Morning Read: Creationism offered as science in Canton
The Watertown Daily Times reports on the sermon preached over the weekend in Canton by noted Creatioism advocate Jonathan Sarfati.
“You can’t compromise on Genesis,” Mr. Sarfati told his audience. “It’s like having an instruction manual where the first page is torn out.”
Mr. Sarfati, and his group, Creation Ministries International, believes that the creation of the universe as described in Genesis is literal fact — God created the world and all its inhabitants in six days — and that evolution is impossible.
A slew of PowerPoint slides helped him make his point Sunday morning. Fossil records, he said, are proof of a great flood, as described in the story of Noah and his ark in Genesis. So is the topography of the Grand Canyon.
And DNA is no proof of evolution, Mr. Sarfati said.
DNA is like a book, he said, and “a book requires an author.”
Sarfati’s talk drew extra attention because it was held in Canton’s public high school.
School officials noted that they were simply allowing the space to be used for a public event, as their policy dictates, without sanctioning the message.
1) you can’t know if the rate of decay over time remained constant, because you weren’t there over the whole time period.
You can only assume it remained constant.
2) you can’t know if the rock was contaminated or not. You can only assume it was not.
3) The remaining parent-daughter ratio assumes that there was a certain amount to begin with.
JDM, you are simply parroting statements from evolution denying websites. Have you bothered to look up the scientific explanations to those statements? Does it bother you at all that Steve Austin, a trained geologist, based the dating of a rock obtained from Mt. St. Helens using a method he knew was inappropriate? That’s called intellectual dishonesty – not a good Christian trait.
I just noticed that Sarfati uses the same dishonest Mt. St. Helens example in his talks.
yeah, PNElba, I read it. Looks like you got me on that one!
Does it change what I believe about the age of the earth? No.
Does it make you believe what I believe? Probably not.
Interesting discussion, though.
i think it’s safe to say that in matters like this, basically no one ever has their mind changed.
but this does pretty clearly strike a blow at the credibility of mr. sarfati.
I wasn’t trying to “get” anyone. I’m just trying to understand why someone would ignore scientific evidence in favor of a belief.
HT- I square my not wanting special privileges with my anti- gay MARRIAGE (not civil union) quite simply. It is my belief that the term marriage in North America is one man, one woman. Not 3 men and 4 women, not a man and horse, 2 men, a woman and her father, etc. Some people believe the word marriage refers to any committed relationship. I don’t. You want to call it a civil union, fine. Issue a license stating they have a contract, fine. My whole opposition isn’t about alternative relationships, it’s about shredding another American/Western tradition.
As for Mr Bullards statements rising to religious bigotry, they basically equal or go further than my opposition to the gay agenda and I have been labeled a bigot. Hypocrisy? What else do you call it when someone lays out an argument noting the long period of time and change that our world has gone through (sorry, I’m not in the 10K years camp), admitting that much of this happened millennia before man came on the scene, how do you acknowledge that and yet complete discount even the possibility of intelligent design? As I believe you said to me in another thread,(paraphrased) sometimes we don’t recognize things because we aren’t intelligent enough to see it. We simply do not know for certain that intelligent design, call it God or whatever, played no part in this. I’m not a Biblical literalist. We don’t know what we don’t know. To be so arrogant and vain as to assume we have all the answers is just beyond hypocrisy to me, it’s laughable.
Mr Bullard- The above paragraph applies to your “But neither a book nor the watch simply appear from nothing.” also. I’m not a “creationist” in the sense you seem to think ALL creationists are. I don’t believe some of the things you lay out, but I also don’t display my hate and bigotry of anyone with a different belief system and belittle them for their faith. We simply do not know all there is to know. I’ve asked the question before, where did all the material of the Universe come from to create the Big Bang? Intelligent people say, it just was. Kind of reminds me of “I am.” Since we don’t know where it all came from of why the Big Bang happened or why the laws of physics seem to apply throughout the Universe and why there aren’t 3 legged people with 2 heads walking around today I have to assume there might be things our puny minds just can’t recognize or begin to comprehend.
