I am creating yet another site geared towards democrats http://www.politicalgroove.com (or liberal minded) so people can totally bitch about everything, should be great fun! It seems like most rockers tend to be more liberal but I thought I would see if I could get some feedback from you guys on it.

I am creating yet another site geared towards democrats (or liberal minded) so people can totally bitch about everything, should be great fun! It seems like most rockers tend to be more liberal but I thought I would see if I could get some feedback from you guys on it.

I vote Democrat because Republicans are pure evil. Beyond that...I think they're mostly scumbags too. I'm having a very hard time caring who wins the primary.

I vote Democrat because Republicans are pure evil. Beyond that...I think they're mostly scumbags too. I'm having a very hard time caring who wins the primary.

Not to start a political war here, but I happen to vote Republican and I don't consider myself a 'scumbag'.

Don't fool yourself into thinking Democratic leaders are the ONLY ones who care about the little man....especially when they themselves are millionaires and fly around in private jets. Don't be naive...

Not to start a political war here, but I happen to vote Republican and I don't consider myself a 'scumbag'.

Don't fool yourself into thinking Democratic leaders are the ONLY ones who care about the little man....especially when they themselves are millionaires and fly around in private jets. Don't be naive...
Fair enough, but the path the current rebulican party is taking is leading straight to their downfall in 09. Not to say there aren't good candidates for their party, just that after the contempt, corruption and blatant disregard for the law that the current administration has it's turning everyone away.

It's cyclical though, a dem will get elected and probably jizz all over some chick and then it will go back the other way. Checks and balances.

Well, the way this thread is starting out, I'd say you will not need to worry about whether you can generate enough interest/traffic! :lol:

I was thinking the same thing. All we'd really need are like 3 members with opposing views and that site will skyrocket.

Not to start a political war here, but I happen to vote Republican and I don't consider myself a 'scumbag'.

Don't fool yourself into thinking Democratic leaders are the ONLY ones who care about the little man....especially when they themselves are millionaires and fly around in private jets. Don't be naive...

Yeah, I meant that the Democrats are mostly scumbags too. I'm seriously pissed off at all of them for not doing their job and protecting this country against the worst traitor ever to hold the office of President. Not a single one of them has done a damn thing. They're all too worried about their jobs to do shit.

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=116552056&blogID=257449164&Mytoken=AC7D45F1-0785-434C-8E0EFDA68640DEB42846941

I don't think I'll ever understand how a decent person can vote Republican. I do know quite a few and what I find most amazing is that they believe in the same things I do...the same things that the people they vote for regularly destroy as quickly as they possibly can. I mean hell...libertarians normally vote Republican and there is no party that acts against the liberty of the citizens of this country on a regular basis than the Republicans - I just don't get it.

Hell, half the candidates for the Republicans admit, with a straight face, that they don't "believe" in evolution. They admit to the entire nation that they are idiots willing to stand against something they don't even understand.

I can only hope that party dies and rots in its own decadence.

The one thing the Democrats have going for them is not a single one of them, that I know of, is trying to downgrade public education in this country by forcing Christian creationism on our children or build up a theocracy through "faith based initiatives". These things, to me, are the most serious issues we face today. Our country is on the brink of becoming a Christian Iran and there is no way in hell I'm going to let that happen. So, I don't care which Democrat takes the primary - they all suck - but I'll vote for whoever it is.

Well im neutral (even though im not in the states lol) , to me politics are all the same from either side, just painted special colours to make them look diffrent, so to avoid ppl throwing blunt objects at me, i just remain undecided by any of them:toothless: :p

Well im neutral (even though im not in the states lol) , to me politics are all the same from either side, just painted special colours to make them look diffrent, so to avoid ppl throwing blunt objects at me, i just remain undecided by any of them:toothless: :p

You must not listen to your Dylan enough:

Well, they'll stone ya when you're trying to be so good,
They'll stone ya just a-like they said they would.
They'll stone ya when you're tryin' to go home.
Then they'll stone ya when you're there all alone.
But I would not feel so all alone,
Everybody must get stoned.

Well, they'll stone ya when you're walkin' 'long the street.
They'll stone ya when you're tryin' to keep your seat.
They'll stone ya when you're walkin' on the floor.
They'll stone ya when you're walkin' to the door.
But I would not feel so all alone,
Everybody must get stoned.

They'll stone ya when you're at the breakfast table.
They'll stone ya when you are young and able.
They'll stone ya when you're tryin' to make a buck.
They'll stone ya and then they'll say, "good luck."
Tell ya what, I would not feel so all alone,
Everybody must get stoned.

Well, they'll stone you and say that it's the end.
Then they'll stone you and then they'll come back again.
They'll stone you when you're riding in your car.
They'll stone you when you're playing your guitar.
Yes, but I would not feel so all alone,
Everybody must get stoned.

Well, they'll stone you when you walk all alone.
They'll stone you when you are walking home.
They'll stone you and then say you are brave.
They'll stone you when you are set down in your grave.
But I would not feel so all alone,
Everybody must get stoned

You must not listen to your Dylan enough:

Well, they'll stone ya when you're trying to be so good,
They'll stone ya just a-like they said they would.
They'll stone ya when you're tryin' to go home.
Then they'll stone ya when you're there all alone.
But I would not feel so all alone,
Everybody must get stoned.

Well, they'll stone ya when you're walkin' 'long the street.
They'll stone ya when you're tryin' to keep your seat.
They'll stone ya when you're walkin' on the floor.
They'll stone ya when you're walkin' to the door.
But I would not feel so all alone,
Everybody must get stoned.

They'll stone ya when you're at the breakfast table.
They'll stone ya when you are young and able.
They'll stone ya when you're tryin' to make a buck.
They'll stone ya and then they'll say, "good luck."
Tell ya what, I would not feel so all alone,
Everybody must get stoned.

Well, they'll stone you and say that it's the end.
Then they'll stone you and then they'll come back again.
They'll stone you when you're riding in your car.
They'll stone you when you're playing your guitar.
Yes, but I would not feel so all alone,
Everybody must get stoned.

Well, they'll stone you when you walk all alone.
They'll stone you when you are walking home.
They'll stone you and then say you are brave.
They'll stone you when you are set down in your grave.
But I would not feel so all alone,
Everybody must get stoned

Lol thats a good point :lol:
Better to be stoned for something then for nothing, still though , politics are just that to me , always interesting to read others thoughts though:D

You must not listen to your Dylan enough: mainly because it is the worst track on Blonde on Blonde. I really hate that song. I'd rather listen to Nashville Skyline than Rainy Days #12 and 35. In fact I would rather listen to SAVED! :)

Here's a neat little diddy to see where you side with the current candidates:
http://www.speakout.com/VoteMatch/senate2006.asp?quiz=2008#sec0

Apparently I'm sided with Kuchinich. I was with Hillary and then I realized that one of the questions got flipped somehow from what I meant to say. I don't support mandetory 3 strikes laws...that sent her down 3 spots...which conserns me.

I'm "Hard Core Liberal" - yeah, I needed a pole to tell me that :p I'm more liberal than the liberals :p

quote by EricGtr:

"a dem will get elected and probably jizz all over some chick and then it will go back the other way" :lol:

now that's funny !

should be an interesting forum,

I may be stating the obvious but humour me please Eric: :toothless:

in a Forum involving politics I think it might be a good idea to state the appropriate conduct you want in this forum, (even though there are some general rules of conduct, might help to be more specific in regards to what posters can and cannot post that is acceptable and contributes to a positive environment)

I'm sure you will write out some forum rules to help

and I'm sure there will be many passionate emotional responses

for my part:
I will respect(and necessarily tolerate) everyones opinion, hopefully other members that participate in this forum will demonstrate the same courtesy for all posters no matter whether they "appear" to have a certain political party affiliation or not

thanks for your efforts Eric !!! :yourock:

Well i care what happens, but i don't really have much time for the political process, Britain has been run into the ground by every Party i've seen in charge, they have killed all our industrys and privatised the rest.
The politicians themselves make me sick, ready and willing to jump on one band wagon after another just to pickup a vote, they don't even believe what they are saying, and i sure as hell don't.
Just my view though.

Yeah, I meant that the Democrats are mostly scumbags too. I'm seriously pissed off at all of them for not doing their job and protecting this country against the worst traitor ever to hold the office of President. Not a single one of them has done a damn thing. They're all too worried about their jobs to do shit.

Are you talking about George W or Bill Clinton? :rolleyes:


I don't think I'll ever understand how a decent person can vote Republican. I do know quite a few and what I find most amazing is that they believe in the same things I do...the same things that the people they vote for regularly destroy as quickly as they possibly can. I mean hell...libertarians normally vote Republican and there is no party that acts against the liberty of the citizens of this country on a regular basis than the Republicans - I just don't get it.

Obviously, we don't see things that way. I vote Republican based on a few very simple ideals. Mainly, I am a firm believe in small government/big business. I don't want to pay increasingly higher and higher taxes so the politicians can continue to line their pockets with it. I believe in a strong military as well and I'm definitely against socialized medicine in this country.


Hell, half the candidates for the Republicans admit, with a straight face, that they don't "believe" in evolution. They admit to the entire nation that they are idiots willing to stand against something they don't even understand.

Evolution vs Creationism is a VERY debatable topic. No one is an 'idiot' by choosing either side...it's a matter of belief. There isn't enough hard evidence on either side to prove anything.


The one thing the Democrats have going for them is not a single one of them, that I know of, is trying to downgrade public education in this country by forcing Christian creationism on our children or build up a theocracy through "faith based initiatives". These things, to me, are the most serious issues we face today. Our country is on the brink of becoming a Christian Iran and there is no way in hell I'm going to let that happen. So, I don't care which Democrat takes the primary - they all suck - but I'll vote for whoever it is.

Very sorry that you are so anti-Christian. That's something that you will have to deal with on your own personal level though. The seperation of church and state means nothing when over 80% of Americans call themselves Christians.

