littlebillie

This observation is not aimed at anyone in the current thread, and no fingers are intentionally pointed. 'K, enough disclaimer! :-) In my life, it's almost always the case that when race and creationism raised in the same conversation or other proximity, the same folks who decry science in favor of Bible-based creationism will then TURN TO SCIENCE to 'prove' that the races are meaningfully different, and that there is a single superior race. Why, I don't know - 's just an observation...

'Are these scientists "closet racists"?' Well, first, I wonder if any breed of dog is considered genetically "superior"? It's all canis familiaris (if I recall correctly), just like WE are all homo sapiens. There is one species, with differences among individuals and populations; science would not see anything like superiority - only differences. And those differences are becoming less distinctive over time, as the historically isolated gene pools have now started intermingling. SCIENCE SEES NOT SUPERIORITY, ONLY DIFFERENCES. Why, does the Bible make a value call?

"...on the basis on genetics only" there is NO 'better' or 'superior' - there is only different, and not even enough of that to separate us into species, or make any other qualitative distinction. THAT is the call based on "genetics only". and of course, world travel, education abroad, e- and im-migration, international commerce, and so on are all commingling the genetic pool anyway! one world, one people, eh?

"...pointing out flaws in someone's argument stands on its own, it doesn't depend on having an alternate explanation." True enough, but no one should really be surprised or offended when, having done so, they are asked for a possible alternative argument... no surprises there for any reasonable person. Class, the proper response is, "Sorry, I don't have an alternative explanation - sure wish I did, though!" :-) "bronze age mythology?" well, setting aside the apparent desire to be offensive, may I inquire how you feel about the Book of Mormon, then? Or if the Koran, representing a younger faith as well, falls within your readability guidelines? "...talking animals in it?" ah, animal speech - if it refers to the sea, then we know we're talking about dophins and whales, creatures of which (whom?) science is fairly certain have their own audible communications! Balaam's Ass, in turn, may as easily be seen as divine ventriloquism - possibly even more properly so - than animalsitic human speech. moving right along, "What about the Australian Aboriginals? Where do they fit into the evolutionary tree?" interesting. given some of the nearly superhuman abilities they possess, some have argued that they are the most advanced form of human. was that the direction you wanted it to go? the ability to sleep outside, naked (and without dogs, by the way), in sub-zero temperatures - wow! what a survival ability. in the meantime, intelligence as usually used in these discussions, have ultimately resulted in smog, oil spills, Three Mile Chernobyls, and super-bugs. What the heck kind of a yard stick is that!?! "humans that you have personally observed evolving?" well, evolution in a single organism just don't happen. Well, at least not yet. gene therapies may throw that statement out the window. evolutionists recognize a greater timeline than is given by the Bible, so of course there's that whole issue that needs to be dealt with first. We know that the "races" of man are all cross fertile, for whatever that's worth, no inevitable mules come out of that. And we know the so-called Ostrich-foot people of Africa had "evolved" strange pedal adaptations. How's this - ever notice how extra digits run in families? Or if Dad has a tail, Sis may very well have one too? In fact, that's an interesting question. When someone's born with a tail, or exposed gill slits - the evolutionist has a handy explanation. However, I've never heard how a Bible-ist would explain these...? (This is a sincere question, based on sincere interest, btw - no potshots, jsut an honest request for info, just so's ya know!) :-)

...and FYI - for various and sundry - 'Jewess' and 'Negress' are both considered offensive... did anyone NOT know that?

Q.E.D.? "What have you proven? That I'm not a white supremacist? Not hardly, I just said that I'm not a neo-Nazi" Let's see - so I can't prove that you're NOT a white supremacist? well, someone with as many degrees as yourself knows that REALLY narrows down the field of possible conclusions, esp. with that elegant "not hardly" tacked on. see, it's like what started off this whole sorry exchange between us. I had said that you were coming across white-supremacistic, apologized if I misunderstood and asked for clarification so I would know with what and whom I was dealing. I also made clear my stand on white supremacism. NOW you've really garbled it all up, and seem to be telling me it's impossible to prove that you're NOT such a thing. if you can't answer these questions directly, how is it possible to have a candid, honest discussion with ANYone? Um - btw, the QED was intended as levity for the Leprechaun thing. I won't confuse you with someone with a sense of humor again either...

