David Mamet: "Why I Am No Longer A Brain Dead Liberal"

[xLIBREx]

Another member mentioned "Wag The Dog" in a thread and I remembered this Op-Ed piece by screenwriter David Mamet who received an Oscar nomination for Wag The Dog.

Hey, at least no one can claim The Village Voice is "right wing!"

http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-03-11/news/why-i-am-no-longer-a-brain-dead-liberal/1

[Stoner]

LOL, awesome. :thumbsup:

[ECW]

Sounds like a guy who wasn't brave enough to do a little self-analyzing until he was looking at meeting his maker and decided that he'd been living a life of stereotypes. Sounds all too familiar around these parts.

[xLIBREx]

Sounds like a guy who wasn't brave enough to do a little self-analyzing until he was looking at meeting his maker and decided that he'd been living a life of stereotypes. Sounds all too familiar around these parts.

I don't know what article you just read, but the opposite is true. He actually had the ability to step up and do some self-analyzing and he realized the things he just accepted as axiom weren't really true. Yes, it does sound familiar. It seems to be the standard MO amongst liberals.

It's funny, you often see people start out as liberals (when I say liberal I mean those who believe in socialist economic policy coupled with liberal social policy), then either through education or life experience they grow out of the socialist economic policy/big government is your friend ideology. What you never see is someone going the opposite direction. People don't become educated and gain life experience and then choose to be liberals.

So yes, there is definitely some "familiarity around these parts" and it has to do with our liberal friends here who aren't really debating. They are preaching about their religion. They are either unable or unwilling to take an honest look at their beliefs.

Ironically, your post only proves that point and puts an exclamation point on my post so thank you I guess?

[Trish]

I feel the need to stand up and shout "Hallelujah" and "Amen!"

[Mouth Full Of Teeth]

It's funny, you often see people start out as liberals (when I say liberal I mean those who believe in socialist economic policy coupled with liberal social policy), then either through education or life experience they grow out of the socialist economic policy/big government is your friend ideology. What you never see is someone going the opposite direction. People don't become educated and gain life experience and then choose to be liberals.

Ten second google search... (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02E0DE133DF930A35756C0A9629C8B 63)

[xLIBREx]

Ten second google search... (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02E0DE133DF930A35756C0A9629C8B 63)

Exceptions don't disprove the rule, especially exceptions that result in a $2,000,000 windfall. Pay me $2M and I'll run a liberal propaganda site too.

Not that anyone needs it here, but maybe I'll post a list of logical fallacies. Just for review of course.

[Mouth Full Of Teeth]

Exceptions don't disprove the rule, especially exceptions that result in a $2,000,000 windfall. Pay me $2M and I'll run a liberal propaganda site too.

Not that anyone needs it here, but maybe I'll post a list of logical fallacies. Just for review of course.

Falsifying a negative isn't committing a logical fallacy. I didn't force you to write in such unequivocal terms...

And the fact that he has doners for his site does not mean that he didn't honestly reform from the conservative postion. It sounds as if you do need that review of logical fallacies, after all...

[xLIBREx]

Falsifying a negative isn't committing a logical fallacy. I didn't force you to write in such unequivocal terms...

You are either interested in debating, or playing word games. Obviously I have to pick my words more carefully to take the word game option away from you.

And the fact that he has doners for his site does not mean that he didn't honestly reform from the conservative postion. It sounds as if you do need that review of logical fallacies, after all...

Your point is moot. Now that we have put your word game aside, exceptions don't disprove the rule.

[Mouth Full Of Teeth]

I haven't seen you define a rule...other than a false one...

[potter]

What I don't understand is why republicans cannot say anything about those who have different POVs without being hateful and insulting......

[xLIBREx]

I haven't seen you define a rule...other than a false one...

My statement was perfectly clear. As people become more educated and wiser to the world far more change from being liberal big government supporters to conservative (not neocon, but true small government conservatives and libertarians) than vis a versa. Other than the word game you attempted to turn my statement into in order to avoid dealing with it, there was no problem.

You simply don't like that reality but regardless of how much you don't like it, it won't change.

Let me know what you don't find perfectly clear about that and I will be more than happy to clarify it for you.

[xLIBREx]

What I don't understand is why republicans cannot say anything about those who have different POVs without being hateful and insulting......

Hmmm, I guess I am not reading the same message board as you are because after reading every new post since I have been a member here I would say the ad hominem ratio of liberals insulting conservatives vs vis a versa is at least 10/1.

FYI, proving another person's POV wrong is not being hateful. That may be where you are getting confused.

I do know liberals seem to be good at playing the victim once they have run out of argument. I wonder where we could find a good example of that?

[Mouth Full Of Teeth]

My statement was perfectly clear. As people become more educated and wiser to the world far more change from being liberal big government supporters to conservative (not neocon, but true small government conservatives and libertarians) than vis a versa. Other than the word game you attempted to turn my statement into in order to avoid dealing with it, there was no problem.

You simply don't like that reality but regardless of how much you don't like it, it won't change.

Let me know what you don't find perfectly clear about that and I will be more than happy to clarify it for you.

Actually, that wasn't your statement at all. The statement you made before was easily falsifiable because it made so many absolutes. Now, you are talking about trends and it happens "far more" often. That is not so easily falsifiable.

Here was your original statement:

It's funny, you often see people start out as liberals (when I say liberal I mean those who believe in socialist economic policy coupled with liberal social policy), then either through education or life experience they grow out of the socialist economic policy/big government is your friend ideology. What you never see is someone going the opposite direction. People don't become educated and gain life experience and then choose to be liberals.(emphasis added mine)

Can you now recognize the difference in your statements?

But, let me ask a couple of questions about your second statement. Would you say that college professors are more or less educated than the average person? Would you say that college professors are more or less likely to be liberal or conservative?

[Truth_and_Power]

My statement was perfectly clear. As people become more educated and wiser to the world far more change from being liberal big government supporters to conservative (not neocon, but true small government conservatives and libertarians) than vis a versa. Other than the word game you attempted to turn my statement into in order to avoid dealing with it, there was no problem.

You simply don't like that reality but regardless of how much you don't like it, it won't change.

Let me know what you don't find perfectly clear about that and I will be more than happy to clarify it for you.


You have made an assertion, and Mouth provided a counter example. What you have not done is provide *any* proof to back up your assertion. It's nice that you are so thoroughly convinced that you think anyone who disagrees is worthy of being talked down to, now it would just be nice if you brought something to the table besides hardened opinion.

[I Like Beer]

I don't know what article you just read, but the opposite is true. He actually had the ability to step up and do some self-analyzing and he realized the things he just accepted as axiom weren't really true. Yes, it does sound familiar. It seems to be the standard MO amongst liberals.

It's a good article and I'm a fan of Mamet. Speaking as a liberal, I have no problem with the article. Mamet was capable of analyzing himself and his beliefs, not easy to do, and came to a conclusion that was right for him. That's what we should all do and do it all the time.

We should question what we ourselves believe the most of all. Don't fear that process, but embrace it. If our own beliefs don't stand up to scrutiny, change them.

It's funny, you often see people start out as liberals (when I say liberal I mean those who believe in socialist economic policy coupled with liberal social policy), then either through education or life experience they grow out of the socialist economic policy/big government is your friend ideology. What you never see is someone going the opposite direction. People don't become educated and gain life experience and then choose to be liberals.

Well, I'm a big exception to that statement, so you'll have to remove the word 'never'. I went 100% in the other direction (from right to left) when I started to question what I believed and why.

So yes, there is definitely some "familiarity around these parts" and it has to do with our liberal friends here who aren't really debating. They are preaching about their religion. They are either unable or unwilling to take an honest look at their beliefs.

Singling out one 'side' only as doing that is disingenuous. There are copious examples of some members on the right doing that.

I see you're a Rush fan. Me, too.

[Truth_and_Power]

It's a good article and I'm a fan of Mamet. Speaking as a liberal, I have no problem with the article. Mamet was capable of analyzing himself and his beliefs, not easy to do, and came to a conclusion that was right for him. That's what we should all do and do it all the time.

We should question what we ourselves believe the most of all. Don't fear that process, but embrace it. If our own beliefs don't stand up to scrutiny, change them.


I agree with what you are saying, I just don't see the need to insult a lot of people in the process. I guess he's trying to sell copy, though.

[I Like Beer]

I agree with what you are saying, I just don't see the need to insult a lot of people in the process. I guess he's trying to sell copy, though.

Fair enough. I kinda glossed over that. :)

[Milton Bradley]

What I don't understand is why republicans cannot say anything about those who have different POVs without being hateful and insulting......


A lot of that hate is genuine, in my opinion.


You have to remember that a lot of these people have, or have relatives who have joined the military, and made a personal saccrifice to rid the world of communists, and fascists.


Now, the Left is stating to look a lot like the people their Grandparents, or Parents were going off to fight.