Well i care what happens, but i don't really have much time for the political process, Britain has been run into the ground by every Party i've seen in charge, they have killed all our industrys and privatised the rest.
The politicians themselves make me sick, ready and willing to jump on one band wagon after another just to pickup a vote, they don't even believe what they are saying, and i sure as hell don't.
Just my view though.

That says it for me too.
You can tell a politician is lying when his lips move, and whoever you vote for the government always get in.
Cynical? Maybe
True? Hell yes!!

Okay, the site is open http://www.politicalgroove.com

Obviously, we don't see things that way. I vote Republican based on a few very simple ideals. Mainly, I am a firm believe in small government/big business. I don't want to pay increasingly higher and higher taxes so the politicians can continue to line their pockets with it. I believe in a strong military as well and I'm definitely against socialized medicine in this country.


Exactly my point. Taxes never go higher faster than under Republican rule, nor has corruption for that matter. I don't know why some people seem to percieve otherwise.


Evolution vs Creationism is a VERY debatable topic. No one is an 'idiot' by choosing either side...it's a matter of belief. There isn't enough hard evidence on either side to prove anything.


I'm sorry, but if you believe that then you are VERY uninformed. There is no debate; none at all. It is a matter of belief, this is true. Belief is your view of what is real. Believing in unicorns or Santa Clause is a "matter of belief" as well but any adult that claimed to believe either would not be trustable since their view of reality is so obviously flawed. It is the same with the creationism "debate". Creationism stands against everything known about the world.

Just because there are some people who believe differently does not mean there is "debate". The arguments brought forth by creationism's proponents have been stomped into the ground at every turn. There's nothing there but lies (yes, many quite purposfully misrepresent the truth) and false dilemma.

Just to bring the point home: If we are to believe that creationism is a viable "science" then we should be able to choose between the various different theories. There needs to be a reason, beyond religious opinion, to choose the Christian version vs. the various others. Was man made of dust or a clot of blood for instance? Is it a litteral 6 days (24 hours) or is time relative to God and these days are actually eons or lengths of arbitrary time (note that even Christian creation "scientists" can't agree on this)? To choose between them we have to look at the facts, and the facts say, "evolution."

Besides, as a "matter of belief" creationism has no place in our schools.

Very sorry that you are so anti-Christian.


Hehehehe...here we go. Yet another Christian claiming I'm "anti-christian" because I don't share their beliefs. Many Christians understand that evolution is a reality. Just because you call yourself "Christian" doesn't mean I have to buy your specific belief system, or even pay it any respect, or I'm "anti-Christian".

"...there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such." - Pope Benedict XVI

My entire family is Christian. I used to call myself one but won't wear the label anymore. Too many people use that label, and my willingness to call myself by it, to support their flawed statistics. The word "Christian" has become a bad word, and it's really too bad. Christ was a cool dude, but some of his "followers" are seriously fucked up and lost people.


That's something that you will have to deal with on your own personal level though. The seperation of church and state means nothing when over 80% of Americans call themselves Christians.

Another major problem with Republicans: they're desire to tear down the separation of church and state and claim the majority get to dictate their religious beliefs to the rest of us (of course, they get it wrong - that "80%" don't all share the same belief system). Democracy and freedom of (and from) religion are foundational ideals of this country. Either you believe in them...or you don't. America was never meant to be a theocracy.

"State is a monster colder than the coldest monster. It tells lies in cold blood and the biggest lie that comes out of its mouth is: I am the state, I am the people. State lies in all the tongues of good and evil; and whatever it says it is lying; and whatever it has it has stolen. Everything in it is false." - Friedrich NIETZSCHE, Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

"State is a monster colder than the coldest monster. It tells lies in cold blood and the biggest lie that comes out of its mouth is: I am the state, I am the people. State lies in all the tongues of good and evil; and whatever it says it is lying; and whatever it has it has stolen. Everything in it is false." - Friedrich NIETZSCHE, Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

I can't say I completely agree with Nietzsche on this (big surprise there) but he is making a valid point.

Daniel Dennett and Douglass Hofstadter have both used ants to describe a concept that I think is very interesting. Hofstadter on the one hand explains how it is imaginable to consider a consciousness existing in an ant hill. Consciousness need not be implemented in any specific physical medium, there simply needs to be some form of information processing hardware. In our case that is the brain and the various neurons and chemicals in it...none of which contains our consciousness but, when put together as a complex computer, can.

Dennett explains how in the case of ants one can consider the ant hill to be the true organism. No ant can live outside the colony and the colony has its own various anti-bodies and such to fight off invaders. Ants act just like automita going about the various tasts they are "given" and the hill as a whole accomplishes things while no ant in it knows what the hell is going on; they are incapable of storing that much information in their brains.

One could look at that situation and make the obvious observation that the institutions we create behave in similar manners. Governments, corperations, cities, countries, etc... Any grouping of people can be looked at with this eye.

This is where things diverge. Dennett says, "People are not ants." People have their own desires, they think about things...contemplate the meaning of life and such...have their own goals and desires seperate from the group they are in. People are individuals. This is true. However, we as people do not always assert this ability:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strip_Search_Prank_Call_Scam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/01/30/Tampabay/Police_jail_rape_vict.shtml

The state IS the people. There is nothing else that comprises "The State" that is not people. The problem is that in cases like, "The State," "The System," and other large groups....people behave like ants. People do what they are told.

As Dennett says in Freedom Evolves, "If you want freedom, you must take responsibility." People don't do that when it comes to, "The System," and doing what they are told to do. The system then becomes the intelligence, and it doesn't give a fuck.

In this regard Nietzsche is correct when he says, "State is a monster colder than the coldest monster," but he is wrong when he claims that the State is not the people. It is, and thus its acts are our responsibility and our right to change.

In this regard Nietzsche is correct when he says, "State is a monster colder than the coldest monster," but he is wrong when he claims that the State is not the people. It is, and thus its acts are our responsibility and our right to change.

Incorrect. The state is not "the people" as a whole, it is made up of a particular group of individuals. The idea that the state is "the people" is a lie because the state is always in truth made up of an oligarchy, not the whole. If the state actually were the people, then one must assume that everything it does was implicitly consented to by everyone. It would mean that when you pay taxes, you're really "paying yourself", and when the German Jews were murdered by their own government, they really "commited suicide". This, of course, is rank nonsense.

The state is a coercive monopoly on the use of force over a given territory, even in a "democracy". Not "the people". It is made of up of SOME people, but to call it "the people" collectively is a collectivist fallacy. The state's acts that I did not consent to are not my responsibility; individuals are responsible for their actions. To blame "society" as a whole for the actions of select individuals is to misallocate responsibility. When a politician tries to "plan" the economy or manage foreign affairs, they are the ones responsible, not the victims of their narcissism.

The very existance of a state separates society into two basic classes: those who are in and specially allied with the state, and those who are not. In short, the tax-payers and tax-consumers, or rulers and subjects. This is the reality of political life that statements about "the people" seek to obfuscate. There is no such thing as a state that is directly controlled communally and constituted by "the people" as a whole. "The people" (meaning the subject class) themselves are conflicted over their economic preferances and asthetics. They are not uniform.

On one hand, there is an inherent antagonism between "the people" (or the citezens, meaning everyone NOT in the state) and "the state" (meaning everyone in it). On the other, there is an inherent antagonism between different people's views on what the state should do, or the extent that its existance is supposed to be justified in the first place. In a "democracy", "the people" do not uniformly consent to the government. Rather, at best one numerical majority (which can be far less than 51%) forces their views on everyone else. But even those people don't really directly control the state, as their "representatives" still possess monopoly power over them.

A simple exercise in logic easily shows how the state is most definitely not the people. For one, the people in direct control of the government are the politicians, the army higher-ups and the bereaucrats. Everyone else, at best, has indirect control. And those who have indirect control is confined to a relative minority of interest groups that ally at the hip of the state. That is to say, those with the most money and lobbying power, and the will to get special privileges, are those who get to be part of the ruling class through patronage with the state.

As for voters, (1) most people don't vote, so the non-voters have not consented to the state (2) the "losers" in a vote have not consented to the state and (3) the "winners" of a vote still are not entirely on a consensual basis, for the politicians can still defy their wishes. Voting does not necessarily imply consent or representation in the first place: if anything, it binds the voter to the edicts of the state. To claim that everyone has implicitly consented to the state, regaurdless of wether they voted or not and wether their side won or not, is illogical.

The state, empirically speaking, is made up of less than 1% of the population. It is constituted by the bereaucrats and government workers. Everyone else, everyone who does not directly work for the government and recieve their payment in taxes, is outside of the state. Everyone else (barring thieves) recieves their money from voluntary employment contracts with private institutions or individuals, gifts or inheritance. Indeed, the state is that institution in a society that has the exlusive capability to unilaterally set the price for its services and force everyone in the territory to patronize it. All other institutions must rely on competition and voluntary purchases.

These reasons, among many others, are why I reject the state and favor free markets.

Incorrect.

HAHAHA...ok.


The state is not "the people" as a whole, it is made up of a particular group of individuals. The idea that the state is "the people" is a lie because the state is always in truth made up of an oligarchy, not the whole.


That isn't even a complete truth in the case of Monarchies. It is especially questionable in the case of republican forms of government such as ours. Each and every one of us has a vote. The government is not some "oligarchy", it is formed of people. My mother works in the state. I vote. I scream out my opinions to all who will listen. I am the state.




and when the German Jews were murdered by their own government, they really "commited suicide". This, of course, is rank nonsense.


HAHAHA - Godwin's Law!!! Nice!

The Jews were most explicitly removed from the process. They were not included in "the people". The German people themselves did this.

And in some respect such a claim can be made. They certainly played a part in the seperation of themselves from the rest of the populace. It is a fundamental concept of Judaism to seperate yourself from the culture and the people surrounding you.


