The Lorax

I'm guessing he meant "species of organism" and left it at "organism" for short. Whale evolution is fascinating stuff.

As a fellow in the sciences (trained in bio and ecology), I completely agree with you! Personally I think the best proof of God is the amazing improbability that we live in a universe hospitable to life. The only way to dismiss this improbability is with the idea of infinite universes, which I personally do not believe. And which it takes great FAITH to believe. I take it this comment is aimed at me. Well, I would dispute that atheists are enemies of God, as one cannot be an enemy to something if you don't believe it exists. And I "align" myself with these people only on the issue of evolution...because they happen to be right about it. If there were any other theistic evolutionists here I would align myself with them, but it appears I'm the only one. I pray that YECs come to understand evolution, even if they don't end up accepting it, and I pray that atheists come to accept God.

Good answer. If I recall correctly, there is a lace plant that has 40 times more DNA than the human genome. Genetic information can be quantified by the amount of DNA, but the complexity of an organism cannot be quantified so easily, if at all.

The micro/macro dichotomy strikes me as 100% arbitrary and subjective. I mean, who decides how "big" a mutation has to be before it is considered macroevolutionary?

Of course. I am a Christian and therefore I am also, by necessity, a creationist. I should have specified "young Earth creationist." Not quite. There are all different kinds of education; here I am speaking mainly about scientific education at or above the tertiary level. And again, I'm talking about young Earth creationists, not creationists in general. Many YECs--I've talked with a few in this very forum--see college as a brainwashing experience. That saddens me, but ultimately only they will suffer from that false belief.

Interesting guess, but I defer to the dictionaries on this one. I looked it up and "egghead" is just an anti-intellectual epithet, meaning it is used to mock educated people. Creationists are always looking for ways denigrate the value and importance of education, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised that they have sunken to playground insults.

I thing this subject is the most boring subject on the planet. What subject? Intelligent design? Evolution? ...Egg head. I don't think I've heard that name since middle school. What exactly is it supposed to mean? Is it just a pejorative term for educated people?

I could ask the same about evolution. Go for it. If the theory of evolution had to be summarized in a single statement, it would be something like this: "Organisms change over time as a result of natural selection and random drift acting on allele frequencies within populations." How does the law of gravity agree with the Word of God? They are all around. We can't possibly see from God's point of view. We're trapped in three dimensions, for instance, and we can't escape time. As humans, scientists can only work within the limits of instrumental observation.

Insightful post. I hope someone on the ID side takes a stab at your questions Ben. What is the ID hypothesis? What data would support that hypothesis? How would you look for that evidence?

This from the man who supports a candidate who supports wasting lives in the womb. Don't slander me. I don't support wasting lives in the womb. Btw, kat, if you've been wondering why I've been ignoring your posts lately, it is because of lines like this. Clearly you don't know what my position is on abortion and you haven't even made an effort to learn what it is. Maybe you forgot, but a couple weeks ago you were demanding that I explain my views, and now that I have, you can't even be bothered to read them. Unbelievable.

Poor phrasing on my part. Should read, when "military personnel from soldiers to generals." Edited. Which should I believe: LadyC's opinion or the official reports by the CIA? The thought of wasted life is so tragic that it is hard to bear. But when you die fighting for a cause that was misguided, in a war that was wrong, then your life has been squandered. It was not squandered by you--you were honorably serving your country--but by the liars and the crooks who planned, pushed for, and started the war. This truth is so tragic, repulsive, and enraging that it is hard to face. I wish you could talk to my friends who have been to Iraq, LadyC. Most of what I believe about Iraq comes from them. My friend Jay, who worked artillery and is now a sergeant, said to me, "Ask any soldier in Iraq why we are there, and they can't tell you."

When personnel from soldiers to generals concede that a war was a mistake from the beginning, and that mistake cost lives, then those lives were wasted. That is, unfortunately, the truth of the Iraq War. Even the CIA admits that the war has made our nation and the world LESS safe. When 4,000 American lives are spent to make the America and the world LESS safe, those lives were wasted.

4,000 American lives valiantly and unselfishly given for freedom and the security of our great nation. Valiantly and unselfishly given, to be sure, but selfishly and mindlessly wasted by our government. Make no mistake, Ovedya, I have the utmost respect for our men and women in uniform.