( In my opinion, the Right is starting to look a lot like the other afore mentioned group, but they don't seem to see the similarities, or share my opinion on this. )

[potter]

Hmmm, I guess I am not reading the same message board as you are because after reading every new post since I have been a member here I would say the ad hominem ratio of liberals insulting conservatives vs vis a versa is at least 10/1.

FYI, proving another person's POV wrong is not being hateful. That may be where you are getting confused.

I do know liberals seem to be good at playing the victim once they have run out of argument. I wonder where we could find a good example of that?


Look at the title to this thread and a dozen others. :ponder:

[xLIBREx]

Look at the title to this thread and a dozen others. :ponder:

What wrong with the title? You would have to be brain dead to believe the government is a better steward for you money than you are. You would have to be brain dead to believe the government is better equipped to provide for your health care than the free market. You would have to be brain dead to believe the government knows what's best to teach your children. You would have to be brain dead to believe it's smart to allow the government to disarm the populace. You would have to be brain dead to believe special class laws and protected class laws don't harm the people they claim to help besides denying people their rights to free association and property rights.

I'll stop there and let you just digest those, but by no means was that any more than just a sampler of why you would have to be brain dead to be a liberal. Oh, and just to save you the mistake of trying to point out the problems of "conservatives" in our government I'll simply let you know that there really are only a few "conservatives."

[aaronssongs]

What wrong with the title? You would have to be brain dead to believe the government is a better steward for you money than you are. You would have to be brain dead to believe the government is better equipped to provide for your health care than the free market. You would have to be brain dead to believe the government knows what's best to teach your children. You would have to be brain dead to believe it's smart to allow the government to disarm the populace. You would have to be brain dead to believe special class laws and protected class laws don't harm the people they claim to help besides denying people their rights to free association and property rights.

I'll stop there and let you just digest those, but by no means was that any more than just a sampler of why you would have to be brain dead to be a liberal. Oh, and just to save you the mistake of trying to point out the problems of "conservatives" in our government I'll simply let you know that there really are only a few "conservatives."

you must not have seen the matrix trilogy.

[PostmodernProphet]

What I don't understand is why republicans cannot say anything about those who have different POVs without being hateful and insulting......

it's because day after day we see liberals saying really, really stupid things.....and, when they are shown they are really, really stupid things, they say "Oh", and turn around and say the same really, really stupid things....

it just naturally follows that we think of liberals in terms like "brain dead".....

just look at this board....today we had somebody stupid enough to say "we didn't find no WMD"......it brings to mind images of drool dripping down their chin......

[Stoner]

it's because day after day we see liberals saying really, really stupid things.....and, when they are shown they are really, really stupid things, they say "Oh", and turn around and say the same really, really stupid things....

it just naturally follows that we think of liberals in terms like "brain dead".....

just look at this board....today we had somebody stupid enough to say "we didn't find no WMD"......it brings to mind images of drool dripping down their chin......

ROFLMAO! QFT!

[aaronssongs]

it's because day after day we see liberals saying really, really stupid things.....and, when they are shown they are really, really stupid things, they say "Oh", and turn around and say the same really, really stupid things....

it just naturally follows that we think of liberals in terms like "brain dead".....

just look at this board....today we had somebody stupid enough to say "we didn't find no WMD"......it brings to mind images of drool dripping down their chin......


http://thelonggoodbye.wordpress.com/2008/07/07/saddams-wmd-found-well-not-really/



In the south we’ve known for years that if walk around barefoot and get tar stuck to your heels you put a little kerosene on a rag and wipe it off. Just using a towel or soap and water does little good. WMD in Iraq is the tar on the Right’s brain. Every so often they rub it around, but they never clean it off. Maybe they just like having tar brain,



http://bp3.blogger.com/_PUoIm_a8734/SHIoil3JqxI/AAAAAAAAAhM/heolpN4aizg/s400/WMD-Believer.png

[xLIBREx]

As usual, liberals can't differentiate between conservatives and the modern Republican party. Who can blame them though? There are but a handful of true conservatives in Congress, the rest have learned all too well from the Democrats that spending money and growing the government is a political drug that few are immune to.

I blame the Republican Party for selling out and falling into the same trap the Democrats did long ago.

[PostmodernProphet]

http://thelonggoodbye.wordpress.com/2008/07/07/saddams-wmd-found-well-not-really/






http://bp3.blogger.com/_PUoIm_a8734/SHIoil3JqxI/AAAAAAAAAhM/heolpN4aizg/s400/WMD-Believer.png
see?....there goes another one.....

[I Like Beer]

it's because day after day we see liberals saying really, really stupid things.....and, when they are shown they are really, really stupid things, they say "Oh", and turn around and say the same really, really stupid things....

it just naturally follows that we think of liberals in terms like "brain dead".....

Yes, and it never works the other way?

I was having this discussion with someone on the right, I don't remember who, regarding evolution and the bible.

The point came up that Genesis explicitly states that God CREATED whales. However, as every Paleobiologist will tell you, whales evolved from four-legged LAND mammals.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/283/5404/943a

This conservatives response to this? Maybe in YOUR version of evolution.

LMFAO.... In the face of scientific proof, this is his 'really, really stupid' response. Maybe in your version of evolution.

Libre, Stoner what do you think of that? The right doesn't say stupid things?

[aaronssongs]

Yes, and it never works the other way?

I was having this discussion with someone on the right, I don't remember who, regarding evolution and the bible.

The point came up that Genesis explicitly states that God CREATED whales. However, as every Paleobiologist will tell you, whales evolved from four-legged LAND mammals.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/283/5404/943a

This conservatives response to this? Maybe in YOUR version of evolution.

LMFAO.... In the face of scientific proof, this is his 'really, really stupid' response. Maybe in your version of evolution.

Libre, Stoner what do you think of that? The right doesn't say stupid things?

Precisely. The right is in such denial of most everything. And as a result, most of what they say is stupid. Heck, didn't Bush's team actually fudge scientific data, to get the spin they wanted about global warming? Science, for godssake.

[I Like Beer]

Precisely. The right is in such denial of most everything. And as a result, most of what they say is stupid. Heck, didn't Bush's team actually fudge scientific data, to get the spin they wanted about global warming? Science, for godssake.

Actually, Bush now admits GW is a problem, as do many Republicans (McCain, Gingrich, to name two others).

IMO, aaron, comments like yours don't really help people talk to each other. Do those on the right say stupid things? Yes. But, so do some on the left.

When you start to see people making ad hominem attacks or saying everyone of a particular stripe is stupid, it just shows the emptiness of their argument. I find it discouraging when people do that no matter what they believe.

[aaronssongs]

Actually, Bush now admits GW is a problem, as do many Republicans (McCain, Gingrich, to name two others).

IMO, aaron, comments like yours don't really help people talk to each other. Do those on the right say stupid things? Yes. But, so do some on the left.

When you start to see people making ad hominem attacks or saying everyone of a particular stripe is stupid, it just shows the emptiness of their argument. I find it discouraging when people do that no matter what they believe.

I agree with you to a point. A certain someone called me a "racist scumbag". One person sided with me against "him". So, I say practice what you preach.
I have made a few friends here. Some have even given me rep points and left kind words on my profile. So, really they are the only people that matter. Those with whom I disagree with, and who disagree with me, and conduct themselves with respect and dignity will have it returned. The others can kiss my naturally black ass.

[PostmodernProphet]

However, as every Paleobiologist will tell you, whales evolved from four-legged LAND mammals.

I'll be honest....I don't buy into the argument that whales evolved from four legged land mammals.....

[I Like Beer]

I agree with you to a point. A certain someone called me a "racist scumbag". One person sided with me against "him". So, I say practice what you preach.
I have made a few friends here. Some have even given me rep points and left kind words on my profile. So, really they are the only people that matter. Those with whom I disagree with, and who disagree with me, and conduct themselves with respect and dignity will have it returned. The others can kiss my naturally black ass.

Yes, if someone uses language like that they don't deserve anyone's respect. Put them on ignore or have fun exposing them for what they are.

All I'm saying is using blanket statements like 'all conservatives are idiots', for example will put off those whom disagree with you but who would interact with you with respect and dignity. When I (and maybe you?) see someone say, 'all liberals are brain dead morons', well, it's hard to get past that first impression. It's the same for the folks on the other side.

Don't get me wrong, if someone is a condescending jerk or an asshole, treat them how they deserve.

Blanket statements attacking all people of a group do nothing but lower the level of this board. That's all I'm saying. Why sink to that level? Let the weak minded people do that.

[I Like Beer]

I'll be honest....I don't buy into the argument that whales evolved from four legged land mammals.....

Is it because Genesis explicitly states that God 'created' whales?

[aaronssongs]

Is it because Genesis explicitly states that God 'created' whales?

I guess he also refuses to accept that dog-like seals and walruses came from a common ancestor that was land-based, as opposed to sea based. Same for penguins, right? Some things require mere common sense to see the plausibility.

[IndieVisible]

http://thelonggoodbye.wordpress.com/2008/07/07/saddams-wmd-found-well-not-really/






http://bp3.blogger.com/_PUoIm_a8734/SHIoil3JqxI/AAAAAAAAAhM/heolpN4aizg/s400/WMD-Believer.png

I find your WMD cartoon racist.

[aaronssongs]

I find your WMD cartoon racist.

really? and whom might it be racist against? perhaps you're borrowing from stereotypes? Or pushing for a fight about nothing.
I say, tough tittie. I got it from a blogger (http://thelonggoodbye.wordpress.com/). I guess you'll get over it....or not.

[PostmodernProphet]

Is it because Genesis explicitly states that God 'created' whales?

I choose to believe he created everything......

[PostmodernProphet]

I guess he also refuses to accept that dog-like seals and walruses came from a common ancestor that was land-based, as opposed to sea based. Same for penguins, right? Some things require mere common sense to see the plausibility.

true, I don't believe that penguins and walrus came from a common ancestor....

[I Like Beer]

I choose to believe he created everything......

You 'choose' to believe? Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary you believe what you 'choose' to believe.

So, why should anyone take what you say on science seriously at all? Since you flout science and believe simply that which you simply 'choose'?

Stoner, are you reading this? And you said liberals said stupid things.

[I Like Beer]

I choose to believe he created everything......

Why did the creator give the mitochondria of eukaryotes (including humans) a circular, separate genone? A genome that is remarkably like those of bacteria?

What do you choose to believe about that?

[I Like Beer]

I guess he also refuses to accept that dog-like seals and walruses came from a common ancestor that was land-based, as opposed to sea based. Same for penguins, right? Some things require mere common sense to see the plausibility.

true, I don't believe that penguins and walrus came from a common ancestor....

Why do you feel the need to twist what people say? aaron didn't say anything about penguins and walrii having a common ancestor and yet you twist it to try to say that (s)he did.

Why do you do that? Is your argument so empty of logic?

[xLIBREx]

I love the irony of godless liberals in reality being the most religious people I know with their politics. They believe so many things with nothing in the realm of reality as evidence to justify their beliefs. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black when a liberal attacks a person about their religion.

(Agnostic here in case anyone cares.)

[PostmodernProphet]

You 'choose' to believe? Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary you believe what you 'choose' to believe.

So, why should anyone take what you say on science seriously at all? Since you flout science and believe simply that which you simply 'choose'?

Stoner, are you reading this? And you said liberals said stupid things.

you have overwhelming evidence that God didn't create everything?......why have you been keeping it a secret.....the world wants to know....

[PostmodernProphet]

Why did the creator give the mitochondria of eukaryotes (including humans) a circular, separate genone? A genome that is remarkably like those of bacteria?

What do you choose to believe about that?

quite frankly, I haven't the slightest idea.....do you speculate that this is evidence that creation didn't happen?......

[PostmodernProphet]

Why do you feel the need to twist what people say? aaron didn't say anything about penguins and walrii having a common ancestor and yet you twist it to try to say that (s)he did.

Why do you do that? Is your argument so empty of logic?

I wasn't aware I was twisting anything.....I believe that various types of walrus evolved.....I believe that various types of seals evolved....I believe that various types of penguins evolved...I believe they were separately created......is that empty of logic?......

[I Like Beer]

I love the irony of godless liberals in reality being the most religious people I know with their politics. They believe so many things with nothing in the realm of reality as evidence to justify their beliefs.

Ah, yeah. Sure, whatever you say.

This is why you say government run health care doesn't work, however all the countries that have it, are very satisfied. If you were right, shouldn't the health care institutions of France, Britain, Australia, Canada, etc, etc cost more and produce less that then US' system?

I'm sure you have EVIDENCE to back up what you say and not just more ad hominem attacks and blanket statements, right? Or are you just empty vitriol, blanket statements, and personal attacks? The banned list is littered with folks like that. Does that describe you? I'm just asking.

(Agnostic here in case anyone cares.)

Not really. I'm sure PMP is ready to take you to task though. :)

[I Like Beer]

you have overwhelming evidence that God didn't create everything?......why have you been keeping it a secret.....the world wants to know....

No, that's not what I said. Again, why do you try to make up what people say and attack that? Do you really have that little confidence in what you stand for?

I said, there is overwhelming evidence that (and I'll bold it so you see it this time) whales evolved from four-legged land dwelling mammals. That is what we were discussing, that particular case. Yet you hold onto your beliefs that 'God created everything'.

Now, I don't care WHAT you believe. But, when you start saying science is wrong, well I can't let that go unchallenged.

God put me here for a purpose, to lead his people out of the darkness. :)

[I Like Beer]

quite frankly, I haven't the slightest idea......

I know you don't know why our mitochondria have a circular genome and a separate one from the 23 pairs of chromosomes that make us who we are.

Why do I know? Because no religious site that tries to refute science has tackled that one yet. At least, not that I'm aware of.

[I Like Beer]

I wasn't aware I was twisting anything.....I believe that various types of walrus evolved.....I believe that various types of seals evolved....I believe that various types of penguins evolved...I believe they were separately created......is that empty of logic?......

Again, that's not what the post was about. You really have no idea do you?

You twisted what aaron said to suggest that (s)he said penguins and walrii had a common ancestor. And I don't believe for one second you didn't know exactly what you were doing. Confusion as a tool... it's right there under your name.

[xLIBREx]

Ah, yeah. Sure, whatever you say.

This is why you say government run health care doesn't work, however all the countries that have it, are very satisfied. If you were right, shouldn't the health care institutions of France, Britain, Australia, Canada, etc, etc cost more and produce less that then US' system?

Lucky for those countries the U.S. taxpayer pays more than they all do combined for military subsidy which keeps their countries safe and their commerce flowing. This frees up their government to provide more subsidy to their health care systems at the expense of the American taxpaye.

People at the top of ponzi schemes are always satisfied with how the scheme is working, that's why they put more money into it. It works fantastically until it collapses.

You make the same mistake many supporters of socialism make, you can't see the entire picture and you aren't thinking beyond one move in the chess game. Unfortunately for you, the politicians separating you from your money and your rights are thinking many moves ahead and they are winning.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but the EU is shifting away from socialism and towards privatization and we are no moving in the opposite direction.

You need to just take a step back and examine your axioms and if you do that honestly you will find that what you believed to be prima facie in fact is far from it.

That's why my analogy of big government politics equating to religion was perfect and you conveniently just helped me illustrate that point.

I'm sure you have EVIDENCE to back up what you say and not just more ad hominem attacks and blanket statements, right? Or are you just empty vitriol, blanket statements, and personal attacks? The banned list is littered with folks like that. Does that describe you? I'm just asking.

Where was the ad hominem except for the paragraph you just wrote? I provide evidence of my assertions continuously, you simply ignore it because it doesn't support your religious beliefs. That's not my fault.

History is right there for you to look at, but I can't force you to do it. You have to make the choice to drink. I can only lead you to the water.


Not really. I'm sure PMP is ready to take you to task though. :)

If he likes that is his prerogative.

[I Like Beer]

Lucky for those countries the U.S. taxpayer pays more than they all do combined for military subsidy which keeps their countries safe and their commerce flowing. This frees up their government to provide more subsidy to their health care systems at the expense of the American taxpaye.

I think you missed the point. The point is, the US government pays more for health care than all these other countries per capita, and as a percentage of GDP. On top of that, you pay for private insurance AND you have millions of uninsured and under insured people.

If anything I've stated above in inaccurate, please provide evidence.

The point is not who HAS more money to be spend on health care, the issue is who DOES spend more on health care. Overwhelmingly, that's your country. The US. Despite your private system. Now, why do you suppose that is? Or, do you doubt the veracity of that statement?

Socialized systems of health care, cover everyone, just as well or better, and at a cheaper cost. All of this, I am willing to prove with evidence (not just my opinion).

Now, since you are not a 'brain dead liberal', I wish to see actual evidence to support your contention. That's not an unreasonable request, is it?

I mean, I see where you say 'liberals don't debate', so prove the opposite of that statement true, that 'real' conservatives do debate and don't just rely on lumping all liberals in the same pile. I thought you guys were above that sort of thing.

Unfortunately for you, the politicians separating you from your money and your rights are thinking many moves ahead and they are winning.

I feel bad for all you guys who live in a country where your government is out to get you all the time. You should do something about your system of government. It just ain't right. Do you think your system is that deeply flawed? It sure doesn't seem to be serving you very well.

You need to just take a step back and examine your axioms and if you do that honestly you will find that what you believed to be prima facie in fact is far from it.

What axioms would those be? You don't know anything about me. But please, tell me exactly what I think.

