Serious question related to ID...
-
Stan, it sounds like you've run into a bunch of self righteous hypocrites using the label 'liberal' to push their own prejudices. I must admit the ones to disppear up their own orifices of whatever type are tempting :evil-grin: The tigress is here :-D
Trollslayer wrote:
it sounds like you've run into a bunch of self righteous hypocrites using the label 'liberal' to push their own prejudices.
Just my bad luck then, eh? :-D From my experience in life, self righteousness is something the human race will probably never run out of. It comes in all forms and flavors. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
For me, it would take more faith to belive that life came from nothing instead of someone who created it. The universe is fine tuned for life to exist. We live in the perfect kind of galaxy for life; the core is not too large for there to be too much radiation, and not too small, where there would not be enough of the right elements for life to exist. Also, there is just the right amount of stars for life to exist. Any more, and there would be too much heavy elements, too few, and there would be only light elements.
Trollslayer wrote:
By the way, if you want proof of evolution look at how flu mutates and the successful mutations spread across the world every year!
If you wanted proof for evolution, the virus would have to come into existence by itself from simple elements, then mutate into an intelligent species. Evolution claims that life just happened for no reason, and that the universe came from nothing. I believe that the concept of the big bang proves God's existence. To say that it happened for no reason seems silly. How can athiests explain where the energy necessary for the big bang came from? They are the ones who stated that "Matter can neither be created nor destroyed". Then, how can they explain that the universe is fine tuned for life on earth to exist?
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski -- modified at 2:46 Sunday 13th November, 2005
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
I believe that the concept of the big bang proves God's existence. To say that it happened for no reason seems silly. How can athiests explain where the energy necessary for the big bang came from? They are the ones who stated that "Matter can neither be created nor destroyed". Then, how can they explain that the universe is fine tuned for life on earth to exist?
Consider this, however. If 'athiests' do finally come up with a varifiable theory of what the underlieing causes of the 'big bang' were, the notion that it "proves God's existence" is thereby overturned. By predicating their religious faith on incomplete scientific investigations, the religious community is sealing its own doom. Most of those proofs are just waiting to be determined scientifically. Science has the philosophical foundations to ultimately provide the proof once sufficeint evidence becomes available by means of experimentation and observation. Religion can only set and watch as such arguments are systematically invalidated. The religious community is only harming itself by trying to confront science head-on with such silly arguments. The only hope it has is to try to stop true scientific inquery altogether, and I think that is a very valid concern by those of us who wish to see it continue unabated. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
For me, it would take more faith to belive that life came from nothing instead of someone who created it. The universe is fine tuned for life to exist. We live in the perfect kind of galaxy for life; the core is not too large for there to be too much radiation, and not too small, where there would not be enough of the right elements for life to exist. Also, there is just the right amount of stars for life to exist. Any more, and there would be too much heavy elements, too few, and there would be only light elements.
Trollslayer wrote:
By the way, if you want proof of evolution look at how flu mutates and the successful mutations spread across the world every year!
If you wanted proof for evolution, the virus would have to come into existence by itself from simple elements, then mutate into an intelligent species. Evolution claims that life just happened for no reason, and that the universe came from nothing. I believe that the concept of the big bang proves God's existence. To say that it happened for no reason seems silly. How can athiests explain where the energy necessary for the big bang came from? They are the ones who stated that "Matter can neither be created nor destroyed". Then, how can they explain that the universe is fine tuned for life on earth to exist?
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski -- modified at 2:46 Sunday 13th November, 2005
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
Then, how can they explain that the universe is fine tuned for life on earth to exist?
Imagine your self as a puddle of water. It a very interesting universe you find yourself in, isn't it. This hole that holds you is exactly the right size and shape to hold you. It must have been created specifically for you. And as you thing about how wonderful it is that the universe was created just to have you in it, the sun comes out. All the time you are evaporating, but still clinging to the thought that this universe was made just for you because you fit into it so neatly. The above is paraphrased from an essay that Douglas Adams wrote a few years ago. It can be found in "The Salmon of Doubt". You may also like to read Richard Dawkins' "The Bind Watchmaker" If that is too heavy reading then perhaps "The science of the Discworld III, Darwin's Watch" would be a better read.
