MonteZuma

SeVeR. You know a lot about this topic. I'm impressed. I agree with everything you and Ducky (and MH) have said.

Species evolve according to a combination of environmental factors and random genetic mutations that give individuals a competetive advantage in survival or reproduction. There is no up or down.

In your first post, you said: If it is proven to occur then teaching evolution as a fact is not dumb. Intelligent design 'theory' is concerned with the origin and 'evolution' of both life and the universe. What do you mean when you say "whether evolution is proven to be the origin of the universe"? The sentence doesn't make sense. If we are talking about an 'origin' then we must be talking about what happened before anything began to evolve. That is purely a discussion about creation - which is only one small part of the debate about intelligent design.

Backtracking a little - but this caught my attention. Not really. It would unscientific to assume that the die was weighted if you couldn't analyse the die. For example, you might also assume that all six sides of the die had the number 5. There also might be some issue !@#$%^&*ociated with the mechanism used to throw the die. A creationist might argue that there is a supernatural force at work. But the theory of evolution is based on much more evidence than just 100 throws of a dice. Every time a new method for testing evolution is invented (eg DNA profiling), the evolution 'theory' still stands. We know for a fact that genes are passed on through generations and that sometimes genes mutate to produce new inheritable traits - it happens every year with the influenza virus. This is fact - not theory. Evolution happens. If it didn't exist then we would never need to worry about bird flu.

Evolution happens. It has been proven. The point that you seem to be making is that evolution may not account for all of the diversity and/or complexity of life on earth - especially the complexity of human life. But on that score, there is a pretty convincing and continuous thread of fossil evidence that seems to show that we evolved from ape-like creatures - and that they evolved from simpler 4-legged mammals. Any convenient excuse that supporters of intelligent design come up with to discount the fossil record is not based on any scientific evidence - it is based on a set of scriptures and belief systems that were developed by people that had virtually no knowledge of geography, chemistry, geology, archaeology, paleantology. anthropology, astronomy, biology. etc, etc, etc. I'd much rather put my faith in a consensus formed by most modern-day academics than the opinion of an ancient mystic who heard voices in his head.

When you review the text, it is clear that the author meant six ordinary solar days. http://www.gotquestions.org/Genesis-days.html http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c002.html Reader's Digest summary: As in all areas of theology, God allows each believer to decide which side to take on a controversial topic. It must be noted, however, that the Scriptures are emphatically clear on this issue. The billions-of-years timescale estimated by modern scientific theories cannot be harmonized with the literal interpretation of the Bible by resorting to the misguided notion of a day-age.

Saddam's slaughter of Iraqis was no more or less mindless than the slaughter of native peoples in the Americas, Asia, Africa and Australasia by their colonisers. Saddam killed people for a reason - self interest - so did the colonisers. The fact that Indians were considered to be in a different 'group' to the early white settlers is irrelevant. Using your logic, Saddam could justify killing Kurds and Shi'ites(sp?) because they belong to a different group and he wanted their land..

Most criminals are opportunists. If access to guns becomes more difficult, fewer criminals will have guns and gun-related crime will fall. Some criminals will still have guns, but your overall chance of being killed or robbed with one will fall. Having a gun in your house does not protect you from criminals. In fact it can make you a target. Criminals like to steal guns. The idea that easy access to guns make society (or your home) a safer place is a fantasy.

I responded to that exact question in this thread about 50 or 60 posts ago. http://members.cox.net/mysigs/deadhorse.gif

I reckon most people support the effort in Afghanistan.

Why? If people think that their government is acting against their interests, people should have the right to protest. That is one of the most important things that democracy gives us. That kind of ended in the 70s with Vietnam. But fwiw, I agree with Mars. Most people that are anti-war are not anti-soldier. Sure. But I doubt that everyone that goes to Iraq is brave. Some service personnel in Iraq will never 'fight'. And some people that go to Iraq are there for selfish reasons that have nothing to do with protecting liberty. I reckon that most people in Iraq are ordinary people like me and you. Some of them are asked to do extraordinary things and make extraordinary sacrifices. That should be acknowledged and rewarded. Servicemen and women in Iraq should be supported. But the decision to send them there does not need to be supported. I doubt it. It is all around you. Anti-war does not mean anti-soldier.

In some countries/states, murder of a pregnant woman does not count as a double homicide. I reckon most of us (pro and anti) agree that: - "It's sad when abortion is used as a form of birth control."We all agree that unwanted pregnancies should (ideally) be avoided in the first place. - late-term abortions are ugly and undesirable The main controversy relates to whether or not 'early-term' abortions should be allowed for unwanted pregnancies. I reckon we have a stalemate on that score. So the next logical question is: Should one group of people (the antis) be allowed to impose their will on another group of people (the pros). I'd be interested to see where the discussion can go on that score only - coz otherwise this debate is just a dead horse flogging contest. My view is that there is not a general consensus either against or in favour of early-term abortions on demand. In such cases, the desire of the individual should take precedence over the desires of special-interest groups with alternative views. Therefore I am pro-choice.

I think there is enough evidence to prove that evolution occurs. I also think that there is enough evidence to prove that the Earth is very, very old (natural features like Ayers Rock and the Grand Canyon kind of shove that fact in your face). Whether or not a supernatural being had a hand in 'creation' or evolution is something that the individual has to decide themselves (there is no proof at all of a supernatural being). I find it impossible to believe that humanity and everything else on Earth was created about 6,000 years ago. I think that religious teaching has no place in public schools, except as a voluntary 'scripture' class. Religious alternatives to natural selection theory, big bang, etc, etc can be taught in scripture class.

Hi S!@#$%^&*. Good to see you here As far as the US is concerned, I agree, but it can also be argued that the Fourteenth Amendment comes into play. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States....nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Awwwwwwww

There is a stigma attached to single-parenthood and/or being poor. Being a teenager just makes things worse because there will be nothing else in life to define who they really are.

Often it is best if the father doesn't stick around. Fathers or mothers already do need to pay child support. I think that most divorced people, especially those with kids, would agree that their marriage was a mistake. Fair point, but any divorce-related stigma is bad for the child. I support anything that gives the child the best opportunity. Sometimes there is no way out and divorce is the 'least worst' option. Perhaps there are instances where the parents could work things out? If that is the case, then I think society should encourage mediation or couples counselling or whatever for the benefit of the child. But this type of thing should be implemented via education programs and incentives. Stigmatisation is bad. It fragments society in the same way that divorce and poverty fragments society. Good point. Maybe. I'm not positive that this is a muslim issue, but it might be, and the war on terror might be one of the indirect triggers. The school system might also be an indirect trigger. Most of the people involved in the riots are from poor countries. Some are refugees. I think they know that life can be tough. Although I agree that life in France may not be what they hoped and expected it to be. They may have been disillusioned. This could be another causal factor. Finding a job is usually stressful and tedious, but I have never found it hard to find a job. But some people need help (and I might too, one day). Immigrants are disadvantaged and need help. They don't want to live off welfare. Perhaps the French governmement needs to manage community expectations better? This might be another trigger. I think the reasons that things exploded in Paris are complicated. I think the solution is to offer more and better support to these communities. The fact is, most people that live in these communities are poor and were not involved in rioting. Most of these poor people just became victims in a new way - through vandalism or destruction of their property, or through fear. The way to manage this is to break the cycle of poverty that makes people feel victimised, angry and helpless. Telling them to stop complaining, get off their !@#$%^&*es and find work won't help.

Yeah. I'm bad!@#$%^&*. I dunno. I reckon if parents want a divorce, then the family is dysfunctional, by definition, and this isn't good for the kids. If the parent's can't sort their problems out then it is a bad environment for kids. I agree that it can be a bad thing. Ideally, the parents would sort out their differences and put their kids first, but sometimes this is impossible. I've seen a lot of kids in single-parent families (and my parent's are divorced too). In my case, I dropped from being in a working class family to poverty overnight. Nevertheless, I think it was probably the best thing that could have happened under the cir!@#$%^&*stances. Ideally I would have had two perfect parents/role models all my life, but I didn't. The reality is, if my parents stayed together I would probably be stealing cars and stomping on kittens for fun about now. Agreed (with this and the rest of your post). But money isn't everything. Living with an alcoholic parent, a drug addicted parent, an abuser, a psychopathological parent - or whatever - is worse than living in poverty.

I believe Divorce is likely to take away one of the above. Living in a dysfunctional two-parent household does not make things better. It can make things worse.

I think that you have no idea what it is like to be poor in a wealthy country. I think you have no idea what it is like to not have a strong social support network. I think that is why you find it so easy to write these people off. No. There should be no stigma attached to divorce. The kids of divorced parents have a hard enough time coping with their family situation as it is. To encourage more stigmatisation is unhelpful in the extreme. Does catholocism teach you to hate women? In every western nation, women are given preference over men in custody battles. That is because when it comes to the crunch, women are generally better at raising kids. It is better that a child grow up in a single parent home than in a severely dysfunctional nuclear family. The way to fix that is not to stigmatise divorce. Divorce is an important ins!@#$%^&*ution. I know people that have suffered severe psychological damage from emotional and physical abuse because the mother wanted to avoid the stigma attached to single parenthood. This tells me that you have never lived in a community with high unemployment, poverty and ethnic difference. There is a lot of injustice. Where planners in France and almost everywhere else in the first world have gone wrong is in allowing the formation of enclaves and ghettos based on ethnicity or wealth. These create a perception that the residents are second-class citizens. That makes people feel stigmatised and angry. It is easy to find a job when you are white, middle-class, psychologically and physically healthy, well-educated with a healthy family support network. Take any of those things out of the equation and it becomes exponentially harder. Take out most or all of them and you're screwed. Poor communities are full of disadvantaged people.

Would you take me any more seriously if I had a pic like this?http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/large/banana-11100.jpg

Interesting viewpoint. If your basic premise is right, then I'd argue that the problem isn't too many programs. The problem might be too many inappropriate or ineffective programs. Having said that, I'm not convinced you are right - yet. I'm not sure that it would be so easy for a new migrant to get a job. In recent years, riots have begun in several cities in several countries after incidents of perceived police abuse. This problem isn't unique to France. Huh? There are many countries that give equal or greater 'encouragement' for individuals to criticise the government. I doubt that people become paranoid about government, police and industry because they are given too much freedom. The kids that were killed were probably young troublemakers trying to avoid being busted. They didn't commit suicide. They just made a dumb move. A bunch of poor and angry people have used this as an excuse to vent their anger. Understanding this problem is about understanding why these people are angry. Free-speech is not the cause. Comments like this convince me that you are totally wrong and, in my mind, totally destroy any faith that I originally had that you might have a valid point. In any case, you've convinced me of what I think is the real cause of the riots - social stigma. Many of the people that live in the affected communities are poor muslim immigrants or refugees. I'm not sure if divorce is any more problematic in their community than it is anywhere else, but they suffer from all sorts of social stigma. They are isolated religiously, economically, educationally, racially and culturally from the rest of French society.

So you are worried about men persuading/bullying women into having abortions, but you aren't worried about anti-choice activists who want to take away her right to choose altogether. Double standard. I'm sure that men do sometimes put pressure on women to have abortions. I'm also sure it works both ways, with women pressuring their husbands partners to have or not to have kids. Most women aren't weak and powerless victims that can't make their own decisions. They have no rights. Who (edit...or what) do you think gave them these rights?

Everybody makes bad choices. You speak as though sex resulting in an unwanted pregnancy is a crime that should be punished. In our society we don't hold people accountable for all of their mistakes. If you are badly injured in a car accident, the doctors will try to ensure that you continue to live a normal life, even if it was your fault. If you play sports and dislocate a shoulder, someone will put it back in for you. If you leave the iron on and set fire to your house, the fire brigade will try to rescue your home and your possessions. Why should we be unforgiving of women that get pregnant? In any case, whether women give birth or have an abortion, they will have to live with the consequences of their decision for the rest of their life. I can understand why people would choose not to have an abortion for an unwanted pregnancy. What I can't understand is why some people feel it is important that they take away the option from other people. How does the decision affect you? How does it affect anybody else aside from the pregnant woman or her partner/husband? I'm sure that this is where the 'right to life' or 'future life' arguments comes into play, but why do you care more about the future life of an un-named, un-feeling, un-thinking and un-wanted embryo than you do about the future life of a living, breathing, thinking woman? Having an abortion is nothing like blowing your nose. It is traumatic.

On a serious note.... A sleeping person has legal rights, can sense stimuli (sentience), has awareness (the most basic form of consciousness), has subjective experiences and a capacity to reason (a mind/thinking), can feel pain and suffer, has an immediate capacity for self-awareness (a higher level of consciousness) and can be aware of the environment and the existence of others (a sense of place) An embryo has none of these things. I guess this is a legal debate as much as it is a moral debate. Should an embryo have a right to life. I say no. I say the mother's right to choose whether or not she wants to be pregnant is more important than any moral obligation we may feel towards an embryo.

Maybe I'm missing the point, but I don't think there is anything to prove. Our disagreement isn't about a point of fact which can be proven or disproven. We disagree about a moral stance. Fetuses aren't people and they don't have rights. Women do. Edit: I don't support the abortion of fetuses in the latter stages of development.