Where was the ad hominem except for the paragraph you just wrote? I provide evidence of my assertions continuously, you simply ignore it because it doesn't support your religious beliefs. That's not my fault.

What evidence? I see you state your opinion quite freely but I see no 'evidence' of anything. PMP, Stoner, where is Libre's evidence? Do you know about this evidence? I'm sure they'll back you up.

Where were the blanket statements and ad hominem attacks? Oh, I don't know....

I do know liberals seem to be good at playing the victim once they have run out of argument. I wonder where we could find a good example of that?

What you never see is someone going the opposite direction. People don't become educated and gain life experience and then choose to be liberals.

So yes, there is definitely some "familiarity around these parts" and it has to do with our liberal friends here who aren't really debating. They are preaching about their religion. They are either unable or unwilling to take an honest look at their beliefs.

...just a sampler of why you would have to be brain dead to be a liberal.

I love the irony of godless liberals in reality being the most religious people I know with their politics. They believe so many things with nothing in the realm of reality as evidence to justify their beliefs.

it's because day after day we see liberals saying really, really stupid things.....and, when they are shown they are really, really stupid things, they say "Oh", and turn around and say the same really, really stupid things....



History is right there for you to look at, but I can't force you to do it. You have to make the choice to drink. I can only lead you to the water.

Again my friend, you haven't lead anyone to water. Leading us to water would involve you showing actual facts to back up your claims.

I mean, you can give your opinion, that's fine. But, when you begin to make (what I'm sure PMP would say is a 'really, really smart' thing -right PMP?) assertions like "People don't become educated and gain life experience and then choose to be liberals." Then you have to back that shit up.

Either provide evidence for such a claim (and no, one article by David Mamet doesn't cover everyone) or retract it. You know, like a poll, for example.

Now, since you said you 'never see an educated conservative become liberal' I dug up this poll.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/106381/Obama-Education-Gap-Extends-General-Election.aspx

I quote from it. Barack Obama leads John McCain by a significant margin among voters with the most education, but trails the likely Republican nominee among voters with the least formal education.

If you look closely, you'll see Obama has the support of 40% of those with no high school, but 52% of those who are post-graduates. Now, how does that square with your blanket statement that "you never seen anyone get more education and turn from conservative to liberal'? I'm sure you can explain it with evidence to back you up.

Finally, if you can show me that the US, with it's free market health care, delivers it cheaper, better, and covers more people then say, France, I'll retract my accusation and say unequivocally that a 'free market health care system may indeed be the best system, afterall'.

I'm curious, if I can prove the opposite, would you make such an admission publicly? ;)

[aaronssongs]

I choose to believe he created everything......

Are you certain that evolution wasn't in his grand design? Well, you can't, can you? Since you don't have his cell phone number, let it be...some things are just too big for small minds to understand, which is why I say, why ask why.
He leaves evidence...don't blame him or me if you can't read his writing...on the wall.

[aaronssongs]

true, I don't believe that penguins and walrus came from a common ancestor....

Zoom. Seals and walruses came from common ancestor...penguins, which are water fowl, or "birds", evolved from dinosaurs, as any paleontologist would tell you.

[aaronssongs]

Why do you feel the need to twist what people say? aaron didn't say anything about penguins and walrii having a common ancestor and yet you twist it to try to say that (s)he did.

Why do you do that? Is your argument so empty of logic?

Thank you.

[PostmodernProphet]

I said, there is overwhelming evidence that (and I'll bold it so you see it this time) whales evolved from four-legged land dwelling mammals. That is what we were discussing, that particular case. Yet you hold onto your beliefs that 'God created everything'.

I'm sorry, but I think you are wrong.....you have evidence which you choose to believe shows that they so evolved.....but all you really have is evidence that certain creatures existed.....it is equally possible that those creatures were created......

[PostmodernProphet]

No, that's not what I said. Again, why do you try to make up what people say and attack that? Do you really have that little confidence in what you stand for?

look dude, I simply responded to what you posted, as I did the last time you raised the issue....it isn't my fault you suck at communicating.....

[PostmodernProphet]

I know you don't know why our mitochondria have a circular genome and a separate one from the 23 pairs of chromosomes that make us who we are.

Why do I know? Because no religious site that tries to refute science has tackled that one yet. At least, not that I'm aware of.

unless you can come up with a logical argument that such lack of knowledge somehow refutes the possibility of creation, why do you deem it relevant to the discussion......and, if you do deem it relevant....raise it, don't just imply that you have somehow now won the argument.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Now, I don't care WHAT you believe. But, when you start saying science is wrong, well I can't let that go unchallenged.


I haven't said science is wrong....but I won't hesitate to say that some scientists are wrong.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Again, that's not what the post was about. You really have no idea do you?

You twisted what aaron said to suggest that (s)he said penguins and walrii had a common ancestor. And I don't believe for one second you didn't know exactly what you were doing. Confusion as a tool... it's right there under your name.
allright, please tell me exactly WHO he was saying had common ancestors......

[I Like Beer]

I'm sorry, but I think you are wrong.....you have evidence which you choose to believe shows that they so evolved.....but all you really have is evidence that certain creatures existed.....it is equally possible that those creatures were created......

So, let me get this straight. God created the animals that we now call the ancestors of whales (with morphology consistent of transitional species) had them die out before whales came into existence (or how do you explain the fossil record, shouldn't whales be found before , or at the same time as these other creatures God invented?), and then came back and created whales?

And it isn't what I think, or what I choose to believe. I listen to the experts who do this kind of thing.

http://www.scienceonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/293/5538/2239

Partial skeletons of two new fossil whales, Artiocetus clavis and Rodhocetus balochistanensis, are among the oldest known protocetid archaeocetes. These came from early Lutetian age (47 million years ago) strata in eastern Balochistan Province, Pakistan. Both have an astragalus and cuboid in the ankle with characteristics diagnostic of artiodactyls; R. balochistanensis has virtually complete fore- and hind limbs. The new skeletons are important in augmenting the diversity of early Protocetidae, clarifying that Cetacea evolved from early Artiodactyla rather than Mesonychia and showing how early protocetids swam.

Now, what does Answering Genesis have to say about that?

Unless you're saying God created all this through evolution.

[I Like Beer]

look dude, I simply responded to what you posted, as I did the last time you raised the issue....it isn't my fault you suck at communicating.....


First you twist what people say and attack that, and now you devolve into insults.

I can't say I'm surprised. Disappointed, yes, but hardly surprised.

I mean, you have no argument so what the hell else are you gonna do, right?

[I Like Beer]

unless you can come up with a logical argument that such lack of knowledge somehow refutes the possibility of creation, why do you deem it relevant to the discussion......and, if you do deem it relevant....raise it, don't just imply that you have somehow now won the argument.....

Here's the thing...

Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and they are linear chromosomes (the have ends). These chromosomes code for every physical part of your body with one exception.

Mitochondria are the energy producers in your body. Your cells are full of them and, if you think of an individual cell like a city, Mitochondria are the power plants. They are self contained organelles (little organs) in your cells.

Mitochondria have their own DNA. What's more, that DNA is closely related to bacterial genomes (there is a lot of evidence of this) one compelling piece of evidence is that the genome in mitochondria are circular, not linear.

Now, why would an intelligent designer do that? Give one part of your body it's own genome, make that genome not only completely different than the rest of your body, but very similar to bacterial genomes?

I'm sure you have a ready explanation of what you 'choose' to believe?

[aaronssongs]

allright, please tell me exactly WHO he was saying had common ancestors......

I'll tell you myself...if I wasn't clear... seals, walruses, dogs and cats, bears, and others share a common carnivorous ancestor. Penguins are birds, which evolved from dinosaurs into water fowl. I was not linking penguins to seals or walruses...I was alluding to the fact that some land-based animals evolved into water-based animals.

[PostmodernProphet]

And it isn't what I think, or what I choose to believe. I listen to the experts who do this kind of thing.

there are those who begin with certain presumptions regarding evolution, and interpret the data so that it complies with their presumptions.....I do not share their presumptions....

[PostmodernProphet]

First you twist what people say and attack that, and now you devolve into insults.

I can't say I'm surprised. Disappointed, yes, but hardly surprised.

I mean, you have no argument so what the hell else are you gonna do, right?

I have looked back at the posts you are bitching about and I don't see where I have twisted anything.....you're just dodging the question....you're a supporter of abiogenesis.....that means you believe that walrus and penguins have a common ancestor....you think that penguins and humans have a common ancestor.....shit, you think humans and sequoia have a common ancestor....so, if anyone is trying to turn this into insults to avoid the question it is you.....

I invite you to go back and answer.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Here's the thing...

Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and they are linear chromosomes (the have ends). These chromosomes code for every physical part of your body with one exception.

Mitochondria are the energy producers in your body. Your cells are full of them and, if you think of an individual cell like a city, Mitochondria are the power plants. They are self contained organelles (little organs) in your cells.