My: Blog | Photos "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in." -- Confucious
-
Most of the stuff on the Discovery channel is crap. They take one controversial point of view and stretch it out into an hour show using fancy graphics. It presents many theories as fact without going into the minimal supporting evidence if any. They definitely don't bring up any of the competing interpretations. That's one of the reasons my wife has gotten into documentary film making. She just had a documentary on excavations in Shiloh accepted to a film festival BTW. The US public school system teaches students to shut up, sit still, be bored, and memorize facts. It prepares students for assembly line jobs and little else. To explain the difference between a scientific theory and unscientific religious belief, you have to assume the student is capable of thought. This whole debate just highlights the larger problems with the education system. If students were getting a good overall education then they would be able to make up their own minds about this one issue.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
andy brummer wrote:
The US public school system teaches students to shut up, sit still, be bored, and memorize facts. It prepares students for assembly line jobs and little else.
I'm not sure that I think that basic education can or should ever be much more than that. Some people like learning, some don't. Those who do will learn in almost any kind of an environment, while those who don't won't. I'm not sure that I think a hell of a lot of resources should be wasted on getting those who simply wish to live their lives fixing flat tires to understand philosophical abstractions. I was always bored in school as a child and generally made very poor grades until I got into college. Yet, I have always loved reading and learning. But, I cannot think of anything my teachers could have done to have inspired me to learn the way they wanted me to learn. No given teacing philsophy is ever going to reach every child. Therefore, I think it is better just to stick to time tested methods and teach the basics in a basic way. By trying to make education entertaining you are more likely to encounter the very issues I was referring to when I started this thread - the popularization of knowledge in a way that is more appropriate for a disney movie than for a classroom. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
Any more, and there would be too much heavy elements, too few, and there would be only light elements.
Too much and too few in comparison to what? It's not the fact that there is a balance in the types of elements, it's the fact that heavy elements exist, but they are a product of standard star evolution. The proportion of heavy to light elements is a function of the age and matter density of the universe. Heavy radioactive elements are required in order for planetary heating, but the concentration of these radioactive elements decreases with increasing age of the universe. Also, it is not the galaxy per se that determines compatability for life. Distance from the galactic core is also important. Radiation follows an inverse square law, meaning intensity of radiation drops rapidly with distance. It is not so much the galaxy in which the solar system lies, but the distance from the core and the distance and atmospheric composition of the planet on which life initiates. I don't think the number of stars has anything to do with the probability of life arising. I have seen no research on this. In fact, it is not so difficult to believe that life arose from a chemical soup. Self-organising systems are quite important in biology. In fact, most biological chemicals seem to be left-handed molecules indicating some favouritism for left-handed molecules over right-handed molecules. There is gathering evidence that left-handed molecules have lower energy configurations than right-handed ones, leading to the conclusion that the preferred natural ground state is left-handed. This implies several things for the presence of life. Most importantly is that molecules naturally tend towards a left-handed state offering one possible explanation for the arisal of organised systems. From there it is not such a large leap to seeing the emergence of self-replicating systems and, subsequently, life. It is not that evolution claims life happened for no reason, but that perhaps life is a natural outcome of the progressive evolution of the universe, which, tends to further complexity with increasing age. This happens to be a direct result of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (ie:entropy increases).
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
"Matter can neither be created nor destroyed".
Absolutely incorrect. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. However, this is not so much of interest these day
John Theal wrote:
I don't think the number of stars has anything to do with the probability of life arising.
We already put a probability on these things with no data samples :confused:
John Theal wrote:
In fact, it is not so difficult to believe that life arose from a chemical soup.
It kind of reminds me of the Soviet, who bacause of being atheist, base there understanding of the universe on the material. So they tried to do an experiment where they got the chemical composition of living organisims and tried to put them together, with electrical stimulation and what not. No life emerged, what a suprise.
John Theal wrote:
It is not that evolution claims life happened for no reason, but that perhaps life is a natural outcome of the progressive evolution of the universe, which, tends to further complexity with increasing age. This happens to be a direct result of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (ie:entropy increases).
I think your misunderstanding complexity here. Second Law says the universe is going from order to disorder. Anyway I am not sure what this has to do with evolution.
John Theal wrote:
Inflationary theory removes the need for an initiating event for the creation of the universe.
I guess the claim here is that it made itself. Quran Translation Intro Discover
-
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
Any more, and there would be too much heavy elements, too few, and there would be only light elements.