The state is a coercive monopoly on the use of force over a given territory, even in a "democracy". Not "the people". It is made of up of SOME people, but to call it "the people" collectively is a collectivist fallacy. The state's acts that I did not consent to are not my responsibility; individuals are responsible for their actions.


"Collectivist fallacy" huh? You seem to consistently use the word "fallacy" to refer to things you don't agree with. Interesting. I could just as easily say that your statements are "seperatist fallacy" and point out that you're trying to distance yourself from the responsibility in the decisions made on your behalf, at your behest, and with your permission.


The very existance of a state separates society into two basic classes: those who are in and specially allied with the state, and those who are not. In short, the tax-payers and tax-consumers, or rulers and subjects.

This seperation is an illusion caused by the inability to comprehend the place an individual has in the state. It's one thing to feel powerless in the face of The State, which we, individually, are but small parts...but quite another to disclaim responsibility.

This seperatism is part of the problem in this country, and in fact most around the world. People just throw up their hands and claim to be ruled instead of understanding that they are also the ruler. This is WHY people behave like ants when it comes to, "the system."

A simple exercise in logic easily shows how the state is most definitely not the people. For one, the people in direct control of the government are the politicians, the army higher-ups and the bereaucrats. Everyone else, at best, has indirect control.


You work from the wrong direction. The people "at the top" have only as much power as that delegated by the people "at the bottom".

It pays now to bring forth a little American history: http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm


As for voters, (1) most people don't vote, so the non-voters have not consented to the state (2) the "losers" in a vote have not consented to the state and (3) the "winners" of a vote still are not entirely on a consensual basis, for the politicians can still defy their wishes.


1 - They have, in fact, consented to whatever takes place. They have a voice and their statement is, "I don't care - do whatever."

2 - The loosers have consented to abide by the decisions of the majority.

3 - Only in as far as they are allowed to.


The state, empirically speaking, is made up of less than 1% of the population. It is constituted by the bereaucrats and government workers. Everyone else, everyone who does not directly work from the government and recieve their payment in taxes, is outside of the state.

67% of all statistics are made up on the spot. It's also a total red herring, you've done little to respond to my actual statements, and this seperation you are creating is totally arbitrary and unsupported. A "free market" is just another system of control; a different type of state.

Again, your premises are illogical. You are not the state. The state is directly controlled by a small band on individuals. Entire nations of people are not uniformly responsible for the actions of isolated component parts, individual members. Governments are very clearly oligarchies, which is to say a heirarchal institution that is directly controlled by a relative minority of the population. It defies the most basic of logic to claim that I am responsible for something that I oppose, that I did not consent to nor voluntarily bear the economic costs of.

As for the Jews and Germans, this too is fallicious when we think about it. It is a fallacy to blame every single German person for the actions of the Nazis. That's collective and ancestral guilt. There's no such thing. Some Germans opposed the Nazis, others adored them. In holding collectives uniformly responsible, the individual people, and the diversity between them, is obscured. This is why I keep calling it collectivistic fallacy. Because it is. It's a form of anthroprophicism: identifying territories as if they were individuals.

The separation between those in control of the state and those controlled by it is not an illusion, it is glaringly obvious with the most cursory glance at human history. History is the tale of a struggle between social power and political power, between particular individuals with power and people controlled by that power. To deny that an institution that has a territorial monopoly on the use of force has an antagonistic relationship with people who are subject to that force is ridiculous.

1 - They have, in fact, consented to whatever takes place. They have a voice and their statement is, "I don't care - do whatever."

Absolute nonsense. It is nonsense to claim that someone implictly "supports" something by not voting. And not voting does NOT necessarily mean that the person does not care: for many, it's a rejection of the system. It is a withdrawl of consent! To then claim that people who are deliberate withdrawing their consent from the state implicitly have consented to it is illogical.

2 - The loosers have consented to abide by the decisions of the majority.

This is also a nonsensical statement. The thing about the "majority" inherently implies that the minority are subject to the will of the majority, regaurdless of consent. That is the truth about majoritarianism: it violates the rights of the minority. That is exactly why the theory of democracy is flawed and immoral. It allows for any principle to be overturned so long as majority numbers exists. In practise, that amounts to "might makes right", superior numbers being might. It turns right and wrong into a sick numbers game. No, people who have government policies that they do not desire forced upon them and they are made to pay for it in taxes, they have not consented to it. To top it off, each individual has a separate view on what they want the state to do or not do.

3 - Only in as far as they are allowed to.

They are the rule-makers. They can in theory make it so they are allowed to do just about anything.

By your explaination, everyone implictly consents to the state, no matter WHAT they do. That is utter nonsense. Tell that to all of the people killed by states in the 20th century, or a tax-resister. Empirical reality shows us that ultimately every edict of the state is enforced at the barrel of gun. That is to say, it is enforced by men with guns, under the threat that force will be used if payment is not forthcoming or if a particular edict is not obeyed. Everything the state does is ultimately founded in force, not a voluntary relationship.

Again, your premises are illogical.

This just shows that you don't know what you're talking about. You use words like "fallacy" and "illogical" to counter the other side without support. Just calling my argument fallacious and my premises "illogical" (someone that really understands logic wouldn't use that language - premises are false or disputed, never "illogical") isn't enough. Fallacy this, fallacy that...this is all you bring to the table.

The use of the term "fallacy" so superfluously and generically just shows your unwillingness to accept opposing views on equal terms and hear them out. I just can't take you seriously when you do this and since I see little actual refutation in your arguments, being little more than, "I'm right damnit!!" I have to call it a wash.

I said my piece and you're no where near changing my opinion. Individuals ARE responsible for the actions of their government, or any group/system they belong to, unless they are directly disavowing and opposing it either by force or disobedience. For people to be individuals they have to act like individuals and my original post explained and supported the argument that they do not as the fundamental reason why the state is a "cold monster". You answered none of this. Dennett did a much better job of arguing the other side than you are and I cited him directly, followed by my retort.

And I have work to do.

Liberty: the state of being in which the individual is free from the compulsive control or force of others.

State: an institution that is designated with the express purpose of controlling those within a given geographic area.

Govern: to govern is to control. Self-government is self-control, while formalized government is not. These two principles are antagonistic.

As anyone of just about any political philosophy should be able to tell you, the state possesses the capacity to violate people's liberty. It can force people to do things against their consent and it can employ violence using the police and military power.If we assume that everyone implicitly consents to everything that the state does, we obfuscate the nature of the institution, which involves an antagonism between its members and those who it controls, and there is an antogonism between those who it controls over what should be done about it.

Disagreements in political philosophy have to do with the degree and type of liberty (I.E. freedom FROM the control of the state) that is allowed in a given political system. But if we cannot aknowledge the basic nature of the state, then no serious political philosophy discussion can proceed. People from all over the political spectrum, from left to right to anarchist to totalitarian, should be able to aknowledge that a state is an institution that possesses ultimate decision-making power over the people of a given territory and that this power represents control over the masses by a particular group of individuals making up the government. Most disagreements of political philosophy have to do with how this decision-making power should be used and determined, although a more important discussion to have is over wether or not it is legitimate to begin with.

But you seem to deny that freedom FROM the control state is possible at all, even in any subtle manner, as if every single person implicitly agrees to the state's control in every single case. But this is not political reality. Each individual has different views on what the state should or shouldn't be able to control, and the scope of its control. They each can be said to only "consent" to the extent that the current state of affairs represents their political views. An anarchist does not support anything to state does: they oppose the institution itself. A minimalist supports a minimum of what the state does, but opposes the rest of its control. A totalitarian supports just about everything the state does. If we assume that everything the state does is implictly voluntary, then one can easily move towards totalitarianism because one has no concept of freedom from the state.

Absolute nonsense. It is nonsense to claim that someone implictly "supports" something by not voting. And not voting does NOT necessarily mean that the person does not care: for many, it's a rejection of the system. It is a withdrawl of consent! To then claim that people who are deliberate withdrawing their consent from the state implicitly have consented to it is illogical.

I've heard this tripe before.

My response:

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=116552056&blogID=255584415&Mytoken=235ADA7B-99E7-4881-8C719D52C7FC904758608632

Such a person must also not make use of ANY government provided service or infrastructure or they're just being hypocrites, still participating in the system, and explicitly giving consent...good luck driving anywhere.

Such a person must also not make use of ANY government provided service or infrastructure or they're just being hypocrites, still participating in the system, and explicitly giving consent...good luck driving anywhere.

I've seen such a line of arguement before. It fails on logical grounds. Your arguement is no different then claiming that if I give a robber my wallet because he's holding a gun to my head, I actually "consented" to give my wallet to him. No, it was a choice made under the threat of force. Choices made under the threat of force are not voluntary, they are by definition coerced. I do not have a choice to not patronize the government's roads: there is no competition (this is not so in a free market, where I would have a choice to patronize the competition). They are funded through extortion and there are hefty barriers to entry if I want to develope roads privately.

If one has no concept of coercion, then totalitarianism becomes mighty easy to rationalize, for one can simply claim that everyone implictly consents to everything. But the naked reality of political life is that everything the government does is ultimate imposed under the threat of force. Taxes are not voluntary by any rational definition of voluntary, and neither is the draft, economic regulations, economic redistribution of resources, wars, or any other such government enterprises. All of these things are in antagonism with the consent and will of various individuals, and imply a redistribution of resources away from the wants of the consumer and towards the wants of the government bereaucrat.

Those who oppose a given war, for example, are still made to bear the costs of it. A true voluntary support for something takes place when people freely choose to bear the costs themselves. That's not how government works: the costs are externalized. The politician, such as the president, does not bear the costs of their programs and policies. They externalize them onto everyone in society, regaurdless of wether or not that person supports the program. To say that the state is "the people" or that it is implicitly voluntary is to say that everyone who opposes George Bush implicitly consents to his policies. It defies logic via reductio ad absurdum.