Mitochondria have their own DNA. What's more, that DNA is closely related to bacterial genomes (there is a lot of evidence of this) one compelling piece of evidence is that the genome in mitochondria are circular, not linear.

Now, why would an intelligent designer do that? Give one part of your body it's own genome, make that genome not only completely different than the rest of your body, but very similar to bacterial genomes?

I'm sure you have a ready explanation of what you 'choose' to believe?

logically, because that is the way it best functions and fulfills it's purpose.....when you look at a computer to you bitch because the hard drive works differently than the power supply?.......

[PostmodernProphet]

I'll tell you myself...if I wasn't clear... seals, walruses, dogs and cats, bears, and others share a common carnivorous ancestor. Penguins are birds, which evolved from dinosaurs into water fowl. I was not linking penguins to seals or walruses...I was alluding to the fact that some land-based animals evolved into water-based animals.

so do you believe that carnivores and birds were created seperately?......or do you believe they had a common ancestor......

[aaronssongs]

so do you believe that carnivores and birds were created seperately?......or do you believe they had a common ancestor......

everything had a common ancestor. life started differentiating from the onset.
God works in mysterious ways, his wonders to unfold. Our small minds can't even know the ways of God. Who are you to say, it wasn't all a part of his plan?
I believe that it is.

[PostmodernProphet]

everything had a common ancestor. life started differentiating from the onset.
God works in mysterious ways, his wonders to unfold. Our small minds can't even know the ways of God. Who are you to say, it wasn't all a part of his plan?
I believe that it is.

then why are you complaining because I thought you said penguins and walrus had a common ancestor.....

[aaronssongs]

then why are you complaining because I thought you said penguins and walrus had a common ancestor.....

because there is an order of things, according to God's plan.
Walruses are mammals. Mammals evolved from reptiles, and reptiles from amphibians, and amphibians from fish, and so on.

[I Like Beer]

there are those who begin with certain presumptions regarding evolution, and interpret the data so that it complies with their presumptions.....I do not share their presumptions....

Those that presume are not scientists. Scientist are skeptical by their very nature.

Science, as a whole, does not make presumptions. And, it’s a good thing it doesn’t. Otherwise, doctors would still be trying to restore the balance of our four humours to heal the sick.

You are the one who makes presumptions and they have nothing to do with what is observed, but are based solely on your religious doctrine. Do you deny that?

When science can be seen to support your doctrine (or at least not counter it, as in the case of the theoretical Big Bang) it is fine. However, when it disagrees with what you believe you reject it out of hand.

The criterion you seem to use over what is accepted and rejected is how it jibes with your religious expectations. That’s pretty egotistical and hardly objective.

Scientists make observations, gather evidence and make theories. Then, they continue to gather more evidence and refine their hypotheses.

Evolution is a good example. When molecular genetics came along, far from refuting the Theory of Evolution, it strengthened it.

Scientists did not “presume” that would be the case, but it is what was observed. Do you care to challenge that?

[I Like Beer]

I have looked back at the posts you are bitching about and I don't see where I have twisted anything.....you're just dodging the question....you're a supporter of abiogenesis.....that means you believe that walrus and penguins have a common ancestor....you think that penguins and humans have a common ancestor.....shit, you think humans and sequoia have a common ancestor....so, if anyone is trying to turn this into insults to avoid the question it is you.....

I invite you to go back and answer.....

I don’t know why you’re getting so angry. I showed you exactly how you twisted what aaron said. If it was unintentional, I have yet to hear you apologize.

What question am I dodging?

What does abiogenesis have to do with whale evolution? Here’s that confusion as a tool thing again. Why do you try to change the subject? I’m asking if whales were created by God, as you say, why do we not find whales in the ancient fossil record? Why would God create all these intermediate species and then kill them off before whales appear in the fossil record? Don’t you find that question kinda interesting?

Exactly where have I insulted you?

[I Like Beer]

logically, because that is the way it best functions and fulfills it's purpose.....when you look at a computer to you bitch because the hard drive works differently than the power supply?.......

Again, I don’t know why you’re getting so angry? You're the one who said, "liberals say really really stupid things". You're the one who said I "suck at communicating". At yet, you're the one with the chip on their shoulder?

The hard drive and power supply in a computer fulfill completely different functions, do they not? So, your analogy doesn’t work. The genomes of mitochondria and of humans fulfill EXACTLY the same functions.

A better analogy would be a computer, in which every component uses 120 volt AC current, except the fan. The fan has it’s own, separate gasoline powered energy supply,exactly like the one found in a John Deere riding lawn mower. Any designer would be crazy to do that, wouldn’t they?

Our cells have several other organelles, in addition to mitochondria (lysosomes, endoplasmic reticulum etc). None of those have their own genome.

Now, how is this evidence for an intelligent designer? Oh, and while you’re explaining it, don’t leave out the fact that the mitochondrial genome is strikingly like that of bacteria. I await your evidence.

[PostmodernProphet]

You are the one who makes presumptions and they have nothing to do with what is observed, but are based solely on your religious doctrine. Do you deny that?
of course.....you will have to make your case that I have done so....



Do you care to challenge that?
not at all....I find the ability of God's creatures to adapt to the cyclical changes in their environment to be excellent evidence of the intelligent design of life....of course, you may be imposing some meaning into "Theory of Evolution" that isn't necessarily found in it......

[PostmodernProphet]

I don’t know why you’re getting so angry. I showed you exactly how you twisted what aaron said.

except that he has acknowledged that I interpreted his statement correctly.....I am "angry" because you accused me of doing something I have not done....I will await YOUR apology....

What does abiogenesis have to do with whale evolution? Here’s that confusion as a tool thing again. Why do you try to change the subject?????...we had been discussing abiogenesis....YOU are the one who brought whale evolution into it, if I recall....why are you asking ME why it is relevant....whale evolution IS changing the subject......

[PostmodernProphet]

The hard drive and power supply in a computer fulfill completely different functions, do they not? So, your analogy doesn’t work. The genomes of mitochondria and of humans fulfill EXACTLY the same functions.

only to the extent that they fulfill the function of producing cells that perform completely different functions....

[AnnEsthesia]

Yes, if someone uses language like that they don't deserve anyone's respect. Put them on ignore or have fun exposing them for what they are.

All I'm saying is using blanket statements like 'all conservatives are idiots', for example will put off those whom disagree with you but who would interact with you with respect and dignity. When I (and maybe you?) see someone say, 'all liberals are brain dead morons', well, it's hard to get past that first impression. It's the same for the folks on the other side.

Don't get me wrong, if someone is a condescending jerk or an asshole, treat them how they deserve.

Blanket statements attacking all people of a group do nothing but lower the level of this board. That's all I'm saying. Why sink to that level? Let the weak minded people do that.

Very well said. QFT

[PostmodernProphet]

Why would God create all these intermediate species

it is your faith assumption that they are "intermediate" species....

[I Like Beer]

Again my friend, you haven't lead anyone to water. Leading us to water would involve you showing actual facts to back up your claims.

I mean, you can give your opinion, that's fine. But, when you begin to make (what I'm sure PMP would say is a 'really, really smart' thing -right PMP?) assertions like "People don't become educated and gain life experience and then choose to be liberals." Then you have to back that shit up.

Either provide evidence for such a claim (and no, one article by David Mamet doesn't cover everyone) or retract it. You know, like a poll, for example.

Now, since you said you 'never see an educated conservative become liberal' I dug up this poll.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/106381/Obama-Education-Gap-Extends-General-Election.aspx

If you look closely, you'll see Obama has the support of 40% of those with no high school, but 52% of those who are post-graduates. Now, how does that square with your blanket statement that "you never seen anyone get more education and turn from conservative to liberal'? I'm sure you can explain it with evidence to back you up.

Finally, if you can show me that the US, with it's free market health care, delivers it cheaper, better, and covers more people then say, France, I'll retract my accusation and say unequivocally that a 'free market health care system may indeed be the best system, afterall'.

I'm curious, if I can prove the opposite, would you make such an admission publicly? ;)


Hmmm… no comment, Libre?

Perhaps I should insert my own blanket statement. “Typical (insert member of group Libre is obviously a member of)’s tactic. When they can’t answer a question or back up a challenge, they bail on a thread.”

Does that make you feel better?

[I Like Beer]

of course.....you will have to make your case that I have done so....

I don’t have to make the case. I asked you a specific question. If you deny it, the discussion is closed. So, deny it.


not at all....I find the ability of God's creatures to adapt to the cyclical changes in their environment to be excellent evidence of the intelligent design of life....of course, you may be imposing some meaning into "Theory of Evolution" that isn't necessarily found in it......