I have one basic question when it comes to Intelligent Design. What does intelligent design have to do with how long creation has been around?
I just don’t understand why God would be in any rush to create anything if God is infinite and eternal. One can believe in Intelligent Design and still believe in an intricate, billions of years in the works, evolutionary model.
Do we judge the talent of any artist by how quickly they create a work of art? Why would anyone want to limit God to a speed test?
Pete:
Along the same lines, I find it a lot easier to believe Intelligent Design than to believe that we EVOLVED from an amoeba.
PNElba: I conceded your article without checking out the accuracy of the author, which is fine. However, I do put this question to you: How can an educated person believe we evolved from an amoeba?
Take into account the racist beginnings of evolution theory.
oh boy, bret.
i’ve been chewing over your first paragraph this morning, and i’ve come to the conclusion that it’s pathetic. it’s hypocrisy plain and simple. you just baldly “believe” that marriage is for heterosexuals. that’s all there is to it. that’s your reason. you think marriage is a special privilege that should be reserved for heterosexuals and not for homosexuals, just because. you favor treating homosexuals and heterosexuals differently. and this isn’t on some minor insignificant issue — it’s a big deal! pure hypocrisy.
as for the rest, when have you been labeled a bigot? and for saying what? you definitely haven’t been called a bigot in this or the previous thread (i checked!) — that kind of language has been targeted at jdm, who is in fact a homophobe. if you’re referring to any other threads, it’d be great if you could provide links, but i understand that’s probably not going to happen.
your “opposition to the gay agenda” — what does that really mean? what do you mean by the gay agenda? and what does your opposition to it consist of?
regarding james’s comments, you’re frankly continuing to exhibit very poor reading comprehension. i’ve reread all of james’s comments on this thread, and he has very consistently argued for an evolutionist viewpoint (i.e. lots of changes have happened over a long period of time) vs. a creationist viewpoint (i.e. the universe, earth, and life on it were created in essentially their current form a relatively short time ago). but nowhere whatsoever does he say anything to rule out the possibility that the process was influenced or predetermined in some way by god or some kind of higher power. that’s outside the realm of what he’s talking about. you’re just putting words in his mouth and frankly owe him an apology.
JDM,
You find it difficult to believe “that we EVOLVED from an amoeba?”
I don’t understand when one considers how we evolve from an egg and sperm over the course of nine months.
An oak tree evolves from an acorn. A tropical depression evolves into a hurricane. A moth becomes a butterfly. Evolution happens every day in thousands of ways.
You start with a letter, add a few more and you form a word. Add some more words and you have a sentence. Sentences form paragraphs and eventually you could even have a book, such as the Bible.
It takes time for something to become what it eventually becomes. It isn’t what it becomes until it becomes what it is. The Bible didn’t become the Bible until all the books in it were completed and agreed upon.
Does a little bit of steel and plastic become a car? Eventually they could become a car if all the material is processed and refined correctly, and the parts are eventually assembled into the final product.
Oh, no! See where you have forced me to go now? The same might be said of that little egg and sperm. I could argue a human being doesn’t exist until the evolutionary process within the woman is completed and she gives birth to a finished product.
Now I know why some people don’t like the idea of evolution.
Also though there is a difference in observed evolutionary processes and making assumptions about what evolved from what and how and when.
Evolution can be observed it has been observed in the lab it is not just implied from the fossil record.
Just because evolution is a sound theory does not mean it can say anything about how human beings came about, that would still be pure speculation. It certainly can say nothing about God or creation or about how existence came into being.
JDM, good question. First I do not “believe” in evolution. I accept the scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution. I leave “belief” for religion. Second, I really don’t know where to begin. There is just so much evidence for evolution. Did you ever read “Origin of Species”? To me, the simplest evidence for evolution is the fact that all living organisms use DNA to encode genes and those genes are all read with the same exact genetic code. It’s not a very big step from there to see that we share genes with many different animals and plants. We share some of the same enzymes an amoeba uses. We share the same method of method of producing energy – glycolysis. Did you know we share 50% of our genes with a cabbage. Unfortunately, you have to study a bit of genetics to understand much of the most modern evidence for evolution.
PNelba and Pete:
You still have the chicken-and-egg problem.
Pete: The illustration of the sperm and egg is great – but who started it? It’s nice that it works, but it didn’t happen by chance. It happened by intelligent design.
PNelba: I do know the theory of evolution, which is why I wonder why anyone would subscribe to it. It has “chance” and “probability” as its basis, and the odds that it gives of liklihood that are not anything I would want to bet on.
The fact that you “believe” in something with such a low probability of actually happening demonstrates that “faith” is what you have, just like me.
JDM, you only have it half right, so you have a bit to go before you can claim you understand the theory of evolution. The chance part is the random mutation of gene. We have 3 billion base pairs of DNA that are replicated repeatedly every day. Is it any wonder that mistakes can be made during replication? These genetic changes do not anticipate the needs of a species. However, natural selection is far from random. If the mutated gene helps a species survive better (like the sickle cell gene), that gene will continue to be transmitted.
HT- I believe the DEFINTION of marriage cannot be extended to other than one man and one woman. That’s not hypocrisy, it’s an opinion of a definition as I see it. That’s not giving a special privilege to one group (heterosexuals), it’s just what the word has meant for several hundred years in western culture. Marriage simply means one man, one woman, just as the word Hispanic does not apply to people with an entirely Scandinavian background, “blue” does not apply to the color “red” and fast does not mean stopped. I don’t believe marriage applies to any other condition than one man, one woman. The man can be gay and the woman a lesbian and they can marry, so sexual orientation simply isn’t part of the equation, but the number and sex of the participants- one man, one woman. I hope that clears it up for you.
Been called a lot of names here, bigot, homophobe, idiot, racist, etc. I don’t keep count.
The gay agenda is lobbying for special privileges for gays and using law to force acceptance of their lifestyle as “normal” and using political correctness to label anyone who feels uncomfortable or feels that homosexuality is wrong as a “homophobe”. That’s the agy agenda I dislike. I don’t much care for anyone trying to force their values and opinions on other people.
Now, you’re turn to “square things”- how do you square Mr, Bullards statement, “…I didn’t attend but beforehand I read in the Watertown Times that the title of the lecture was “Leaving Your Brain at the Church Door”. A pretty apt description of belief in creationism.”, with your “…but nowhere whatsoever does he say anything to rule out the possibility that the process was influenced or predetermined in some way by god or some kind of higher power. “??? I don’t think any apologies are needed, but if they were, it wouldn’t be my job.
whoopdy-do bret, you’ve chosen to define marriage in a way that bakes in the special treatment. let me emphasize: you’ve chosen that. it doesn’t have to be that way. lots of people have understood plural marriage as, well, marriage. you make it sound like this is something that descends on you from above, whereas you’re actively choosing it. and in my opinion you’re a hypocrite for it.
i think you really misrepresent the gay rights movement. it’s not at all about special treatment. i will certainly grant you that the movement has advocated for protection under hate crimes laws. this isn’t something i’ve thought hard about, but my opinion is that it would be better not to have hate crimes laws at all. that aside, however, if you’re going to have hate crimes laws, then homosexuals should definitely be protected under them.
but aside from hate crimes, what special privileges is the gay rights movement agitating for? yes, the movement wants to promote homosexuality as “normal,” because it is — of course, not in the sense that anywhere near a majority of people are homosexual, but in exactly the same way that it’s normal to be left-handed.
regarding james, i mean, huh??? how do the two quotes you’ve included not square? here, i don’t think i said it so badly the first time, so let me just repeat myself:
i’ve already criticized the quote of james that you’ve recalled here for its disrespectfulness, but the point of it is that he rejects the idea that the earth and life on it were created in a flash (or in six days, or what have you) some 6 or 10 thousand years ago. rather, he believes that the universe was created billions of years ago, and that life slowly evolved since then. there’s nothing in there about the absence or presence of a creator — for example, he leaves plenty of room for a creator to have started the process all those billions of years ago, and to possibly have set things up so that the way they’ve ended up was predetermined or evitable, which some might like to call intelligent design.
does that just not make any sense? i feel like i’m plowing the sea here.