I've seen such a line of arguement before. It fails on logical grounds.

Again with the failure of logic claims! My respect for you diminishes by the post!


Your arguement is no different then claiming that if I give a robber my wallet because he's holding a gun to my head, I actually "consented" to give my wallet to him.


There's no similarity at all.

What you are doing here is attempting to show that you are seperate from the system but still have to participate in some respects because it is impossible to actually be seperate from the system. There is no gun being held to your head that says you have to participate. It's simply not possible to do otherwise. This therefor means that those who choose to "boycott" the system by not using their voice are just hypocritical, seperatist, and ignorant. Whatever excuse is used doesn't matter...to claim you are outside the system and then participate in it, in any way and for whatever reason, is to be a hypocrite.

Since people who refuse to vote then make use of the services provided by the government they could have provided with input they are now freeloaders on the system. They make use of the services but refuse to give back - in the form of their stated opinion. They are still participants and have given their consent. Excuses not aside, their statement is simple apathy.

Your views are clearly totalitarian, since you have no concept of freedom from the state, and go so far as too attack the characters of people who want to be free from state control. People are not hypocrits for trying to stay alive. What's truly hypocritical is to, say, lament endlessly about how much one cares about the poor and education, while then asking for the government to force others to pay for one's persuit, rather than bearing the costs oneself and taking the initiative for oneself. The naked truth is that government services are compulsory cartels and monopolies. They should all be transfered into the private realm, where they would be voluntary.

In either case, yes, the vast majority of people are "outside" of the government itself, for they are not the politicians, they are not in the bereaucracy, they are not the judges, they are not the police chief. This is glaringly obvious. To say that everyone implicitly consents to everything that the state does is to deny that there's such thing as liberty from the state's control and to, by defacto, rationalize ANYTHING THE STATE DOES. "We are the state" is just as absurd as saying "we are Microsoft". Well, no, Microsoft is a corporation made up of particular individuals who own the capital of it. "We" are not Bill Gates. And neither are "we" George Bush, or a member of congress. People are individuals. Not ants.

The very least I can ask of you, and it's really not asking for much, is SOME concept of LIMITS on the state. What do you think instruments such as the constitution are for? It was designed by people who wanted to put specific limits on the state (and limits on majority rule as well), and had the historical insight of the corruption and danger of political power. They clearly realized that states are prone to control societies against their will, suppress ideas, ruin economies and slaughter people in unjustified wars. At least they aknowledged the essential nature of government and had some kind of conception of liberty of the individual FROM the control of the government. Without this insight, we end up trying to rationalize absolute political power in practise.

A more apt comparison to your "everyone implicitly consents to the government by using the governments services that they cannot avoid using" is: claiming that a rapist is justified in raping a woman because after he raped her, he bought her flowers and a teddy bear. The fact that the government may provide a given service does not mean that the economic means to providing that service were voluntary. The economic means to government services is extortion through taxes, monetary inflation by a central bank (I.E. a compulsory banking cartel by the name of the federal reserve) that the government chartered for in 1913, and borrowing of credit from other governments and foreign central banks. In short: theft, counterfeitting and collusion with industrial elites.

People are going to have to get over eons of political mythology and look at the objective facts of the matter: taxes are not voluntary, they are a form of extortion, for payment is made under the threat of force. If you don't pay, eventually someone comes breaking into your home, trying to arrest you, and if you resist, you will be shot. This is no different than how a mafia functions. You are extorted for merely living within the mafia's territory. The same is true of states. Just take a cursory glance at how the IRS operates. If I was truly "free", then I'd be able to simply cancel my "subscription" to the government, not patronize its services anymore, and keep my property. This is not how states work though, they must inherently initiate force in order to maintain their territorial monopoly.

The more complex that human knowledge and technology and economies and interrelations become, the harder it is for states to centrally manage them. In order to better manage them, decentralization and a more polycentric approach is required. As such, social evolution makes a diminishment of political power necessary, and in a sense inevitable. Once a state consumes and misallocates too many resources, which it inevitably does as an institution that is always prone to increasing in size and scope, the empire will start to crumble. History attests to this quite clearly. No state is a permanent institution, and the attempt to manage large territories through central planning simply does not work. Human behavior is far too diverse and unpredictable for top-down management to succeed in the end.

People are individuals. Not ants.

I already answered this in my OP. This conversation is just going in circles. If you really wish to discuss please go back to my OP and answer it directly and add something new. You've actually diverted the discussion quite a distance. We're not even talking about the same thing....someone was too quick to scream "fallacy" and neglected to actually look at what was being said.

Your latest post is just a series of straw men built up and obliterated. I have no interest in such.

To answer your one direct question (if question it is): The limits of the state are such that the people create through design or compliance. This should be quite clear.

I think though that your real question is what limits the state SHOULD have in its application of governance but this is a very different question from the one you asked and not at all easily answered even in some narrowly defined subset of the problem.

Or maybe you wish to know who is "in" the state and who is not. It should be very clear to all reading these posts that my opinion is that there is no such boundary condition.

Frankly, your statement/question doesn't make much sense.

A more apt comparison to your "everyone implicitly consents to the government by using the governments services that they cannot avoid using" is: claiming that a rapist is justified in raping a woman because after he raped her, he bought her flowers and a teddy bear.

Heh...yeah...they're nothing at all the same. You're trivializing the discussion, and the crime of rape (as well as the problem of Nazi war crimes), by using such outrageous comparisons. Invoking Godwin's law within 2 posts I suppose should have been sufficient indication to know the direction this conversation would take.

We interupt this broadcast for a word from our sponcer :
http://www.politicalgroove.com/
:notme:

I regaurd the state as nothing but a band of robbers, a mafia writ large that has convinced the bulk of its victims that it is necessary, while extorting from everyone in the territory simply for being born there or living there for the compulsory "service" of protection. When someone is simply born, they did not consent to any state. What contract did they sign? I'd like to see it. The principle of the state is that, simply for being born, you "owe" your life and property to these people. The citezen is turned into nothing but a sacrificial animal to the whims of those in the bereacracy and on the central planning board.

When they grow up and get their own property, such as a home, they did not consent to give up a portion of their property to the state. When they are drafted to fight in the state's wars, they did not consent to the state. When they try to sell goods and services, and the state prohibits them or tries to control their prices or subsidizes their competitors, they did not consent to the state. When their money is sent to foreign lands and to people whom they have no idea about, they did not consent to the state. When the prices they pay for goods and services increase because the state put up tariffs and import quotas, they did not consent to the state.

When the state confiscates their property through eminent domain powers, "the people" did not consent to the state. When the state gets the central bank to print up a bunch of money through fiat, devalueing the purchasing power of the currency, "the people" did not consent to the state. When the state uses executive powers to look into people's private transactions, they did not consent to the state. When the state meddles with wages, the effected employers and employees did not consent to the state. When the state bombs civilians in foreign lands, or denies them access to resources through sanctions, they most certainly did not consent to the state.

These things barely scratch the surface of examples of the state making people do things against their will and initiating force on people, controlling people's economic resources or claiming ownership of them as enforced through the threat of force by policemen or soldiers. A state is a territorial monopoly on the use of force. Its decisions effect everyone within the territory regaurdless of consent. The actual individuals constituting the state (1) controls the economic transactions of everyone else (2) controls the personal interrelations of everyone else (3) claims at least partial ownership over the property of everyone else (4) tries to expand the territorial jurisdiction and (5) tries to control people outside of the territory through foreign policy.

I regaurd the state as nothing but a band of robbers, a mafia writ large that has convinced its victims that it is necessary, while extorting from everyone in the territory simply for being born there or living there for the compulsory "service" of protection.


You are of course free to have that view but that doesn't mean contrary views are fallacious, that people holding other views or their statements are comparable to Nazis or rapists, nor does it mean your view is correct. It's just your view.


When someone is simply born, they did not consent to any state. What contract did they sign? I'd like to see it.


That is a major oversimplification. The "contract" exists by the fact that you exist and because there is no way for that many people to cooperate with each other without government. Just look at places that have none.


The principle of the state is that, simply for being born, you "owe" your life and property to these people.


Yeah...I don't know where you get that "principle". However, it might be good now to bring up a better argument (also applies to the above):

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/crito.html


When the state confiscates their property through eminent domain powers, "the people" did not consent to the state.

This is actually exactly my point. It very much is "the people" who do this and allow it to happen. They do so by acting like ants and not using their individual right to say, "No!" Of course those being so abused directly do object but their cries fall on the deaf ears of those of us who are not invested enough in their betrayal and thus betray them. When they come for us we will likewise cry and bleat to no avail. Their cries also fall on the deaf ears of those implementing the policy...who's excuse is simply, "I'm just doing my job."

You've walked directly into allowing me to prove my point as I explained in my OP and supported with evidence indicating people just do what they are told and thus can be qualified as ants. This is not to say they have no choice but that they've allowed choice to be taken from them. We are all to be blamed.

I would also like to point out at this juncture that eminent domain has almost always been used by the "free market" to steal that which belongs to someone else. Corperations are allowed to dictate policy in this country all too often. They are allowed because we allow it.

You are of course free to have that view but that doesn't mean contrary views are fallacious, that people holding other views or their statements are comparable to Nazis or rapists, nor does it mean your view is correct. It's just your view.

I am asserting it not just as "my view", but as the actual objective fact of what political life is like: an involuntary relationship. A government is not really distinguishable from a mafia. The only difference is the size of territory it controls. Governments control much larger territories than a mafia does.

That is a major oversimplification. The "contract" exists by the fact that you exist and because there is no way for that many people to cooperate with each other without government.