What are these “cyclical” changes to which you are referring? You do understand that the vast majority of creatures that have existed are now extinct. Or, do you dispute that, too? If you do dispute this, what to say regarding the creatures which are going extinct all the time? Is God just give them the shaft? Why do they not get “the ability… to adapt to they cyclical changes in their environment”?

[I Like Beer]

except that he has acknowledged that I interpreted his statement correctly.....I am "angry" because you accused me of doing something I have not done....I will await YOUR apology....

I posted exactly what aaron said, and exactly how you misquoted him/her. Furthermore, when I pointed that out, aaron ‘thanked’ me. Go back and look. I don’t think I said anything, for which I need apologize.

However, I'm certainly not interested in accusing anyone of something they didn't do. If aaron tells me that you 'interpreted the statement correctly', I will immediately withdrawal the charge.

????...we had been discussing abiogenesis....YOU are the one who brought whale evolution into it, if I recall....why are you asking ME why it is relevant....whale evolution IS changing the subject......

Uhhhmmm.. I think you’re confusing threads, are you not? This thread never mentioned abiogenesis until you brought it up (somewhere around post 60 or so). When I joined this thread, it was about the ‘stupid things’ liberals say (before the original author of those words fled this thread). I tried to point out that conservatives say ‘really stupid’ things, too. The example I gave was how a particular conservative said that whales did not evolve from four-legged mammals (somewhere around post #30).

I await your apology.

[I Like Beer]

only to the extent that they fulfill the function of producing cells that perform completely different functions....

Huh? Mitochondria are not cells they are organelles. Look, if you don’t know anything about biology, it’s okay to admit that.

What you said, is like saying, you would expect the genome of YOUR skin cells to be completely foreign to that of YOUR liver cells because they perform completely different functions. I hope you see the obvious problem with such a statement.

[I Like Beer]

it is your faith assumption that they are "intermediate" species....

My ‘faith’ assumption?

I’ll tell you how strong my ‘faith’ is. All it takes is ONE whale fossil found with the fossils of these intermediate species, or with a marine dinosaur skeleton. Just ONE to throw the theory that whales evolved from four-legged land mammals into the junk pile. Just ONE.

Even all those Creation “scientists” who are out there busily doing primary research, all they have to do it find ONE. In the millions of fossils that have been recovered, ONE proven whale fossil found in the same time/location as these intermediate species' fossils will bring the whole theory crashing to the ground.

Don’t you think it odd that not ONE has been recovered and recorded?

How is that for faith? One piece of contradictory evidence against the myriad pile of supportive evidence will make me right off the whole theory.

Is that what you mean by faith? Does ONE piece of evidence make you throw out what you believe to be true?

[PostmodernProphet]

I don’t have to make the case. I asked you a specific question. If you deny it, the discussion is closed. So, deny it.

all right....your depiction of my beliefs is incorrect....I deny it....




What are these “cyclical” changes to which you are referring? You do understand that the vast majority of creatures that have existed are now extinct. Or, do you dispute that, too? If you do dispute this, what to say regarding the creatures which are going extinct all the time? Is God just give them the shaft? Why do they not get “the ability… to adapt to they cyclical changes in their environment”?

/boggle.....individual creatures don't get to adapt to changing environments.....species do.....didn't we have a post on this board recently about spiders that were herbivores because that was the food available?.....I recall another about some creature on an island developing different digestive systems because of their diet.....some types of animal become extinct because they cannot survive in their environment, recently because of the impact of human activity....others change because of it.....look at falcons and coyotes living in urban areas......all creatures have the same ability.....

as far as the cyclical changes, I was referring to the pattern between low and high temperature ranges that have occurred every 150,000 years or so......we are nearing a high of those right now.....some people call it global warming........

[PostmodernProphet]

I posted exactly what aaron said, and exactly how you misquoted him/her. Furthermore, when I pointed that out, aaron ‘thanked’ me. Go back and look. I don’t think I said anything, for which I need apologize.

I took what he said to mean that penguins and walrus had a common ancestor....you took offense at that....he came back and said he believed all creatures had a common ancestor.....

I also said you believed all creatures had a common ancestor......you took offense at that.....however, if you believe in abiogenesis....and you do, whether you said it in this thread or another....then you do believe all life has a common ancestor....

so why were you bitching about it?....

I await your apology.what am I apologizing for?.....for not letting you assert something in one thread and deny it in another?.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Huh? Mitochondria are not cells they are organelles. Look, if you don’t know anything about biology, it’s okay to admit that.

What you said, is like saying, you would expect the genome of YOUR skin cells to be completely foreign to that of YOUR liver cells because they perform completely different functions. I hope you see the obvious problem with such a statement.

???...I see the obvious problem with what you have made of it....


look, as I have said before, I don't know enough about mitochondria to discuss it's function.....I would love to discuss the issue of why the essence of mitochondria refutes the possibility of creation, but unless you can form that argument so it can be understood it isn't going to be of much use to you....why don't you just explain WHY mitochondria means we can't have been created.....

[PostmodernProphet]

My ‘faith’ assumption?

I’ll tell you how strong my ‘faith’ is. All it takes is ONE whale fossil found with the fossils of these intermediate species, or with a marine dinosaur skeleton. Just ONE to throw the theory that whales evolved from four-legged land mammals into the junk pile. Just ONE.

Even all those Creation “scientists” who are out there busily doing primary research, all they have to do it find ONE. In the millions of fossils that have been recovered, ONE proven whale fossil found in the same time/location as these intermediate species' fossils will bring the whole theory crashing to the ground.

Don’t you think it odd that not ONE has been recovered and recorded?

How is that for faith? One piece of contradictory evidence against the myriad pile of supportive evidence will make me right off the whole theory.

Is that what you mean by faith? Does ONE piece of evidence make you throw out what you believe to be true?

no, what I mean by "faith" is choosing ONE explanation of the existence of a half dozen different fossils and making that your world and life view.....if you showed me ONE existing deity other than YHWH it would refute MY faith as well.....the fact that I haven't been shown the deity and you haven't been shown the whale doesn't mean our positions aren't held by faith.....

[I Like Beer]

all right....your depiction of my beliefs is incorrect....I deny it....

Okay.

/boggle.....individual creatures don't get to adapt to changing environments.....species do.....didn't we have a post on this board recently about spiders that were herbivores because that was the food available?.....I recall another about some creature on an island developing different digestive systems because of their diet.....some types of animal become extinct because they cannot survive in their environment, recently because of the impact of human activity....others change because of it.....look at falcons and coyotes living in urban areas......all creatures have the same ability.....

Yes, I misspoke. I should have said “SPECIES” not “creatures”. The vast majority of species that have existed are now extinct. You said, and I’m paraphrasing, that a species ability to adapt to a changing environment was evidence of intelligent design. God gave these species the ability to adapt. My point or question was why didn’t all species get this ability, equally? Obviously, they haven’t since most species that have existed are now extinct.

as far as the cyclical changes, I was referring to the pattern between low and high temperature ranges that have occurred every 150,000 years or so......we are nearing a high of those right now.....some people call it global warming........

LOL, that’s funny. People like George Bush, Pat Robertson, and Newt Gingrich, but what the hell do they know, right? Cyclical changes in temperature have certainly occurred throughout the 2.5 billion years there has been life on this planet, no doubt. However, there are many other challenges that organisms face that have nothing to do with temperature and are not cyclical. Just to use a familiar example, above you referenced the lizard species that was moved to a novel island. Exactly what ‘cyclical’ changes did they face? Perhaps you think their original diet would eventually be available on their new island?

[I Like Beer]

I took what he said to mean that penguins and walrus had a common ancestor....you took offense at that....he came back and said he believed all creatures had a common ancestor.....

I posted exactly what aaron said, and exactly how you responded. It looked clear to me, however, I have no interest in misquoting you. Therefore, if you feel I have slighted you in any way, I offer a full apology.

I also said you believed all creatures had a common ancestor......you took offense at that.....however, if you believe in abiogenesis....and you do, whether you said it in this thread or another....then you do believe all life has a common ancestor....

I don’t believe I took offense to that. I took offense to what I saw was you twisted the meaning of what people had written and responding to that.

Yes, I do believe all life on this planet has a common ancestor and I could post a myriad amount of evidence to that effect. I’m sure we’ll get to more of it. :)

what am I apologizing for?.....for not letting you assert something in one thread and deny it in another?.....

No, it’s just that you accused me of changing the subject from abiogenesis to whale evolution and I pointed out that you were the one who changed the subject in this thread, and then I posted the evidence.

Don’t worry, me asking for an apology was not sincere. It was in jest.

[I Like Beer]

look, as I have said before, I don't know enough about mitochondria to discuss it's function.....I would love to discuss the issue of why the essence of mitochondria refutes the possibility of creation, but unless you can form that argument so it can be understood it isn't going to be of much use to you....why don't you just explain WHY mitochondria means we can't have been created.....