I in turn am always amazed that we don't cite the human sense of aesthetics and beauty more often as a proof of God. A scientist can give reasons for emotions and say evil does not exist as evil per se - it's just the way stuff happens... Then he can walk outside and stare at a glorious sunset, and never wonder... Oh, not even about where the sunset came from, or why it is beautiful - but about why he has a sense of beauty at all, or why he enjoys music, say, or abstract art. Surely there are NO simple survival advantages to this kind of joy in aesthetic appreciation? And yet there are sounds and colors and images that are uplifting and cleansing, even for someone who has never attended a formal, man-made church... but you know, the flip side is that the faithful, who know God has given them so much that is logical and wonderfully, intricately designed, a universe in which everything has a purpose - well, these same people can't see that at least some scientists seek and learn BECAUSE they love God... faith AND knowledge, knowledge AND faith. I have two hands, and one is abler than the other - nevertheless, I need them both...

An atheist - let's say one without a bone to pick - will simply say that emotions have survival value. Love between a man and a woman, of a parent for a child and to a lesser extent the affection of a normal good-natured adult for any child all work to promote survival of the species. Envy can make you work for the acquisition of more whatever - property or territory; anger, in response to someone TAKING your territory, or trying to establish dominance over you, can also be seen as survival beneficial. BUT. I think some people love deeply enough, passionately enough that they find in the joy of their love (for example) ALL the proof they want or need of God - divine lovingkindness being the only source or origin they can imagine for something so wonderful. Most atheists I have known - some have said this, and about others I assume it - would actually prefer to believe that God exists. Agnostics, too. However, for whatever reason of personal history or intellectual baggage, they cannot simply take it on faith (it, the given word) and given ample evidence of human suffering in modern times, and of evil and abuses even among members of the clergy, it is easier for them to believe otherwise. But give them a proof that does not beg faith, something tangible and undeniable, and most atheists I have known would welcome it joyfully. A miracle working Messiah among us TODAY (and hopefully before the mounting of Armageddon) would indeed be a timely kindness...

ummmm - a thot comes to me. marshmallow - no bones, right? so regardless of Who made him, is there a Sta-Puft Marshmallow Wife???

Q.E.D.

HE WILL COME IN ONE OF THE PRE-CHOSEN FORMS. DURING THE RECTIFICATION OF THE VULDRINI, THE TRAVELER CAME AS A LARGE AND MOVING TORG! THEN, DURING THE THIRD RECONCILIATION OF THE LAST OF THE MCKETRICK SUPPLICANTS, THEY CHOSE A NEW FORM FOR HIM: THAT OF A GIANT SLOR! MANY SHUVS AND ZOOLS KNEW WHAT IT WAS TO BE ROASTED IN THE DEPTHS OF THE SLOR THAT DAY, I CAN TELL YOU! (I ain't afraid of your posts!)

ok, thanks. important scouting tip, Egan.

Rooster7, I very much appreciate the courtesy and care of your last post. Things are hectic, but one thing I really needed to touch on... " it only proves that man is desperate to find an explanation for his existence that excludes God" and i gotta say that there ARE scientists out there who believe they are doing God's work, and that some of the more amazing things coming out of physics have convinced many researchers that there is indeed a God. So I'd rewrite the comment maybe to say that "it only proves that some folks are desperate to find an irrefutable, undeniable and demonstrable proof of God - but sadly, they get sidetracked along the way". You're absolutely right - some scientists are swonr enemies of religion, but some are indifferent, agnostic if you will - and some see the glorious mastery of the Lord in the tiniest particles and the vastest skies...

ZP, angry one, well, it's obvious you don't want to answer the question. not sure why you wouldn't want to repudiate white supremacy - unless you ARE some kind of supremacist. clarification, btw - note that i never accused - I said that's how you were "coming across", offered an apology if I had mis-understood and asked for clarification so I would know what kind of person I was talking to. apparently you don't want your position to be clear. again I'm not sure why that would be. and yet it would seem that your screen name gives some kind of neo-Nazi clue...? me? i'm no supremacist, and no apologist. i'm a we're-all-in-this-togetherist, and figure that we all have to pull our oar in Lifeboat Earth. I don't think lawsuits for slavery per se have merit, but those about getting cheated out of 40 acres and a mule do. I thik Jewish families should get back whatever heirlooms were taken in WW2, and that the braceros at least have a case to be heard. I'm also for stem cell research. Oh - but the issue isn't about my stance. that's been clear. it's about your reluctance to answer a simple yes-or-no question. Ta!

"Which human race is genetically superior to the others?" None. Whatever you choose as a yardstick for so-called "superiority" will likely display bias. are there differences? sure. are some of these differences adaptive. probably. do they make anyone superior? only in the eyes of those individuals who have no worth in their personal lives and pathetically need something to differentiate themselves...