Too much and too few in comparison to what? It's not the fact that there is a balance in the types of elements, it's the fact that heavy elements exist, but they are a product of standard star evolution. The proportion of heavy to light elements is a function of the age and matter density of the universe. Heavy radioactive elements are required in order for planetary heating, but the concentration of these radioactive elements decreases with increasing age of the universe. Also, it is not the galaxy per se that determines compatability for life. Distance from the galactic core is also important. Radiation follows an inverse square law, meaning intensity of radiation drops rapidly with distance. It is not so much the galaxy in which the solar system lies, but the distance from the core and the distance and atmospheric composition of the planet on which life initiates. I don't think the number of stars has anything to do with the probability of life arising. I have seen no research on this. In fact, it is not so difficult to believe that life arose from a chemical soup. Self-organising systems are quite important in biology. In fact, most biological chemicals seem to be left-handed molecules indicating some favouritism for left-handed molecules over right-handed molecules. There is gathering evidence that left-handed molecules have lower energy configurations than right-handed ones, leading to the conclusion that the preferred natural ground state is left-handed. This implies several things for the presence of life. Most importantly is that molecules naturally tend towards a left-handed state offering one possible explanation for the arisal of organised systems. From there it is not such a large leap to seeing the emergence of self-replicating systems and, subsequently, life. It is not that evolution claims life happened for no reason, but that perhaps life is a natural outcome of the progressive evolution of the universe, which, tends to further complexity with increasing age. This happens to be a direct result of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (ie:entropy increases).
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
"Matter can neither be created nor destroyed".
Absolutely incorrect. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. However, this is not so much of interest these day
John Theal wrote:
This happens to be a direct result of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (ie:entropy increases).
Did you mean to phrase it that way? Its been a long time since I studied thermodynamics, but isn't increasing entropy decreasing order? EDIT - Doesn't biological evolution on Earth represent an ever so tiny decrease in entropy as they sun's continueing burning of fuel represents a massive overall increase? In any case, the 2nd law probably doesn't strongly support either side of the debate as it only applies to closed systems. The solar system in which the earth exists is certainly anything but closed, as the Sun pumps a gazillion units of energy into it every single second, and, at this point, we have not a clue as to how closed our entire little space-time continuum itself might actually be. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom." -- modified at 8:31 Sunday 13th November, 2005
-
John Theal wrote:
I don't think the number of stars has anything to do with the probability of life arising.
We already put a probability on these things with no data samples :confused:
John Theal wrote:
In fact, it is not so difficult to believe that life arose from a chemical soup.
It kind of reminds me of the Soviet, who bacause of being atheist, base there understanding of the universe on the material. So they tried to do an experiment where they got the chemical composition of living organisims and tried to put them together, with electrical stimulation and what not. No life emerged, what a suprise.
John Theal wrote:
It is not that evolution claims life happened for no reason, but that perhaps life is a natural outcome of the progressive evolution of the universe, which, tends to further complexity with increasing age. This happens to be a direct result of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (ie:entropy increases).
I think your misunderstanding complexity here. Second Law says the universe is going from order to disorder. Anyway I am not sure what this has to do with evolution.
John Theal wrote:
Inflationary theory removes the need for an initiating event for the creation of the universe.
I guess the claim here is that it made itself. Quran Translation Intro Discover
A.A. wrote:
We already put a probability on these things with no data samples
No, this is not what I said. You conveniently omitted the part where I clearly stated "I have seen no research on this topic".
A.A. wrote:
It kind of reminds me of the Soviet, who bacause of being atheist, base there understanding of the universe on the material. So they tried to do an experiment where they got the chemical composition of living organisims and tried to put them together, with electrical stimulation and what not. No life emerged, what a suprise.
Yet somehow I am supposed to accept that some "supreme being" for which (in over 2000 years) no evidence exists is responsible? I prefer to think the experiment didn't work because we are still misunderstanding some principles.
A.A. wrote:
I think your misunderstanding complexity here. Second Law says the universe is going from order to disorder. Anyway I am not sure what this has to do with evolution.
No, I understand complexity. I was not speaking about order or disorder. This is important for evolution because theories of complexity provide insight into how complex molecules develop. **EDIT:**See my reply to Stan below.
A.A. wrote:
I guess the claim here is that it made itself.
No, absolutely not. For that you have to presume that the universe existed in some form prior to that form by which we know it now. I never said this. I claimed that inflationary theories provide an explanation as to how a universe can spontaneously arise from uncertain vacuum energy fluctuations. -- modified at 8:50 Sunday 13th November, 2005
-
John Theal wrote:
This happens to be a direct result of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (ie:entropy increases).