I’m sorry I must have missed where you stated explicitly that you didn’t know enough about mitochondria to discuss its function. You posted at least two responses my original query. In one you said that mitochondria genome and the cell genome fulfill different functions. What was that, a guess?

Mitochondria argue very strongly for a common ancestor for all life. In the distant past, mitochondria were independent bacteria – the evidence includes the circular genome that is universal in bacteria and unheard of in ‘higher’ life forms, of which humans are an example. At some point, a mitochondrion was engulfed probably by a predatory cell, and instead of being consumed, forged a symbiotic relationship – you have parasites in your own digestive system which have done practically the same thing (E. coli, for example aids in your digestion and gets, what it considers an ideal environment). The mitochondrion supplied a new, more efficient way to get energy from the environment – oxidative phosporylation - to the existing cell, and in return received a protective environment, raw materials, etc.

Now, ID, I assume would argue that this isn’t proof that humans weren’t created, which I would agree with. However, you have to address the illogic of a designer choosing a SINGLE structure in the human body to have it’s own genome, AND making that genome completely foreign to the rest of the human genome, in effect, closely related to lowly bacteria. Why?

Even if we assumed that’s the case, why not use that for other structures? When evolution (or from your POV an Ider) finds something that works, they repeat it. Given the toxic contents of lysosomes, for example, it would make, at least equal sense to give them their own genome (I can certainly elaborate at length if you wish).

Again, not PROOF against creation but some really interesting questions. Don’t you agree?

Mitochondrial DNA (like bacterial DNA) doesn’t recombine sexually, mitochondria split into two exact copies. All the mitochondria you have, came from your mother. Therefore, it's easier to trace backwards through generations based on the mitochondrial DNA.

So, what does that mean? Well, you would theorize that the more recent two species diverged from their common ancestor the closer related the genomes of their mitochondria would be. Right? Just like you have more DNA in common with your siblings than you do your cousins, the same principle applies.

And you know what? That is exactly what you find.

So, now, you also have to provide the logic for an intelligent designer creating species and paying strict attention to how related the genomes of their mitochondria are. Oh, and this is only a SINGLE piece of evidence. I eagerly await your response.

[I Like Beer]

no, what I mean by "faith" is choosing ONE explanation of the existence of a half dozen different fossils and making that your world and life view.....if you showed me ONE existing deity other than YHWH it would refute MY faith as well.....the fact that I haven't been shown the deity and you haven't been shown the whale doesn't mean our positions aren't held by faith.....

The difference is, I have physical HARD evidence, evidence that can be scrutinized by everyone. That is what science is based upon – there is no faith, unless it’s faith in the process. Plus, as I alluded to above, this is only a single piece of the puzzle. We do not rely solely on transitional fossils to prove or suggest that all life has a common ancestor. Once again, I can go on at length.

Now, as I said above, all it takes is a SINGLE whale fossil mixed with dinosaurs to throw all this out.

Can I show you a deity that would refute your faith? No, absolutely not. But, I assume, you’re asking for hard evidence. If you could show me evidence of a deity, it’d make a believer out of me, too.

[PostmodernProphet]

My point or question was why didn’t all species get this ability, equally?????....you assume that the ability to adapt means that all types of creatures must still exist......would not the types that thrive in a particular environment cease to exist when that particular environment changed?.......if things worked your way they wouldn't have to adapt, things would stay the same....

[PostmodernProphet]

However, there are many other challenges that organisms face that have nothing to do with temperature and are not cyclical.

???....how does that contradict what I said about cyclical changes?.....

[PostmodernProphet]

No, it’s just that you accused me of changing the subject from abiogenesis to whale evolution and I pointed out that you were the one who changed the subject in this thread, and then I posted the evidence.

so instead of changing it from abiogenesis to whale evolution you changed it from something else to whale evolution....big deal.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Why?

if as you say it is a highly efficient method of converting energy why would you expect an ID to create something else to serve that purpose?....

[PostmodernProphet]

The difference is, I have physical HARD evidence, evidence that can be scrutinized by everyone.

no....there is no hard evidence of the connecting line, only evidence of the individual creatures.....

[I Like Beer]

????....you assume that the ability to adapt means that all types of creatures must still exist......

No, I don't. There you go, putting words in my mouth again, and then attacking what you HOPED I'd said. I'm sure you won't apologize for doing this as it seems to be the Christian thing to do.

would not the types that thrive in a particular environment cease to exist when that particular environment changed?.......

Not necessarily. Some species become highly specialized within a certain environment. These are the species that you would likely say, "God didn't give them great ability to adapt to change". There are others that are quite flexible and can easily adapt (our lizard friends left on that novel island are an example).

So, right there we have a species that flies in the face of your assertion above.

if things worked your way they wouldn't have to adapt, things would stay the same....

LOL. Do you even know what you're talking about?

[I Like Beer]

???....how does that contradict what I said about cyclical changes?.....

You said in post #85 and I quote...

as far as the cyclical changes, I was referring to the pattern between low and high temperature ranges that have occurred every 150,000 years or so......

I said and I quote...
However, there are many other challenges that organisms face that have nothing to do with temperature and are not cyclical. Just to use a familiar example, above you referenced the lizard species that was moved to a novel island. Exactly what ‘cyclical’ changes did they face? Perhaps you think their original diet would eventually be available on their new island?

I DIDN'T contradict what you said. I said there are ADDITIONAL challenges that species face that ARE NOT cyclical in nature. I used an example of a change in diet that is irreversible (it certainly would be if a prey species became extinct, right?)

Again... do you actually read what people post? Or, do you just pretend that you get it?

[I Like Beer]

so instead of changing it from abiogenesis to whale evolution you changed it from something else to whale evolution....big deal.....

It's only a big deal because you accused me of doing exactly what you did!

Do as I say, not as I do. Is that it? Another Christian virtue, perhaps?

[I Like Beer]

if as you say it is a highly efficient method of converting energy why would you expect an ID to create something else to serve that purpose?....

Oh my GOD! Once again, you COMPLETELY missed the point.

The point wasn't why wouldn't God develop a different energy system if one worked so well. However, since you brought it up, if you believe in ID, he did develop other ways to get energy from the environment - but I digress.

The point was... since having organelles with their own genomes worked so well, why not use it for other structures in human cells? Huh? Why not?

[I Like Beer]

no....there is no hard evidence of the connecting line, only evidence of the individual creatures.....

Seriously, my friend.

You don't have the biological background to even have a conversation about mitochondria, respiration, or organelles.

Why in hell would anyone think you have the background to discuss paleobiology with any level of competence?

By the way - radiodating. Fact or fiction?

[PostmodernProphet]

I'm sure you won't apologize for doing this as it seems to be the Christian thing to do.LOL. Do you even know what you're talking about?Again... do you actually read what people post? Or, do you just pretend that you get it?I am getting sick of this shit.....


You don't have the biological background to even have a conversation about mitochondria, respiration, or organelles.

well then I am sorry to have wasted your valuable time....I won't make the same mistake twice.....

[I Like Beer]

I am getting sick of this shit.....


You want to have a scientific discussion but you won't do the work necessary and I won't let you off the hook. I won't let you 'confuse' the issue.

When we discussed the bible in a previous thread, you gave me links to line by line translations from the original Greek and Hebrew. I went to them and looked at them in great detail. I asked questions, made assumptions (which you quickly corrected) and worked through it. (If you notice when you would laugh at my misunderstanding Greek grammar, I wouldn't take offense, even though you meant to offend me.) Point was, I did my best to understand.

When the shoe is on the other foot all you do is put words in my mouth, refuse to try to understand, use insults, and curse at me.

I'll continue to try to talk to you because, hopefully, people reading these posts who are unsure will see your arguments for what they are.

[PostmodernProphet]

you gave me linksand?......you won't....



you still haven't bothered to even make the argument that the existence of mitochondria somehow negates the possibility of intelligent design.....why don't you at least make the attempt before turning it into a technical discussion....

without that, this discussion is dead....

[I Like Beer]

you still haven't bothered to even make the argument that the existence of mitochondria somehow negates the possibility of intelligent design.....why don't you at least make the attempt before turning it into a technical discussion....

without that, this discussion is dead....

Yeah, I have, but I'm happy to do it again. I'll try to do it this time without being technical.

Mitochondria are as foreign from the rest of our bodies as you can get - from it's DNA, to the components its made with, to the way it reproduces. It's completely foreign. As I alluded to before, a designer putting mitochondria in our cells to carry out one of the most important functions of life, is like a computer manufacturer making the motherboard - and only the motherboard - powered by gasoline while everything else purrs away with electricity from your wall. Also, the motherboard would use some different materials than the rest of the computer, it would need a translator to 'talk' to the computer, and on and on....

I don't want to get to technical, but it's hard to describe just how stupid it is to intentionally design mitochondria without pointing out the problems with it.