"My post was stating if we (humans) evolved from monkeys, how come monkeys still exist? Your tree anolgy was way off base & completely pointless. " Actually, the first question - why are there still monkeys - was pointless, and I was hoping the parallel would be obvious. Why are there still wild dogs when we have domesticated dogs, wild cattle for that matter, and goats and sheep and swine? why wouldn't they all still exist, assuming to extinction event or more successful species supplanting them? The question, why are there still monkeys, doesn't make sense - perhaps if you explain why there shouldn't be, then I might understand the question. Until then, it makes as much sense as forests still standing after we start making wooden ships... i.e., no connection at all!

Full of Anger - the HYPOTHESIS come from the Bible - God created the Universe and all things in it. That's not a theory until you make predictions and begin to test based on that hypothesis. Once you have some viably tested and proven results, then you can creat a model or even a theory. After making observations - hmmm, perhaps GOD created everything - you then need to say, but if that's true, then this, or that, or THAT should happen under such and so circumstances. From the results thereof, you can then create a theory, positive or negative in statement. Now, here's where I'm ignorant - Creationists, what predictions have been made or tested? I find I'm not really aware of any modern day tests and regardless of how 'hypothesis' and 'theory' have been butchered in this thread, I am sure there are enough scientists out there who have wanted to find just such proof as experimentation might provide...?

Rooster7, Ok, I will absolutely grant that there are probably individual exceptions to ALL general categories, especially when those categories are of human behavior. Which I why I tried to underscore the whole MAYBE side of things - I AM aware that exceptions will exist in this stuff. Let's deal with the example that gave us this quote "Apparently, robbery and rape is being claimed as the killers' motivation. But let me ask you some questions - Do you think you could shoot someone in the head, point blank, without hating them?" First, the DA bringing charges has apparently decided that they can more easily get a guilty verdict without using any hate crime statute, assuming any such statute is currently in force in that venue (I'll assume that you know that it IS, tho' - otherwise it wouldn't be a valid example, right? I guess I should also assume that there's no evidence of the alleged perpetrators ever having murdered members of their own ethnic group - since this too might undermine the example.) So ok - since it's black against white, it'd be touchier, practically speaking, and probably harder to get a conviction just on that. So rather than dilute the case, the DA has decided to forego that charge. But it's STILL in the tool kit if they need it. Personaly, I see it as a good thing. Method, motive and means - without cold, generic group hatred being legally defined as a motive, can it be used? I don't really know, just raising the question... And regardless, if it's there and it can be used when you know you've got a crime and no other tag to hang on it, well, I'd rather make sure the criminal gets punished than go free. Now, as to pulling a cold-blooded trigger. How literal do you need that? Is pulling the plug on a terminal loved one the same? You authorize death, you symbolicaly pull a trigger - indivdual exceptions, yes, i know. One problem is that we don't have a system that allows us to wait for an individual case to occur, gives us the chance to study just that specifics of that case, and then pass a law just for that case after the fact, and send up the perp under that law that didn't exist when the crime was committed. Since we DO use a system of "general" laws, the hate statutes give us something to use when we might not otherwise be able to meaningfully bring charges. where does hate speech leave off and free speech begin? frankly, I find this a more troubling issue than whether or not I can add a dimension called hate to a rape or murder charge. I abhor hate speech, certainly - and I embrace free speech. So I'm still wrestling here, and it'd be great to have those wiser than I suggest some brilliant guidelines. Even so, I'll just take these on my OW - libel and slander remain, and any speech that urges violence against a minority for no other reason than that minority's simple existence is WRONG. It goes on... Regardless. R7 - yeah, sometimes it seems redundant. Some folks think it's a slap in the face of those victims of "non-hate" crimes, and while I can sympathize with them, I think that as PART of a bigger picture, it's just one more weapon in the arsenal of law to be used in defense of the rest of us...

"See, still the classic response. If I don't yell out that blacks deserve specialtreatment and that being white is horrible, I must be a white supremacist. " Still not answering the question, I note. Are you a white supremacist? It really only takes a yes or no. All the rest is filler and fluff until then.

Rooster7 "Frankly, while someone's motivation might be dumber than the next person's, murder is murder" Well, that's true. But there's a next step in the thought process, I think. Not a justification, just a step. Most murders - wrongful actions, certainly - are committed by folks known to the victims, and for reasons that make PERSONAL sense. She dumped him, he was fooling around, whatever. Another large group of murders are committed during the commission of other crimes, often in panic, to avoid being caught, etc. Gang-related drivebys probably Venn right in between the two. But in a hate-crime, you are targeted not simply because of belief, or orientation or skin-color. It's probably not someone who knows you (though if it is, psychological motive gets a lot murkier). Regardless that, you've been targetted for no reason other than stuff you can't help. I grant that ALL the lines are fuzzy in this, but it's not like you can say, oh, let's avoid the bad part of town, or hey, that looks like a questionable establishment. With a person known to you, MAYBE you can defuse the situation. When you're the victim of an ordinary crime, MAYBE you just hold still, follow directions and not get hurt, or maybe just run like the dickens. But when someone goes out hunting, for a black or a Jew or a gay, and it's your random number that comes up, well, there's no heat of passion - it's coldblooded and calculated. Yes, murder is murder. But when it's because of your color or the way your mama raised you, when it's 'nothing personal', then it's basically the same thing as genocide on the installment plan.

