiences and further expectations. You seem to be confusing secularism with determinism in some strange way.

    In other words, Kevin doesn’t have a mind of his own and everyone is determining his beliefs. Atheist generally don’t argue this way because they believe in first principles

    You’re really missing the point on this one. Kevin may, indeed, have a mind of his own, but he has (as most religious people have been) taught that to behave in a manner that is not consistent with the particular religious dogma his parents have foisted upon him is a bad thing, and that it makes him a bad person. Kevin believes strongly that his parents, his siblings, and the church representatives are right about such things. evin believes he is a bad person because of the feelings he has. Kevin prays and prays, but he still has these feelings. Kevin goes through this for years. Kevin believes that he can never hope to overcome these feelings, and that he is destined to be a bad person for the rest of his life. To make this suffering of his own (and the suffering of his parents—oh the shame of having brought a bad person into this world!) end, he feels it is best to end his own life. Unfortunately for Kevin, he did not understand that he does not have to believe in the infallibility of god and religion. If he had been able to escape from the attitudes of Christianity, he might be alive today, enjoy a rich and fulfilling life, perhaps even researching a new miracle drug in a pharmaceutical laboratory that could save ZDENNY’s life at some point. But, because of the attitude of Christians toward homosexuals, he was driven to suicide at an early age, never fulfilling his dreams.

    This is the thing with seculars. They don’t believe anybody should change because they are the product of evolution. If you have impulses to kill, then you should kill. If you have impulses to steal then that is o.k. too. It is an impulse and a person should be true to themselves.

    That is such a load of horseshit that I could probably fertilize 640 acres with it. You are either lying outright, or you are much more misinformed and closed-minded than even I thought.

    I think it is important to note that suicide is the most selfish thing a person could ever do. When a person commits suicide, it is incontroverible evidence that they were selfish and never knew the love of God.

    Oh, I see you’ve created an escape route, or at least attempted to. Have you ever heard the term “No true Scotsman”? It’s a logical fallacy that you’ve just used. If a Christian does certain things that fall far enough outside of Christianity’s permitted behavior, you can always claim that they weren’t a real Christian, or they would never have done such a thing.

    Sorry to see you go, but Vannah has some nice parting gifts for you. Thanks for playing. Next!

  27. says

    In other words Dan is saying that he will stomach whatever the leading theory is amongst Secularists. Belief based on popularity! Very interesting!If Darwinians could even come up with one example, you at least would have something to go on; however, they haven’t been able to demonstrate even one example to date. It is just a theory. I find that most Darwinians don’t even understand that gene pools get smaller providing less chance for adaptation to environment as gene pools lose information. Darwinian theory really is a theory about extinction rather than moving from simple to complex organism through macro evolution.

    Your reading comprehension skills sem to be quite lacking. Were you home-schooled by any chance?

    Where on earth did I say anything about “popularity”? Once again, this is what I said, “If evidence and studies in the future shed light on currently unknown mechanisms which give better explanations, then those mechanisms will become the leading theories.” Since when do evidence and studies have anything at all to do with popularity? You truly are more dense than I first imagined.

    If Darwinians could even come up with one example, you at least would have something to go on; however, they haven’t been able to demonstrate even one example to date. It is just a theory. I find that most Darwinians don’t even understand that gene pools get smaller providing less chance for adaptation to environment as gene pools lose information. Darwinian theory really is a theory about extinction rather than moving from simple to complex organism through macro evolution.

    The thing that really jumps out at me is this statement: “It is just a theory.” this really hits home the notion that you truly have very little knowledge about how science works, and what certain scientific words mean. You honestly haven’t a fucking clue as to what you are talking about. You aren’t completely worthless though: You can always serve as a bad example.

  28. says

    Dan said, “Since when do evidence and studies have anything at all to do with popularity?”

    Dan, you need to understand that scientific journals won’t publish anything that is contrary to their evolutionary paradigm. Evolution is a mere belief system and if something is published that seems to counter that it would threaten their whole system.

    People opposed to Evolution can tell you how closed minded our system is! Just watch the movie expelled and you will see tons of people complaining about our current system. Evolution is the only allow paradigm because the established journals are run by people who are closed minded and won’t consider anything that may challenge the paradigm of their religious belief.

    The logic is pretty simple:

    Journals refused to publish anything that is contrary to their belief system. A belief system that is shared by publishers determines what goes in the journals. Therefore, a popular belief is what drives the publishers decisions.

    As such, you will only believe what these publishers publish. Therefore, Dan is believing whatever the popular theory is regarding an unproven belief.

    Hope that helps you see the bigger picture. Our current system is very bias and closed minded!!!!!