What does gay marriage have to do with creationism offered as science?
let me put it another way, bret. you seem to be equating creationism — which i’m pretty sure james understands to mean that the universe, earth, and life on it were created in essentially their current form a relatively short time ago — with intelligent design. if so, that’s a mistake.
PNelba:
Let’s not get condescending. I do totally understand evolution, and you left something out.
You are assuming that you start with DNA already created. (that supports intelligent design)
How did you get from nothing to the DNA?
This is science? or faith?
The mathematical probability of a SINGLE CELL coming about by chance is 1/10340,000,000, the fraction 1 divided by 1 followed by 340 million zeros!
And then this cell must live long enough to reproduce.
And then the reproduced cell must live long enough to do the same.
And then more “accidents” must happen to cause more complexity.
And then more “accidents” must happen to cause more complexity.
I can see why you skipped this part.
JDM, I was not being condescending. You did indeed state only half of the premise of evolution. Now you are confusing abiogenesis with evolution. Which do you want to discuss – abiogenesis or evolution? You do not “totally understand” evolution. The proof is the arguments against evolution you put forth.
I’ve never heard any scientist say that an entire cell evolved at once. Then what are chances of a protein molecule appearing by chance. Not very high if it were by chance – but it’s not by chance, it’s by chemistry. This makes calculating the odds sort of meaningless. But again, this has nothing to do with evolution.
PNelba:
You are dodging the question and the answer.
You cannot have DNA, or a living cell, in your scientific world except it got there by 1) extremely impossible odds (1 in 1 over 340 million zeros) or by intelligent design.
Abiogenesis theories include such things as “spontaneous generation of life from non-life” .
Sounds like a faith issue to me either way.
How do explain life coming from non-life, scientificallly.
pne,
It is fascinating to me how our point of view influences our thinking even around objective facts.
For me this fact that you pointed out:
“To me, the simplest evidence for evolution is the fact that all living organisms use DNA to encode genes and those genes are all read with the same exact genetic code.”
is awe inspiring, it seems very much like what our God would do, how cool is that, that all life forms are connected physically in this way, it would certainly support the idea that we all have one Creator that we are all connected and we are connected to this Garden this little island of habitability among millions of miles of nothingness; that God gave us called earth.
Evolution supports the theological force of scripture that we have a God of Life, that life itself is good and is more powerful than the darkness that surrounds us. But this would also go to JDM’s point that the probability of any of this even happening is very very low almost to the point of unbelievability, yet here we are!
JDM, I am not dodging any issues. You now seem to want to discuss abiogenesis rather than evolution -OK.
You say:
In logic this is called “an argument from ignorance” (no it doesn’t mean I’m calling you ignorant). What you are saying is that you cannot explain or even imagine how a cell could have come into being – so it couldn’t have happened. It doesn’t really matter however, because no one believes a cell just popped into existence.
The “odds” calculations you are mentioning are flawed. Those odds are caculated using sequential trials, rather than the millions or billions of simultaneous trials that were likely happening. Simultaneous trials significantly reduces the odds.
The second flaw in the odds calculation, related to the first, is that there is an assumption that it takes 10*340 trials to “make” a cell. That’s not how probability works. It could happen on the 100th trial or the millionth trial. You can prove this by flipping 4 coins. The chances that 4 heads come up is 1/16. That doesn’t mean you have to do 16 trials to get 4 heads to come up. It could happen on any of the 16 trials.
How do you explain life coming from non-life? With much difficulty, but it can be studied and there are plenty of theories and hypotheses that can be tested that do not involve intelligent design.
Now let me ask you a question. Where did god come from?
God always was.
I know it is an answer that transcends our knowledge. That is the whole idea.