Did you mean to phrase it that way? Its been a long time since I studied thermodynamics, but isn't increasing entropy decreasing order? EDIT - Doesn't biological evolution on Earth represent an ever so tiny decrease in entropy as they sun's continueing burning of fuel represents a massive overall increase? In any case, the 2nd law probably doesn't strongly support either side of the debate as it only applies to closed systems. The solar system in which the earth exists is certainly anything but closed, as the Sun pumps a gazillion units of energy into it every single second, and, at this point, we have not a clue as to how closed our entire little space-time continuum itself might actually be. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom." -- modified at 8:31 Sunday 13th November, 2005
I wasn't talking about order. I was talking about complexity. Perhaps I wrote it in a confusing manner as I wrote it rather rushed. A better statement would perhaps be: In terms of energy, the 2nd law of thermodynamics seems to favour the creation of complex molecules from simpler elements. More accurately, the 2nd law does not demand the decrease of order towards disorder. What it implies is the dispersal of energy when ordered molecules arise spontaneously. Saying "entropy increases" was much too simplistic on my part. Regardless, the 2nd law has important implications for the (spontaneous) appearance of complex molecules. EDIT: In other words, chemists have direct and verifiable evidence that there exist compounds which have less energy than the combined energy of the compounds that they consist of. This implies that the 2nd law actually favours the creation of complex molecules from elementary building blocks. Evidence of this is the fact that most biological molecules seem to be preferentially "left-handed" as opposed to "right-handed". The left-handed molecules exhibiting a slightly lower energy configuration than the right-handed ones. -- modified at 8:53 Sunday 13th November, 2005
-
John Theal wrote:
I don't think the number of stars has anything to do with the probability of life arising.
We already put a probability on these things with no data samples :confused:
John Theal wrote:
In fact, it is not so difficult to believe that life arose from a chemical soup.
It kind of reminds me of the Soviet, who bacause of being atheist, base there understanding of the universe on the material. So they tried to do an experiment where they got the chemical composition of living organisims and tried to put them together, with electrical stimulation and what not. No life emerged, what a suprise.
John Theal wrote:
It is not that evolution claims life happened for no reason, but that perhaps life is a natural outcome of the progressive evolution of the universe, which, tends to further complexity with increasing age. This happens to be a direct result of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (ie:entropy increases).
I think your misunderstanding complexity here. Second Law says the universe is going from order to disorder. Anyway I am not sure what this has to do with evolution.
John Theal wrote:
Inflationary theory removes the need for an initiating event for the creation of the universe.
I guess the claim here is that it made itself. Quran Translation Intro Discover
A.A. wrote:
It kind of reminds me of the Soviet, who because of being atheist, base there understanding of the universe on the material. So they tried to do an experiment where they got the chemical composition of living organisms and tried to put them together, with electrical stimulation and what not. No life emerged, what a surprise.
Erm, I don't think materialism was specific to the Soviet union. Or atheists for that matter. The material is the only thing that science can address. Not that ideology doesn't affect science, especialy evolutionary biology - take a look at the most famous image related to evolution The ascent of man[^]. It's loaded with 19th century notions of progress and a fair amount of racism. It also bears little relation to contemporary evolutionary theory, which long ago abandoned the attempt to put humans at the 'top' of creation. A humility still lacking in most monotheists. Far worse was the the soviet union's adoption of Lamarkism over Darwinism for purely ideological reasons (Stalin disliked Darwinism, and it was a really bad idea to argue with him, especialy if you were right) it set soviet biology back for decades. As for abiogenisis experiments not working. Give them a few billion years and a lab the size of the planet :) Oh, and if you are the type who likes to retrofit scientific discovery to religious dogma, have a look at Cairns-Smiths clay theory. Its interesting, if not considered the most likely method of abiogenisis. More reading can be found here[^]. Ryan
O fools, awake! The rites you sacred hold Are but a cheat contrived by men of old, Who lusted after wealth and gained their lust And died in baseness—and their law is dust. al-Ma'arri (973-1057)
-- modified at 12:46 Sunday 13th November, 2005
-
Since ID is based on someone not being able to cope with the idea of evolution it should be taught only within religion. The basic principle that it denies another theory simply because someone can't cope with it it not science. By the way, if you want proof of evolution look at how flu mutates and the successful mutations spread across the world every year! The tigress is here :-D
Trollslayer wrote:
By the way, if you want proof of evolution look at how flu mutates and the successful mutations spread across the world every year!
