When it comes to abortion, the labels “pro-life” and “pro-choice” are very misleading: most people want to protect human life and have the freedom to make choices that do not harm others. The real question is, when exactly does human life begin? At conception, at birth or somewhere in between? Can a woman’s right to control her body override her unborn baby’s right to live?
Ron Paul has delivered more than 4,000 babies. He believes that human life starts at conception, and that casual elimination of the unborn leads to a careless attitude towards all life.
Recalling his personal observation of a late-term abortion performed by one of his instructors during his medical residency, Ron Paul stated, “It was pretty dramatic for me to see a two-and-a-half-pound baby taken out crying and breathing and put in a bucket.”
In an Oct. 27, 1999 speech to Congress, Ron Paul said:
“I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade. I do believe in the slippery slope theory. I believe that if people are careless and casual about life at the beginning of life, we will be careless and casual about life at the end. Abortion leads to euthanasia. I believe that.”
During a May 15, 2007, appearance on the Fox News talk show Hannity and Colmes, Ron Paul argued that his pro-life position was consistent with his libertarian values, asking, “If you can’t protect life then how can you protect liberty?” Additionally, Ron Paul said that since he believes libertarians support non-aggression, libertarians should oppose abortion because abortion is “an act of aggression” against a fetus.
At the GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate on Sep 17, 2007, Ron Paul was asked what he will do to restore legal protection to the unborn:
“As an O.B. doctor of thirty years, and having delivered 4,000 babies, I can assure you life begins at conception. I am legally responsible for the unborn, no matter what I do, so there’s a legal life there. The unborn has inheritance rights, and if there’s an injury or a killing, there is a legal entity. There is no doubt about it.”
At the GOP YouTube debate in St. Petersburg, Florida, on Nov 28, 2007, Ron Paul was asked what a women would be charged with if abortion becomes illegal and she obtains an abortion anyway:
“The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don’t need a federal abortion police. That’s the last thing that we need. There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that’s committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist. As for the punishment, I don’t think that should be up to the president to decide.”
For many years, Ron Paul has been speaking up for babies’ rights. He passionately defends those who cannot speak for themselves because they haven’t been born yet.
In order to “offset the effects of Roe v. Wade”, Paul voted in favor of the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. He has described partial birth abortion as a “barbaric procedure”.
At the same time, Ron Paul believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion.
Many people feel very strongly about the issue of abortion, and once they make up their minds they rarely change their opinion. If you are undecided and/or open-minded, check out this page and this site for more information about abortion, including images and a description of medical procedures.
Darwin, never a scientist and knowing nothing about the practicalities of genetics, then married his first cousin, which resulted in all seven of his children having physical or mental disorders.
(One girl died after birth, another at 10. His oldest daughter had a prolonged breakdown at 15. Three of his children became semi-invalids, and his last son was born mentally retarded and died 19 months after birth.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In the first edition of his book, Darwin regarded “natural selection” and “survival of the fittest” as different concepts. By the sixth edition of his Origin of the Species, he thought they meant the same thing, but that “survival of the fittest” was the more accurate. In a still later book (Descent of Man, 1871), Darwin ultimately abandoned “natural selection” as a hopeless mechanism and returned to Lamarckism. Even Darwin recognized the theory was falling to pieces. The supporting evidence just was not there.
Charles Darwin was born into wealth and able to have a life of ease. He took two years of medical school at Edinburgh University, and then dropped out. It was the only scientific training he ever received. Because he spent the time in bars with his friends, he barely passed his courses. Darwin had no particular purpose in life, and his father planned to get him into a nicely paid job as an Anglican minister. Darwin did not object.
But an influential relative got him a position as the unpaid “naturalist” on a ship planning to sail around the world, the Beagle.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In February 1858, while in a delirious fever on the island of Ternate in the Molaccas, Wallace conceived the idea, “survival of the fittest,” as being the method by which species change. But the concept proves nothing.
The fittest; which one is that? It is the one that survived longest. Which one survives longest? The fittest.
This is reasoning in a circle.
The phrase says nothing about the evolutionary process, much less proving it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Still Hungry?
Alfred Russell Wallace (1823-1913) is considered to be the man who developed the theory which Darwin published.
Wallace was deeply involved in spiritism at the time he formulated the theory in his Ternate Paper, which Darwin, with the help of two friends (Charles Lyell and Joseph Hooker), pirated and published under his own name.
Darwin, a wealthy man, thus obtained the royalties which belonged to Wallace, a poverty-ridden theorist. In 1980, Arnold C. Brackman, in his book, A Delicate Arrangement, established that Darwin plagiarized Wallace’s material. It was arranged that a paper by Darwin would be read to the Royal Society, in London, while Wallace’s was held back until later. Priorities for the ideas thus having been taken care of, Darwin set to work to prepare his book.
In 1875, Wallace came out openly for spiritism and Marxism, another stepchild of Darwinism.
This was Wallace’s theory: Species have changed in the past, by which one species descended from another in a manner that we cannot prove today.
That is exactly what modern evolution teaches. Yet it has no more evidence supporting the theory than Wallace had in 1858, when he devised the theory while in a fever.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Food For Thought
First Law of Thermodynamics (1847)
Heinrich von Helmholtz stated the law of conservation of energy: The sum total of all matter will always remain the same. This law refutes several aspects of evolutionary theory.
Isaac Asimov calls it “the most fundamental generalization about the universe that scientists have ever been able to make”.
Second Law of Thermodynamics (1850)
R.J.E. Clausius stated the law of entropy:
All systems will tend toward the most mathematically probable state, and eventually become totally random and disorganized.
In other words, everything runs down, wears out, and goes to pieces. This law totally eliminates the basic evolutionary theory that simple evolves into complex.
Einstein said the two laws were the most enduring laws he knew of.
Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) was another genuine scientist. In the process of studying fermentation, he performed his famous 1861 experiment, in which he disproved the theory of spontaneous generation. Life cannot arise from non-living materials. This experiment was very important; for, up to that time, a majority of scientists believed in spontaneous generation. (They thought that if a pile of old clothes were left in a corner, it would breed mice! The proof was that, upon later returning to the clothes, mice would frequently be found there.) Pasteur concluded from his experiment that only God could create living creatures. But modern evolutionary theory continues to be based on that out-dated theory disproved by Pasteur: spontaneous generation (life arises from non-life).
Why? Because it is the only basis on which evolution could occur.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To “cheekless” Geoff,
Reciprocity requires a quid pro quo agreement which I am not willing to abide by– by you or anyone else who believes in killing innocent children.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Since using your chosen call sign would be an insult in my opinion, despite the fact that you chose it, I will refer to you instead as Ms. Wind.
Ms. Wind, I am so sorry for the ordeal you needlessly endured. It sounds awful and there is nothing I have had to live through that comes close. I won’t even suggest that I can imagine what it must have been like.
Having said that, science did not fail you. The science of your situation was there from the very beginning. It was the doctors that failed you. They failed you because as well-meaning, intelligent and educated as I’m sure they are, they are not infallible. They do the best they can and it’s not always enough. I’m sure that’s incredibly frustrating for them and their patients. At the rate our knowledge of biology is advancing, a hundred years from now, people will look back in astonishment at what will seem as barbaric methods of treatment, just as we do the same when looking back just a few hundred years.
I believe you when you say you suffered for four years. I’m so sorry you had to go through that. But please don’t believe that science failed you.
In closing, you have not treated me with the level of respect I have treated you. But I have “turned the other cheek” as Jesus suggested and continue to treat you with respect because you are a fellow human being and deserving of such. I hope you will consider reciprocating.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If science is so practical, true and necessary for human evolvement, why is it that with the help of three (3) medical doctors I was given a hysterectomy instead of the hip replacement I needed (and suffered with for 4 years). I was given x-rays, blood tests, ad nauseum, until it was finally discovered that NO, after 4 years of overwhelming pain WHAT I REALLY NEEDED WAS A NEW HIP, not a hysterectomy. Can science be WRONG?? In my case, science was, and I suffered for 4 years with my condition. Is abortion a condition? Robot a$$hole Geoff thinks so. YOUR condition, Geoff the Impaler– sorry to say there is no cure for. So, jerk that around in that hollow bowl on your shoulders, wormwood, and suck up to some deadly truth which you so vainly deny.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To Geoff:
First, nice of you to continue the discussion, though, in my opinion, not every comment deserves a response. Some people are better left to wrestle with themselves.
Second, in response to your question, “if there is a God, why does he allow child molesters to do the evil that they do?” I often wonder, if there is no God, why is there any evil in the world?
Why do humans experience evil in the world? Where does our perception of “evil” come from? Why do any of us ever feel “wronged” when someone treats us unkindly? Where do these negative feelings come from, and what logic are they based on? Where do any negative emotions come from? Especially, why do we experience sensations of hurt when our friends or family treat us “unfairly”? Why do we feel sadness when we know others are being treated “unfairly”? Yes, there is a great diversity of definitions of right and wrong, but I have never met or known of a person who has no opinion of good and bad conduct.
Why do we all have so many opinions about how we and everyone else should act? If there is no God, why do children suffer when they are mistreated and demeaned? It is because they were born with a conscience about how they should be treated, and how they should treat others. The only logical explanation for this conscience is that it was put there by an intelligent being with independent thoughts and ideas about how things should work.
Lastly, I appreciate your frustration with many religious people who are not educated about science, but that is most people, not just the religious. However, science can neither prove nor disprove that God exists. You either believe He exists, or you believe that He does not exist. Both beliefs rest on faith, not science. It is illogical to claim that you abstain from having beliefs. Only when EVERYTHING is known by science will we live without faith.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
We experience emotions because they are one of the responses our brain makes to some situations. Most of the origins of those emotions are deep-seated and formed, for the most part, before we have anything but the vaguest of memories. How do we know this? Through study. Children that are not given at least some love and affection from birth to around five years old never recover from it, ever. They are permanently damaged beyond repair. They will never be able to respond normally to situations that you and I do without worry. This is because they simply did not get the attention that was needed at a crucial time in their brain development. There are many examples of this.
One of my frustrations with some (not all) people of faith is that they seem to feel that without God, they would be lost. That’s it’s the only thing that allows them to know what is right and wrong. To quote Isaac Asimov, “I don’t need God to tell me right from wrong. That’s what I have a conscience for.” Did God create our conscience? I don’t think so. I think it’s simply another product of our evolution. Modern humans are not particularly robust creatures. Our advantages are few but they are powerful. Our intelligence and opposable thumbs top the list. Because we can reason, we see the survival benefit of living in groups and agreeing on a set of rules. But we are not the only ones that do this. Even fish don’t usually feed on other fish in their school.
I will agree with you that ignorance of science is not an attribute that those of faith alone share. There are plenty of non-believers that are just as ignorant. The difference, in my experience, is that non-believers seems to simply say “Gosh, I just do know how that works” where as those of faith blindly follow the Bible without question. For the most part, scientists CONSTANTLY question each others theories and even, on occasion, facts. Science is not like the law where you are there is the presumption of innocence. In science, without sufficient evidence, a theory is not considered fact. There is not burden of proof on the part of science of show that God does or does not exist. In the eyes of science, he does not, at least, according to the scientific method.
Now more than half of scientists do say they believe in God. But I would guess that for 99% of those, that believe is faith-based. It is a belief without proof which is the very definition of faith.
Personally, I don’t believe in God. I don’t because I have yet to see evidence that supports his existence (which is of course the point of faith). However, if God loves me so much, as it suggested by some parts of the Bible, I fail to understand why he feels I have to believe in him and love him back without proof of his existence. I don’t see what God would have to gain from such a ruse.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The research you cited shows that healthy emotions are necessary for humans to function properly, but it does not explain why we need them. A sense of right and wrong is not necessary to function as a pack or a school, just an instinct to organize together and not be left alone. The complex feelings of fair play and kindness that occur between best friends, lovers, or children and parents goes way beyond a need to be an organized group. What evolutionary benefit is there in having hurt feelings? There is no hard science to explain why humans have a conscience. Any attempt to explain social science with hard science is pure speculation.
I agree with you and Asimov that you don’t need God to tell you right and wrong. In theological circles, this idea is called “Common Grace.” It is the knowledge of God that everyone is born with, their conscience, and the common sense that we have to seek out meaning and purpose in life, and believe that there is something “out there” that is bigger than you are. People who heed this common sense can learn right from wrong without believing in God or being a Christian. The ugly truth that many Christians don’t like to admit is that there are good people who are not Christians, and there are Christians who are bad people. If you read the Christian Bible, it is full of stories about bad people. The point of the stories is not how good believers are, but that God is good, no matter what, even to people who don’t deserve it. King David was a rapist, Abraham was an adulterer, Jacob was a notorious liar, and the Apostle Peter had a violent temper. The message is that God patiently came alongside these bad people and taught them to be better.
Also, you are right that many Christians don’t challenge their knowledge or faith. However, there is a vibrant community of theologians who do constantly challenge and debate with each other, and theology has changed as science and theology both have matured throughout history. Unfortunately, most Christians seem to think that logically examining their beliefs is either sinful or better left to an elite (historically male) class within the church. But the Bible clearly teaches that God expects every Christian to diligently examine his/her beliefs every day:
Acts 17: 11Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
Although some Christians warn people not to question their faith, the Bible clearly teaches that every Christian should test what they are being taught, even when it comes from the apostle Paul!
God did give proof of his existence to some people, but He chooses to make most people rely on faith. (Although there is scientific evidence to support faith in a creator. Scientists call it Intelligent Design.)
John 20: 24 Now Thomas, called the Twin, one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 The other disciples therefore said to him, “We have seen the Lord.” So he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.” 26 And after eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, “Peace to you!” 27 Then He said to Thomas, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.” 28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Finally, the only reason God needs for anything that He does is that He is. When God revealed Himself to Moses, He didn’t say, “I love you. I am good. I will make your wildest dreams come true, and that’s why you should do what I am telling you to do.” He simply said, “I Am.”
Exodus 3: 13 Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?” 14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am . This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’
The very fact of His existence as the creator of all things is all the authority He needs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
so we are worried about abortion when they are trying to take away the first and second amendments? huh, who the hell cares, soon it wont even be on your mind cause you wont have the right to medical care period. gay rights? another thing to be sorted out after we knock the head of our current gov’t. All of this can be sorted out in time, but the fact is that Ron Paul is the best man for the job and nothing will change unless we change our gov’t and get them out of our lives, putting the power back where it belongs, with the people and the states.
then, and only then should we waste our time on these long winded debates. (i know it is important, but if people don’t back a serious candidate, and organize themselves soon, none of this stuff will matter much)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And if there is a God, why does he allow child molesters to do the evil that they do? Certainly their victims can not defend themselves. I can’t imagine a reasonable argument to justify such behavior.
As for evolution, it’s not theory. It’s fact. Apostles believe because proof denies faith. Scientists don’t believe in evolution. They know. Knowledge comes from facts. Faith on the other hand, is believing without facts. You can of course choose to believe in God without any proof of his existence. But to claim that evolution and creationism are in any way on the same playing field is to ignore reality.
And anyway, why is it that so many people of faith think that evolution some how denies the existence of God? Evolution is a very efficient system and while I don’t believe in God, those that do could certainly choose to believe that God came up with evolution while creating the universe.
Any why do some people of Christian faith believe the Earth is 6000 years old? The Bible does not say that anywhere. Ussher came up with this in the 1600’s at a time when practically every respected scientist already agreed that the Earth was at least millions of years old but probably much older. There is nothing in the Bible that says the Earth is not billions of years old.
Where did all the dinosaurs go? They went extinct. 99.9% of all species of life that have ever lived on this planet are extinct. The Earth is good at promoting life but it’s even better at extinguishing it. The most likely explanation in the case of dinosaurs is an asteroid impact. There is a preponderance of evidence to support this. Iridium is only found in asteroids. It doesn’t naturally occur on Earth. Right at the geological layer where the dinosaur fossils end, there is a layer of iridium that is spread across the entire Earth. There is a crater on the bottom of the ocean off the coast of Mexico of the right age and size. Computer models have shown that an asteroid of sufficient size to create that crater would have thrown enough dirt into the atmosphere to block out the sun for months. Without sunlight, plants die quickly. The dinosaurs and other creatures that eat the plants then die. The dinosaurs that eat plant-eaters, die.
Fortunately for us, small mammals that at the time lived mostly underground, survived in sufficient numbers to continue. With the dinosaurs gone, it became possible for them to evolve into larger life forms. They don’t just decide to evolve. Evolution is a result of mutation and that mutation is random. Given enough time, a random mutation can come along that is beneficial. For example, being larger or faster or smarter than others of your species. You out-compete them for food and a mate and you pass on that mutation to your off-spring. Slowly but surely, perhaps, you replace your lesser fellow species members. I think the problem some people have with evolution stems from the fact that they don’t appreciate the amount of time life has had to evolve. Life has had more than a billion years to go from single celled organism to modern day you. At the heart of all life is DNA. Do we know where it came from or how it formed? No. Scientists are still looking for that answer.
But you if you’d like, choose to believe that God created DNA. It’s another great idea. Just don’t ignore the reality that DNA and evolution lead to you and me.
This discussion is about abortion of course. Those that are anti-choice almost always end up quoting “Thou shalt not kill.” from the ten commandments. It’s applied to abortion and if abortion is killing than abortion is against God’s wishes. And yet, almost all those that believe this have no trouble killing animals for sport or sending others into harms way to fight a false war over oil.
You can interpret your religious doctrine any way you want. That’s your prerogative. But what you can’t do, is pass laws based upon it. That’s why we have separation between church and state. To allow people to have different beliefs and the morals that accompany them. Just as variation creates healthier living organisms (and why you are not allowed to marry your cousin as a result), variation in believes ultimately creates a healthier society provided that such variation is tolerated.
So believe what you wish to believe, but be tolerant of those with views that don’t line up with yours. It doesn’t make their views right and yours wrong. It’s not a question of that. They are just different.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So Geoff,
The building blocks of any scientific theory is evidence. You’ve already admitted that evolution provides no evidence for the origin of life–now perhaps you will also concur that there is no good evidence (ie that which is not begging the very question) for macro-evolution. Most evolutionists will try to wish away the problem by saying “it takes far too long a time period to observe” or some such..but then, that’s my exact point–one of the pillars of the scientific model is observation/empiricism and your theory is remarkably deficient in this respect. Besides, it defies logic to suggest that a single cell can “evolve” into the astounding variety of life we observe today–this same variety providing an implicit proof of the falsity of your theory. IF macro-evolution were a fact, it should be happening ALL around us–yet what we see are discreet entities that produce genetically-predictable offspring. The expanse of human history has NEVER observed one instance of your much-ballyhooed theory.
Once again, I freely admit my belief in creationism is a faith & it should never be taught to kids as science in a tax-funded school–you refuse to acknowlege your religion as such and demand that it be taught to my kids as science. It stands that “science” without evidence is philosophy. I’m saying you ought to man up, be intellectually honest, and stop forcing your religion down the throat of Americans.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
We know that evolution is the result of mutations in DNA. That is not theory. That is fact. You can pretend that it’s theory but you would be in disagreement with 99.9% of the people that conduct scientific research for a living. Do we know how DNA came about or where it came from with any level of certainty? No. There are theories but but proving them may turn out to be impossible because the evidence, unfortunately, may be long gone. The universe was after all 10 billion or so years old before life began on Earth. That’s a long time for the right proteins to get together and form DNA.
A single human life or even many generations of lives are too short to see most of evolution in progress. That is for two reasons. First, mutations are random and most are lethal. It is quite rare that a mutation leads to something beneficial and then, that benefit has to be pretty strong to give the life form an edge.
But there are, in fact, examples of evolution that can be seen. For example, there is a species of moth in England that was light in color before the industrial revolution. Over just a few decades, it became darker and darker. Why? Because the smoke from factory smokestacks covered the trees and the lightest of these moths stood out like a sore thumb against the now darker trees and were more easily eaten. The darker ones which before stood out against the trees now blend in and this provides them and advantage. With fewer light-colored moths around, the dark ones mate with other dark ones creating even darker moths that have even better survival ability than their parents.
But even without these examples that can be witnessed, the fossil record is filled with evidence of the evolution of many different species. Is it complete? No, it’s not. And that is because fossilization is a rare event. There are almost certainly thousands if not millions of species that were never fossilized and as result will be unknown to us. To give you an idea of just how rare fossilization is, if every person on Earth just dropped dead all at once right where they are standing, we might not even end up with a single complete fossilized skeleton.
For those of you that are skeptical about evolution, study it. Learn about it. If you have been told that evolution is full of holes, you have been mislead. Creationists for example often quote Darwin out of context when he said that he admits it seems fantastic that something has complex as the eye could evolve through random mutation. They leave out the fact that he spends the next 15 pages explaining just how it happened.
But again, I say that evolution does NOT contradict God. You can choose to believe in God and in evolution. Evolution is a great system and if you believe in God, you can certainly choose to believe he created DNA and the process of evolution.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Geoff,
Your entire premise and your cited evidences for same are all examples of begging the question–where you take an outcome and reverse-engineer it to fit your preconceived position. This is completely ingenuous and anti-science. Real science allows the evidence to adduce the theory unconstrained by bias. As for the Manchester moth, this in no way supports macro-evolution..it’s a single species of moth that has the genetic variability of being light or dark, much the same humans have. While it’s true that darker colored moths flourished after the soot of the Industrial Revolution darkened the trees these moths called home, it’s not because the moths adapted their coloration to fit the darkened trees–these moths already had the “dark” variability within their genome and there was an artificial selection process that winnowed the numbers of the lighter version (they were easier to see against the darkened trees for birds to eat). With a greater % of resulting dark moths, that trait was more prevalent and passed on to successive generations. It’s kind of like saying if Hitler killed brown-eyed folks and left those with blue eyes alone, there would be a great chance that a higher percentage of offspring would have blue eyes. Now if some “higher intelligence” witnessed this from afar, using your logic, they’d have to deduce that the blue-eyed population evolved that trait to avoid the purge of some small-mustachioed specimen of the same species.
In the end, I am convinced that people who ardently defend evolution do so as their need to avoid a God. But then it’s been said, that the atheist can’t find God for the same reason a thief can’t find a policeman–they never really wanted to find Him.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Darwin suits my purpose
- Karl Marx
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/may2009/isse-m09.shtml
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Please explain how mutations could possibly be good for the evolution of the species.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
When people hear the word “mutation” they immediately assume that any mutation is bad. This is primarily the fault of Hollywood making movies about mutants. Mutation really just means change. Let me give you a simple example of a beneficial mutation. In England there is a particular type of moth that was originally lightly colored in pigment which made it blend in when sitting on a tree trunk. Then the industrial revolution came along and factories were build belching out smoke and soot that began to settle on trees in the surrounding area. The light colored moths stood out against the now dark colored trees and were as a result, less camouflaged and were eaten more often. The coloring in these moths varied slightly (just as all humans are different – all moths are slightly different) and as a result, the darker colored moths were less likely to be eaten. So they were more likely (having not been eaten) to procreate. So the mutation that caused some to be darker turned out to be beneficial when their environment changed.
What is interesting is that it has been recently discovered that this is reserving. Factories have become cleaner over the last several decades so the trees are no longer coated in soot. The result is that the darker colored moths are standing out and the lighter colored moths now have the advantage so the mutation that causes the darker color is not longer and advantage.
Viruses mutate rapidly. Scientists can actually see this in the lab. If the mutation is useful enough, it gets passed on. You can’t get HIV from a mosquito bite (if it had bitten in person with HIV recently) because something in the mosquito’s saliva kills the HIV. But if HIV ever mutates in such a way that it survives the saliva of a mosquito, we could have a real problem.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A mutation is damage to a single DNA unit (a gene). If it occurs in a somatic (body) gene, it only injures the individual; but if to a gametic (reproductive) gene, it will be passed on to his descendants.
Far from being beneficial, mutations constitute something terrible that ruin and destroy organisms, either in the first generation or soon thereafter. Not only is it impossible for mutations to cause the evolutionary process,—they weaken or terminate the life process! The reason we all fear radiation is because they are a powerful means of producing mutations that irreparably damage our bodies.
Mutations are very rare. This point is not a guess but a scientific fact, observed by experts in the field.
“Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event.”
- F.J. Ayala, “Mechanism of Evolution,” Scientific American, September 1978, p. 63.
Mutations are random, wild events that are totally uncontrollable. When a mutation occurs, it is a chance occurrence; totally unexpected and haphazard.
Nearly all mutations are harmful. In most instances, mutations weaken or damage the organism in some way so that it (or its offspring if it is able to have any) will not long survive.
“One would expect that any interference with such a complicated piece of chemical machinery as the genetic constitution would result in damage. And, intact, this is so: the great majority of mutant genes are harmful in their effects on the organism.”
- Julian Huxley, op. cit., p. 137.
“No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.”
- Pierre Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 88.
“The [peppered moth] experiments beautifully demonstrate natural selectionor survival of the fittestin action, but they do not show evolution in progress, for however the populations may alter in their content of light, intermediate, or dark forms, all the moths remain from beginning to end Biston betularia.”
- L Harrison Matthews, “Introduction, ” to Charles Darwin’s Origin of the Species (1971 edition), p. xi.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
to Geoff, the undertaker,
So, now you claim that 99.9% of all life was destroyed by an asteroid? How do you know this? Did you read it in a book? What book? Did you see this event happen? You believe in “hearsay”? Because, when you insert the theory of rodents = us, then you can understand why humans act like animals and kill.
I don’t claim to “know” anything. Was there a president Lincoln? Who says? I was not there. You were not there. Do you hold, on faith, that in fact a person existed because a book was written about him or there are faded pictures of him? That is an easy one to figure out. Unless you were there, in time and space, then you are believing in something you can’t see, hear or touch. We could have been lied to about the fall of the late great roman empire. It is easy to do to believe a lie. It is harder, much harder, to believe the truth.
I may not be well read, well versed, or even well enough to expound with intelligent, well proposed sentences. But, I do know this– the truth can be twisted, thwarted, and dressed up to look like what we want it to. Why don’t you go live at Jurassic Park; you may find a home there. A lonely home, no less, but a home.
So, I seem abusive and call names; is that any worse than murder? Then accuse me of that, you sodden speck of moldy left-over lab results.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To Idiot Wind:
Matt. 5
21″You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder,and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
I John 2
9Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. 10Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in him to make him stumble. 11But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness; he does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded him.
Being abusive and hateful is the same as murder in the eyes of God.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Amen to that. Whether or not each of us is a person of faith, we should at least be respectful of one and other.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Respect”, says Geoff. Where’s you’re respect for life? If I call you friend to your face and yet stab you in the back: which is worse? I say it to your face, which is as hard as the stone you have for a heart.
And to One Way: Do you not realize it was the Sanhedrin who charged Jesus with blasphemy and helped to seal his fate of crucifiction? I do not care if I am called to the court of the SANHEDRIN. I did not say I hated anyone. I hate the act of murder and the ommission and hiding of truth. Read Mark 14:63,64, and Mark 14:60-62, where the SANHEDRIN couldn’t stand to hear the truth.
“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.” Isaiah 5:20
Call me bitter or call the website host and get me off here if you don’t want me to say what I’ve got to say. Silence me now, as you would a helpless baby. Sweet will be my sleep, for I know that I have stood up for something; for the least of God’s creation. You all want it your way. Well, it looks like you’ve got it “your way”, by the mighty power of the government, just like the Sanhedrin who were put in power by the Roman government.
Is saying to you, “Go fly a kite” too harsh of words for ya? Then go scrape out another womb, why don’t ya?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The Sanhedrin made hypocritical attempts to uphold God’s law. What Christ is saying is that you should not obey the Sanhedrin for fear of their political power, you should obey Christ for fear of condemnation. And Christ says, “…But anyone who says ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.” (Matt. 5:22)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
One big difference between me and you is that I will actually acknowledge that anything is possible. There are things that are more likely and less likely, but anything is possible. It is possible for example, that neither of us was actually born to our parents. It is possible we were assembled in a lab somewhere and that our parents have been keeping this secret from us. Just because we see other children born with our own eyes doesn’t mean we were. However, there is so much evidence in support of the fact that we were born to our parents and none that we were created in a lab. That means that the former is so likely, so probable that we accept it as fact. And the latter, with no evidence to support it, while not impossible, is accepted as fantasy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To anyone,
How does one determine if one is “a little pregnant” or “a lot pregnant”? I don’t consider my beliefs “religious”, because religion is man-made. In other words, why are not all the catholic priests who are known pedophiles not in prison? When a catholic gives to the church, their money goes to high priced lawyers and keeping their priests out of jail. I do consider myself a Christian and moral. Is it murder to kill a “little” child or a “big” child? You who believe unsuspiciously of the evolutionary theory without evidence are just as guilty of being an apostle of Darwin and others as those who chose to kiss the pope’s ring and call him holy. Some of you say “evolution and science has all the answers” still has not been able to make clear to me where all the dinosaurs went to. Many famous people were/are the results of rape/incest. If you were in the womb, which would you chose, LIFE or DEATH?
Anymore, the safe home of the living babies are no longer WOMBS, but TOMBS.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Idiot Wind
You are correct that religion is man-made. The Catholic church is a human institution. I can’t speak for the abuses within the church, because I have no experience with them. I can speak for the good things the church does because I actively do these things. A moral Christian still has to attribute this faith to an inheritance of those before them. Rejection of the catholic church on the basis of its members is like rejecting the united states on the basis of the people here. There are just as many if not many more known pedophiles that aren’t in jail who are a plethora of beliefs in this country.
The kissing of the pope’s ring is something of medieval antiquity. The pope is not holy as more than we are holy. However he does encourage everyone to strive for holiness.
Evolution/Science does not have all the answers, anymore than religious institutions do. You have to approach life like they do in the Mediterranean region – with many fiestas and much joy. Science is good in its place. Religion is good in its place. Society is good in its place. All three work together (if a person chooses to allow it) to help enrich a person’s life.
The point of this debate is rooted in our founding heritage. Do you acknowledge that rights of all to life and liberty and pursuit (not guarenteee) of happiness?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mahew Blackman,
thank you for nice reply. when I get angry, I try to pose it on something that is wrong. there is a wrong in our country. call it liberal or just the change of the times. but you and I know this is not right. I hurt for the unborn and for the mothers who have to make a decision about her baby. My daughter is a lawyer who practices law and her specialty is adoption. Why can’t this be one answer as I cry?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Geoff,
There seems to be some dissonance in the burden of proof you demand in your critique of religion–all the while allowing your belief in evolution to skate by without such scrutiny . I freely acknowlege my belief in Jesus is a faith..I further concede that my belief that creationism is the most likely mechanism God employed also falls plainly in the realm of faith. I would certainly never advocate teaching creationism in a tax-funded school. My main point is that if we’re consistent, we would hold the evolutionary paradigm to the same level of critique. If your model doesn’t have a good starting point (much less observable trans-special saltations), it should not be dogmatically adhered to..nor should it be force-fed to my children as fact. It stands that evolution is no more part of science than is creationism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Not at all. There is so much evidence in support of evolution that 99.9% of scientists support it. Evolution is constantly studied and always stands up to scrutiny. Evolution is 100% science. Creationism, that has not a single shred of evidence with which to support itself, is 100% fantasy.
At the very minimum, you can call Creationism a theory but even theories have at least some evidence.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Not one of your statements can be supported by the available evidence. Your statements are, in fact, a belief system.
A belief system that takes a much longer leap of faith than creationism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Science has eight characteristics that creationism cannot share. Evolution falls within all eight characterics of science.
Eight Characteristics of Science
1. Domain is the phenomena of the natural world
2. Collection of data is not random or biased
3. Data is collected so that is enhances the understanding of the natural world
4. Begin with a question
5. Devise a hypothesis and tests deductions
6. Universality
7. All observations and experiments are not accepted unless verified
8. Science Progresses and becomes more refined over time
Eight Characteristics of Creationism that do not match
1. Creationism’s realm of knowledge is in the supernatural as well as the natural.
2. Data collection is basically first 2 chapters of genesis
3. Data is used to enhance a person’s belief in the supernatural
4. Begins with an answer and then tries to find support
5. No hypothesis or deductions (these will undermine the system of faith (you do not question faith))
6. Can’t be accepted by people who do not have faith
7. No need for verification by a third party who doesn’t share your view. Basically you can get a Hindu person to “verify” your views through independent research
8. Creationism does not refine nor does it change over time. Its the same with no change. Dogmatically adhered to without questioning.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Tony, you undergird part of your argument with what you view to be the veracity of evolution. I wonder (since you seem to be committed to searching for truth) whether you’re open to the fact that the fundamental origin of evolution is metaphysical–you can’t have evolution where there is no life to begin with. Given the absence of evidence for abiogenesis, you and all other evolutionists are stuck in the uncomfortable position of defending your “science” as something more credible than creationism (or any other faith for that matter). If we are being honest, BOTH (evo/creationism) fall outside the realm of science since they rely on a metaphysical origin..consequently, neither should be taught in high school (imho). As for abortion, if we view an inherent wrong in the practice, the objective should be to eliminate it, not to reconcile it. When the reproductive “rights” of an empowered group subverts the inalienable right of life for a seperate group, we are obligated to act.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thomas, the difference between evolution and creationism, is that evolution is fact-based. There are no facts that support creationism. Do we know where DNA came from? No, we don’t. But scientists are willing to acknowledge that this remains a mystery until we can prove its origin. Creationists says “God made everything. It says so in the Bible.” as if that’s all the proof that is needed. But attempting to prove that God created the universe or that he/she/it even exists is a pointless. Faith is believing in something in the absence of proof. That’s also a self-reinforcing delusion. And if you could prove that God exists, you would no longer have faith in him/her/it by definition.
So the difference is that in the case of science, it is accepted that until you can prove something, it’s just a theory. In science, you can BELIEVE in a theory but you KNOW a fact. For the religious, as long as it’s written in the Bible, that’s proof enough. Of course the problem with that is that there’s all kinds of horrible stuff in the Bible and if you start picking and choosing which parts you will believe in then the entire book is up for grabs.
The God of the Old Testament is a pretty angry guy who in some cases is just down right evil. Killing the first born in every house in Egypt except those with lamb’s blood on the door? What about the Jews that didn’t get the message or didn’t have a lamb to slaughter? Did God kill them? And if some Egyptian over-heard the Jews talking about the lamb’s blood and put some on his door, was his eldest child spared? And if God is all-knowing, wouldn’t he know who was a first born from an Egyptian household and not have to bother with all the wasteful lamb’s blood? And isn’t killing the first born to punish their parents the same as abortion? And what about this whole killing the first born business anyway? Certainly not all Egyptians supported the enslavement of the Jews. God must have gone to anger management training or something between the writing of the Old Testament and the New Testament.
And certainly if the Jews actually where enslaved by the Egyptians, we would find some evidence of this. But there is none. In fact, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that there were no Jews in Egypt when the pyramids where built. And there is plenty of evidence to suggest that they were built not by slaves but by paid workers. Modern day Christians should consider distancing themselves from and perhaps even renouncing the Old Testament. Oh wait, that’s the book where God created the universe. Damn, that’s not going to work because they would have to let go of that as well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You self absorbed idiot Geoff,
God’s got you bamboozled, hasn’t He? Ha ha! A laugh on you from God. You can’t figure it out, can you? –so you’re blaming God– the typical childhood response.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s unfortunate that you can’t have a logical, rational debate. Either you have run out of reasonable arguments or you are incapable of making them. I can’t tell which because you only seem to be capable of insults.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
…well, at least insults is one thing I’m good at. Some people are good at killing a person with more than words.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The irony of your statements is that you attack a lot of fundamentalist Christianity but do little to attack the modern position of the oldest Christian institution. The other irony is that the Catholic Church supports that evolution does no harm to faith. In fact, the Church sees evolution as a fairly valid explanation of the driving force of life and species. The only the Church warns against is science touching the metaphysical, which is good because science has no business there, while the Church has a vested interest in the metaphysical. (Basically don’t mess with the soul, the Church says). Even if life were to arise out of nothing that wouldn’t undermine the Church’s position today about its faith, doctrine, and Moral teaching. Its funny that the Church can support evolution and also denounce abortion while fundamentalist groups have trouble gaining a solid ground with either idea.
The Church has been around for a long time. It has seen civilizations rise and fall, it would be wise to take its council, especially on things related to human experience.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The Catholic church is as manipulated as the science church.
Just a Catholic’s opinion here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The “holy” catholic church is as fascist as they come. They make their own rules, and if you don’t follow them, then you are not a Christian. Idiots. I pity the lot of them who fall for their lies and pedophile priests who use and abuse kids. Idiots.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Tony–you undergird part of your argument with what you view to be the veracity of evolution. I wonder (since you seem to be committed to searching for truth) whether you’re open to the fact that the fundamental origin of evolution is metaphysical–you can’t have evolution where there is no life to begin with. Given the absence of evidence for abiogenesis, you and all other evolutionists are stuck in the uncomfortable position of defending your “science” as something more credible than creationism (or any other faith for that matter). If we are being honest, BOTH (evo/creationism) fall outside the realm of science since they rely on a metaphysical origin..consequently, neither should be taught in high school (imho). As for abortion, if we view an inherent wrong in the practice, the objective should be to eliminate it, not to reconcile it. When the reproductive “rights” of an empowered group subverts the inalienable right of life for a seperate group, we are obligated to act.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“you can’t have evolution where there is no life to begin with.”
Yes you can, because life is nothing but chemical reactions. Sooner or later you will get certain chemical reactions that you call “life”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You are begging the question, Non-Federal. The fact remains that no human eyes have ever witnessed life materialize from non-life. Since the cornerstone of the scientific method is observation, that reality places the theory of evolution plainly in the realm of a belief system (right along side creationism, I will quickly add). Evolution demands a starting point and it’s greatest adherents don’t have one..one that is scientific at least.
I will say though, I agree with your view on the federal reserve..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“The fact remains that no human eyes have ever witnessed life materialize from non-life.”
There isn’t even a solid definition of “life”. What makes life different than any other chemical reaction? It’s a totally subjective concept.
“Since the cornerstone of the scientific method is observation, that reality places the theory of evolution plainly in the realm of a belief system (right along side creationism, I will quickly add).”
The observation is all the different “life” out there. Lots of “life” have eyes, for instance. Lots of “life” have 4 arms/legs. Evolution is an explanation (i.e., a theory, because that’s what a theory is) of how all those different “life” forms arose.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Not sure if you’re trying to obfuscate the point here..I think most folks–evolutionary scientists included–define “life” similar to Merriam Websters: “an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction”. The real question is how did that first living cell arise? To your point that evolution is an explanation for the origins of what current “life” we see..well, so is creationism. In fact, allow me to propose my new theory on the origin of life–the “Purple monkey from Pluto teleports to Earth and deposits the first living cell” theory. My point is that in order to be credible, a scientific theory should have evidence. Since there is manifestly NO evidence/observation of abiogenesis–we are to categorize any hypothesis in reliance of such as not in accordance with the scientific method. I’m not trying to get the religion of creationism in the schools (as it maintains a reliance on a metaphysical origin)..I’m merely trying to get the religion of evolutionary teaching out.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“The real question is how did that first living cell arise? To your point that evolution is an explanation for the origins of what current “life” we see..well, so is creationism.”
Is creationism testable? “Some guy outside the universe did it!”.
Evolution is testable. Bacteria can become resistant to certain drugs. Explanation? The original bacteria were a mix of vulnerable and resistant bacteria. The only ones that survive and reproduce are the ones resistant to those drugs, because all of the vulnerable ones die off. That leads to nothing but ones that are resistant. That is called natural selection.
“Not sure if you’re trying to obfuscate the point here..I think most folks–evolutionary scientists included–define “life” similar to Merriam Websters: “an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction””
Stars metabolize hydrogen in order to grow. They react to gravity from other stars. When they eat up all their hydrogen they blow up; that material condenses to form new stars.
So it has to have all those qualities but also be an “organismic state”. Well what’s an “organismic state”? That defines life in terms of life, so it’s a circular definition.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So back to the point–which you seem to be trying to avoid. What is your evidence for the origin of DNA?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Non-fed,
The defining key to all scientific theory (and even hypotheses) is that it must be testable and therefore disprovable. If there is no possibility of testing the disprovability of the theory then it does not hold up to scientific reason. Your bacteria example does not in any way prove evolution; rather it supports variation. To say that the only genes remaining are the resistant ones is like saying that to dark haired people cannot have a light haired child, which we know to be false. Your evolutionary myth ignores real scientific theory.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“What is your evidence for the origin of DNA?”
Science is never “finished”. Scientists don’t have all the answers to everything. Just because nobody knows for sure the specifics doesn’t “disprove” evolution. Evolution doesn’t even care about the origin of life, mainly because there is no clear point before which you could say “life doesn’t exist” and after which you could say “life exists”, mainly because the concept of life is subjective. You can define “life” (or anything really) however you want.
I don’t know for sure that I won’t fall if I jump off a cliff, but I can be pretty confident from past experimentation (the results of which are generalized as “the laws of physics”) that I will. For all I know, those 99.999999% that were used to derive the laws of physics had certain conditions that don’t apply when I jump off that cliff. Does that mean gravity is only a theory and should be rejected in place of godly intervention?
DNA is only evidence of evolution, since it implies that all “life” has a common ancestor (which could have been a single DNA molecule). DNA can develop from RNA, but where did RNA come from? Nobody knows, but they’re *working on it*. Scientists look and get answers while creationists pretend that everything is answered already by saying “some guy outside the universe did it!” (which explains nothing) for everything. Why is the sky blue? Some guy outside the universe did it! Why do I fall when I jump off a cliff? Some guy outside the universe makes me fall!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“To say that the only genes remaining are the resistant ones is like saying that to dark haired people cannot have a light haired child”
I’m talking about survival of the fittest. Bacteria that are vulnerable to drugs don’t survive, they don’t reproduce. Bacteria that are resistant survive and reproduce; they are more fit.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There is other sciences other than evolution.
Cells don’t mutate so we didn’t come from monkeys. You’re body reproduces trillions of cells a day. Our cells don’t change from one life to another..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8asQkegV_wk
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
if anything, science has proved evolution to be wrong.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Science is never “finished”. Scientists don’t have all the answers to everything. Just because nobody knows for sure the specifics doesn’t “disprove” evolution.”
It seems like you have found a convenient theory–damn the evidence. Such a situation, a science makes it not.
“Evolution doesn’t even care about the origin of life, mainly because there is no clear point before which you could say “life doesn’t exist” and after which you could say “life exists”, mainly because the concept of life is subjective. ”
I contend that the MAIN reason Evolutionary adherents dismiss origins is because they realize how damning the lack of evidence to their theory is..not that they have the subjectivity that you apparently have in defining what life is. Most evolutionists are not at odds with a general conception of what life is. They just can’t explain it’s origin..which is the problem you seem to be attempting to sidestep with your repeated canard of the supposed subjectivity of same.
“Does that mean gravity is only a theory and should be rejected in place of godly intervention?”
I’m not assailing the theory of gravity. We have lots of good evidence for gravity but none for evolution.
“DNA is only evidence of evolution, since it implies that all “life” has a common ancestor (which could have been a single DNA molecule). ”
This is begging the question. Real evidence adduces a theory. Pretend science retrofits supposed evidence to a preconceived bias.
“Some guy outside the universe makes me fall!”
I counter that you have already fallen. Perhaps some guy outside the universe is just trying to catch you!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Real evidence adduces a theory. Pretend science retrofits supposed evidence to a preconceived bias.”
Egg-zactly. Thank you Mr. Braun
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
According to the latest data, astronomers estimate the universe at approximately 13 to 15 billion years old. Let’s reference the fields of
statistics and biochemistry and incorporate the field of astrophysics. The chance of only 100 amino acids aligning together in the correct sequence – less than a simple protein useful in the production of life – is 1 in
10 to 157th power. Astrophysicists estimate that there are 10 to 80th power infinitesimal “particles” in the universe. They estimate that the earth is no older than 30 billion years (10 to 18th power seconds) old. (A case was already made that it is much much younger). Generously allowing every particle to participate in one thousand billion (10 to 12th power) events per second yields 10^80 x 10^18 x 10^12 or 10 to the 110th power (you add exponents in this case), whatever that number is called. It is still 10 to the 47th power away from forming less than the simplest protein. In other words, macro-evolution is statistically impossible even generously granting it the greatest leeway.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“I’m talking about survival of the fittest. Bacteria that are vulnerable to drugs don’t survive, they don’t reproduce. Bacteria that are resistant survive and reproduce; they are more fit.”
So the manner in which genes are passed down from generation to generation is subjective to the situation? Survival of the fittest is a completely bogus concept that proves nothing. Simply because a bacteria as drug resistant genes in it does not mean that it does not also have non-drug resistant genes. I point again to the hair color. Just because my hair is light does not mean that I have not inherited my dad’s dark hair genes. This is called variation and we see it in moths and bacteria. Evolution “scientists” choose to ignore the concept of variation to help explain their bias.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I believe most of the people who are against evolution have an inproper bias of its understanding.
Evolution is first and foremost dependent upon three qualities of life. Reproduction, Inheritance, and Variation.
The following are myths about evolution:
1) Evolution ignores variation
2) Evolution explains the origin of life
3) Evolution is simply the survival of the fittest
4) Evolution is based simply on mutations
5) Evolution doesn’t exist because we don’t see new organisms arising every day (“Why don’t I see monkeys becoming people?”)
6) Evolution says that newer organisms are more complex than previous organisms.
Evolution is a theory about speciation. Its goal is to explain why there is a diversity of life on the planet, and what rules govern this diversity. Evolution is not about explaining the origins of life, it is about explaining the forces that drive life to speciate. Hence, evolution is not an explanation about how life came about, but how life becomes more variable through time.
Survival of the fittest is an explanation to explain why animals become more specialized into their environments over time. Darwin and others extrapolated and saw that if animals become increasingly specialized within their environments over time a population will be differentiated from their ancestral populations. The moth example is an example of specialization of the coloration of moths as an adaptation in their environment. However, phenotypes alone are not speciation, it is within the genotypes that species are distinguished. Therefore, the moth example isn’t an example of evolution, but of a force involved in evolution, that is specialization of a population for survival.
Mutations in an organism is a deviation from the intended sequence of the building block of an organisms genetic structure. This leads to changes in an organism. Most mutations are harmful to an organism because an organism is specialized and adapted to specific genetic sequence that works together as a system. Changing the system can be deadly. However, variation in genetics is due to mutations. Some mutations are not harmful but add to the variation of a population with little or no consequence. These variations may in turn become beneficial towards specialization in the species if the population spreads to multiple environments. Humans show different traits across the world because of adaptation to their environment. This is at the genetic level. If it wasn’t then everyone would look identical. However variation exists because their is variation in the transmission of genes. There are many ways that genes can become varied. Some due to the complex interbreeding between subspecies, but even these subspecies are the results of mutations of the past that didn’t kill off its members.
One of the driving points of evolution is the need to adapt to an environment. In a static environment there’s little that will cause members of a species to compete against one another to survive. Hence, variations have no consequence on populations since they stay within their proportions. But if the environment changes then there is cause for competition, which leads to an increase of the force of natural selection on the population. The greater the environmental change, the faster natural selection works to specialize a species for survival. Over time the specializations will lead to new species. Have you guys ever wondered why the word specialize and species look so similar. It was done on purpose, because each species is specialized to its own niche. You change or create new niches eventually you’ll have a species that will take it over.
The specialization of species is also proof that evolution doesn’t create more complex organism, but sometimes simpler ones. If simplicity and specialization gives an organism a greater chance for a population to survive then that population will drift that way. Example, genetically whales cows and hippopotamus are all related. Each one is specialized to its environment. When I say related they had a common ancestor. Cows are the most terrestrial, hippos less, and whales are fully marine. It doesn’t mean that cows became hippos, who became whales, it just means that environmentally the ancestor population drifted from one another as each found an environment that supported its way of life. Whales have vestigial characteristics that serve no purpose other than a reminder of their ancestry. Their specialization was also their simplification.
So arguing about evolution in terms of complexity, origin of life, and immediate speciation is all based on a flawed understanding of evolution. Evolution’s only relevance to this article is the basis of inheritance of characteristics in a population over time–human society’s need to either choose to have artificial selection (pro-choice) or natural selection (pro-life)
I for my own sake have the views that I have argued for previously in this abortion debate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am certain that I do not have an inproper bias, in this instance. Am familiar with ‘in proper’, and ‘in Pro Per’, but ‘inproper’, not so much.
Your reply makes an excellent argument for micro-evolution, which is not in question, but still must take that leap of faith to say that it proves macro-evolution.
And I believe that you completely underestimate the relevance of belief systems (creationism, evolutionism, etc.) on this debate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Belief systems will influence people to make political decisions. The problem is that many people’s belief systems are so far detached from our foundational values that our forefathers have given for our inheritance that it ends up being a science versus religion debate when it is a legal/political/moral debate.
Now the reason why science and religion comes up because different people have different ways of knowing about the world. Fundamentalists will adhere to creationism because they do not have the full testimony of Christian inheritance, only the bible, which was a tool the Catholics made to help propagate their doctrines.
Belief systems that are detached or misinformed will malign the debate and divide people who would otherwise ban together against injustice. Thomas Jefferson said something along the line of informing the masses since they are the only means of preserving liberty. That’s why dialog and education are very important in this debate.
Evolutionism should not be a belief system. Science should be a body of knowledge. Evolution is part of that body of knowledge. Religion is a belief system. Science is a body of knowledge that we can make quantitiative analysis from to make judgments about the natural world.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s really not a science vs religion debate.
It might be a manipulation of science vs a manipulation of religion debate.
Yes, science should be a body of knowledge, and it is.
The problem lies in the dispensing of this knowledge.
Pure science disproves macro-evolution.
It has yet to disprove creationism.
Whether you believe that there was a Creator or that we came from nothing would most assuredly have an effect on political decisions, or many other decisions made in life.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The problem is that the problem with evolution and fundamentalist mentality about the world is the “means” of the end in mind.
Science has endorsed evolution as the current concept about the variation of life on the planet. Fundamentalists believes that they were all placed on earth by day 6. The problem with this is that they both agree we have life here on the planet but disagree about the means that we got here.
Then enters theistic evolution. Its the belief that God allowed the universe and world to come about in a natural way subjected to the laws of nature. In his Purely divine Will, rational beings have the capacity to study their origins and understand their surroundings. Revelation throughout history would then dictate faith in the supernatural, while reason and science would come out as modern man’s means of understanding the natural world. Only thing that theistic evolution doesn’t interfere with in religion is the creation of the soul of man, which is subjected to faith anyway. The means that man receives his body is not as important as what man does in life anyway. Regardless of how life came about, our rationality is what separates us from lower animals, and is why we even have morality. Hence man’s rationality should be what drives man to understand the fundamental nature of self. Man’s rationality is not a trick of the devil. You can’t have an understanding of faith without rationality. Rationality alone won’t give you faith, but it surely can enhance the faith you already have.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To believe in a theory as fact is a form of faith.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Evolutionism should not be a belief system.”
If it’s adherents wish it to be credibly incorporated into the realm of science, agreed, it should NOT be a belief system.
“Science should be a body of knowledge. Evolution is part of that body of knowledge.”
Because evolution is labeled science does not make it so. Eugenics for a time was expedient to teach as a “scientific” theory but it failed the test of true scientific rigor in no less spectacular a fashion that evolution does.
“Religion is a belief system. ”
Agreed..and it’s constituents–namely evolutionism & creationism–fall uniformly outside the realm of science.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The reason IDIOT wind she had to kill it is because of the prolife movement, not the prochoice movement. I am a part of neither. See, rather than these two movements finding common ground that does exist they are entirely give no quarters and close minded. Personally, I have always wondered why a woman who is pregnant wouldn’t just put it up for adoption. While there are several reasons. First is the saddest case, where the termination is necessary to save the life of the mother, I’m sorry but there is no alternative. Next would be cases of rape and incest and known defects. The question is would any woman like to bring a child into the World who’s father is a rapist? Or would anyone bring a child into a world where they are destined to suffer? It depends on your moral values. Some would say its better than “killing it”, others would say no. That’s precisely why the government should stay out of such decisions. I am personally friends with the family of Dr. Barnett Slepian, who was murdered because he was a gynaecologist who had an abortion clinic. He was a M.D. who also delivered babies. He, more so than many of us understood the moral implications of his work and yet was adamant about protecting a woman’s right to chose. If you think he should’ve been murdered you are really full of shit when you call yourself prolife. You cannot be prolife and think that a doctor and father of four kids should be shot with a sniper rifle by a terrorist. You are also not a Christian if you do think that. On when life begins: Some say it begins at conception. But when is conception? When you have sex(which is not overrated)? When an egg is fertilized? Most fertilized eggs don’t become fetuses anyway. This is part of Evolution, part of the natural order of survival of the fittest. Evolution is not something you believe in. It is scientific fact, and alternate theories are just a superficial fairy tail that should in no way should be involved in the lives of intelligent human beings in the 21st century. I believe in God and the moral teachings of Jesus Christ. I have never had an opinion in politics or religion that I was afraid to own. I am not afraid of answering to anyone for my beliefs or actions. I am not afraid of death or a fight of any kind. I have no allegiance to anyone or anything other than the US Constitution. I believe that Jesus Christ would not condone abortion. But if Christ were alive today, there would not be abortion. While he would not condone abortion, he would also not condone putting people in prison for doing so. If we stopped the war on sex, opened up access to birth controls that prevent fertilization to reduce abortions. It’s the prolife movement, not the prochoice movement that is preventing this. Also I do not know many Christians taking vows of Pacifism or service in ending poverty. They are also known for fixing others and helping themselves, when it should be the other way around. I do not need fixing, and I am not infallible. I served in the Navy for five years, I was in the national guard in my home state, I served in the Peace Corps, and I am proud of my service. I went to Harvard, A.B. in Government, which I consider my greatest accomplishment. I’m currently a law student, but in the past I’ve done things that you may not like, but I should be free to do. It is the Vatican who claims infallibility. The head of the Church has said horribly offensive bigoted thins, has knowingly told boldfaced lies, is the leader of a make-believe country with an army of men in dresses, who refused to receive the french ambassador because he was homosexual. (You know, what Jesus would do) They are not humble, they live in a castle. Pope Benedict XVI is a Catholic. Pope John Paul II was a catholic, but was also a Christian. All must be taken into account when making choices regarding morals. We desperately need a new prolife movement that takes the approach of making abortion as rare and safe as possible by helping women caught in this quagmire and finding suitable couples for adoption, and fighting poverty and war.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There was a guest on Oprah who was a victim of rape. She was a refugee from Rwanda (?; I don’t remember all the details) who was gang raped and tortured by a group of mercenaries. When they left her for dead, she crawled away and escaped. She became pregnant as a result of this brutal attack. She not only carried the baby to term and successfully delivered, she kept the baby and began raising him as a single mother. Oprah asked her how she could do this. Her reply astonished even me, but was so obvious after I heard it. She believed unwaveringly that children are a gift to be cherished; a gift that, in spite of the sacrifices, brings joy and fulfillment into your life. Receiving the blessing of a child is what made healing from her attack easier, and the memory of it bearable. A unique view, isn’t it? But completely rational and understandable.
If you see children without the interference of your own desires or ego, your perspective of them and their value in your life completely changes, and debates over politics and law like this one sound vain.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion.
i totally agree with this pertient observation
Romanian politics needs a Ron Paul as well
people in America accused you of being ultraconservatory or even fanatic
compare Ron Paul with the neo-fascit, neo-nazist parties movements in Europe and you will discover what fanatism is all about!!
Mr Ron Paul is a conservative-libertarian but not fanatic
I find him more decent than other so called Republicans and better than most liberals
Grettings and best wishes
Anca from Romania
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
PS To what’s his name. What a shame to see such a weak male of the species. But I guess most of you spineless neanderthals ain’t got some brains, cause you cause all your pregnant women to get fixed. No worries for you guys. IDIOTS!
You have probably never fought for anything in your life.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Idiot wind, I am so sorry for your losses and the pain you are experiencing. What you don’t seem to understand is that by spouting angry hateful words- no one really hears you. I can tell you want to be heard and understood. You want to see change in others’ thoughts and behavior. Please consider talking with someone about how better to share your pain and your opinions. Otherwise, you will simply be put in the pile of right-wing ultra-conservative, religious extremist, morons that the ultra-left loves to build. Your suffering should not be in vain.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I don’t care what catagory someone puts me in!! I don’t care who I offend with my words. Like I said before, words don’t kill, but people seem to think they have the right to physically kill a person.
“Neutrality is at times a graver sin than belligerence”.–Louis Brandeis, supreme court justice.
and also,
“We cannot sugarcoat the feelings in our heart of hearts”.–Thurgood Marshall
And…why don’t you consider talking with someone about YOUR opinions, idiot.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wow, Idiot. You seem to have missed my point. My intention was to reach out to you, agree with you on abortion, and show you some compassion. Your inability to recognize compassion perhaps has been killed by the abortionists in your family. I made the mistake of thinking that one of your reasons for writing on this thread was to educate people and possibly change hearts and minds on the issue of abortion. I felt no one was listening and thought that may be due to your approach. I see now that you really do not care about murdered babies. You care about spouting hate and anger. I will waste no more time on you. You have reminded me why I spend so little time on message boards and chat rooms. I will continue to work for change in the real world, rather than the virtual one. I will spend even more time with my precious children, teaching them the Word of God, and giving thanks for them each day. And… why don’t you reread 1 Corinthians? You need a refresher. Start by asking What Would Jesus Do? (Hint: he would not spread hatred…) Please do not feel the need to reply. I will give you no more attention or energy. Hope you find peace.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ronnie P,
Thank you, but I have peace! And your suggesting “what would Jesus do?”, well, he wouldn’t sit around with a cup of coffee and discuss this, He would rid abortion and all who kill right away. And that is soon to happen. Why don’t you reread the ten commandments, since you’re so holier than thou???
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What’s the matter? Can’t seem to understand the IDIOCY of it all?
I don’t give a damn if I lose my credibility with you, my neighbor or the president of the united states by saying what I have said.
Being rude and offensive. That bothers you? Oh, but wait, now it’s all about YOU. YOU’RE here for this or that reason. I should respect YOU. No thanks, take your coffeeshop chatter away from me!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You should know that you lose your credibility with me and I’m sure with most others when you respond this way. I’m being civiil. You are being insulting, rude and offensive. I’m here to have an open, respectful dialog about this issue.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
…oh, and I ain’t suppose to care?!
And if we are not suppose to care for the least of us, then who will speak up for them??
Surely not Geoff… he’s too comfortable…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hey Geoff,
I asked for an answer from someone with some brains. Apparently, you ain’t got none, so YOUR VOICE DON’T COUNT! Just like the 42,000,000 babies who’ve been killed since 2002 don’t COUNT.
So, shut the f&%$ up!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Just because abortion is legal, doesn’t mean your niece had to choose that path. At least she had the choice! And I’m sure it was not an easy one. I’ve never heard of any woman who went through an abortion saying that it was anything but a miserable experience.
But your comments aren’t about your niece. They are about you. They are about what you have lost. But this is not about you. It’s about your niece. What if she had decided not to get married? What if she had decided never to have children? The result would be the same. But those are her choices to make, not yours. It is selfish and arrogant of you to think otherwise.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
PS to Geoff,
Quoting you, “I’ve never heard of any woman who went through an abortion saying that it was anything but a miserable experience”…well… I bet any female who ever slept with you found it a “miserable experience”, too, you nazi jerk-off.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well, howdy all you bloggin folks!
I got an announcement to make. My neice who was last week pregnant is no longer pregnant! Oh, halejuah, says you weak kneed, sittin on the fence, sorry SOB’s who made r v wade a law and put the laugh, slyly, on us American folks. Now, I will have no great neice. Just like I have no grandchild. Just like I have no other neice or nephew.
You spouters of choice make me sick. If it wasn’t alive, then why’d she have to kill it? And if it was not growing, why did she need to execute?
Somebody with a few brains– can you answer that question?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You’re both right, Amanda and One Way. I have been judgmental and saying hateful things, and I appreciate ya’ll pointing that out to me. Thanks for repeating for me God’s Word. I needed to hear that.
But when “it” has affected one’s life and the family of that child who was lost and sacrificed to the “god of convenience”, it is hard not to say what one deems the opposite of hate which is LOVE
Leviticus Chapter 20 “Thou Shalt Not Kill”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You’re both right, Amanda and One Way. I have been judgmental and saying hateful things, and I appreciate ya’ll pointing that out to me. Thanks for repeating for me God’s Word. I needed to hear that.
But when “it” has affected one’s life and the family of that child who was lost and sacrificed to the “god of convenience”, it is hard not to say what one deems the opposite of hate which is LOVE
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
hate is not the opposite of love, apathy is the opposite of both hate and love. You can’t hate what you don’t care about and you can’t love what you don’t care about.
Not caring is the reason why people can even allow abortions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To Idiot Wind:
I Cor. 13
4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’ve got something to say, but it is only for those who defy the law of God. And that is, “Your gonna get yours, one of these days”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To anybody…
One night a couple hooks up in a bar. She’s 21, he’s 47. Eventually, later that night, the girl looks over at the guy as he’s smoking a cigarette, and says,
“Uh, you did use a condom, didn’t you?” the young woman asks.
“A condom! No one uses those things anymore. You are on the pill, aren’t you?”.
“Well, I mean, sure…” the young woman replies.
“Great! No worries then”, replies the guy, as he blows smoke rings in the air.
It’s NEVER THE GUYS FAULT, is it? What happened to chivalry. Or better yet, what happened to men and the way they use women?? And women, what happened to the purity and grace God gave everyone?
Need a good used vaccuum cleaner? Go to your local abortionist; they probably have plenty, since sucking so many children out of their mother’s womb, they probably keep a supply of “gently used killing machines”. WOMB? I call it the TOMB!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Shouldn’t she have TOLD him to use a condom before she opened her legs? You want to get on men about chivalry, well, what happened to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY? In this scenario, the woman is MORE responsible than the man. If she IS going to be sleeping around with old men she just met at bars, she SHOULD be on the damn pill. Sorry, this just doesn’t fly with me. Most men are going to jump at any chance they get to get some. That is the way it is, you have to deal with it. The woman HAS to be the more responsible party, because, ultimately, it is SHE who would have to deal with the unwanted consequences. Unless it is a rape case, it IS never fully the “guy’s fault”; both parties who consent to sex are equally responsible for the decision and the consequences.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Abortion is a bad, but come on we can all use good common sense. Let’s take an example. Say you have a batch of frozen eggs that a women donated, and the eggs will go bad the next day.
Do you throw the eggs out or do you allow science to use them for stemcell research?
Either way those eggs had no chance to become living people.
Is it wrong for science to give them life just so they can be destroyed for research?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
yeah, because to give life only to take it away is a violation of the liberty of the living being.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s occur in my family as well as cancers, heart disease, and numerous auto-immune disorders. I have to admit I am particularly afraid of developing Alzheimer’s one day. Human beings have the potential to be brilliant and do not have to resort to the taking of life in order to preserve it. I, for one, would not want to benefit from a cure that came from the taking of a life. I am no more important than another. None of us are.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hey X Ron!
There has been some discussion of natural (inherent) rights and ‘civil rights’. Inherent rights come with the body. The body is your ticket to the world. Without the body you got nothing, baby! Neither you nor All-Y’all have a right to violate anyones body.
Where does your civil right to murder originate? Or, do you claim that abortion is an inherent, inalienable right?
In Ron Paul’s book “Challenge to Liberty: Coming to Grips with the Abortion Issue” he describes how he came into contact with abortion during his internship in Texas before the Roe v Wade case. Dr. Paul entered an operating room as an abortion was being performed. He watched as the baby was delivered alive, intact, sound, and heathy. The baby was put in a pan left in the corner of the operating room to fend for itself. The baby’s pathetic dying gasps did not disturb the doctors or nurses present, except for Dr. Ron Paul. Dr Paul investigated and found that it was the hospital’s policy to flaunt the law protecting these babies. The hospital’s murderous contumacy was meant to provide occasions to challenge the laws protecting babies in Texas. Ron Paul claimed that this murderous contumacy was not uncommon for hospitals in Texas and across America. This was in the late 1960’s-early 70’s. I don’t have the book at hand.
Most abortion takes place after it is feasible to preserve the life of the baby outside the womb. In most cases the abortion procedures kill the baby by grinding it up, alive, or burning it with caustic chemicals, alive, or most gruesomely the partial birth method (where Dr. Mengele thrusts his scissors in the back of the baby’s head and the childs brains are sucked out, the scull is collapsed and, only then, after this long procedure, is the baby allowed to be born). The method Dr. Ron Paul witnessed has now been given the euphemism— ‘Comfort Care’. Is this what you support? Check out ..http://www.priestsforlife.org/action/abortion-procedure-revealed.htm… Abortion supporters want abortion to be as murderous as possible.
Civil rights are at the whim of the state— to be dispensed or withheld arbitrarily. You can rely on civil rights as long as you refrain from exercising them. But first you need your own body.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well said! You cannot make the argument that a fetus cannot live without the mother up until a certain point, therefor it is some sort of parasite that can be disposed of at will. And there is absolutely NO justification for partial birth abortion or abortion of a viable fetus. We are human beings from the moment of conception, we have all the attributes of life and all the “ingredients” needed to grow into an adult. Using the argument that a fetus is not fully formed or “dependant” doesn’t fly, because it would also allow for infanticide. In fact, it would allow for the killing of 5 year olds… Who are not “fully formed” and still “dependant”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Our laws are based on morals. If it’s not a moral debate then we don’t have to make it illegal right? You say it’s not a constitution debate and yet in the very next sentence you suggest that the constitution guarantees a right to life. You are implying that abortion is unconstitutional. The fact is, the Constitution only protects the born, not the unborn. The 14th amendment makes that clear enough.
To me, a fetus gains rights when it can survive outside of its mother’s womb. Until then, it’s part of its mother and not a separate person. This is why I’m against late term abortion. At that point, the fetus could survive outside of its mother.
A fetus is completely and totally dependent on its mother. Once it’s born, that changes. The moment a child is born, someone else can care of it. But until that time, a fetus is quite literally at the mercy of its mother. Therefore it has no liberty. The very definition of the word liberty excludes a fetus. But you are right. There is a component of liberty in this debate: a woman’s liberty.
The dictionary definitions of liberty are:
1. the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views.
2. the power or scope to act as one pleases.
Making abortion illegal would by definition reduce a woman’s liberty.
If you want to reduce the number of abortions by promoting birth control, the benefits of motherhood, etc., by all means do. I would commend you for doing so. In fact, I might even join you. But if you make abortion illegal, you will not stop it from happening, you will be causing needless hardship and will be working against liberty, the very thing you wish to defend.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
How do I defend the liberty of an unborn child?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If it’s prior to the third trimester, you don’t. It has no liberty. As I said, by definition it cannot. You don’t have to like it but that doesn’t change the truth.
However, if you want to see it reach birth, offer to help the mother. Offer her through the pregnancy. Help her arrange for adoption. In other words, put your money where your mouth is.
Is it very easy for us to preach about what others should do and then sit back and expect them to do it. It’s quite another thing when we have to do it ourselves. For example, I would not send another American to war unless I was willing to go to war myself.
The reminds me of one of my favorite quotes:
“Nothing is impossible for the man that does not have to do it himself.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So how do you ascertain the exact date of the second trimester from the first? Would it be just a 1 day distinction 1 hour, 1 week? Is this just arbitrary or based upon the “completeness” of the child?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Laws require a reasonable amount of clarity in order to be interpreted in the same way by most people. Ambiguity in legal definitions is problematic. As a result, if an abortion at any point in the pregnancy is going to be illegal, then that point has to be defined. Late-term abortions (after 18 weeks) are illegal in the US. Since clarity is important in law so that we can have a society, I would say that 1 day before 18 weeks is acceptable and 1 day after is not. That may sound harsh but sometimes harsh is necessary.
It’s regrettable that some women find themselves in this situation. Nobody likes it. I’m sure any reasonable person would prefer that abortions not happen at all. But they do happen. Making them illegal would be denying liberty to the woman and granting it to a fetus that is not constitutionally recognized as having rights.
And if you go down the path that they should have rights, then what about those that could be born if only their parents would work harder at conception? Some argue the other side saying that abortion has lead to assisted suicide. If a terminally ill patient with very little to zero chance of recovery makes the decision to end their life rather than go through a slow agonizing death, I have no problem with that. As long as they are capable of making that decision, they should be allowed to make it. This cannot be compared to abortion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So what physical differences does a child have 1 day before 18 weeks as one that is 18 weeks old that determines its capacity to obtain liberty?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Geoff, you say that a fetus has rights when it can survive outside its mother’s womb. So what you are basically saying is that a person has rights only if it can survive independently. The problem with your argument is that not even a born child can survive independently. Since my 3 month old nephew cannot live without help, then it would not be murder if his mother decided to kill him. Obviously you would be against that argument. So why do you make it? Life is not based on dependency but on a will. if you can prove that a fetus gains a will at 18 weeks exactly then your argument would have merit, but that is something you cannot prove.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Doesn’t anyone remember the scientific definition of a living organism from junior high biology? I’ve spelled it out twice on this site, and I’m not doing it again. If you want to know the scientific definition of life, look it up. If you disagree with my biases, you’re not going to take my word for it anyway.
And, after you’ve reacquainted yourself with the scientific definition of life, you will clearly see: an unfertilized egg does not meet the definition of life, but a fertilized one does. (Trees are alive, and they don’t have brains or hearts.)
That said, whatever my views, it’s nice to see educated and intelligent people wrestling with the cascade of human issues that surrounds this debate. I’ve learned something from everyone in the last few days of posts.
One bias of mine that I must be more clear about is my belief in moral absolutes. Kenny and Geoff both challenged my ideas on the assumption that there are no moral absolutes; that morality, right and wrong, like religion, are individualistic and irrational. I disagree with that assumption. There are moral absolutes, and just law must rest on those absolutes. C.S. Lewis makes a logical case for moral absolutes in his essay “The Abolition of Man.” What Kenny refers to as Natural Rights is historical evidence of the existence of moral absolutes: rules of right and wrong conduct that have always existed, in every religion, and in every code of law. Lewis outlines what these absolutes are.
One moral absolute that I believe in is that offspring should be cherished. Children should be viewed as a blessing; when this is not your natural inclination (though it often is a natural feeling), it becomes a moral obligation. I sympathize with the warnings against “legislating morality,” but I’ll take my chances. I still am conviced that every law is a restriction of liberty, and a way to legislate morality. Law and morality are logically inseperable. The only logical alternative is anarchy. If you believe in anarchy, case closed, but if not, then how do you justify any laws?
Also, I agree with Geoff. The best way to stop abortions is to remove the need for them, and the best way to do that is to help women in need. Everyone get out there and do your part! Maybe a woman you already know is hoping someone will sympathize with her struggle.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Laura Marie,
In fact, the United States Constitution does NOT say that everyone has the right to life. The word “life” in fact appears only four times in the Constitution. The only one that could be interpreted as protecting life would be in the 14th amendment where it says that no State may “deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.” This amendment starts by saying that it applies to “All persons born or naturalized in the United States”. An unborn fetus clearly is not protected under the Constitution.
Abortion didn’t really exist when the Constitution was written. But if it had, I seriously doubt the founding fathers would have had a problem with it. Back then every pregnancy was a potentially life-threatening situation for both the woman and the unborn fetus. Taking such a risk for an unwanted pregnancy when an alternative was available would probably have been considered unsound at best. And remember that the same people that wrote about “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence, had no problem denying those things to their slaves who were considered on the same level as livestock.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Abortion is not only a moral debate, nor is only a constitutional debate. If life is not a right guaranteed by the constitution murder would not be illegal.
On another note, if an expectant mother’s unborn child is killed as a result of assault or violence would you have the nerve to tell her that nobody died or would you consider that an act of murder against her unborn child?
Is a fetus at nine months considered a human or not? If so, what about at eight months? If so what about at seven months? You can see how that leads.
If a fetus is a human, then it is subjected to every right that a human should have, especially the right to life.
I should be able to be punished to the full extent of law for murder if I kill a fetus in the womb of a pregnant mother. In the same way, Doctors who perform this procedure against unborn children need to be prosecuted.
This isn’t a moral argument it is an argument of liberty. If you don’t believe in liberty, get out of the country, live in china or something.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If you argue that the right to life is not universal then any argument around it becomes completely arbitrary. In fact, there would be no proof of murder because who is to say that whoever was killed had the right to live? I hope you realize that the founding document for the United States was not the Constitution, but the Declaration of Independence, which states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit or Happiness.” Sure some of our founding fathers had slaves, but we cannot deny the Natural Rights of individuals because some people made mistakes. If you argue that these Rights are merely based on arbitrary morals then you would agree that if someone held a gun to your head and shot you because their moral belief was that you should die by being shot in the head, then there would be nothing wrong with that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Than I guess if you don’t want to get pregnant then keep your legs closed instead of abortion.Problem solved
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I understand why Ron Paul feels the way he does. But there are two problems with his line of otherwise sound reasoning.
First, if we determine that abortion can’t be allowed because it’s harming another person (the unborn fetus) then as you point out, if she does just about anything that is considerable harmful, she could be prosecuted. That’s a very slippery slope. It doesn’t take much imagination to see how that could result in a threat to a woman’s liberty.
Second, it’s simply not practical. If a woman living in a state where abortion is illegal finds herself in need of one, she will either travel to a state where she can get one or get an illegal abortion in the state in which she lives. Neither of these situations will stop her if she’s determined and the second could pose a serious risk to her life.
Abortion sucks. In the perfect world, it would never happen. And if we shoot for the stars, perhaps we will land in the trees as they say. But that’s the best we can hope for. And making it illegal is not going to stop it from happening any more than making alcohol illegal stopped people from drinking or making drugs illegal is stopping drug use today.
I say all of this as a person that has never been involved in an abortion, does not drink, smoke or use any illegal drugs. My younger sister was pregnant twice as a teenager and in both cases carried the baby to term. She gave the first up for adoption and kept the second. Because of changes in adoption law, her first child contacted her on her 18th birthday (the first day that she was given access to my sister’s contact information) and the two have been close ever since. My sister was also adopted by my parents when she was 2 days old. My sister herself was the result of a teenager pregnancy. My sister also found her biological mother and had a happy reunion with her and her extended family.
So I’ve had some experience with the best possible outcome of unplanned pregnancies. It would be very easy for me to preach from that pulpit. But live with my eyes open (as Ron Paul suggests he does) and I’m far to realistic to believe that the prohibition of abortion is going to have any different outcome than any other form of prohibition has.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m glad someone brought up the parallels between abortion and illegal drug use. One thing we have not discussed yet is: if abortion is illegal, how will the law be enforced? There are many different levels to the law, and not all laws are enforced equally
Drug laws are a great example of the different approaches to different law-breakers. Those who distribute drugs in large quantities are heavily prosecuted, and can be tried for manslaughter if people have died using their product (though they are not usually tried for murder). Criminals who distribute drugs in any quantity to a minor are prosecuted even more heavily because they endanger individuals that the law holds are not fully aware of the consequences of their choices. However, although drug abuse is illegal, drug users are not typically arrested and hauled downtown for getting high. In instances when junkies are arrested for drug use, they aren’t sent to the penitentiary, but are committed to a hospital for rehab. The law in this case intervenes on the part of the junkie to help him/her recover from whatever psychological pain has led to their drug habit. The law also intervenes on the part of the junkie’s community to try to fix a problem that leads to more dangerous crimes where the junkie may start victimizing others instead of just him/herself, or where the junkie is financially supporting more dangerous criminal behavior.
So, although illegal drug use is often not prosecuted, why is it a law? Well, it sets an expectation for us as a society. It sends the message that we know that drug use is damaging to users and their friends, families, and communities. It also allows communities to enforce the law when the circumstances call for it. For example when teachers, doctors, or other important care-giving figures are found to use drugs, the law can revoke their licensing and remove them from their jobs. Or, when children are found to be neglected because their parents are high too often to care for them, Children’s Services can remove those children from the home and get them the care that they need. Or, when minors are trapped by drug abuse, their parents can turn to the law to force them into rehab.
“Banning” abortion would set a similar expectation for us as a society. It would communicate that we acknowledge that abortion is damaging to women’s health, to the life of the unborn child, to fathers, and to other loved ones close to those seeking an abortion. It would communicate that abortion is a risky behavior, and that it should not be used as birth control. “Banning” abortion would also set up road blocks to prevent people from profiting from it and organizing industries around it.
If abortion is made illegal, that does not mean that we should prosecute mothers who get abortions as murderers. (God forbid!) Like other laws that we have now, against drug use, it most likely would not be prosecuted unless somehow circumstances demanded it, for example, if women were injured by improper abortions. (Which, by the way, women are occasionally injured by improper abortions, but it is very difficult for them to sue because of two factors: 1. Said women are often too poor to pursue legal help; and 2. The hostility around the abortion debate has led to the formation of privacy laws for abortion doctors and clinics that protect them, even when they commit malpractice.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There are a lot of drug users that end up in prison. Don”t think for a minute that it’s only the dealers. I’m not a drug user and I don’t drink or smoke. But I do know that there are plenty of legal substances that are as harmful or more harmful than some drugs that are illegal. So if drugs are going to be illegal then certainly alcohol and cigarettes should be as well. But you now, we tried that once before and it didn’t work. And really I don’t think the law should be trying to set expectations for society. Whether it’s drugs, alcohol or abortion, it’s all legislating morality and that is wrong. And that’s why it never works.
And incidentally, Ron Paul has said that he would do away with all prohibition. I doubt he was referring to abortion as well since it’s currently legal. But I think it would be a quandary for him.
The abortion issue is full of problems. Some (including Ron Paul) believe that life begins at conception. The problem with that is one of basic biology. At conception all you have are a few cells with no brain, heartbeat or nervous system. A blade of grass is more sophisticated. And yet we don’t think twice about killing primates that are fully grown in the name of science. So it must be that it’s not so much that an abortion is going to result in a fetus feeling any pain because they are not yet capable (I’m not talking about late term abortions which I am against). So it must be that people are against abortion because of the potential of the fetus to be born and have a life. But then if that’s the case, would it not be our duty to attempt to conceive whenever possible? Each month that my wife passes an egg should I be duty-bound to do make every effort to conceive? That not only makes no sense but would arguably be irresponsible for a whole host of reasons.
I agree with you that abortion should not be used as a form of birth control. I don’t think it is for the most part. And women who do use it that way too often will pay the price of eventually not being able to have children. Abortions can damage the uterus and often eventually lead to an inability to carry a fetus to term if the woman has had too many.
Some people believe that abortion should be illegal except in cases of incest or rape. But as awful as those situations are, the fetus that results from them is just as much a potential human being as any other. We find these situations ugly so we make exceptions for them. But logically that makes no sense.
You seem to feel that if abortion was illegal, those you get one shouldn’t be prosecuted. And yet, they have broken the law in that case. It sounds like what you want is for it to be illegal just to send a message to society. You can send that message without causing all the problems that making abortion illegal would create.
I know women that have had an abortion. Believe me when I tell you that it’s a horrible experience for any woman to have to go through. And the few that are cavalier about birth control and then use abortion as a substitute, rarely do it more than once. The experience itself is not something that most women would choose to ever have to experience. But it’s horrible that it happens regardless. And you can do your part to help prevent abortions by donating your money or time to Planned Parenthood for example.
Just don’t attempt to legislate your morality onto others. It never works as has been proven over and over again. And if you allow it, you never know when some one, whose morality you don’t agree with, is going to legislate it on you. What comes around, goes around as they say.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
hmm.. I don’t think abortion and drug use are at all comparable. As Geoff said, drug laws are merely in place because someone finds them immoral. If we base our laws off of arbitrary morals then our laws themselves become arbitrary. Morality varies from individual to individual, and since drug use is only harmful to the individual taking them (except in the cases of coercion, but that is a different argument) then we cannot legislate our own morals for him/her. That individual has a will and a free one at that. His/her right to that freedom trumps our morals so long as he/she does not violate another persons rights. Abortion is a different story because it has to do with the fundamental right to life and the right to property. If the right to life is universal then murder is murder. Essentially, then, the argument comes down to when an individual attains a will (life begins). The problem is that neither side of this argument has provided enough evidence to make a convincing point.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thank you to those who have clearly and logically defended the life of the unborn child. Abortion is an intrinsic evil. Therefore we can use logic and reason to explain why abortion is wrong. We also have the Constitution. Roe v. Wade is absolutely appalling legislation. Legalization of abortion came about because our supreme court justices felt that the Constitution “implied” the right to privacy and therefore a woman had the right to choose. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say we have the right to privacy. It does however say EVERYONE has the right to life! Boy, what a leap from an “implied” right to privacy to the Legal Act Of Murder! If you start with the wrong premise, you will end with the wrong conclusion. We need to look at this legislation and realize how absurd it is, and then we need to start with the correct premise, that all life is precious. Error on the side of caution. It can never be wrong to not kill.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Roe v Wade is not legislation. Legislation can only come from the Legislative body we know as Congress. So really the appalling thing about Roe v Wade is that our Judicial Branch decided that it was within their power (although it is not within their power according to the Constitution) to make a law. Their job is merely to interpret law and in that they have so far failed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Like X Ron (the first poster on this topic), I like just about everything Ron Paul is about (and I’ve voted Democratic in virtually every election). I understand and respect his reasons for being against the idea of abortion. I would rather the world be a place where women never felt the need for an abortion. But the reality is that they sometimes do. And there is plenty of evidence to suggest that children brought up in homes where they were never wanted in the first place are for more likely to become criminals when they reach adulthood. The argument that gets made is that these children could be given up for adoption. The option exists today and yet they often are not. Someone above suggested the Ron Paul was only stating is opinion. No, that’s not the case. If what is written above is in fact his position, if he believes that giving women the right to get an abortion should be rescinded, then he is suggesting that he would vote in favor of such a law.
I like everything I have read on all the other issues but I couldn’t support Ron Paul until he makes abortion a decision that is left to the individual.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
How do you define abortion? Is it truly a right that one person exercises? First problem is that on opposite sides of the debate the pregnant person is either called a mother or a woman.
Mother implies responsibility over children; while woman implies nothing.
So is abortion an action that a mother takes against her young? Or an action that a woman takes against herself?
If it is the first choice, then we can’t support abortion, because none of the constitutional “rights” of a person infringe upon the constitutional rights of another person.
If you insist that it is the second one you have to prove that a woman does not harm a unique individual–otherwise your argument goes back to defending why a woman can take harm against a child with legitimate right to life.
Ron Paul has his heart in the right place because no one has effectively convinced him that a Pregnant woman is really one person. Since he is convinced she is two (i.e. we can identify distinct parts of her as being an individual (embryo, fetus, etc), rights of both persons need to be preserved.
Imagine this other scenario: A woman is pregnant by choice, technically she can do things like drink, smoke, do drugs. However, what mother wanting her child will do these things, she knows these things harm her child. If Doctors recommend pregnant women not to do these things because they cause harm to the baby, who wants to argue that a woman is truly one person with rights over her body during pregnancy. If the state found out that a woman did these things during pregnancy willingly, she could be prosecuted for violating a child’s right to life (gross neglect).
Ron Paul doesn’t believe abortion should be a liberty left to the individual because it takes harm against another individual. Just like if someone told you to shoot them and you did it the state would still prosecute you for it, even though he wished it. In the same way, Ron Paul doesn’t support abortion because it is along the same lines.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Abortion should and will be banned.(Thou shall not kill) What part of that don’t you under stand? Adoption is the answer not murder! If you don’t want to get pregnant keep your legs closed!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Aqua Pig,
No one seems to care about anyone but themselves nowdays. It’s so simple. What if the tables were turned and the child decided to abort the parent? Wow, talk about a “loss of jobs”–
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Life is Life regardless if it is just outside the womb or 6 inches from the outside world.
Killing is Killing whether the child is inside the mom or not.
Dante in 1265 said this: “The hottest fires in hell are reserved for those who, in a time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.”
Ron Paul is a politician who does not want to remain neutral.
Whether or not you agree with his politics, he doesn’t care. What he obviously cares more about is his conscience! And may God bless him for that!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It is dawning of the Sabbath this Friday evening, so I will rest for a day. I have enjoyed the discourse, intercourse of words and the science lab experiments. No harm, no foul. Unless someone wants to whine and say, “those words hurt me!” Sorry.
If words can hurt, then think how much more hurt is caused by a masked madman pulling you out of your soft, cozy bed at night and slicing you to pieces and throwing you in the trash can. Hmmm…
Maybe we can recycle those unwanted fetuses and have THEM for supper! Ya know, there is alot of hunger in the world….
Are you ready to go that far?????
outta here —> Shabbat Shalom <3
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
LOL! Makes sense IW!!! Since the “fetuses” aren’t “people” yet, why shouldn’t we be allowed to consume them? Ewwww by the way.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wait, Dick Dixon, if we kill off all the rats, where will baby rats come from??
And what is “meaningless crap”? One’s opinion is another person’s poison. I noticed you ddn’t mention me, Idiot Wind, by name. Am I allowed to post on this site? Or do YOU ONLY have the authority to pick and choose who should be heard?
Science has yet to discover the reason for extinction of the dinosours. Yet, today, science rules!! Can you explain that to this “rat”?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There have been several extinctions but I’m going to assume you are referring to the last one 65 million years ago. Since we were not there, we can not prove what caused the extinction beyond a shadow of a doubt. However, the fact that there is a layer of iridium (a substance not naturally found on earth but found in abundance in asteroids) at just the right geological layer, computer models that show that an asteroid of sufficient size could kill off the dinosaur and the existence of a crater of the requisite size off the coast of Mexico, strongly suggest that it was an asteroid. Another recent theory is that it may have been volcanic activity in India that blocked out the sun, killing plant life which the trickles up the food chain. But that’s basically the same mechanism as the asteroid.
Ron Paul says he looks at any situation objectively with his eyes open. He’s smart to do so. Regardless of whether the facts are to our liking, we are better of accepting them and dealing with them than making up something that sounds better. Dealing with reality will ultimately provide more happiness than pretending things are different than they really are.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The abortion debate brings up many of the different realities of life. The two sides of this debate rally behind two slogans: Pro – Life and Pro-Choice. Upon close examination, these two titles represent what each side truly values. Both titles reflect back to our founding fathers significant ideals: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. While both sides of this debate bring up different sides of this issue, they are nonetheless in conflict on a very fundamental level. While both sides cite the founding fathers in their choice of titles, I am convinced only one side is fundamentally closer.
Being pro-choice in today’s society means that we support a “woman’s right to choose.” However, what does this truly mean? This half-statement leaves out two important realities: first, the reason for needing a choice, and the list of choices. The choice list of our current society features prominently the choice of abortion in addition to other alternatives that are available. However, we must ask ourselves what is abortion and why is it radically different from the other choices. It is from my experience that abortion is generally treated as a last option when nothing else can help. Abortion is defined differently by different groups. The reason for this is that definition influences legislation. If we say simply that abortion is killing a child before it is allowed to be born, then legislation to support this can never be passed—the reason is that no one supports killing children, or killing in general. However if we can claim that abortion is not the death of a child, but rather a choice for the life of the mother then we shift emphasis from liberty to choice. After all, killing is against our right to life, however, that same right to life is cited in the choice for abortion.
The question to ask then is whether or not the choice for life is substantiated by either side. The pro-choice camp prominently cite abortion as necessary for the life of the mother when she is in danger or when it can cause substantial harm to their financial stability. The point of this argument is to show that the sacrifice is in the name of something more important. Therefore we must compare whether the life of another human or the matter of their ease of living is more important than the life of another child. For most people to compare someone’s life’s worth to ease of living is not a good enough reason for abortion [or slavery, or many other things for that matter] because that places temporal needs and wants above the needs of a person. Society cannot support that mentality because it treats people as a means, rather than an end. It also implies that the inherent value of a person due to their rights and liberty is worth less than temporal needs and gain. The implication for a society that embodies this concept is utterly against everything our founding fathers would support. After all, if that were the case then we would not have had grounds for ending slavery because people under this concept aren’t worth more than the gain brought about by using them. So the final examination is whether or not the life of the child should be sacrificed for the life of its mother. This is a touchy subject because now we are comparing lives to lives. If we decide one way or the other we are in danger of saying that certain people’s lives are worth more than another. Can you truly look to those around you and honestly say that some people are intrinsically worth more than you or that you are worth more than them? It is a trifling and pointless thing to do in a society that affirms that everyone has equal worth and equal rights. Therefore for these reasons the abortion debates settles to whether the unborn child is a human or not. If the unborn baby can be shown to not be a human, then it would not have our rights and the rights would all belong to the mother. In other words, is the pregnant woman truly a single person or does the child within her have rights as well?
This question if a pregnant woman a single person has big consequences for abortion-related legislation because if proven to be true, then abortion then doesn’t violate any person’s liberty, and therefore is truly a viable “choice” for a woman to consider. If however, a pregnant woman is truly a mother and a child (two individuals) then the child will have all the rights that belong to any other person under the US constitution. This then is not a question for lobbyists, but a question for biologists and philosophers. From a biomedical standpoint, it is clear that a baby develops from a fetus within the mother. The first question to ask then is the fetus a person with rights? If so then we cannot allow legislation to abort fetuses. What constitutes a person? This is the definition that most people disagree upon because of the varying circumstances that people can meet all the criteria to be people. I want to argue that a person meets the following criteria: A person is any organism that at any point in its complete life-cycle can be classified taxonomically as Homo sapiens. Therefore, under standard taxonomy any organism that a biologist can properly identify as a homo sapiens (as human) is a person. Therefore people are then protected legally during all the parts of their life-cycle from conception to natural death. I am willing to say that most people can agree with my definition of a person. However, some people may object to a biologist’s classification citing that science is not an exact discipline and mistakes can be made. I want to say therefore that people no longer evade the question then that “people” are the result of a sperm and an egg coming together and its development is continuous from that union until natural death. People who object to this definition of life are only people who are concerned with pushing agenda and cannot bring up a proper argument to my definition to refute it other than human error. However, I find it remarkably difficult for a biologist to classify a fetus or embryo any differently than a gynecologist when a woman is clearly pregnant.
What about the life and safety of a mother in a life-threatening situation? Do I advocate that she risk her life for her baby? I advocate that doctors do everything possible to save both lives. Research should go into how to save babies who need to be separated from their mothers instead of investments in how to dispose of them. If a baby is life-threatening then we should do everything to save two lives instead of just one. What about babies whose life is in danger when they are born? I advocate supporting them to pursue life as long as possible. Every person deserves a chance to live and no one should have their odds of life made any less. It is important that life remains central to our daily being. I say that we have an obligation to support life, not an obligation to take it away.
I want to say that the pro-life camp is really a pro-liberty camp. We advocate not only the life of a single child, but the life of all of us. Anything that can disrupt the liberty of an innocent child is the potential for the disruption of all of us. In conclusion in any debate concerning human social action we must keep in front us the principles of life and liberty—in particular on the debate of abortion. Society has effectively shifted the abortion debate from a life versus life debate to a life versus liberty debate. However, only one side truly advocates both, the side that chooses life ultimately chooses liberty. If legislation is ever passed that makes abortion illegal I also strongly urge that legislators push for legislation that strongly supports life and liberty for mothers and children, only then will people truly no longer believe they need to abort.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I agree with your right-to-life position as abortion is truly indefensible. I suspect much of the debate should be about guilt, but that would prolong the agony for some.
This life begins when? argument is legal bullsh*t talk, because it would be the ONLY way to legalize murder.
If the people want to legalize murder, so be it.
I for one, imagine a neighbor in his front yard slicing his female dog open and searching for the runt, and discarding it. And then, no one caring.
Pathetic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Someone please ban these rats: Kenny, XRon, OneWay, and other rats from the rat team…
They are polluting this website’s forums with loads and loads of useless and meaningless crap…
The pages and pages of nonsense, where they just type up some bs that is just garbage…
These rats change different names on different topics and they think people will not see through the rat covers.
Please ban these rats: Joe, SimpleJustice, Zach… and other rats from the same rat team.
Thank you.
D. Dixon.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Idiot Wind
You have certainly missed the point Paul was trying to make in 1 Corinthians. Paul was not arguing that he can use his authority to “shock” people into the Gospel. Paul meant merely that under Christ he can meet people where they are; he can reason with them in their own language. In Acts 17, Paul goes to Athens and preaches amidst the Areopagus, which was place where intellectuals would go and reason together and argue over whatever new intellectual “craze” was going about at the time. Paul does not show up and beat them over the head with the Torah saying “This is the only God and you are all wrong!” No, instead he begins with something they themselves are familiar with and uses reason to describe the God of the universe. In this way Paul very expertly presents the manner in which we are called to go forth and make disciples.
Furthermore, the Western Bible is the one which has been canonized in the Western World, as opposed to the Canon of the Eastern Orthodox Church and then of course there are the scriptures of the many eastern world religions. Do not take every word X Ron says as a means to demean you.
Finally, arguing over the sanctity of life and whether life begins at conception is purely arbitrary if you have not first established some sort of Absolute values. In order to do so you must first establish the Truth of God. What good do you accomplish by telling someone how much you hate something if that person does not even remotely understand your value system?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Kenny,
I’m a semi-idiot, okay? I know what a western bible is. I know my way of exibiting my hurt is not always a form of, “a soft answer turns away wrath”. I do take this personally. Anyone who is on this web log SHOULD take it personally. Else, why are we here.
X Ron spewed hate when he responded on Feb 3, 9:44 pm, by replying to One way, “you poor angry little fool”. He can dish it out, but you want to pet him and make him purr like a well-nourished cat. X Ron wants you to read “Power of Myth” by Moyers, but gets angry when one wants to quote the Bible. Does that really make sense to you?
X Ron says he “doesn’t espouse abortion, but doesn’t disagree with those who want to do it”. I’m glad he’s not my friend, because I couldn’t count on him to cover my back if I’m up against the wall and thugs with clubs are coming at me. “Oh well, kill her if you want to, that’s up to you”.
Maybe I feel like Jonah, who, after being told by God to preach to Nineveh, ran off to Tarshish and got on a boat. He didn’t even want the Ninevites saved by preaching what God wanted him to preach. (That’s old testament, by the way, kjv). Jonah did do the preaching, but you can bet he didn’t rationlize, minimize and sit down with them for hot cocoa to get the idea across. Jonah didn’t like the fact that Nineveh repented. Now, X Ron should know that story well, since he is so well read and wants you to come to his side by understanding and reading his viewpoint. I consider myself a well-read person, though I don’t consider myself a good writer or a good expositor of my views and opinions.
If we are to play ‘good cop-bad cop’ here, then I’ll play the bad one. “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against powers, against principalities, against the rulers of the darkness of this world….(and, as X Ron says, “ad nauseum”)
Ephesians 6:10-18.
One more thing. X Ron’s Jewishness still seems to be a problem, for him. Maybe he’s taking it personally that he is “one of God’s chosen people” and in that understanding, has chosen the path of least resistance. “Not my fault. Kill all you want. I’ll just stand idly by and let my daughter, son, neice, nephew, cousin, friend be exterminated”. Maybe X thinks in Hindu terms of reincarnation, therefore, after many reinventions, one can essentially reach that nirvana. If that’s true, I hope I don’t come back as a baby in a non-moralist society (like today) and of experiencing the pain of being ripped from Mommie Dearest’s womb, which used to be called “a shelter from the storm”.
X Ron, isn’t it getting a little uncomfortable sitting on the fence day and night?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Kenny,
When help is needed, it will be given, by God’s Grace.
X Ron needs the shock treatment he gets! You want to coddle to him; and maybe you’re right. Paul also said, “I can be all things to all men” to bring souls to Christ.
Now, X Ron, are you gonna censure my use of the apostle Paul and unsing the name of “Christ”? How come the opening of Congress begins with a prayer, but children aren’t allowed to pray out loud in schools? (a slow silencing of children beginning circa 1963). Ten years later, r v wade can silence children completely and forever! If you think this is rediculous, then how do you rationalize some one-night-stand, over-grown fetal matter some 60 years old plus, is able to make laws that allows parents to kill one’s child?
I have one thing to say. What crime did the child commit to deserve the ultimate death sentence.
I hate when any innocents are wronged.
And that, X Ron and Kenny, is the nightly sermon. Tonights lesson has been brought to you by this message, “Sometimes the best answer to a question is silence. Are children questions and is silence the answer?
PS Western Bible? Is that the one where you learn how to rope and sing around the campfire? And every chapter ends the exclamation of, “Hot Damn!” ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well first of all, Idiot Wind, it is an argument like that which further drives X Ron from even considering the possibility of God. If at all you believe in the Intelligent Designer then you must believe that He gave man Reason and intelligence and furthermore, a will to use that intelligence to discover Him. So the argument based on the uncertainty of the situation completely undermines any inclination of intelligent design.
Now, X Ron, again I must reiterate that I am no scholar (far from it) so as to emphasize that my knowledge is little. My initial response, or reflex, to the concept that there is no God is that if that is true then everything in life is meaningless. All of the pain, the suffering, the disasters, it is all accidental and there is no hope for anything better – no hope that maybe this will all lead to something – no hope at all really. You may address that however you wish.
Now, I am glad you brought up the circular logic of the “true believers” as you have called them. Yes, the Bible is the final word because it is the Word of God, but as you have so adequately put it, if that is where we begin then there is no ground to be gained. But Idiot Wind has put it very well that our create is Intelligent and, if I may steal a term from the Greeks, He is the Logos, or the Divine Reason. Therefore, this Divine Reason saw fit to give man reason as well so we might discover Him. So, if it is at all possible, let us reason together and maybe I can deter you from your justified bias towards the “true believers.”
Absolutes. There is no escaping the reality of absolutes. Even a nihilist declares absolutely that “There are no absolutes.” Gravity, inertia, even the periodic table of the elements (all atoms with six protons are carbon; if it doesn’t have six protons, it is not carbon). If we have absolutes then, we must have a Right and a Wrong (wrong would be to call a five proton atom a carbon atom). So the question we must ask is “Where did this absolute Right come from?” Surely, to say that there is a Right and Wrong is to say there is some sort of governing force in the universe. I would submit that we call that governing force God.
So far I have only attempted to prove the existence of God, not necessarily the God of any religion, but merely God. I think I will stop here before going on because in order to go any further this point must be made clear. So now its your turn, my friend.
P.S. I too am simplifying this greatly. If I will look into your recommendation, I ask that you will look into mine: the book is Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. He is obviously much better at argue this point than I am and he spends about half the book just arguing the existence of God.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
X Ron,
I call myself an “idiot” because I know that man is limited in what they can/cannot do. There is an Intelligent Designer of this world; we’re not robots. If you don’t believe that we were designed/made in God’s image, then you have no right to take that life– because, are you sure there is no Maker? Are you SURE? ARE YOU 100% SURE?? Only people who hate themselves can hate others. And killing is hate.
Killing humans is not an appropriate birth control method.
Excuse me while I go kill a cat, a monkey and several stray dogs around the neighborhood. They’re getting on my nerves and in the trash… hey, I might drown a few cats while I’m at it! Yeah, that sounds like some fun!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Kenny,
Thanks for your kind words. I appreciate a lot of what you’ve said, even if we disagree.
I’m not sure if this is the best place for it but here it is in a nutshell.
Firstly, when I said to keep god out of it, I was speaking to the poster spouting scripture and basing any intellectual argument on the words of the western bible. I may be presumptuous but I figured most people mentioning god on this site (including you) are talking about that one.
If you can understand why you personally don’t believe in or dismiss, every other religion of the world (of which there are many), then hopefully you can understand why I don’t believe in yours.
I’ve found that “true believers” have typically surrendered reason and logic in favor of deferral. The moment people invoke god, or more succinctly the Judeo/Christian/Muslim bible as the last word, where else is there to go with them. The nature of the logic becomes circular, i.e. “It says so in the bible so it must be true.”
Why do you believe in god?
Because it says to in the bible.
Why do you believe in the bible?
Because it’s the word of god.
Why do you believe in god?
ad nauseum…
Also, whenever god or religion comes up there is a division between one group who is self righteously “holy” or “blessed”, and by default those who don’t follow that god or those teachings are “damned” or “sinful” or “cursed”. It’s easy to treat the damned as less than human, all in the name of religion.
I am not as articulate or astute as the many who have made their life’s work the study and dissertation on why they don’t believe in god. Their words are out there and I encourage you to do a search and read some of the arguments. Or take look at “The Power Of Myth” with Joseph Campbell and Bill Moyers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If I understand X Ron correctly, you don’t want god to be part of a debate about governance and abortion because you’ve had bad experiences with people who are religous. You make a lot of assumptions and, (though I don’t think you necessarily intended this) accusations about people in western religions: they’re illogical, unreasonable, inhumane, and their faith is entirely based on what someone or something else told them to believe. While I will be the last to deny that there are people who fit that description, that certainly does not sum up the entire population of theonomists across the globe for the past 5-6,000+ years of written history.
The point I’ve been trying to make time and time again is that we are very much the same in (at least) this one aspect: we all depend on, essentially, circular reasoning when it comes to subjective moral standards. There is reason and logic to our (or most of our) views, but it is dependent on a starting place that is subjective and cannot be proven.
For example, your views about western religion:
Why are the religious illogical?
Beacause I have experienced it.
Why are the religious judgmental and inhumane?
Because I have experienced it.
Why are some women better off with an abortion than with a child?
Because I have experienced it, or I know others who have experienced it.
Why are some fatally ill people better off dead than suffering?
Because I have experienced it, or I know others who have experienced it…
Your arguments, for the most part, are very logical and rational. But, if your starting point is in error, then your conclusions will be also, regardless of your fine a to b logic. And if your personal experiences are your primary starting place to reason moral standards, then you are in error. For every experience you’ve had, or for every experience that other people you know/know of have had, there is someone who has had a contradictory experience, or even an experience that none of us has envisioned was possible. The only exception to this is proven hard science. You won’t find someone (sane) who has experienced life on earth without the laws of physics, for example.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
X Ron,
Although I strongly disagree with you, I appreciate that you do stand by your beliefs and hold them strongly. You are obviously a smart person and I am not really certain whether I could keep up with you in a debate. That being said, I am shocked to hear you say “Keep God out of it.” Not necessarily that you don’t believe in God but that you won’t allow somebody who does believe in God to use that in their argument. For to insist that I discard God from the subject is like me insisting that you discard your reason from it. I think you would agree that Reason is not topical but that it ought to impact every part of our lives. It is just so with God, as well. To keep God out of any area of life is to deny that He is God, just as to keep Reason out of any topic is to deny that it is truly Reason. Therefore, in order to hold a serious argument (if you do not believe in God), you must prove to those who do believe in God that their logic is skewed. You cannot simply ignore their point, you must prove it wrong.
I hope that made sense, otherwise I was just rambling. But if it did make sense, then I encourage you X Ron, prove me wrong.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
X Ron,
When did your life begin? Or a more appropriate question is: when did your life end?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0