Now, here is the real crux. I believe that one day, after I die, I will come up from the grave, and live, much the same way I am living today. Not a ghost. Not a spirit. But the same me that you see today. and forever.
I do think there is a scientific equivalent of that.
Excuse me. I meant, “I don’t think there is a scientific equivalent of that”
Mervel, evolution does not support the theological force of scripture to someone who believes the Earth is only 10,000 years old.
But, but, but….. something can’t come from nothing, right?
BTW, I actually know the theological answer to my question about god. It was really a rhetorical question.
HT, we are both plowing the sea. You acknowledge you are trying or are in favor of changing the definition of marriage. “it doesn’t have to be that way.” But that’s the definition we’ve used for all of recent time in western culture. Simply by changing the term from marriage to civil union there would be no issue. All the rights and privileges afforded married parties would extend to the same sex couples. But that’s not what’s wanted. What’s wanted is force acceptance of THEIR VALUES and THEIR THOUGHTS and THEIR LIFESTYLE which is not equal treatment, it’s special treatment. That’s not even mentioning the “camels nose” effect- some here have said this is simply stupid, but if we alter the definition of marriage then everything goes. 2 men, 2 woman, 3 men and 8 women, a man and his dog, a woman and her fish, brother and sister…whatever feels good man. Some here have said that’s ridiculous, but it happens every time we change things.
And yes, it is my opinion, the meaning of the word as I understand it, not given from God. I have my opinion, you have yours, Bullard has his, JDM his. Are you suggesting we not discuss our differing opinions now or that on;y certain opinions are worthy? I would hope not.
Actually, I do have a scientific answer to resurrection.
It has already been done once. I guess that proves it.
There are two major presumptions being made here with regards to both Evolution and Intelligent Design.
One is that there ever was nothing. First there was nothing then Poof there was everything.
This idea doesn’t square with the idea of an infinite, eternal and perfect Creator God. If there is a god and God is the creator of all things, and is perfect meaning cannot add or subtract from, God has always created and this universe is but the latest of the infinite number of universes that came before it and will come after it.
Oh, how we humans like to think everything is about us and nothing else but us.
Two is the unspoken idea that chaos is not used by God to create. Chaos is the spice of life and creation itself. Chaos insures variety. Without it, everything would be the same. It is the oil used to ensure the transition from the current state to a future state.
We always need to remember the difficult words spoken by God to Job: “My thoughts are not your thoughts. My ways are not your ways.”
We seem to act and think as though God acts and thinks the way we do.
I have no idea but maybe, just maybe, the Christian teaching that we are made in the image and likeness of God is both true and not true in that we are talking about a mirrored image which is the exact opposite of the true image.
Anyway, we do have this tendency to think of God in human terms which, I believe, will never bring us to a true understand of God and the ways of God.
sorry to everyone that this is back on the topic of gay marriage, but i think this is important stuff….
bret, i’m changing the definition of marriage no more than the definition of “vote” was changed when suffrage was extended to women. would you suggest that the meaning of “voting” was changed when the institution was extended to women?
what would you have said to someone who claimed that there were no special privileges accorded to men by allowing only men to vote, because by definition “voting” is only something a man can do?
what on earth do you mean by “THEIR VALUES and THEIR THOUGHTS and THEIR LIFESTYLE,” and how does acceptance of that constitute special treatment? it sounds like you’re speaking in code words.
aside from the offense of comparing a higly committed, loving relationship between two adults to “a woman and her fish,” this “camel’s nose” argument makes no sense given what you wrote above: how would this be any less of a concern if you allowed only gay civil unions? (i think the answer is that: it’s zero concern either way, and zero is less than or equal to zero.)
you still owe an apology to james, by the way.
No, I owe James no apology. His bigoted statement stands. Should he retract the statement that belief in a higher power automatically proves you are STUPID…perhaps that will change things.