I have yet to see a virus mutate into a sentient being. Or, for that matter, anything else other than a slightly different virus. While I have no problem with the mechanics of evolution as viewed from the perspective of the "DNA machine", I do not feel that science has adequately explained evolution from the "here are bunch of molecules randomly jiggling around in some toxic soup" to "Behold Man". Marc VS2005 Tips & Tricks -- contributions welcome!
-
All kidding aside, how should the theory of evolution be taught in schools to children? This question occured to me the other night when I was watching a program on the Science/Discovery channel pertaining to human evolution. This program had a lot of very interesting special affects and costumes, etc, which made it appear that this was all based upon very well established scientific conconclusions, when in reality, much of it could not have been more hypothetical (an early man crying over his dead sister only to see her return to life - because she had actually only been unconcsious - and superstitiously associating that miracle with coincidental environmental phenomena and hence inventing religion) As interesting as such speculation might be, should it be taught to children, or to anyone, as science? Series such as 'Walking with Dinosaurs', and others, are of the same type. I never miss such programs, but in reality they are not much more than modern day fairy tails only loosely based on science and about as likely to be accurate as any story one might read in the bible. As much as I am opposed to teaching ID to children as some form of science, I don't know that many teachers are qualified, or even undertand how, to distinquish between pure speculation and true scientific conclusions. So, given this kind of popularization of science, I think students are as likely to come away from a typical lecture on evolutionary biology with as screwed up an understanding of the subject as if they had been taught ID. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom." -- modified at 10:23 Saturday 12th November, 2005
Stan Shannon wrote:
how should the theory of evolution be taught in schools to children?
Not glossing over the question marks with special effects would be a good start. I'm not seeing much of these things but the few I do see give me the feeling that esp. usamerican and recently at least mainstream german programs are afraid to challenge their viewers: "throw out that part, my typist doesn't understand it" Compared to the things you see in terribly local latin american museums is so much more informative (and retaining the whys) that makes our hyperpolished stuff look fake.
Pandoras Gift #44: Hope. The one that keeps you on suffering.
aber.. "Wie gesagt, der Scheiss is' Therapie"
boost your code || Fold With Us! || sighist | doxygen -
Trollslayer wrote:
By the way, if you want proof of evolution look at how flu mutates and the successful mutations spread across the world every year!
I have yet to see a virus mutate into a sentient being. Or, for that matter, anything else other than a slightly different virus. While I have no problem with the mechanics of evolution as viewed from the perspective of the "DNA machine", I do not feel that science has adequately explained evolution from the "here are bunch of molecules randomly jiggling around in some toxic soup" to "Behold Man". Marc VS2005 Tips & Tricks -- contributions welcome!
Marc Clifton wrote:
have yet to see a virus mutate into a sentient being
Have you been watching for millions of years?
-
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
I am opposed to income tax,
Where do you want the government to get their money from? Capital gains taxes? Consumption tax? Pure sales tax? A combination of the three? The money has to come from somewhere...
If the government was small as it is supposed to be under the constitution, it would not need an extreme amount of money to run.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski
-
If the government was small as it is supposed to be under the constitution, it would not need an extreme amount of money to run.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski
Uh, right. Unfortunately, the division of 51 states into regional governments precludes that idea. Well, that and a population approaching 300 million... Besides, the constitution of the United States was written almost 300 years ago. Times change, you know?
-
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
I am a hard-core conservative/libertarian, and most of them support the death penalty.
I can see why a conservative would support the death penalty, but a libertarian*? I thought the whole ethos of libertarians was one of you can do what ever you want so long as it doesn't harm others or impinge upon their freedoms.
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
I am opposed to income tax
Any other taxes you are opposed to? Or would you rather go for some sort of consumption tax? That way everybody pays based upon how much they consume.
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
I am stronly opposed to any kind of gun control and support the right to defend yourself
Curiously, the only place I've seen that work well is the Swiss model. Everywhere else it just seems to escalate the amount of violence in crime. * Curiously outsite of America this would be called a liberal - IIRC, it comes from the Latin word libre meaning free
My: Blog | Photos "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in." -- Confucious
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
Curiously, the only place I've seen that work well is the Swiss model. Everywhere else it just seems to escalate the amount of violence in crime.