"Go ahead, turn around and walk away. That's a classic response." So are you saying that you ARE a white supremacist? That's about all I can interpret from the response...? Or are you avoiding the question? Or... well, what? They Might Be Giants, Flood, 1990, You and Your Racist Friend... btw

More generally. I accept evolution as a thery that has the weight of scientific fact - "honk if you understand punctuated equilibrium". I'm sure there are gaps in our understanding, just as I am sure that we and the apes share a special relationship (look at the DNA similarities) just as I am sure that God exists. One does NOT exclude the other, except for literalists, who have enough contradictory stuff to deal with as it is :-) God gave us science so that we might better appreciate His Handiwork. When I hear or read folks who run down science as a tool of Lucifer, even as they drive cars, use electricity and post to websites, I'm amazed about how self-blinding we humans can be. Now - all that said, I gotta say that the teaching of evolution before high-school scares me. it's not the place of the school system to shake whatever foundations of faith may be set down by a child's family. (I use the high school cut-off because I think by then faith is built and able to deal with challenges OR be legitimately refined. I could be wrong about the timing.) WE CANNOT AS A SOCIETY lament the lack of family values if we even in part attack what some families see as an integral part of those values. SO. Get evolution out of grade and middle school. And even there, we can still talk about adaptations, eco-systems, speciation, all stuff that looks at the world in recent time, yet can be used eventually as stepping stones to evolution if that is the way a particular teen-ager's mind will turn. Now, even as I say THIS in defense of some of the faithful, I also recognize atheists' rights as well, and just as I think that evolution too early is scary, so do I think that a single enforced religion, too blatantly, is scary, too. Manger scenes in City Hall on the public dime just ain't right.

Zorn Packte, I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it seems like you're coming across as some kind of either white supremacist, or at way least anti-black. If it's the first, I'd like to figure out a way to symbolically turn my back on you and walk out of the room. And if it's the second, I wonder if you're redeemable...? I'd make an effort to swerve you from the dark side, and if that was not to be, THEN I'd turn my back on you. Symbolically. Of course if it's neither, I extend my apologies and recommend to you that you review what you say before it's posted, just in case it doesn't really come across the way you want it too. Can you clarify for me?

To Zorn P. From http://ph.infoplease.com/spot/asianintro1.html "In May 1990, the holiday was expanded further when President George H. W. Bush designated May to be Asian Pacific American Heritage Month." From http://www.factmonster.com/spot/hhm1.html "Hispanic Heritage Month begins on September 15 because this day marks the anniversary of independence for five Hispanic countriesCosta Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua. In addition, Mexico achieved independence on September 16, and Chile on September 18." I hope the rest of your diatribe is better researched... :-) my son's school is currently celebrating HH, and did APA last May. Since curricula are often up to the local schools and boards, and often to the state departments of education, you may wish to write yours about getting these months acknowledged. And of course, it is the majority finding its way clear to extend appreciation, rather than enforce exclusion, that helps bring these months into existence. Black History month had a different kind of origin, which you may wish to read up on. (Hey, that sentence ended with TWO prepositions! I ROCK!) ok incoming calls - gotta run!

firstpusk, Yes, I'm pretty sure the fossil record is sparse on ANYthing with wings and four legs. but I'm not trying to deal with the fossil record here, but Biblical literalism. Since those who argue against evolution a la Darwin have a standard kit that argues against the fossil record, I'm just trying to see if we can find any Biblical clues that there has been evolution. Now, many anti-evolutionists recognize adaptation (moth colors in post-Industrial revolution England for a classic example), but do NOT see that as any real proof of evolution. Since the Bible mentions 4 legged crickets, ETC. (I think the point gets made with even one example, and I find cricket easier to type than katydid or grasshopper), and I suggest it would be decptive for the given Word of God to call something a cricket when it isn't, or describe a cricket inaccurately. If I am granted this - and this, regardless of the fossil record - then we have, perhaps, a Biblical indication of evolution, without using the fossil record against which some have a preferred list of arguments. frankly, I think the fosil record, and seethe of species - evolution, if you will - adds far more to God's glory than a simple here-ya-go, take it or leave it creation. but that's just me :-)