If I say, "mitochondria just don't make any sense", I don't feel you'd accept that. But, I don't want to confuse you, so I won't overburden you. You can read more here...

On NCBI (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=hmg.section.643#645) or on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_genome).

Science tells us not only where mitochondria come from but WHY they're so obviously foreign to the rest of us.

On Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory) or here (http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/E/Endosymbiosis.html#The_Mitochondrial_Genome) or at Berkley (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/endosymbiosis_03)

http://www.biog1105-1106.org/demos/105/unit2/media/prokcellsdiff.jpg

This image shows the similarity between bacteria and mitochondria. These are only a few of things they have in common.

So, how does Mitochondria negate the possibility of 'intelligent' design? Because, the "choice" to use it is just too stupid. I realize that statement is rather flippant but you won't let me get technical. It simply does not make sense from a design point of view.

Now, if you're going to come back and say WHY? Well, then I'm gonna have to get technical.

So, why don't you explain how all this evidence doesn't diminish the possibility of ID? Is it my faith choice to believe mitochondria are vastly different from the rest of us?

Oh, and this is only the beginning....

You should spend some time at this Berkeley site.

Berkeley (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01)

[PostmodernProphet]

So, why don't you explain how all this evidence doesn't diminish the possibility of ID? Is it my faith choice to believe mitochondria are vastly different from the rest of us?

that's it?....and for this I should study advanced micro-biology?.....I don't need to know mitochondria to know that the simple fact I can't explain something's purpose doesn't equal proof it didn't happen.....

I can't believe you even raise the possibility, considering the fact that you have no clue what triggered abiogenesis has had no impact whatsoever upon your faith in it......

sheesh......

[aaronssongs]

Seriously, my friend.

You don't have the biological background to even have a conversation about mitochondria, respiration, or organelles.

Why in hell would anyone think you have the background to discuss paleobiology with any level of competence?

By the way - radiodating. Fact or fiction?

Work it!~

[I Like Beer]

that's it?....and for this I should study advanced micro-biology?.....I don't need to know mitochondria to know that the simple fact I can't explain something's purpose doesn't equal proof it didn't happen.....

I can't believe you even raise the possibility, considering the fact that you have no clue what triggered abiogenesis has had no impact whatsoever upon your faith in it......

sheesh......

No, that's not it. As I said, it was only the tip of the iceberg.

You don't need advanced microbiology, you need high school biology. At least, biology classes that don't teach ID as science. Do those exist in the States anymore? :)

Again, you misunderstand - whether accidentally or purposefully is anyone's guess. Well, actually, I don't have to guess. It has nothing to do with it's PURPOSE but with the "design". Mitochondria are so foreign to the rest of us, that I submit it is not possible that it was 'designed' that way. If you disagree, please elaborate.

Why do you keep bringing up abiogenesis? It has nothing to do with this discussion. I realize that you are at a major disadvantage trying to argue your points because you don't have a leg to stand on, and that's why you need to continually obfuscate the discussion. But, unlike others, I won't let you do that. Please try to stay on topic. The topic is, "is the intelligent design of mitochondria a conceivable hypothesis". I submit it isn't for the reasons I outlined. Please debate them or give up.

We can talk abiogenesis until the cows come home if you want. But if you do, let's talk about it here! (http://democracyforums.com/showthread.php?t=16624&page=15) Where we already were discussing it.

[PostmodernProphet]

It has nothing to do with it's PURPOSE but with the "design"you asked WHY would an ID do this.....that is purpose.....

Why do you keep bringing up abiogenesis? It has nothing to do with this discussion.lol, the fact that you are so afraid to answer tells me you know EXACTLY why I do it and that it has everything to do with the discussion....

"is the intelligent design of mitochondria a conceivable hypothesis"yes, thank you.....what isn't conceivable is that it simply fell out of the tree and happened.....

[I Like Beer]

you asked WHY would an ID do this.....that is purpose.....

Ah, that definition of purpose. I thought you meant the purpose or role of mitochondria. Hey watch this, I apologize if I misunderstood. See that? It didn't even hurt. ;)

The questions still stands, "is the intelligent design of mitochondria a conceivable hypothesis". I submit it isn't for the reasons I outlined. Please debate them or give up.

ol, the fact that you are so afraid to answer tells me you know EXACTLY why I do it and that it has everything to do with the discussion....

Man, you are too funny. I am MORE than HAPPY to debate abiogenesis with you as I indicated in the above post, let's just do it in the thread we've been doing it in. It is you who are afraid. That much is patently obvious. Once again, I'M HAPPY TO DEBATE ABIOGENESIS WITH YOU. There's actually a nice new post there waiting for you to read. :)

Hurry! This way to debate abiogenesis.:) (http://democracyforums.com/showthread.php?t=16624&page=15)

yes, thank you.....what isn't conceivable is that it simply fell out of the tree and happened.....

Then if it is possible mitochondria were intelligently designed, refute the reasons that I gave why it wasn't. It's not rocket science. If you can't refute it with reasons, just give up.

Again...

Mitochondria are so foreign to the rest of us, that I submit it is not possible that it was 'designed' that way. If you disagree, please elaborate. Stay on topic! Abiogenesis has NOTHING to do with whether mitochondria were designed or arose through endosymbiosis. Nothing. Let me say that again, nothing.

I eagerly await a debate on abiogenesis with you in the other thread. HERE. (http://democracyforums.com/showthread.php?t=16624&page=15)

I realize that you are at a major disadvantage trying to argue your points because you don't have a leg to stand on, and that's why you need to continually obfuscate the discussion. But, please, stay on topic!

[PostmodernProphet]

I submit it isn't for the reasons I outlined

I see no conclusive reasons in your argument beyond "I can't see why"......

Man, you are too funny. I am MORE than HAPPY to debate abiogenesis with you as I indicated in the above post, let's just do it in the thread we've been doing it in. It is you who are afraid. That much is patently obvious. Once again, I'M HAPPY TO DEBATE ABIOGENESIS WITH YOU. There's actually a nice new post there waiting for you to read.

my question is pertinent here, respond to it here.....

If you can't refute it with reasons, just give up.

sorry dude, the fact that I can't explain molecular biology does not mean that you have proven that intelligent design is irrational....

[I Like Beer]

I see no conclusive reasons in your argument beyond "I can't see why"......

Shall I get technical? I mean, you chastise me when I do, and when I don't you say, "I see no evidence". Man, you make me laugh.

You once said this in a post to me.


LOL.. then I can't wait to get into a science debate with you. It will be fun to see you try to interpret raw data and not rely on anyone's interpretation.
are you going to provide me with clickable links like I did for you?....sweet.....
Remember that? (http://democracyforums.com/showthread.php?t=13629&page=17)

So, are you a liar, too? Is that another of your Christian values? :evil:

my question is pertinent here, respond to it here.....

The evolution of mitochondria and their involvement in human cells has NOTHING to do with abiogenesis since endosymbiosis happened hundreds of millions of years after the life began. For that reason - among others - it is irrelevant to this discussion. If you disagree, GIVE YOUR REASONS.

You can't invalidate evolution because I can't tell you EXACTLY how life began. Again, I'm not letting you obfuscate the topic here. There is another thread WAITING for you to respond about abiogenesis. Hear that? It's calling your name. :)

I know you're afraid of new ideas and reevaluating what you believe. You're reacting exactly like the Catholic Church did when Galileo proved the Earth was not the centre of the universe. Did you know it wasn't until the late 20th century that the Vatican FINALLY said Galileo was right?

sorry dude, the fact that I can't explain molecular biology does not mean that you have proven that intelligent design is irrational....
[/B]

The fact that you can't explain molecular biology means you can't counter any arguments. All you can say is 'no it isn't'.

I put forth a case on why it's not possible that mitochondria were intelligently designed. Refute it with evidence, or give up. I provided you with purdy links. As you would say, 'sweet'. ;)

Now, once again, if it is possible mitochondria were intelligently designed, refute the reasons that I gave why it wasn't. It's not rocket science. If you can't refute it with reasons, just give up.

Again...

Mitochondria are so foreign to the rest of us, that I submit it is not possible that it was 'designed' that way. If you disagree, please elaborate. Stay on topic! Abiogenesis has NOTHING to do with whether mitochondria were designed or arose through endosymbiosis. Nothing. Let me say that again, nothing.

I eagerly await a debate on abiogenesis with you in the other thread. HERE. (http://democracyforums.com/showthread.php?t=16624&page=15)

I realize that you are at a major disadvantage trying to argue your points because you don't have a leg to stand on, and that's why you need to continually obfuscate the discussion. But, please, stay on topic!

Oh, and we still have so much to do. Once we do this, we have genome comparisons, homology, radiodating (I can't wait to get to that one), and so much more. This is gonna be so much fun. But, you should be happy. Most people pay thousands of dollars to get an education like this, I'm willing to educate you for free. LOL