Your assumption is common but false. People cooperate without government control all the time. Think about your personal relationships. Do we have a government bereau of marriage that determines who you marry or date? No, people date and marry eachother voluntarily. People cooperate to exchange goods and services and voluntarily associate all the time, all on their own initiative, without any state compulsion. Cooperation is a necessary function of self-interest, which is to say that it is objectively in the individual's self-interest to trade and interact with others, or they simply die. No state is needed for association to take place. Indeed, social cooperation predates nation-states by a long-shot. People cooperate because it is in their mutual self-interest, not because a state magically makes it happen.

I would also like to point out at this juncture that eminent domain has almost always been used by the "free market" to steal that which belongs to someone else. Corperations are allowed to dictate policy in this country all too often. They are allowed because we allow it.

This statement is false because it relies on a false definition of terms. There is no "free market" in existance right now, we have mostly mixed economies, some with socialist controls. When the state uses eminent domain to hand out land to buisiness interests or contracts out buisiness with tax-dollars, that is NOT a free market, it is government intervention in the economy, a violation of laizzes-faire. Government collusion with buisiness is not a free market, it's a controlled market and a form of socialism; corporate socialism. Laizzes-faire means "let be", I.E. keep the state out of it, I.E. a separation between buisiness and state. A pure free market is an economy without a state. It cannot exist in a system that has taxes, import quotas, tariffs, prohibitions, government redistribution of wealth, public (I.E. government) services (from schools to health care to roads to broadcasting) and so on.

Your assumption is common but false. People cooperate without government control all the time. Think about your personal relationships. Do we have a government bereau of marriage that determines who you marry or date?

This is another straw man. I explicitly said, "that many."

Thomas Paine answers this new objection of yours. I believe you'll find it in the introduction of Common Sense but I could be mistaken. I also answered it in the blog I refered you to many posts ago.

Simply put, you won't get a *large* group of individuals that can cooperate as a cohesive whole without some guiding system of government. People have their own desires and wishes that are often in competition and mutually exclusive. When the group is small this can be overcome by general concensus but when a group grows to sufficient size that concensus must be established through governance or the group will fail. Again, just look at areas in the world that are without government or where the government is powerless.

Actually, Thomas Paine at one point was very close to anarchism philosophically.

"Great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It has its origin in the principles of society and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has upon man, and all the parts of civilised community upon each other, create that great chain of connection which holds it together. The landholder, the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and every occupation, prospers by the aid which each receives from the other, and from the whole. Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their law; and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of government. In fine, society performs for itself almost everything which is ascribed to government." -- Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man (1792)

Paine from the same writting:

"For upwards of two years from the commencement of the American War, and to a longer period in several of the American States, there were no established forms of government. The old governments had been abolished, and the country was too much occupied in defence to employ its attention in establishing new governments; yet during this interval order and harmony were preserved as inviolate as in any country in Europe. There is a natural aptness in man, and more so in society, because it embraces a greater variety of abilities and resource, to accommodate itself to whatever situation it is in. The instant formal government is abolished, society begins to act: a general association takes place, and common interest produces common security."

In either case, directly quoting others is an "arguement from authority", not a form of debate.

This is another straw man. I explicitly said, "that many."

Thomas Paine answers this new objection of yours. I believe you'll find it in the introduction of Common Sense but I could be mistaken. I also answered it in the blog I refered you to many posts ago.Simply put, you won't get a *large* group of individuals that can cooperate as a cohesive whole without some guiding system of government. People have their own desires and

wishes that are often in competition and mutually exclusive. When the group is small this can be overcome by general concensus but when a group grows to sufficient size that concensus must be established through governance or the group will fail. Again, just look at areas in the world that are without government or where the government is powerless.

Here are the facts for you: it is impossible to centrally plan large groups of people because human beings are too diverse and unpredictable, and central planning leads to despotism because it inherently must be monopolistic and forced onto the populace without regaurd for the diversity of their desires. The history of socialism over the past 150 years or so proves this economically beyond the shadow of a doubt. There really are no areas in the world without government right now. Somalia has tribes, and tribalism is a localized form of monarchy, not an example of a stateless society. Meanwhile, America has become the largest and most powerful government in the world, Africa and Central America is mostly socialist or fascist, and Europe is a mixture between democratic socialism and neoconservative governments. Government power has done nothing but expand at alarming rates in the 20th century.

The line of arguement that you're using easily leads to the conclusion that there should be a world government, for the largest group of people is humanity as a whole. I find this troublesome. Furthermore, the warring between peoples that you attribute to anarchy is true of nation-states relationships to eachother. The "war of all against all" arguement is fallicious. Democracy is truly "war of all against all", where each interest group is fighting over control of the state and over other groups within society. The Hobbesian state of nature concept is erroneous. People are not inherently in conflict with eachother; people are capable, first, of cooperating despite disagreements, and secondly, working in their mutual self-interest. There are some bad applies, but generally people in the modern age are perfectly capable of voluntary social cooperation in their everyday affairs and personal lives. Their political lives are a very different story.

We interupt this broadcast for a word from our sponcer :
http://www.politicalgroove.com/
:notme::lol: Yeah, no shit!!! You two might as well go to PM with this topic as you are the only ones participating in it! :dunno:

I'm sorry, but if you believe that then you are VERY uninformed. There is no debate; none at all. It is a matter of belief, this is true. Belief is your view of what is real. Believing in unicorns or Santa Clause is a "matter of belief" as well but any adult that claimed to believe either would not be trustable since their view of reality is so obviously flawed. It is the same with the creationism "debate". Creationism stands against everything known about the world.

I am VERY informed on both sides of this debate...and yes, it is a debate. Two sides arguing over something is a very defintion of what a debate is. You state evolution as a matter of fact, but it is clearly not. If it were, there would be no arguments...


Just to bring the point home: If we are to believe that creationism is a viable "science" then we should be able to choose between the various different theories. There needs to be a reason, beyond religious opinion, to choose the Christian version vs. the various others. Was man made of dust or a clot of blood for instance? Is it a litteral 6 days (24 hours) or is time relative to God and these days are actually eons or lengths of arbitrary time (note that even Christian creation "scientists" can't agree on this)? To choose between them we have to look at the facts, and the facts say, "evolution."

Creationism, as it is told in the bible, is a religious belief, but it does have merit in science. There is something known as the anthropic principle. Have you heard of this? This principle states very simply that science has been able to determine the relative strength between the four known forces of the universe (weak force, strong force, electro-magnetic force, and gravity).

Once this relative strength has been determined, scientist then setup many different models of the universe by which any of these forces were to be slightly stronger or weaker than they really are. What they quickly learned by doing this is that changing any of the relative strengths between them spell absolute disaster to the known universe! Suddenly, nothing works anymore and life in the universe is absolutely unsustainable.

What did this mean to them? Well, when you really look at it, it's almost as if the laws of the universe were designed and for one special purpose...to sustain life! But why? Why would the universe just randomly assign itself these relative strengths? What are the odds of such an occurrence happening by chance? The odds are so absolutely far against it that it has been determined a near impossibility.

You see, evolution is one thing. If you believe man came from apes, fine. But, where did the UNIVERSE come from and why is it designed to sustain our so-called 'meaningless lives'?

In either case, directly quoting others is an "arguement from authority", not a form of debate.

Actually it is not. It is however weak when that is all you do, which is why you'll find that I expressed the idea in my own terms and cited myself as well as giving direction to find real world examples of my point.

I quote from others as backing for my own claims and have yet to use the fallacy you accuse me of. I have not claimed that something is true because so and so said it. I have refered to other speakers when what they say is something I believe to be especially solid and that is a totally appropriate use of external citation.

In fact, you will find that any work without citations is going to be fairly weak. Few can muster a strong case without external input. Einstein did it...I'm not that brilliant.

If you still want to keep pointing the fallacy finger I can point out NUMEROUS ones that you have used: reduction to Hitler; straw man; red herring; etc...etc... Your continued harping on "fallacy" to counter argument is nothing but intellectual bullying and I'm afraid you have to be a bit stronger to pull the wool over my eyes. The word "fallacy" should only be used when it actually applies and you will see that your application, to claim my conclusions are false, is itself a fallacy of its own:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

Frankly, to keep screaming "fallacy" instead of retorting in earnest always leads to the most innane "debates" one can participate in. Please come up with something more interesting.

I'm also going to object to your selective quotation as intellectual dishonesty since you are so ready to quote the man. I believe now it is that work, The Rights of Man, that I was thinking of and he later explains, in that very line of logic that you quote, that government is a necessary evil. He is right in both cases for the reasons he so eliquently explains.

I am VERY informed on both sides of this debate...and yes, it is a debate. Two sides arguing over something is a very defintion of what a debate is. You state evolution as a matter of fact, but it is clearly not. If it were, there would be no arguments...


Yeah, that's not true. Just because there is disagreement doesn't mean there is debate.


Creationism, as it is told in the bible, is a religious belief, but it does have merit in science. There is something known as the anthropic principle. Have you heard of this? This principle states very simply that science has been able to determine the relative strength between the four known forces of the universe (weak force, strong force, electro-magnetic force, and gravity).


The God of the Gaps. I don't know how it works so....God did it!


Once this relative strength has been determined, scientist then setup many different models of the universe by which any of these forces were to be slightly stronger or weaker than they really are. What they quickly learned by doing this is that changing any of the relative strengths between them spell absolute disaster to the known universe! Suddenly, nothing works anymore and life in the universe is absolutely unsustainable.


Argument from statistics. This misconception stems from a backwards view of the facts. The universe does not work such that life as we know it will form...life as we know it has formed because the universe works thus.

These arguments also don't support your particular creation theory. They only raise doubt, if they were actually decent arguments, to the consistency of evolution or a theory of the universe that does not involve a creator.


You see, evolution is one thing. If you believe man came from apes, fine. But, where did the UNIVERSE come from and why is it designed to sustain our so-called 'meaningless lives'?

Yep...you speak as one who has never read or listened to the counters to the arguments you make. I shall refer you to chapter 4 of The God Delusion:

http://martian.mit.edu/god/chapter_4.html

And before someone claims I'm using argument from authority...that is not the case. I simply refer you to this text since it is one instance of the miriad counters to the claims brought forth and does so better than I could.

Yeah, that's not true. Just because there is disagreement doesn't mean there is debate.

Like we are the only two people to have ever disagreed on this? Hahaha.

I did a 20 page research paper on this very topic and there are TONS of books written on this very long running debate.


The God of the Gaps. I don't know how it works so....God did it!

No, we DO know how it works...we just can't explain WHY it is the way it is or how this could have happened by accident.


Argument from statistics. This misconception stems from a backwards view of the facts. The universe does not work such that life as we know it will form...life as we know it has formed because the universe works thus.

If you want to deny the statistics, that's your prerogative, but statistical analysis is a very important aspect of mathematical science...yes 'science'.


Yep...you speak as one who has never read or listened to the counters to the arguments you make. I shall refer you to chapter 4 of The God Delusion:

http://martian.mit.edu/god/chapter_4.html

And before someone claims I'm using argument from authority...that is not the case. I simply refer you to this text since it is one instance of the miriad counters to the claims brought forth and does so better than I could.

So what are you saying, that I can't choose the side I'm on because someone disagrees? :dunno:

Like we are the only two people to have ever disagreed on this? Hahaha.

I did a 20 page research paper on this very topic and there are TONS of books written on this very long running debate.


Yes, much time has been spent on this topic. It is unfortunate. Most of that has been spent reiterating the same tired and illogical arguments that have been refuted for hundreds of years.


No, we DO know how it works...we just can't explain WHY it is the way it is or how this could have happened by accident.


1. Nobody is claiming anything happened by accident.
2. This is STILL an argument from ignorance...I don't know why so God did it.


If you want to deny the statistics, that's your prerogative, but statistical analysis is a very important aspect of mathematical science...yes 'science'.


Yes, statistics are science and no, I do not deny them. They don't apply the way you are attempting and this has been refuted oh so many times. You didn't read the chapter I refered you to did you.


So what are you saying, that I can't choose the side I'm on because someone disagrees? :dunno:

Nope...I'm saying that when no new argument is brought forth but people continue to spin in circles over the same old same old one can say there's no debate any longer.

Sometimes in boxing one of the competitors is knocked unconcious and when they wake up they stand thinking the match is still on...but everyone else is either celebrating or tearing up their betting tickets in frustration.

Creation "science" is that competitor.

:lol: Yeah, no shit!!! You two might as well go to PM with this topic as you are the only ones participating in it! :dunno:
Awe man, get off Noah´s back for God sake, :lol:. They´re having fun can´t you see? Of course I´d love to see any of these guys as real politicians. I bet my ass any of them would drastically change their minds (probably for worse)

Yes, much time has been spent on this topic. It is unfortunate. Most of that has been spent reiterating the same tired and illogical arguments that have been refuted for hundreds of years.

Yes, but what's illogical is relative.



1. Nobody is claiming anything happened by accident.
2. This is STILL an argument from ignorance...I don't know why so God did it.

1. If it wasn't by accident, then it was planned.
2. I do know why and it is EXACTLY because God did it. ;)



Yes, statistics are science and no, I do not deny them. They don't apply the way you are attempting and this has been refuted oh so many times. You didn't read the chapter I refered you to did you.

Oh, I think they do apply EXACTLY the way the anthropic principle states. Same goes for the stastical probability of organisms arising from completely random combinations of molecules and amino acids...just isn't possible.

You put a billion monkeys in a room each with their own type writer, what is the chance any of them could type out Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet? How many thousand, millions of times more complex is even ONE life form compared to a work of Shakespeare let alone an entire planet FULL of them?




Nope...I'm saying that when no new argument is brought forth but people continue to spin in circles over the same old same old one can say there's no debate any longer.

Sometimes in boxing one of the competitors is knocked unconcious and when they wake up they stand thinking the match is still on...but everyone else is either celebrating or tearing up their betting tickets in frustration.

Creation "science" is that competitor.

That's pretty funny because, to me, it's exactly the opposite.

Awe man, get off Noah´s back for God sake, :lol:. They´re having fun can´t you see? Of course I´d love to see any of these guys as real politicians. I bet my ass any of them would drastically change their minds (probably for worse)Who said I was on Noah's back? :p Are you trying to throw me a straw man?!? What a fallacy!!! :)

1. If it wasn't by accident, then it was planned.


That is simply not true.


Oh, I think they do apply EXACTLY the way the anthropic principle states. Same goes for the stastical probability of organisms arising from completely random combinations of molecules and amino acids...just isn't possible.


Yeah...you don't understand evolution and you didn't bother to read the chapter I directed you to.


You put a billion monkies in a room each with their own type writter, what is the chance any of them could type out Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet?


Glad you asked!!! They are exactly the same as the odds of any 500 pages they have typed out appearing exactly as they do. Actually, that's a very rough estimate because I don't know how many pages are in Romeo & Juliet.


That's pretty funny because, to me, it's exactly the opposite.

Of course it is. You haven't bothered to learn anything about what you're talking about. This is quite obvious.

But leave all that aside for a moment...you said the creation account as described in the *Bible* is not without support. Explain how your claims of anthropic principles (which doesn't necessitate what you claim it does) lend support for YOUR particular creation myth and not someone else's. Where's this support for the *Bible's* claims?

That is simply not true.

Yes it is...there are no other options...


Yeah...you don't understand evolution and you didn't bother to read the chapter I directed you to.

Well, I could give you a reading list too, but why would I bother? You won't believe any of it anyways....which begs the question, why am I still debating with you? :dunno:


Glad you asked!!! They are exactly the same as the odds of any 500 pages they have typed out appearing exactly as they do. Actually, that's a very rough estimate because I don't know how many pages are in Romeo & Juliet.

Romeo & Juliet is a logical and comprehensible story. There is nothing random about it just like there is nothing random about an organism...everything makes logical sense.

Monkeys typing randomly relates to how the universe would have created life based on evolution. The odds are so far against life evolving from random events it's deemed impossible.


But leave all that aside for a moment...you said the creation account as described in the *Bible* is not without support. Explain how your claims of anthropic principles (which doesn't necessitate what you claim it does) lend support for YOUR particular creation myth and not someone else's. Where's this support for the *Bible's* claims?

It doesn't...that much is pretty obvious. This discussion we are having is not Christianity Vs Evolution...it's Creationism Vs Evolution.

Are you trying to throw me a straw man?!? What a fallacy!!! :)
Hummmm, straws were only made for drinking soft drinks poured through a draft with a bunch of ice and piked ice on a huge paper glass, poked through a plastic lid, no, I will not share my straw with you. In fact, I´m gonna open the damn lid, throw the coke, and pour me a beer.

Well, I could give you a reading list too, but why would I bother? You won't believe any of it anyways.


Probably not but I have read things contrary to my own belief system. In fact...that's how I arrive where I am today. I let my understanding come under scrutiny and it failed.


Romeo & Juliet is a logical and comprehensible story. There is nothing random about it just like there is nothing random about an organism...everything makes logical sense.


As you would know if you had in fact read that chapter I referred you to, evolution does not claim that organisms happen randomly or by accident. This is a fundamental misunderstanding that you have about evolution that could be corrected by simple education.


Monkeys typing randomly relates to how the universe would have created life based on evolution.


Yeah...you're wrong on that. The problem with your monkey analogy is that there's no fitness function involved nor replication. Make your monkeys compete somehow such that they repeat that which works best, with slight random variation, and then you'll find order on the other side. That order will be describable by the fitness function (that which tests monkey writings for the right to replicate) that you choose. The fitness function in evolution is simply survival, replication is genetic duplication, and variation is sex and some minor random mutation.

Once again, nobody claims that life happened by accident or randomly. The randomness introduced by mutation is very slight and has nothing to do with the direction of "design".

I hope you can at least attempt to grasp that because right now you're just arguing against your own ignorance of a subject you've been so far unwilling to learn about. The chapter I provided you with answers all of these false dilemmas and is written by an expert in evolutionary biology. He has written many books on the subject that are considered definitive by his peers and makes the complex ideas around evolution very reachable by the layman.


It doesn't...that much is pretty obvious. This discussion we are having is not Christianity Vs Evolution...it's Creationism Vs Evolution.

Well...you actually did in fact make the claim that the *Bible* account was supported. Now you are seeming to retract that. In order for there to be a debate between two theories there needs to be two theories. We now no longer have that.

Like I said, there's no debate here. "Creationism" as a vague notion that a, "magic man done it," is not a theory at all; it's baseless speculation that provides absolutely no answers to any questions. Describe some attributes of this creator, how it came to be, and how it went about creating and THEN there is a theory that can be measured to the facts. Until then...there's nothing to debate since there's only one theory to discuss...just like I said.

Probably not but I have read things contrary to my own belief system. In fact...that's how I arrive where I am today. I let my understanding come under scrutiny and it failed.

Same here...in case you forgot, evolution theories are crammed down our throats from the day we enter school.


As you would know if you had in fact read that chapter I referred you to, evolution does not claim that organisms happen randomly or by accident. This is a fundamental misunderstanding that you have about evolution that could be corrected by simple education.

Perhaps you would then like to tell me just how evolution explains the origins of life. In case you also forgot this, the most important aspect of the theory of evolution is the origin of life itself.


Yeah...you're wrong on that. The problem with your monkey analogy is that there's no fitness function involved nor replication. Make your monkeys compete somehow such that they repeat that which works best, with slight random variation, and then you'll find order on the other side. That order will be describable by the fitness function (that which tests monkey writings for the right to replicate) that you choose. The fitness function in evolution is simply survival, replication is genetic duplication, and variation is sex and some minor random mutation.

What you are describing here is simply adaptation...explains nothing about the origin of the species.

Monkeys do not have the intelligence to write Romeo & Juliet, therefore, the only way they could right it would be by completely random chance. Similarly, the universe by itself does not have the 'knowledge' to create life. It merely spews out the basic essentials om completely random patterns and those basic essentials would have to randomly interact in ways the life would originate.

You could argue by saying, well how do you know the universe doesn't have some kind of innate intelligence? Well, if it did, then it would have designed the life as it sees fit. Therefore, it has been created...;)


Once again, nobody claims that life happened by accident or randomly.

I hope that one day you learn just how wrong that statement you made is because that is exactly what evolution suggests...


Well...you actually did in fact make the claim that the *Bible* account was supported. Now you are seeming to retract that. In order for there to be a debate between two theories there needs to be two theories. We now no longer have that.

My beliefs in the Bible as a Christian is a WHOLE other debate entirely...I don't have time to continue on with this...there really is no point and I'm not in the mood to start preaching.


Like I said, there's no debate here. "Creationism" as a vague notion that a, "magic man done it," is not a theory at all; it's baseless speculation that provides absolutely no answers to any questions. Describe some attributes of this creator, how it came to be, and how it went about creating and THEN there is a theory that can be measured to the facts. Until then...there's nothing to debate since there's only one theory to discuss...just like I said.

Listen, if you don't believe in the Bible accounts, that's up to you. I do, so we'll leave it at that. I don't need to prove it just like you CANNOT disprove it.

I just snipped the whole beginning of this since it's all the same anyway. You don't know what evolution is, that is clear. I've provided you with one way to learn and you've refused. You shouldn't base your complete understanding of a scientific theory of such import on what you remember from high school.


Listen, if you don't believe in the Bible accounts, that's up to you. I do, so we'll leave it at that. I don't need to prove it just like you CANNOT disprove it.

HEHEHE and again a Christian that insists their view is correct runs to the "You can't disprove it!!" buddy blanket. Of course I can't. That's the very definition of creation "science"! I mean...you have to define what "it" is before it can be disproved and you're unwilling to do that. The fact that creation claims are unfalsifiable is WHY they are not scientific. It is a dishonesty of epic proportions to bring forth a claim that cannot be shown to be wrong by its very definition and then claim it must therefor be true. Prove there are no unicorns. Prove there is no Santa Clause. Prove that I didn't create the universe!

You don't understand science and you don't know what evolutionary theory is yet you claim to know there is scientific debate about the facts here. That's ok. You shouldn't feel alone. I've yet to meet a single creationism proponent that knew anything about these topics. In my experience they are ALL ignorant about this stuff. They are fed piles and piles of bullshit by experts in THAT field.

I don't object to this or think ill of them for it...however, the fact that they refuse to look into the things they are talking about...that they refuse to get educated about the topics they make claims about...and then insist we teach this tripe to our children...that I DO have a problem with and most certainly hold that against any such advocate.

If there is going to be a debate about the difference between two theories you are simply going to have to specify the theory you are supporting that is in opposition to evolution. I thought you were going to say the one in the Bible (and you did actually) but then you claim not to. There's no debate here...

You don't understand science and you don't know what evolutionary theory is yet you claim to know there is scientific debate about the facts here. That's ok. You shouldn't feel alone. I've yet to meet a single creationism proponent that knew anything about these topics. In my experience they are ALL ignorant about this stuff. They are fed piles and piles of bullshit by experts in THAT field.

Yeah, they only all appear ignorant to the facts because you don't have a clue what they are yourself...In your mind, you think you have it all figured out when clearly you don't. There are so many holes in evolution theory it's not even funny.

Evolution can't even explain the reason any organism would have an eye. Can you explain what process ever lended to something being able to see?


I don't object to this or think ill of them for it...however, the fact that they refuse to look into the things they are talking about...that they refuse to get educated about the topics they make claims about...and then insist we teach this tripe to our children...that I DO have a problem with and most certainly hold that against any such advocate.

If there is going to be a debate about the difference between two theories you are simply going to have to specify the theory you are supporting that is in opposition to evolution. I thought you were going to say the one in the Bible (and you did actually) but then you claim not to. There's no debate here...

Your ramblings just hide the fact that you obviously don't even understand the very theories you believe in....

The anthropic principle clearly shows that evolution misses a HUGE part of the puzzle...that you can't even explain how it is even possible that the universe formed in such a way to sustain life. You can't even understand that, by your theory, it had to been an accident which, by all accounts, is a statistical impossibility...

What's your theory for the origin of life? Evolutionist can't even explain that, not even Darwin himself...they don't have a clue...

I don't think you even know that the origin of life is the most important part of the evolution theory and it's completely missing....

And no, we Christians don't have to prove our beliefs to anyone because there is nothing to be proven. The Bible is written...accept it or don't...that's essentially all there is to it.

There are so many holes in evolution theory it's not even funny.


How would you know?? Your posts make it quite clear you don't know what it is.


Evolution can't even explain the reason any organism would have an eye. Can you explain what process ever lended to something being able to see?


Yeah, I said earlier you read like someone who's never even bothered to look at the counters to the arguments they make. This very common argument of irreducible complexity has, in fact, been answered several times by several people. Here's but one:

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/ridley_eyes.gif

The "reason" an organism would have an eye is quite clear. You are more likely to survive if you can see what you are trying to eat or what is trying to eat you.


I can't debate with someone like yourself who doesn't even know the basics....it's a waste of time.


Exactly what I just said is it not? Show me where I got it wrong. I've explained where you get it wrong SEVERAL times.


And no, we Christians don't have to prove our beliefs to anyone because there is nothing to be proven. The Bible is written...accept it or don't...that's essentially all there is to it.


That would be fine if you weren't trying to get it weaseled into our public schools and taught to our children as an alternative to evolution.

Also, and most importantly to the original point I made, an unwillingness to support your side pretty much precludes any debate on the matter. What you're doing here is saying exactly what I already did...there's no debate.


BUT, I believe the anthropic principle clearly shows that evolution misses a HUGE part of the puzzle...that you can't even explain how it is even possible that the universe formed in such a way to sustain life.


Your right...evolution doesn't explain this. That's because evolution isn't about the formation of the universe at all.


You can't even understand that, by your theory, it had to been an accident which, by all accounts, is a statistical impossibility.

"Natural selection is quintessentially non-random, yet it is lamentably often miscalled random. This one mistake underlies much of the sceptical backlash against evolution. Chance cannot explain life." - Richard Dawkins
http://www.yoism.org/?q=node/32

How would you know?? Your posts make it quite clear you don't know what it is.

I can clearly see that you don't.


Yeah, I said earlier you read like someone who's never even bothered to look at the counters to the arguments they make. This very common argument of irreducible complexity has, in fact, been answered several times by several people. Here's but one:

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/ridley_eyes.gif

The "reason" an organism would have an eye is quite clear. You are more likely to survive if you can see what you are trying to eat or what is trying to eat you.

Hahaha, you expect me to believe that diagram? That's just plain ridiculousness...reverse engineering at its worst right there...

Yeah, the 'reason' for having an eye and evolution actually being able to develop one are VERY MUCH two different things.



That would be fine if you weren't trying to get it weaseled into our public schools and taught to our children as an alternative to evolution.

Excuse me, but what the hell are you talking about??

When did I ever say I was trying to get this taught in our public schools? :confused:

Now you're just making stuff up.


Your right...evolution doesn't explain this. That's because evolution isn't about the formation of the universe at all.

NO, evolution is JUST AS MUCH about the origins of life as it is of species...see what I mean? You don't even know your own beloved theories...



"Natural selection is quintessentially non-random, yet it is lamentably often miscalled random. This one mistake underlies much of the sceptical backlash against evolution. Chance cannot explain life." - Richard Dawkins
http://www.yoism.org/?q=node/32

Natural selection, adaptation....these are NOT what I'm talking about at all. You totally twisted the argument around.

Chance does not explain adaptation as that happens for a significant reason, but it MUST explain the ORIGIN of life...there is no way around this according to your theories. If there is no designer of life, then only a random, chance happening could have formed life to begin with, which of course is impossible.

Evolution has totally and completely dropped the ball in the most important area of all...

NO, evolution is JUST AS MUCH about the origins of life as it is of species...see what I mean? You don't even know your own beloved theories...


You're just wrong here. Evolution only speaks of a mechanism that works in life, it does not answer how life on this planet began. This is a totally different problem that is not completely answered and may never be. There are certainly plausible scenarios that do not involve a creator but that has nothing at all to do with evolution.

The problem you are bringing up now is that of abiogenesis - the formation of life from lifeless matter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis


Natural selection, adaptation....these are NOT what I'm talking about at all. You totally twisted the argument around.


If you are talking about evolution, these are the things you are talking about. You've managed to twist your argument around quite nicely on your own.


Chance does not explain adaptation as that happens for a significant reason, but it MUST explain the ORIGIN of life...there is no way around this according to your theories. If there is no designer of life, then only a random, chance happening could have formed life to begin with, which of course is impossible.


So let's talk abiogenesis. This is not an area I am intimately familiar with and still an open ended question but I can explain to you some of the fundamentals.

Dawkins explains that the guiding principle of evolution, that of "survival of the fittest", can be generalized to "survival of the most stable." This can then be applied to groupings of matter and the various systems that comprise the cosmos from the very small to the very large. The stronger the grouping of matter the more likely that grouping is to continue to remain grouped.

In the beginning of the earth, in the first half of a billion years of its existence or so, when the outer layers were starting to cool enough for things we know to exist, there was likely a pool of muck covering the earth. In it were various molecules that had formed simply by the rule of the most stable. Molecules began to form that could devour others by latching onto them and absorbing their component atoms. The molecules that could do this were of course stronger than those that could not and could not "defend" themselves (no thought or anima is going on here).

At some point these increasingly complex molecules began to replicate. Absorb material around themselves and make copies. The chain reaction this caused would have swept across the planet in quick order. Nothing but these proteins would have survived.