Yes, the definition of “vote” did change, thank you, that’s good example. And “only men” weren’t allowed to vote originally. Originally, in the US, only white, male landowners were allowed to vote. (I don’t agree with the white and male part but the landowner part has some merit today I think! picture a smiley here) As for what I would say, that was the “norm” at the time. Our perception is that it was unfair, at the time it wasn’t a special privilege, it just was the norm.
The gay agenda answer was in response to your question on “what gay agenda are you talking about?” Special privileges? How about the special privileges our AIDS Czar wants? “Jeffrey Crowley
AIDS Czar
Radical Homosexual.. A Gay Rights activist. Believes in Gay Marriage and especially, a Special Status for homosexuals only, including complete free health care for gays.”
Complete free health care for gays. Naw, that’s not special.
So comparing a woman and her fish to a loving relationship of 2 men or women is offensive, but changing the definition of that loving relationship isn’t? Or is it only a loving relationship when it’s a homosexual relationship? And if you can’t understand the difference between a marriage and a civil union then we truly are plowing the seas.
Pne
Christian scripture states that one day is as 1000 years and vice versa, time is shown in many places in scripture as relative, which is supported by current understandings of astro-physics. I just don’t get all wrapped up in time frames.
I just don’t see the big disconnects. But if there were I would by faith accept what is revealed in scripture and through the Holy Spirit as the final Truth.
Mervel, tell that to JDM. I’m an old Earther.
ahah, nah maybe he will convince me?
I just find it too hard plus I am not a scientist.
bret, this is frankly idiotic. james never said that belief in a higher power is stupid! why do you keep insisting on making things up like this? he did say that he thinks the idea that the earth and life on it were created in a matter of days a few thousand years ago is stupid. but that’s it. that doesn’t amount to him saying there’s no intelligent design, and it certainly doesn’t amount to him saying belief in god is stupid. why can’t you get your head around that?
why do you insist on imparting to him something much worse than what he actually said?
i guess we just disagree about “special privileges,” though i think you’re being ridiculous. of course it was a special privilege for men that they could vote and women couldn’t. what reason was there to exclude women from voting? it was prejudicial treatment pure and simple. if you actually believe in equality, then allowing one group to vote while another can’t is special treatment, full stop. the fact that it was the norm has no bearing at all. tradition is no excuse. there’s nothing intrinsic about the word “vote” that means it’s only for men, nor has there ever been. that’s just how things had been, though that’s no justification. so it goes with “marriage.”
why don’t you provide a link to the source of that quote about jeffrey crowley? looking at how badly you’ve misrepresented what james said, why should anyone believe any of your claims? let me say that i don’t support complete free health care for gays. in fact i’ve never heard anyone argue for that, never read about it anywhere, and i know a fair number of gay people! you’re obviously out of touch with the gay rights movement and are far more interested in making up bogeymen than in engaging with reality.
how is it “offensive” to extend the institution of marriage to gays? does that offend you? if so, why? (i mean, all you’ve really said so far is that your understanding of the word marriage derives from tradition, but that doesn’t sound like a good reason to get offended.)
i don’t understand what you’re getting at by saying “if you can’t understand the difference between a marriage and a civil union….” i do know that you punted on the camel’s nose thing, though maybe that’s what you’re getting at. but anyway, i think it’d be great if you could explain what you think the difference is between civil unions and marriages! and again, why is the camel’s nose thing a problem with marriage but not with civil unions?
myself, like seemingly many here, i’d be perfectly happy if there were a single legal institution for all hetero- and homosexual unions. i don’t care if you call it a “civil union” or “marriage” or whatever, as long as gays and straights alike are treated equally — which, to be explicit, means using the same terminology for both. on the other hand, there’s no way in a million years that there’s ever going to be a single legal institution called “civil unions,” because too many straights would see that as a downgrade to the status of their marriage.
finally, when you write
let me just say for the umpteenth time: get over the persecution complex!