  29. says

    Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Just so very much wrong it’s beyond compare. Scientific journals have one standard — your claims must be backed by evidence and duplicable by others. They are peer-reviewed to ensure this, so that those few religious scientists don’t go sticking in “God did it” into every paper with absolutely no proof whatsoever — like the people in Expelled who were shunned for doing exactly that. http://www.expelledexposed.com/

    You know nothing of information theory, either. I strongly suggest you read up on it before claiming that a) the universe *requires* “information”, b) evolution is impossible because “information” cannot be increased, c) “information” must come from an intelligent agent, d) dark energy is “information”, etc., etc. It’s extraordinarily easy for people like yourself to sound like you have slam-bang knockout arguments against anything in science by having a middling understanding of information theory — but to those of us who know anything about it, you just end up sounding like an idiot.
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/infotheory.html

    150 years of competing theories have challenged and refined Darwin’s original theory of evolution and shaped it into something that best fits all the available evidence. Darwin’s theory had no idea how inheritance worked, but believed that something must cause it — predicting the entire field of genetics long before DNA was found. Darwin’s theory suggested that a vast array of animal fossils might exist, long before any were found, and found they were — here’s a list of a lot of vertebrate transitional fossils that were predicted before ever found: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

    If another theory comes along that explains all the evidence better than evolution, then science will throw evolution out and replace it with the theory that best fits the evidence. It’s not a popularity contest. It’s not a “closed”, “biased” or “closed-minded” system. It is a system wherein all the evidence is unearthed, and people work together to get a theory together that explains all that evidence in the most coherent and verifiably accurate manners possible.

    “God did it” isn’t science. It is not under any circumstances testable, and in fact shuns the very idea of testing.

    You have a very limited understanding of the science behind evolution, and you have a very limited understanding of why people accept it as a fact in the face of the mountains of evidence provided (as opposed to believing it on faith in absence of evidence, as you imply). This conversation will never get anywhere, because you assume we have not seen all your religious indoctrination tools like Expelled, and you assume that we are “hoodwinked” by evidence that is easily falsifiable but has never been falsified in hundreds of years, and you have no concept of just how interrelated all of science is.

    The very fact that you have a computer before you is proof that a vast tract of science works. Those vast tracts of science are connected so fundamentally to the science that you disbelieve that it’s amazing you don’t also shun and consider evil your computer as being a devil’s tool.

    Again, I say, this conversation will never get anywhere. Not until YOU open YOUR mind to examining all the evidence. WE’VE read the Bible, WE’VE watched your mewling Ben Stein movies, WE’VE worked at every turn to reeducate you in how you’ve been miseducated about the state of science. You on the other hand have just repeated over and over and over again that the Bible is right and God is love and Jesus will save us from homosexuality and evolution is obviously a lie because it contradicts your holy book. And you’re the one who keeps bringing the fight to us, working to wedge your silly myths into the public sphere and get them taught in school instead of science, coming door to door and telling us the “good news” which is neither news nor good, and you come to OUR blogs, where we believe in free speech and hate censorship, and proselytize to us knowing we’d never ban you as a result, while in the meantime never letting comments that contradict you out of moderation on your own blog. This makes you not only a fucking hypocrite, but also terribly insecure in your positions.

    (And while I’m heaping justified criticism on you, LEARN TO USE THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. Grammar, spelling, punctuation, and especially correct pluralization are all key in not only getting your point across, but not sounding like a fucking goober.)

    We can only keep correcting you for so long before we get fed up of your robotic and thought-free responses. Either start looking at the evidence or GET OUT.

  30. says

    Jason said, “Scientific journals have one standard — your claims must be backed by evidence and duplicable by others.”

    This is exactly what I mean. There is no evidence of macro-evolution; however, it is the accepted paradigm. It has never been demonstrated in the lab and is therefore a non-scientific view. It is a theory based on faith in a paradigm.

  31. says

    Go to talkorigins.org. Read it. Every argument you have ever made, is answered there. It also has some very good itemized lists of every evidence of speciation that you could ever ask for. But you’re not interested in looking at the evidence — all you’re interested in is sticking your fingers in your ears and going “LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU THERE IS NO EVIDENCE”. Just like the birthers. You guys are intellectually bereft, and it’s sad on so many levels.

    You’re seriously trying my patience. I think you’re just playing with me, trying to see how long it takes me to finally break down and ban you, so you can go crowing on your blog about how awesome it is that you made an atheist get sick of rebutting your repetitive nonsense. If you want to be abused by rationalists, here’s a great blog for you to go read and post on and troll day in and day out for months at a time, okay? http://www.scienceblogs.com/pharyngula

  32. Robyn says

    DAVID LETTERMAN’S HATE, ETC. !

    David Letterman’s hate is as old as some ancient Hebrew prophets.
    Admin edit: blah blah blah, copy pasta from other wholly unrelated blogs… if you care to see this click here

    (Recently ran into the above on the net. Striking, eh?)

    Admin: Striking in the way one strikes one’s face to facepalm; and grossly off-topic, so it’s gone.

  33. says

    Si analizamos la casuística de cada situación, observaremos que la mayoría de los casos obedecen a las tres primeras causas.En caso de que el motivo sea simplemente la falta de voluntad y de forma reiterada (importante esto), es cuestión de comentarlo con el equipo docente (les suena esto?), y con la familia, y adoptar las estrategias que se consideren adecuadas.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>