At this point the cycle continues with molecules competing for material with which to replicate themselves. The more stable ones continue while the less stable get devoured as material for replication. Molecules begin "working" together because cooperation increases stability. Molecules that group together are more stable than those that remain alone. Continue this process for a long time and life forms out of it. Where this happens is an arbitrary boundary condition that is much like the first mammal fallacy.

You can see, even today, "stuff" in our world that doesn't really fit as either life or simple matter. These objects are not classifiable as being alive or not but are rather in an in-between state of "lifeness". They invade our bodies and make us sick. They are commonly known as viruses.

One life first formed though, and the accepted common ancestor is bacteria, that is where the theory of evolution begins to explain the process that went from that state to the current state of many billions of different types of life we see around us.

Parts of this scenario have been replicated in a laboratory but until we can travel to other planets and watch it happen we will never know for sure...we still won't be able to say that is how it happened here.


Evolution has totally and completely dropped the ball and conveniently ignores what it cannot explain.

Evolution also doesn't explain how electricity works nor how planetary bodies are governed by gravity yet these things also play big parts in our abilities to live and likely also played a very large part in the initial formation of life on this planet. It completely and conveniently ignores these issues and yes, cannot explain them.

roberts chill out man youre taking this way too seriously lol. i dont really do politics, but i want to say something....

Hehehehe...here we go. Yet another Christian claiming I'm "anti-christian" because I don't share their beliefs. Many Christians understand that evolution is a reality. Just because you call yourself "Christian" doesn't mean I have to buy your specific belief system, or even pay it any respect, or I'm "anti-Christian".

"...there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such." - Pope Benedict XVI

My entire family is Christian. I used to call myself one but won't wear the label anymore. Too many people use that label, and my willingness to call myself by it, to support their flawed statistics. The word "Christian" has become a bad word, and it's really too bad. Christ was a cool dude, but some of his "followers" are seriously fucked up and lost people.



Another major problem with Republicans: they're desire to tear down the separation of church and state and claim the majority get to dictate their religious beliefs to the rest of us (of course, they get it wrong - that "80%" don't all share the same belief system). Democracy and freedom of (and from) religion are foundational ideals of this country. Either you believe in them...or you don't. America was never meant to be a theocracy.

evolution is a theory. it has not been proven. now you can say biblical creation is a theory...fine. both have very convincing arguments, but neither have real honest hard proof. but it takes faith to believe either one. doesnt it?

if you believe evolution, fine. but listen to what you are saying. the whole theory of evolution is based on the simple assumption that life can come from nothing and life forms can mutate into something better.
start out with a ball of matter>big bang>dust>planets>living organisms. all out of nothing. can i direct you to the second law of thermodynamics...

http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm

this law basically states that in a closed system you cannot finish any physical process with as much useful energy as you started out with. the universe is in a process. everything in the entire universe is moving toward disorder, losing its energy, getting old, falling apart, breaking down. its gradually moving from the order it started out with toward chaos and disorder. order cannot come from disorder. it is impossible.
the theory of evolution makes the assumption that we started out in a case of disorder and bang! suddenly we have order. that doesnt make sense to me.

i find it easier to believe in a biblical creation. someone who set things in order to start out with. makes more sense to me.

You're just wrong here. Evolution only speaks of a mechanism that works in life, it does not answer how life on this planet began. This is a totally different problem that is not completely answered and may never be.

Well how wonderfully convenient for the evolutionists...they can say how humans got here, but they can't tell us how even the single cell bacteria did...:rolleyes:

Well, I think I made my point here, so I'll just end the night with a couple of quotes and I'll let you sit there and think about them:


Scientist Dr.Michael Denton wrote regarding the fossil record:

"It is still, as it was in Darwin's day, overwhelmingly true that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record. This phenomenon is particularly obvious in the case of the invertebrate fossil record. At its first appearance in the ancient Paleozoic seas, invertebrate life was already divided into practically all the major groups with which we are familiar today.

David Raup, who was the curator of geology at the museum holding the world's largest fossil collection, the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, observed:

"[Darwin] was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would .... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ... [W]e have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time." - David M. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,"

One of the most famous proponents of evolution was the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. But Gould admitted the following:

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils...We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.

And the granddaddy of the all:

As Darwin grew older he became increasingly concerned about the lack of evidence for the theory of evolution in terms of the existence of transitional forms. Darwin wrote, "“When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”

Now, isn't evolution a science? Doesn't science require proof? Where is it? Oh well, I'm sure it will turn up...someday... ;)

I've had enough for the evening...night... :)

evolution is a theory. it has not been proven.


http://www.re-discovery.org/per_table.gif


now you can say biblical creation is a theory...fine. both have very convincing arguments, but neither have real honest hard proof. but it takes faith to believe either one. doesnt it?


There is a big difference between religious faith and scientific faith: what has driven the changes in concepts in physics is not just heightened skepticism from an increasingly worldly and sophisticated clientele, but a tidal wave of equisitely detailed positive results--the sorts of borne-out predictions that Feynman pointed to in defending his field. And this makes a huge difference because it gives beliefs about the truths of physics a place where the rubber meets the road, where there is more than mere professing that can be done. For instance, you can build something that depends for its safe operation on the truth of those sentences and risk your life trying to fly it to the moon. Like the folk religionists' beliefs that they should sacrifice a goat or that they are invulnerable to arrows, these are beliefs that you can act on in ways that speak louder than words. People who give away all their belongings and climb to some mountaintop in anticipation of the imminent End of the World don't just believe in belief in God, but they are the exceptions, not the rule, when it comes to religious convictions." - Dennett, Breaking the Spell


if you believe evolution, fine. but listen to what you are saying. the whole theory of evolution is based on the simple assumption that life can come from nothing and life forms can mutate into something better.


Simply not true as I've stated here many, many times.

[ENTROPY] basically states that in a closed system you cannot finish any physical process with as much useful energy as you started out with. the universe is in a process. everything in the entire universe is moving toward disorder, losing its energy, getting old, falling apart, breaking down. its gradually moving from the order it started out with toward chaos and disorder. order cannot come from disorder. it is impossible.


This is a very common misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics does not talk about order vs. chaos but about energy only.

"In fact, order can only be produced by increasing entropy. This is because producing order out of chaos involves a change in the system, which can only be produced by expending energy."
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/entropy.html

Life actually feeds on entropy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_and_life

I am of the opinion that information as a whole increases with Entropy and life is just a specific example of this.

i find it easier to believe in a biblical creation. someone who set things in order to start out with. makes more sense to me.

So you believe that something of such a magnitude of complexity and intelligence came into being out of nothing, instantly formed in its current and perfect state, and was then able to create the universe, everything in it, and govern said universe until the end of time? This is easier for you to believe than something simple happening that caused a series of events such that lifeforms came to be, on one remote planet out of many trillions, of ever increasing complexity and intelligence over several billion years?

Now, isn't evolution a science? Doesn't science require proof? Where is it? Oh well, I'm sure it will turn up...someday... ;)

I've had enough for the evening...night... :)

The argument of lack of intermediary fossils is yet another very common argument that has been countered repeatedly. If you want an example of an intermediary lifeform you need only look in the mirror.

You should also remember that Darwin lived 150 years ago and we have advanced much since then. His theory has withstood the advancement in our understanding of the world because it does describe the facts so well. There HAVE been observed species. Scientists don't hold onto misguided and disproved theories by dogmatic faith alone (there is a modicum of dogma in any human being) but by the continued testing of theory against observed fact.

Here's a website I found in 10 seconds using Google: http://darwiniana.org/transitionals.htm

It includes another quote of someone you quoted above:

Stephen Jay Gould : The supposed lack of intermediary forms in the fossil record remains the fundamental canard of current antievolutionism. Such transitional forms are sparse, to be sure, and for two sets of good reasons — geological (the gappiness of the fossil record) and biological (the episodic nature of evolutionary change, including patterns of punctuated equilibrium, and transition within small populations of limited geographic extent). But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life’s physical genealogy.

And:

As Stephen Gould concludes, "If you had given me a blank piece of paper and a blank check, I could not have drawn you a theoretical intermediate any better or more convincing than Ambulocetus. Those dogmatists who by verbal trickery can make white black, and black white, will never be convinced of anything, but Ambulocetus is the very animal that they proclaimed impossible in theory." (Natural History, May 1994.)

What was your point anyway? You said you made it but I can't figure out what it was.

One annoying assumption that creationists tend to make is the notion that evolution means that the creation of the universe was entirely random, and also that evolution inherently implies atheism. But evolution is not a theory of the creation of the universe, it's a theory of a process of biological change. And, while I'm an atheist myself, there is nothing in evolutionary theory that precludes "god" from having put evolution in motion in the first place. Darwin himself made some rather deistic sounding comments in Origin of the Species. If one actually reads him, he practically goes out of his way to soften the theory for religious people. In short, "why can't god and evolution exist at the same time?".

One thing about evolution that apparently scares the creationists is the factor of uncertainty. They are uncomfortable with the fact that life is an evolutionary process with uncertain factors. But evolution is not entirely "random". That is a misunderstanding. Particularly in human evolution, the given species' purposeful decisions effects the future course of evolution, both biologically and socially. Human evolution was not "random", it was and is probabalistic in conjunction with the deliberate choice of human beings. Evolution is not a process that happened in the past but stopped occuring. It is a process that is still occuring, in terms of both biology and people's social conventions.

When evolutionary theory is applied to economics and sociology, it starts to make a hell of a lot more sense. It becomes a much broader field of science, with implications having to do with the course of political, economic and cultural history. Darwin didn't take evolution into those spheres. It took Herbert Spencer to get that ball rolling, "Social Statics" being his primary work in that field. Evolutionary theory easily leads to social theories of "spontaneous order" (Adam Smith and John Locke's theories can be considered pre-darwinian evolutionary theory in some