4000 American lives wasted. Three of my friends went to Iraq. I prayed for them and I thank God two have returned safely. (Mike is still there.) As soon as they returned, they pledged to join the IVAW (Iraq Veterans Against the War.) If you don't know what to think about the war, just ask the soldiers.

I'm not sure how he would go about championing anything from the pews. I completely agree with everything you've said here. A good note to end on, for me. (My gf just flew up from LA and I'm going to pick her up at the airport, so I don't imagine I'll be on the forum this weekend.) Peace

No, it's not. Rev. Wright preached uplifting, Christian sermons for decades. His vitriolic remarks were few and far between. You've flipped the truth on its head. You paint it like Rev. Wright preached hatred every Sunday, with an occassional Christian remark. If you're satisfied living in a world of lies, then so be it, Butero. But it's sad to see a person delude themselves like you have, and it's even sadder to see them use their delusion to launch attacks on another Christian, on a pastor, no less. Very sad.

You are putting words in a man's mouth and making false allegations. That's slander, not civil discussion. Barack Obama did not say that "white people, in general, are oppressing blacks." Nothing even close to that.

Wright led countless sermons about forgiveness and healing. Did you know that?

Huckabee is a "moderate" Republican? What planet are you living on?

No he didn't. You're just reaffirming the obvious fact that either you haven't listened to Obama, or you have listened only with the utmost bias against him. Get your facts straight and quit slandering people.

Ah. Point taken. I think making rulings against "vulgar" things is a slippery slope. Also, I think a lot of "vulgar" things should be still be addressed in the public domain. To say you can't have a word or picture on a shirt is also to ban it from discussion, and I don't think that helps anyone. The Iraqis who resisted Saddam, were they rebelling against God? No, it was enclosed. I don't think I would have been comfortable with clothed people watching me. It's strange, but the nice thing about a public bath house is that EVERYONE is nude, so no one can judge. Everyone is vulnerable and yet everyone is respectful. Reminds me of a certain annual party at college. Every year, people hyped up the Naked Party as being the craziest party on campus, but it always turned out to be pretty tame and respectful. Even cordial. Music was blasting and everyone was bare from head to toe but they were all just talking, eye to eye. It wasn't awkward nor was it some kind of drunk orgy. Nudity actually brought out the best in people. Who'da think? Haha. But apparently some sandals and shoddy swimsuits do. ...At least, that's what they TOLD us.

Maybe droopy pants are just a guy thing--something guys do to be cool among one another. Before my current girlfriend housebroke me, I did a lot of "guy things" that my female company would have thought repelling (e.g., belching the alphabet). I guess I just find it hard to believe that droopy pants are actually a sexual invitation. I really doubt it. I think that's more likely to be sexual. The female rear is sexualized by our culture whereas the male's isn't, so much. You don't think this is protected by freedom of expression? Sure, but rebelling against authority isn't the same as rebelling against God. Who knows if these boys are Christian? I would probably feel the same way if I hadn't been to Austria, where I was utterly desensitized to nudity. Went to a huge public bath where you CAN'T wear clothes because the sauna could melt them! It was awkward at first but by the end of the week I loved it. HOWEVER, in Austria people are generally in good shape. Not so here. I'm bothered by nudity and obesity only if they are combined. Eww.

Fabric I can deal with. The fat guts of a hairy old men, topless on the beach, I can't deal with! OK. From what it sounds like, healingoil, you're offended simply by the idea of underwear. Weird. I really can't relate to that, since I don't see anything offensive about underwear.

Lady, if you can't stand seeing bare butts, I sympathize. Nudity is illegal and frankly no one should have to see a stranger's bare behind. But what's wrong with underpants? It's just fabric. Or is it the idea of underpants that offends you? If that's the case, I think you'll have to live with it. Heck, every day in the summer I run 10 miles in nothing but runner's shorts, which are basically tiny underpants with netting, and no one seems to mind! I also disagree that showing your underpants is sexual. I understand that droopy pants are pretty much a male trend, but I don't think any girl would be attracted to that. Maybe I'm just not in touch with the hearts of today's urban youth.

That's the majoritarian way of going about it. Now, if the majority willed that nudity should be legal, would you complain? Given that this ruling would be on the state not the federal level, anything could happen. That's something people are entitled to do. Wearing red lipstick and tight clothes are advertising the same thing. Should they be illegal? Do we need fashion police to prohibit people from sending out "silent sexual invitations"? You know, IRAN has something like that. Are you really so put off by droopy pants that you think the government should intervene tell people HOW to dress?