HT- READ THIS- ” James Bullard says:
October 11, 2010 at 9:00 am
I didn’t attend but beforehand I read in the Watertown Times that the title of the lecture was “Leaving Your Brain at the Church Door”. A pretty apt description of belief in creationism.” A PRETTY APT DESCRIPTION OF BELIEF IN CREATIONISM.” Do I need to repeat it again? You believe in a creationism, a higher power, intelligent design then you’re an idiot.
As for the whole gay marriage thing, you think one way, I think another. You’re not changing my mind nor I yours. I don’t know why I argue the point anyway, your side will win eventually since our media and gov’t is full of gay rights sympathizers. I think extending special rights to any group is wrong, they think taking away traditional meanings, practices and institutions is good. Simple as that.
You’re a nice person judging from your posts, respectful and intelligent. I tire of trying to get you to allow me to have a different opinion. No hard feelings.
Could we please call a truce here? Yes, we have different opinions about this, that and the other thing. Isn’t that why we come here?
If you enjoy playing with words as I do, you know that some words and phrases push the buttons on hot button issues. When you see that happen, I think it is best to step away and admit there will always be disagreements on certain issues, such as gays, creation, abortion, etc.
I try to keep the following in mind. It is entirely possibly all of us are wrong about almost everything and that is okay as long as we don’t exclude anyone from being a full fledged human being just because we have a disagreement with the other.
bret,
you’re conflating creationism, intelligent design, and belief in a higher power. that’s a mistake. that’s been your mistake all along. they’re three different things. saying you think creationism (i.e. the idea that the earth and life on it were created a few thousand years ago and have remained essentially the same since) is stupid, which is what james did, says nothing about the other two. you can think creationism is stupid but totally believe in god, and totally believe that evolution was guided by or dictated by intelligent design. james said creationism is stupid, but he said nothing remotely pejorative about the other two. you continue to put words in his mouth.
regarding gay marriage, well obviously we do think different ways. and i do agree that my side is going to win eventually — because we’re right! the lack of equality for gays and lesbians is, in my opinion, the most egregious injustice in our society today. and that’s why i argue against it. to hasten the day when that injustice is brought down. this stuff is too important.
i can’t believe you’d characterize yourself versus the gay rights movement as
i mean, NO! it’s not simple as that. totally wrong. the gay rights movement wants the same rights as everyone else, equal rights, and granting the institution of marriage to gays is in no way a “special right” — it in no way supersedes what heterosexuals have. and the gay rights movement doesn’t think that taking away traditional meanings, practices and institutions is good — the movement thinks that taking away traditional meanings, practices, and institutions which are unjust, unfair, and prejudicial is good. it’s deeply unfair of you to characterize it that way.
i don’t mean any hard feelings to you either. i disagree with you passionately, and i think your anti-gay-equality rhetoric contributes to blatant injustice. you’re entitled to your opinions, but of course if you want to put them forth in a public forum like this then you’re opening them up to criticism.
HT, I don’t see how you can separate creationism from belief in God/a higher power/intelligent design. “Intelligent design” is a politically correct term for GOD, or whatever people think God means. The word God makes people nervous so a few years back someone coined the intelligent design phrase. It sort of gives a broader application to the idea than just “God created the heavens and earth”. Sort of allows for little green guys with big brains too I suppose. If you want to think intelligent design automatically precludes creationism, fine, but you’re not using the same meanings as most people. Creationism has it’s varied meanings to. I believe in creationism to an extent, not the 10K year old earth, etc, but I don’t believe this is all chance. Either way Mr. Bullard thinks I’m a fool for believing any of it. I left my brain at the door you see.
Your next to the last paragraph will be almost word for word the justification used in the courts when the first case involving 3 men and 7 women who want to get married takes place. Or a guy wants to marry his mother or brother or horse or dog or fish. It’s unjust, unfair, and prejudicial to deny them the same rights as any other people. When you win you will forever alter the definition of the word marriage. I expect the first case will be regarding plural marriages among fundamentalist Mormons.
And let me ask you, if the whole argument is about fundamentally fair treatment, then how can you support the progressive tax system? That’s not fair. But I believe in the past you’ve stated your support for the idea. How do you justify public assistance? It’s not fair for gov’t to take from one person and give to another. I don’t believe this is about equal treatment at all, this is about special treatment and political/social justice in particular areas and not others. If you argue for equal treatment then where is the support for equal treatment in other areas? Gun rights for instance? Tax policy? Private property rights? I realize you’re probably sitting there shaking your head, but to me this is all part of the larger picture. We make laws to “equalize” treatment/prices/income/housing/personal rights and when we do we always, always, ALWAYS end up harming someone else in some way. Truthfully, I don’t think gov’t has any right to limit who gets married, it’s none of their darn business. But since gov’t does stick their nose in then I see no need to morph the institution because sooner of later it WILL end up endorsing the idea of some truly whacky idea like 4 men, 7 women and a Pine tree all marrying. The law already has upheld the concept of people leaving money to cats and dogs, they have standing in the court. Do you really think there isn’t some lawyer someplace who couldn’t argue this? Corporations are “people”, right?
You see where this is going? It’s a lot more than just gay marriage.
bret,
please. of course you can separate these things. of course you can believe in god without believing in intelligent design or creationism. and of course you can believe in intelligent design without believing that the earth and life on it were created in essentially their current form 6,000 years ago (i understand that “creationism” is not a perfectly well-defined word which means different things to different people, but james has made it clear from his subsequent posts that this is the sense in which he understands the term, and i’ve taken great pains to always be clear about that in my own comments).
of course intelligent design doesn’t preclude creation! the logical dependencies are obviously that if you believe in creationism then you necessarily believe in intelligent design, and if you believe in intelligent design then you necessarily believe in some form of a higher power. but neither of the converses hold.
that’s why it’s a big logical error on your part to take such umbrage at things james never said.
you obviously aren’t worried about the three men and seven women either — why else would you support the legal institution of civil unions then? for the record, if allowing legal gay unions means that we legalize polygamy and all your other ridiculous scenarios too, then i’m fine with that. i’m not even sure how i feel about any of those things, but they’re obviously worth it.
i do support progressive taxation — i think that’s a perfectly good point to raise. the point of progressive taxation is that the fairness is predicated on ability to pay. and there’s also a fundamental fairness that i think a lot of people overlook in the way that the brackets are set up. everyone pays the same rate on the first $20,000 they make. everyone pays the same rate on the next $20,000 they make, if by skill and good fortune they make another $20,000. and so on. with this talk about raising taxes on incomes over $250,000, those tax increases will only be applied to the portion of income over $250,000. if you make $255,000, then the tax increase will only hit the $5,000 you’re over the threshold. maybe you don’t think this is a fair way to do things, but i don’t think it’s so bad. in some ways the fairest thing of all would be to have every person pay the same fixed amount, but i think that’d be horribly unworkable.
Okay, we have a fundamental disconnect. You’re seeing things from a perspective I don’t I guess. How you can make the arguments you do baffle me. For instance- everyone pays the same rate on the first 20K, yes. You fail to mention those that are earning that much are not only getting all they paid in back but probably even getting additional funds back they never paid in! Meanwhile the guy up the ladder is getting screwed over until he makes the kind of money that allows him to hire someone to hide it for him! What a great system. That’s not progressive, that offensive!
And you are confusing my statement that civil unions would be fine and my dislike of the idea of gay marriage. Change the wording from marriage to civil union and 90% of the blockage disappears. That’s what I meant, not that it solves my issue. Honestly, we talk about so many things here it gets confusing. But at least the responses are better than the moronic garbage I find on other sites.
Bret said: “fast does not mean stopped.”
Actually, depending on context, yes it does:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fast
10. Fixed firmly in place; secure: shutters that are fast against the rain.
So you choose to take things out of context purposely?
Nope. You just said this as if it were always a hard and fast fact. Not always the case.
Just as not everyone who believes in God believes in this particular version of creationism, or in creationism at all. Many versions of Christianity, many versions of religion, multiple definitions of fast.
Big world. Lots of interesting people and things and ideas in it.