Well, you must have not been to America then, have you. We have some gun laws, but it is legal to own guns here. I have a gun in my closet, and it is not harming anyone. In America, it makes crime less common because a criminal thinks twice before breaking into a house because in america, people have not had the basic human right to self defence taken away by a tyrannical government.
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
* Curiously outsite of America this would be called a liberal - IIRC, it comes from the Latin word libre meaning free
American liberals are in essence socialists. They support all kinds of welfare and affirmative action. They also support the "right" to be free from gun violence.
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
Any other taxes you are opposed to? Or would you rather go for some sort of consumption tax? That way everybody pays based upon how much they consume.
The American government was not meant to be so big, under the constitution. If they stayed to their constitutional role, they would not need to steal a large part of each citizen's income. They would also not need to borrow 3.5 trillon from other countries. Flame away, as I know not many people agree with me.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
Curiously, the only place I've seen that work well is the Swiss model. Everywhere else it just seems to escalate the amount of violence in crime.
Well, you must have not been to America then, have you. We have some gun laws, but it is legal to own guns here. I have a gun in my closet, and it is not harming anyone. In America, it makes crime less common because a criminal thinks twice before breaking into a house because in america, people have not had the basic human right to self defence taken away by a tyrannical government.
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
* Curiously outsite of America this would be called a liberal - IIRC, it comes from the Latin word libre meaning free
American liberals are in essence socialists. They support all kinds of welfare and affirmative action. They also support the "right" to be free from gun violence.
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
Any other taxes you are opposed to? Or would you rather go for some sort of consumption tax? That way everybody pays based upon how much they consume.
The American government was not meant to be so big, under the constitution. If they stayed to their constitutional role, they would not need to steal a large part of each citizen's income. They would also not need to borrow 3.5 trillon from other countries. Flame away, as I know not many people agree with me.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski
Just for the record, I agree with all of that. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Uh, right. Unfortunately, the division of 51 states into regional governments precludes that idea. Well, that and a population approaching 300 million... Besides, the constitution of the United States was written almost 300 years ago. Times change, you know?
John Theal wrote:
Besides, the constitution of the United States was written almost 300 years ago. Times change, you know?
And the constitution was designed to change right along with the times - in a democratic way. The big problem in the US is that such change is no longer controlled by the people but by the courts that have usurped our power to control it. I find it hard to believe that anyone would consider that to be an improvement over how things were down 300 (closer to 230 isn't it?) years ago. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
Curiously, the only place I've seen that work well is the Swiss model. Everywhere else it just seems to escalate the amount of violence in crime.
Well, you must have not been to America then, have you. We have some gun laws, but it is legal to own guns here. I have a gun in my closet, and it is not harming anyone. In America, it makes crime less common because a criminal thinks twice before breaking into a house because in america, people have not had the basic human right to self defence taken away by a tyrannical government.
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
* Curiously outsite of America this would be called a liberal - IIRC, it comes from the Latin word libre meaning free
American liberals are in essence socialists. They support all kinds of welfare and affirmative action. They also support the "right" to be free from gun violence.
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
Any other taxes you are opposed to? Or would you rather go for some sort of consumption tax? That way everybody pays based upon how much they consume.
The American government was not meant to be so big, under the constitution. If they stayed to their constitutional role, they would not need to steal a large part of each citizen's income. They would also not need to borrow 3.5 trillon from other countries. Flame away, as I know not many people agree with me.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
Well, you must have not been to America then, have you.
I've been to the United States several times. One time I hired a car in Denver. When I asked how the four-way stop junctions worked (we don't have them here and I got a little confused the previous time) the answer was, in all seriousness, who ever has the biggest gun rack has the right of way.
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
In America, it makes crime less common because a criminal thinks twice before breaking into a house because in america
I dunno. A lot of statistics I see says you have a higher than average crime rate. And because of all the guns, the crimes are much more violent and result in death (often of an innocent party) more frequently than elsewhere.
My: Blog | Photos "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in." -- Confucious
-
Show me a single post here where someone claiming to represent christianity has referred to someone as a 'raghead'. The only use of the term I've heard is from some lefty putting words into other people's mouths in order to self-validate his own bigotry. I have almost universally found Christians to be just about the most tolerant people on the planet - and liberals to be quite the contrary. You are a perfect example of that - as throughly incapable of entertaining an opinion beyond your narrow minded secular world view as a pig is of understanding physics. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Just for the record, I agree with all of that. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Cool. It is good to have someone here that thinks the same way. :-D
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski
