Posts
A guy I know - a former soldier with several tours in the Middle East - told me he didn’t want his son to fight over there, and that surprised me. I asked if it was the military’s rules of engagement and he just smirked. “Well why then?” He was silent again, looking into space while he thought about it. Finally he said he wasn’t sure Americans wanted to win. “Hmm,” I said. It was time for me to pause. He stated what I had been thinking lately, but was afraid to say out loud.
Some of us want to win, but a lot of us don’t. “Our leaders are a reflection of our culture,” my friend said, “and our culture wants our soldiers to fight without hurting anybody.” That’s impossible, of course, but it does seem to be what too many Americans want - and our elected leaders are willing to pretend it’s possible. So we send our finest young men to fight with one arm tied behind their backs because of our asinine rules of engagement. Our soldiers cannot shoot until the bad guys shoot at them first.
Fifty-three percent of us elected a president last fall who thinks he can talk our enemies into liking us. Since his inauguration, he’s traveled the world bowing to foreign leaders and apologizing for America when there’s nothing to apologize for. He says the War on Terror is over and what we’ve got now are “Overseas Contingency Operations,” whatever the hell that means.
His interview with ABC News last July is instructive:
ABC’S TERRY MORAN: Define victory in Afghanistan, or maybe that’s not the right word.
OBAMA: I’m always worried about using the word “victory” because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur.
What would be wrong with that? If you ask me, it would be wonderful to see Osama Bin Laden, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bashir Assad, Mullah Omar, Hassan Nasrallah, and the rest of our enemies lined up to sign unconditional surrenders. Is President Obama forgetting that he’s our Commander-in-Chief? We have a C in C who doesn’t want to even say victory? I want one who’ll settle for nothing less.Meanwhile, all that bowing and groveling doesn’t seem to be working very well. Iran - the world’s biggest supporter of terrorism - burned Obama in effigy during their annual “Death to Israel” and “Death to America” festival. One of our own army officers shot dozens of American infidels at Fort Hood while shouting “Allahu Akbar” and our president wasn’t even sure he was a terrorist. A wealthy, British-educated, young Nigerian tried to blow up an American passenger plane with 289 people, Obama called him a “suspect” and an “isolated extremist” who “allegedly” tried to set off a device, as if the terrorist were entitled to the same rights American citizens are.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said: “the system has worked really very, very smoothly” and there was “no indication of a larger terror plot.” As if there were no connection between all the RADICAL MUSLIM terrorists who’ve been attacking Americans, Israelis, British, Spanish, Russians, and others for decades.So many of us are so infected with political correctness, we go to astonishing lengths to avoid calling our enemy by its name. So indoctrinated with self-hating, leftist propaganda about the evils of western civilization are we that we think it’s no wonder they hate us and want to kill us.
An increasing number of Americans don’t want to do what it takes to win because they don’t believe our way of life is worth fighting for. They don’t believe America is unique.
Their brains are so addled with multicultural malarkey, they think all countries and all cultures are equal - even if they enslave women, kill homosexuals, execute anyone who converts to another religion, and continually promise to kill anyone who isn’t like them - it doesn’t make them bad people. They’re just another part of the wonderfully diverse human family and should be celebrated like any other part, including ours.And now we’ve installed an entire national government with that world view. How do you like the way they’re functioning so far America? Do you feel safe?
Just as the leaders we elect are a reflection of us, so are our children. A fellow teacher asked his writing students recently if the America was the best country in the world and most didn’t think so. I teach the same kids, and when I asked them which country was better they looked at me blankly. They couldn’t name one. They just parroted the diversity doo-doo they were raised with.
This is what America is becoming. Is it too late for us? Are we going to lose?
127 comments:
Love it! One thought: As an Iraq vet myself, the rules of engagement in some ways make sense, and only because in this war, the 'enemy' is all too often disguised as 'a civilian' and it is therefore very hard to discern whether someone wass an enemy unless they shot at us. Nonetheless, I fully believe that too many Americans don't want to win. It's a shame.
Monroe Mann, US Army, Captain, Intelligence, Resigned
www.MonroeMann.com
Co-Author, "Guerrilla Networking"
No, I do not believe it is "too late", if only more people will realize that it is within their power to effect change by working and voting for the RIGHT kind of change in 2010 and 2012, and not the sort that got us into this frightening mess. Straight thinking and straight speaking MUST take the place of so-called political correctness which after all, is hypocritical and for the most part politically motivated.
All these comments are fine but I believe that we need to answer the real question, 'How will we know that we have won?'. Killing a few Afghans will not stop the terrorists. Killing Bin Laden will not end the terrorism. When we stop playing 'Policeman to the world' and realize we can't change everything, perhaps we will be on the road to an answer. The problem will not be solved fightiing a war in a country where the enemy is invisible and 99% of the people follow Islam in one form or another and each is a potential enemy. We will end up winning nothing and only learn an expensive lesson in terms of manpower, money, our national pride and prestige throughout the world.
We need to do more at home before we try to run the world.
Tom, I wholeheartedly agree that political correctness is a poison that dulls the truth for all that wish to swallow it. Radical Islam is a real threat, but most of us are too busy fiddling with our ipods to notice or care (the miracle of capitalism at work). The prevailing thought out there seems to be that we can all hug the terror right out of the religious fanatics, or that we can indiscriminately bomb them all back to the stone age; or perhaps these are just the people who have the loudest voices. Either way, both points of view are terrifyingly naive and dangerous.
Here are the problems I find with your points of view:
“...and our culture wants our soldiers to fight without hurting anybody.”
Umm, actually I think it's more along the lines of hurting the right people while not accidentally massacring civilians. Maybe try thinking from the point of view of the people caught in the middle of our predator drone attacks and the RPG's from fascist Qaeda fighters--or is empathizing with civilians of the countries we invade treasonous?
The Soviet Union sure didn't care about the rules of engagement, or think twice about massacring civilians. Yet they still didn't win...hmmm.
"Since his inauguration, he’s traveled the world bowing to foreign leaders and apologizing for America when there’s nothing to apologize for."
That's the kind of hubris that gets us into trouble in the first place. Do you really think we can push around the whole world, tell everyone how to behave, make no apologies when we goof up, and then thumb our nose at the world and nothing bad will happen to us? We tell the U.N. to go screw when they criticize us, then cry foul when other nations figure out they don't have to listen to them either? Is that not hypocrisy?
Pride comes before the fall.
"If you ask me, it would be wonderful to see Osama Bin Laden, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bashir Assad, Mullah Omar, Hassan Nasrallah, and the rest of our enemies lined up to sign unconditional surrenders."
Yes, Tom. That WOULD be wonderful. It would also be wonderful if unicorns were real. SERIOUSLY, Tom?! How is that fantasy any different that the ones of rainbows and sunshine created by those who worship Obama like a golden calf? The days of nations unconditionally surrendering are long over and you know it. Wars have grown into smaller, localized, breakaway regions. The War on Terror (Trademark) isn't fought directly by nations, but by fringe groups who have no borders. Bin Laden isn't fighting for the glory of a country, he's doing it for an insane god who doesn't exist. He would rather die than surrender, and OBVIOUSLY so would most of his followers.
"He would rather die than surrender, and OBVIOUSLY so would most of his followers."
Guess we'll have to kill them, huh? That means civilians will get killed too, because they're sheltering them. Will the Judge Advocate Generals permit that? Heck, three of our best soldiers are undergoing court martial because a terrorist they captured got a bloody lip.
Meanwhile, Obama still thinks we can negotiate.
We're not going to win unless we decide we're willing to do what it takes and I'm not hearing that out there. Are you?
What exactly is your definition of "win", Tom? Is it to kill everyone who doesn't like us; like our brave, anonymous poster thinks? That sounds like the mantra of a terrorist to me.
So that's it, huh? Kill or be killed? I didn't realize things were that drastic yet.
Your simplistic world view of "us vs. them, win or lose, black and white" doesn't hold sway. It is an archaic way of thinking that shares no room with rational, critical thought.
There is no "win" Tom, and if there is, I'd love to hear it. If it were that simple, why do so many of our generals disagree and say flatly that there is no military victory in either Iraq or Afghanistan? All we can do is go about with our lives and try to do whatever is legally and realistically possible to protect ourselves in the home front.
We are Americans and we are capable of a lot of things. But we are also human and cannot possibly police the world. The War on drugs, poverty, and crime have utterly failed because you can't declare war on an intangible human behavior. Why would the "War on Terro" be any different?
Do you really think we can kill enough people and declare, "Well, we did it folks! Everyone loves us again"?
How naive.
You rational, critical thinkers outsmart yourselves. There's no negotiation with fanatic, suicidal terrorists. Not even with Obama's teleprompter. They're not rational.
"I didn't realize things were that drastic yet."
Nope. You didn't. And you still don't. Neither do your beloved president or his Homeland Security Secretary who thinks "the system functioned really very, very smoothly."
What's it going to take for people like you Anthony? Nerve gas in a subway? Anthrax from a crop duster? A mushroom cloud over Israel? Over an American city?
Obama's teleprompter isn't as effective against our enemies as you thought it would be, huh?
Iraq and Afghanistan are theaters in a world war against Radical Islam which operates nearly everywhere, including here. We have to name our enemy first and our Commander in Chief can't even do that.
We'll never get them to "love us" Anthony. We'll win when they realize they cannot defeat us because of our will to win.
It's that will, or rather the lack of it, that I'm discussing in the column.
What do you think, Anthony? Does America have the will to do whatever it takes to win?
"There's no negotiation with fanatic, suicidal terrorists."
Agreed. There is no killing all of them either. Did I suggest we should negotiate with Al Qaeda? I'm not Obama, I don't need your "guilty by association", and last I checked, he is sending 30,000 more troops there (even though a majority of Americans are against the war) on top of the ones that have already been deployed, but I'm sure you'll find a way to find that cowardly.
"What's it going to take for people like you Anthony? Nerve gas in a subway? Anthrax from a crop duster? A mushroom cloud over Israel? Over an American city?"
Boy that sounds a lot like Bush when he convinced us to invade Iraq. How many WMD'S did they have again?
Any number of those things can happen. But blowing up people all over the world doesn't guarantee safety. Safety is an illusion. We should focus on HOMELAND protection instead of starting more wars that lead us nowhere and create more people that are pissed off and want to hurt us.
I ask again, what is your definition of "winning"?
"We'll win when they realize they cannot defeat us because of our will to win."
Our "will to win"?
How hilariously vague.
Did you ever think for a moment that they WANT us to panic? That they want us to live in a paranoid police state and spend ourselves into oblivion trying to rule the world when we were attacked with nothing more than box cutters--to make ourselves implode like the Soviet Union did?
I think what would drive them crazy is if we went about our lives, keenly aware of the threat, but not let them dictate our lives to us. Let them fight each other until their chaos is no longer tolerated by their own.
"Iraq and Afghanistan are theaters in a world war against Radical Islam which operates nearly everywhere"
Strange, I thought 'Al Qaeda in Iraq' was set up AFTER our invasion.
But hey! They're all the same, right?
"What do you think, Anthony? Does America have the will to do whatever it takes to win?"
Ask the soldiers. You know, the ones ACTUALLY DOING THE FIGHTING. It's always so easy for doughy war-hawks to posture and beat their chest when all they have to worry about is whether or not they have enough dip for the chips during the football game.
Our soldiers are willing - as long as they know their countrymen are behind them. That's my question to you. Are you and the rest of America willing to do what it takes to win?
I sense that you're not. Am I wrong?
"That's my question to you. Are you and the rest of America willing to do what it takes to win?
I sense that you're not. Am I wrong?"
Your idea of "winning" is painfully vague, as I stated earlier. So until you give me a better answer than a slogan like "support our troops" I can't give you one. I'm a LITTLE hesitant to cheer people to their deaths and demand sacrifices while I sit on my ass.
People around the world hate us and there's not a lot I can do about that. People in power do what they want regardless of what I and most others have to say. The military industrial complex (which Eisenhower warned us about) has all but taken charge of this country and politicians are too afraid to do anything about it because they'll be called pussy, traitor, socialist.
Given America's history of warfare since WWII, what gives you the hubris to think we can fight the world and "win"?
This isn't Great Britain, Tom. Sharia Law in America? Please don't tell me you're that delusional. The Muslim population in this country is a whopping 5 million (most of whom aren't fanatics) out of well over 300 million, and it isn't projected to increase much in the foreseeable future. Even the looniest lefties in this country don't want that.
What about you, Tom? Are you willing to do whatever it takes to win? Would you be willing to have your taxes skyrocketed so that we can pay these seemingly endless wars off? How about every pro-war American has their taxes drastically increased to pay for these adventures.
Furthermore, how about you, every pro-war citizen and politician grab a gun and saddle up to the land of sand and do your fair share of the fighting?
You ARE willing to do whatever it takes, aren't you?
I still haven't been told what winning is. We are not ever going to be able to defeat this enemy. I am not saying surrender but it seems impossible to get anyone to tell me about winning. Does it mean setting up a 'democratic' system of government in every Islamic country.
Come on Tom tell me.
All I ever hear is the conservatives telling the liberals how stupid they are but never get the answer I seek.
And Anthony, you make some good arguments but try to say it in fewer words. Each comment need not be a term paper. Keep it simple.
Okay.
Victory is when Radical Muslims are unable to mobilize anyone to fight for their vision of a world under Sharia Law.
Victory is a world with moderate Muslims intolerant of anyone preaching jihad as a holy war against infidels.
Victory is Islam as it was prior to the 1920s when the Muslim Brotherhood formed and gave birth to the various jihadist groups such as al Qaeda and Hezbollah we see today.
I'm open to other strategies than hundreds of thousands of uniformed American soldiers deployed in countries like Afghanistan or Iraq. Perhaps a beefed-up covert operations capability would be more effective.
Our enemy is world-wide and unconventional. Perhaps we'd be better off fighting back in unconventional ways - not unlike what we used to do in the '50s, '60s and '70s.
Sounds better to me, Tom.
"Perhaps a beefed-up covert operations capability would be more effective."
I like this, it gives me the hope I've been seeking. Otherwise I see Afghanistan as a huge black hole, a bottomless pit, if you will. Why keep sacrificing our sons and daughters to a war that cannot be won by conventional means? We need to fight this war on a different level.
Thank Heaven for Anthony Tiani!
The comic stylings of Educator McLaughlin - bordering on 'racist' - would be unbearable if not for the rational, well-thought-out ripostes of Mr. Tiani.
Frankly, the most frightening thing to emerge from EMcL's bile is that, believe it or not, this is a salaried molder and shaper of Young Minds.
Now that, my friends, is truly horrifying.
There's always going to be a mad dash to attack truth. Keep at it Tom. Truth will always prevail!
Much of what you said in this article my 71 year old veteran father (a war history buff) has been saying for years.
Good answer on winning, but I shall not be holding my breath.
Tom, I think Pinkie has a crush on you. His fantasizing is becoming truly obsessive now.
Whatever his concerns on this purely personal level are, it is really sad, that these people still think they are somehow revolutionary "dissidents".
When will the commies and pinkies understand that they have have turned into mainstream decades ago?
"Tom, I think Pinkie has a crush on you. His fantasizing is becoming truly obsessive now."
that's what I was thinking too! :-0
Pinkie has a crush on me? Could be, but I believe his similar posts on multiple threads here are examples of what homosexual activists are instructed to do with persistent critics like me.
First, we're called "homophobes" and that silences many. But that pejorative has lost its sting, and it never bothered me.
Next, they drag out the idea that anyone who criticizes homosexuality and isn't "afraid" of homosexuals as the accusation of "homophobia" suggests, must be a deeply-closeted, self-hating, repressed homosexual himself - hence the "extensive collection of "gay" porn I must have in the closet with me.
Pinkie is just a local minion serving the allegedly-non-existent homosexual agenda and its puppet masters.
Gay Marriage is now legal in my state, and Jesus hasn't flown down from the sky in his magic chariot made out of promise rings.
Tell Pinkie I'm already married.
Concerning Tom's and Anthony's posts:
If one did not know who was the "teacher" and who was the "youngster" a lot of people would be fooled - Anthony's posts are far more mature, thoughtful and intelligent.
"A mad dash to attack truth"?!?!
Dawn, Tom's article is full of opinions, which are very different from facts, or "truth".
What facts did Tom make that were unfairly attacked?
Thanks for the kind words everyone. I'm not pretending that I have all of life's answers. I think my intellectual capacity is pretty normal. I just wish more people would learn to think on their own. Of course everyone THINKS they do, but when nearly everyone spouts the same exact rhetoric and uses the same exact folksy buzz-words, it cannot be a coincidence. The 24-hour news cycle has dumbed down all of the worlds affairs into bite-size tidbits for the lazy, incurious American.
At the risk of inflating your ego, Anthony, I would have to say that you have a bit more going on than your average young man. Keep up the good work - your ability to rationally deal with the Hannity/Coulter/Rush dittoheads or the world without losing your cool or your patience is remarkable.
"What facts did Tom make that were unfairly attacked?"
First off all I was talking in a general sense when I originally wrote that as in "keep on speaking the truth."
But in this case the facts are
#1 We are at war. \
#2 We have been at war for some time now because it's been dragged out.
#3 We have not won this war.
With me so far?
#4. We have the best military in the world.
5. We could easily go in and win this war.
#6. We have not.
The question is why not? I think Tom answered that in this thread.
"#1 We are at war.
#2 We have been at war for some time now because it's been dragged out.
#3 We have not won this war.
#4. We have the best military in the world.
5. We could easily go in and win this war.
#6. We have not.
The question is why not? I think Tom answered that in this thread."
Dawn, aside from #5, how have I or anyone else doubted these facts? One would have to be an invalid to not think we were at war.
As far as, "We could easily go in and win this war" goes--why haven't we (the assertion that Obama and most Americans don't want to is idiotic) and why have many generals seriously doubted our ability to win?
I'm not rooting for us to lose. I want us to succeed! But we're not made of magic. The population is over 30 million in Afghanistan and the vast majority hate us and don't want us there. How do we bomb our way out of that conundrum?
Ask yourself this. Since you and many other conservatives hate our president so much (many bizarrely thinking he is a dictator) would you be OK with foreign nations (those who have had civilians killed by our weapons) invade our country and liberate our populous? Would you support this invasion even if all your loved ones were killed accidentally because an "enemy combatant" unknowingly lived next door to you?
5. We could easily go in and win this war.
Boy, if you are mad at Obama about this after one year, you must be REALLY mad at Bush for not "easily" going in and winning this thing during his 8 years! Exactly how did Tom explain the reason Bush didn't do so? Surely you are not saying that Bush didn't try as hard as he could have because he was worried about the public's reaction...or are you?!?
Peter,
excuse me but where did I say anything about Obama? In Tom's article he mentioned "leaders" more than once. In case you didn't notice it's plural.
Clinton, Bush and now Obama and their gangs. Not one of them had (has) the guts to get the job done!
Our military can do it. Our Generals are ready. But more than once they've had to hold back and send their men home at opportune moments while our so called "leaders" finished up their golf games.
Tom is right. The minute we really decide to win this war we will.
We seem way to worried about hurting the other guy than our own. Just like the guy who blew the soldiers away at Ft. Hood we are being way to PC all the while putting our own boys in grave danger.
Enough is enough. Go in there, do the job and get er done!
Dawn is right. You ask why President Bush didn't finish it in two terms?
He started off very well, both in Afghanistan and in Iraq, but he lost his nerve in Fallujah. After those Blackwater guys were dragged through the streets, burned and hanged, our soldiers were itching to go in there and clean up, but Bush held them back. Quite a while later, he finally had to do it, but he'd lost his nerve and his momentum.
Obama would just as soon have pulled out, but after criticizing Bush for two years saying he was fighting the "wrong war" in Iraq when he should have been pouring resources into Afghanistan, he had to accede to McCrystal's request. That he appointed the McCrystal himself last March made it even more difficult.
No. Obama doesn't have the nerve to fight this war and our enemies know it even better than I do.
He dithered for months trying to weasel out of it while our brave soldiers were dying. That's why the cadets at West Point were so cool to him.
Admit it you Anonymous harpies: you elected a "leader" who is all talk - and he can only do that when he's reading from a teleprompter.
How do you like the way he's handling the Christmas bomber? Feeling safer?
Favorite Quote:
"One would have to be an invalid to not think we were at war."
Would you color me invalid if I believed we were in a military engagment authorized by congress or maybe a LIC? I'm not a war powers resolution expert, nor constitutional lawyer...so just a thought. No need to be so insulting.
Second favorite quote:
"Privacy and my civil rights are more important to me than "security".
I'd rather die in a terrorist attack than live in an America transformed into a fascistic, big brother, police-state."
To anyone who served or is serving in the military, this is fairly insulting. You can't have one without the other. As a military officer, my focus everyday is to ensure your "civil liberties" are met through strong security measures. Please don't pretend you understand the difficulties in securing the borders. Comments like that deserve a one way ticket to Iran. Call it a broadening experience. You may be a smart young kid, but that's not a wise statement.
The though that "winning" a war against terrorism would be easy is beyond naive....study up, learn some things and maybe we can talk intelligently.
"Would you color me invalid if I believed we were in a military engagment authorized by congress or maybe a LIC? I'm not a war powers resolution expert, nor constitutional lawyer...so just a thought. No need to be so insulting."
No, I would not. You can call war whatever you'd like. It doesn't make the death and destruction any more palatable.
"To anyone who served or is serving in the military, this is fairly insulting. You can't have one without the other. As a military officer, my focus everyday is to ensure your "civil liberties" are met through strong security measures. Please don't pretend you understand the difficulties in securing the borders. Comments like that deserve a one way ticket to Iran. Call it a broadening experience. You may be a smart young kid, but that's not a wise statement."
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." - Benjamin Franklin
That quote from one of our Founding Fathers best surmises what I was trying to say. Your rebuttal is strange and all over the place. My point was that decimating Iraq (a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11) has in no way made me safer. What it HAS done is engender an even greater hatred towards this country.
I also never said ANYTHING about border protection. In fact, I would agree that we need a stronger and more sensible border control policy. Which is why we need to stop sending the National Guard overseas. You have proven my point.
As far as the Iran comment goes, why does speaking my mind earn me a trip to a place where I would get my kneecaps crushed for doing so? I'm extremely grateful for all those, past and present, who have sacrificed so much so that I may be able to speak my mind, and I have made small contributions at times (I can admittedly do a lot more)--but I will make no concessions. Aside from my family and friends who have helped me over my young life, I don't personally "owe" anybody anything.
We don't just, or primarily for that matter, need federal and executive intervention to preserve our freedoms. Isn't that what you conservatives have been saying all along?
Want to preserve your freedoms? Take up arms, vote, and above all, speak your mind--regardless of what pressures politicians and corporate jack-asses tell you, NEVER hesitate to speak your mind.
"The though that "winning" a war against terrorism would be easy is beyond naive....study up, learn some things and maybe we can talk intelligently."
if this is aimed at me...again my words taken out of context (and going after my character...and we know how that works) by YET another Anon. When did I say anything about this being easy?
There's nothing "easy" about war. We're just dragging it out longer and making it much harder and costlier than it needs to be. Why?
No, I said we need to just go in there and take care of business and leave the PC crap behind.
"No, I said we need to just go in there and take care of business and leave the PC crap behind."
Tell me, Dawn, since you seem to know more than our generals, what do we have to do to win? You still aren't saying so. And please don't refer back to Tom, I've already pointed out the flaws and vagueness in his idea of "winning".
By "pc crap" do you mean that we should kill people indiscriminately? Shoot first and ask questions never?
Also, tell me how difficult it is to reconcile the peace and love you believe Christ has for us with the war mongering you insist upon. What part of "Thou Shalt Not Kill" do you have trouble understanding?
You have also lost all credibility when you said, "When did I say anything about this being easy? THERE'S NOTHING 'EASY' ABOUT WAR."
A few paragraphs up you said, "WE COULD EASILY GO IN AND WIN THIS WAR." Care to own up to it?
Are you THAT blind to your own blatant hypocrisy?
"How do you like the way he's handling the Christmas bomber? Feeling safer?"
Considering I don't fly often, I don't feel one way or the other. I'm not going to project my feelings onto others. I DO KNOW that the odds of being killed in a terrorist attack are so low, that running around all day worrying about it is completely pointless. I'm more concerned about getting into a car accident--which is FAR more likely to happen than any sort of terrorist plane attack. After all, terrorist WANT US TO BE TERRORIZED.
The president seems to be acknowledging the governments failures, which is MUCH more than I can say about our last administration. Do you hate him so much that you can't acknowledge ANYTHING that he does right?
How does he stack up to Bush? Remember Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber?" Because I do. It happened only a mere few months after 9/11. I remember Bush waited for SIX DAYS (he was on vacation too) before he passively commented on it. Rummy didn't even want to talk about it because it was a "criminal" issue handled by the courts, not the DOD.
I'm not just spouting what Rachel Maddow says. I was just 16 at the time and I STILL REMEMBER. Isn't it amazing how short the memory spans of conservatives are?
"My point was that decimating Iraq (a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11) has in no way made me safer. What it HAS done is engender an even greater hatred towards this country."
What do you base this on? I'm slightly curious on what your professional background is. Humor me if you would.
and...
"I also never said ANYTHING about border protection. In fact, I would agree that we need a stronger and more sensible border control policy. Which is why we need to stop sending the National Guard overseas. You have proven my point."
You're short in scope when understanding borders. Not sure why you jumped to our guardsmen. I’ll agree with you on their over utilization. However, that wasn’t close to the point. If you believe that AD Military/DoD agencies aren't protecting borders oversees, then I continue to question your ability to debate or understand.
And I believe you meant:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Tell me how your essential liberties are being compromised.
And you do owe respect:
"Men sleep peacefully in their beds at night because rough men stand ready
to do violence on their behalf."
"What do you base this on? I'm slightly curious on what your professional background is. Humor me if you would."
I don't have to be a soldier to know when my elected leaders are full of shit.
Bush himself admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and that there were no WMD's like HE SAID THERE WAS.
I don't have to prove that Iraq did or didn't make us safe or unsafe. That is the job of the people who led the invasion. We invaded a country that was not a "clear and present danger" to us like we were told. I was never given a say or a vote over whether or not I wanted us to invade Iraq.
PROVE TO ME that I am safer because of Iraq. I don't have to be in the military to know that when people commit suicide to kill scores of Americans on a daily basis (as was the case through most of the war) it PROBABLY means that they don't want us there.
It's true that I'm no soldier, and I would never pretend to be as brave as someone who is. However, I have poured over enough information, read enough books with both sides of opinion on the subject, and have done enough soul searching to reach my conclusion. I know this especially because I WAS FOR THE WAR WHEN IT STARTED (I was also a naive 16 yer old). It took a lot of growing up and learning to accept when I'm dead wrong to reach my conclusion.
As far as "owing" you something; I HAVE NO IDEA WHO YOU ARE. As I stated previously, I have great admiration and concern for those fighting and dying overseas. I WISH THEY WERE HOME INSTEAD. But in not knowing who you are or what you do, I can't possibly know to owe you anything. Have you personally prevented a terrorist attack on myself or loved ones? If not, I don't owe you anything.
YOU volunteered for your job. I never asked, voted, or made you enter the military in any way.
I will afford you the same respect I afford any other stranger in polite debate.
I have done NOTHING to disrespect you. Just because we have a disagreement on matters doesn't mean we can't get along or that I'm disrespecting you. It's unfortunate for you if you are offended. However, I'm not overly concerned with offending people. I'm only concerned with speaking my mind, and I'm not going to grovel at your feet because I offended you.
If you're offended at what I have to say, then you are free to ignore me.
"Tell me how your essential liberties are being compromised."
For one, the government (with the help of phone companies) can spy on my phone calls without a warrant. I don't care if I have nothing to hide. I want the government the fuck out of my private conversations.
If you think those in power would never abuse their power, how about you look into the allegations from multiple whistle blowers in the NSA that they were forced to spy on OUR OWN AMERICAN SOLDIERS phone conversations back home with loved ones. Even when they were intensely private phone sex conversations. Why weren't soldier-loving GOP members up in arms about that? Oh yeah, IT WAS ON THEIR WATCH.
I want to fix an error and state that I had just turned 18 at the time of the invasion. Still naive, but slightly older.
"Tell me, Dawn, since you seem to know more than our generals, what do we have to do to win? You still aren't saying so."
First off...The Generals aren't able to do what they know to do anymore. Not like they used to anyway. You may want to read some of the latest General's books out there. There's a good one entitled "Never Surrender" by Lt. General (retired) William G Boykin. In it he says:
"The left can scream all it wants that the war on terror is about oil or American imperialism or G.W. Bush's personal amusement. That if we weren't such big, bad bullies, the poor third world jihadists wouldn't have attacked us, and the French would like us better.
But we are not the bad guys. Our motto is life and liberty. The jihadists' motto is convert or die. And no matter how much the PC crowd would like to deny it, the inalienable right to liberty that America is fighting for is part of the Judeo-Christian heritage that is the bedrock of our nation. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, the right to liberty comes from outside us, planted in our hearts by our Creator, making it not merely an American ideal but a human ideal."
I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert at war strategy but rooting these terrorists out by getting them out from under the protection the countries hiding them is the first place to go. We know where the camps are. Go hard after them. Play hardball against the countries harboring them and I mean hard.
Also, stop the micro-managing from the politicians and uncuff the military. When we fought in the Civil War and other historic Wars we didn't wait until the Presidents got off the golf courses before we could make a move against an enemy.
"it PROBABLY means that they don't want us there"
Where would you suppose they do want us? Or is this question too obvious for an answer?
"PROVE TO ME that I am safer because of Iraq"
You're still alive right? Even after quite numerous attempts, some you have no idea even existed, there hasn't been a follow on attack of that magnitude. But, it's all about you now isn't it. Problem with you "liberals" (hilarious that you grouped me as a conservative, so typical of the “progressives” right?) is it's all about you. You’re quite the selfish individual insulting public servants. If I may, what would you have done after 9/11? Again, curious.
"I don't have to be a soldier to know when my elected leaders are full of shit."
I am also not a solider, so we have that in common. For someone so PC and self enlightened, again we find you so quick to group and stereotype. Let me get this right, you became informed so well by reading the opinions of others to form a life view. Interesting. I'd rather see for myself before I so broadly insult my leadership.
"It's unfortunate for you if you are offended."
“…grovel at your feet because I offended you.”
"If you're offended at what I have to say, then you are free to ignore me"
Did I say I was offended? I called you childlike and slightly insulting. I only asked you a few basic clarification questions on your points, there is no need to get flustered. Do you want to be ignored?
How many ways and how many times must I say that I'm not a liberal? If I inferred that you are a conservative and are not, I apologize. Typically, I'm speaking to the other self-professed conservatives here.
I encouraged people to take up arms for personal protection.
I've stated numerous times that I think Islam is a violent, misogynist religion with a childish, jealous God that doesn't exist.
I absolutely, positively LOATHE political correctness.
"Where would you suppose they do want us? Or is this question too obvious for an answer?"
If you're speaking about Iraqis, as I am (no, all middle eastern people aren't the same, you are in intelligence aren't you?) then they probably want us anywhere but in their country.
"You're still alive right?"
That isn't proof of anything! Are you saying that if we didn't invade a country that didn't attack us I wouldn't be alive?
"I'd rather see for myself before I so broadly insult my leadership."
The Bush administration said there were massive WMD stockpiles in Iraq.
There weren't
They said Iraq was an imminent danger to us all.
They weren't.
They said the mission was accomplished in an elaborate photo-op.
It wasn't.
Dick Cheney said in 2005 that the Iraqi insurgency was in its "last throws".
It wasn't.
This war was also orchestrated by two draft dodgers. Now THAT'S selfish.
How is it that I'm selfish? You asked ME questions on MY beliefs, not anyone else's. I am answering for myself.
I haven't purported to be a hero.i don't need to be to form my own opinions.
As far as the books go. Every one I've read was written from PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE.
Dawn, I guess you're going to ignore my religious question.
More importantly, I caught you in a lie, or at least a huge mistake that pokes a huge hole in your logic.
You said that going in and winning was easy. Then you said it wasn't and claimed that you never said you did?
Care to explain?
The reason I write in caps sometimes isn't because I'm yelling, (though I could certainly understand why some would think that) it's to show emphasis.
I'm cool as a cucumber. I've had these debates more times than I can count.
"Dawn, I guess you're going to ignore my religious question."
You have no idea of what you speak. I actually did answer it but my computer shut off before I posted last night.
Without giving you a long bible lesson let me just direct you to Romans 13:1-4 and tell you that sometimes war is justified and that God left that up to the governments to wield the sword and decide. We as their subjects are to obey the laws of the land.
Also, there is a big diff biblically between murder and killing. Murder is when one takes personal vengeance on another and is strictly forbidden by God. Going to war is completely accepted by God. In fact he led the Israelites to war many times. I think about David and his powerful army and Joshua at the battle of Jerico for just two examples. Fighting evil is perfectly justified.
When Jesus spoke about peace and love he was talking as individuals. Paul wrote "as much as is possible with you live peaceable with all men."
When I said there is nothing about war is easy I meant that. When I said we could easiy go in and get things done I meant that as well. I'm not really saying it's easy per se. I also said, and maybe this is where you're not hearing me,we are making it "harder" than it should be.
Also, JC was not PC and neither am I. So I guess you and I agree on that point?
Dawn, I'm not going to continue the religious debate with you. You aren't changing your views and neither am I.
I use sound logic in my arguments backed up with evidence. You use contradictory stories in a book filled with myths based on slivers of truth written thousands of years ago.
People need a bogeyman. They need "evil" people to kill so as to satisfy their natural blood-lust without appearing evil themselves. Because, of course, every group of people thinks they're the "good" ones. We're the GOOD guys! We kill people for GOOD, RIGHTEOUS causes!
Have you, or any other pro-war person on here, ever thought for a second that maybe, just maybe, we aren't always the "good" guys? That maybe the people we fight are using the SAME EXACT arguments to fight us--Killing US in the name of God just as you say we should do?
So call me liberal, egotistical, young, politically correct, naive; whatever anyone likes. These thinly veiled attacks do NOTHING to prove me wrong.
"So call me liberal, egotistical, young, politically correct, naive; whatever anyone likes. These thinly veiled attacks do NOTHING to prove me wrong."
First of all I haven't called you even one of those terms neither have I attacked you at all but yet you continually attack my belief in God. I tend to stick to the subject matter at hand.
"I use sound logic in my arguments backed up with evidence. You use contradictory stories in a book filled with myths based on slivers of truth written thousands of years ago."
You use humanistic reasoning.. not wisdom of God but wisdom of men to form your logic. I answered your question fairly and you did not reply to it only to attack it. There was no logic in your answer.
You have yet to show me one contradiction in scripture. Believe me, there is no such thing but only what is conjured up in the mind of its detractors.
The book you speak so callously about is and will always be the best seller of all time. It will be here long after you become worm dirt. As it has always done, it has outlived its critics who moved on to stand in judgement before the God who wrote it. We all will answer to Him for what we've done with it.
oh,and btw...I'm not pro-war. But I do understand that war is necessary because we live in a world of sin and evil.
Alex,
Here's an article on Political Correctness that I just read recently that you may find interesting.
http://www.amac.us/political-correctness-the-weakening-of-america/
Dawn, I really want to wrap this up because we're really treading the same ground. I've pointed out the inconsistencies in the Bible before, I'm not going to keep repeating myself. People (not speaking of you) are largely simple, and ignorant. Just because it is the biggest seller doesn't in anyway make it correct. The majority of people in our distant past believed that the earth was the center of the universe and that the sun was a god.
I would like to end on a positive note however.
Please realize that when someone chooses to enter in spiritual debate with me, I won't mince words. It's dishonest for me to do so. I always want to be respectful. To me, attacking a belief system is not disrespectful on its own. I do not think I'm better than you in anyway shape or form.
I do apologize if I inferred that you called me names. You have not, and I tried to direct it to the others who have, which is why I said "everyone".
Some of my most cherished loved ones in life are fervent believers and I would NEVER hold that against them.
Thank you for keeping the debate lively and respectful.
Thank you, Dawn. I agreed with the author (for the most part) regarding the extents that political correctness have been driven to. I see now that the monster of "PC" is rightfully a monster, as the very meaning of the word has been changed. I guess I should say that I am instead in favor of thinking before one speaks, and considering the effects that what you say will not offend, but harm other people. Offending people is fine, that's what our Founding Fathers wanted for our country. Hurting people is different. One may say "sticks and stones..." all that they want, but it's a fact that children can be deeply affected by careless words thrown at them. For example, there is no need for a young Indian-American boy to be called a "towel head". That's just rude.
I am not implying that anyone here has done this.
One thing that did worry me about the article was the comments section. Since when have our teachers been "indoctrinating" us with a liberal agenda? I know that I am deeply blessed to go to Fryeburg Academy, but are other schools that drastically different??? I have teachers of multiple faiths and political views. Never have I been instructed in class to adopt any of them. It has been more common for the teachers to display their beliefs and critique them; teaching us to keep open-minds and be skeptical of everything. Mr. McLaughlin certainly didn't have a "liberal agenda" when I had him. :P
For Alex and Anthony to speak in horror about the death of innocent people in wartime is understandable. However, we're at war with an enemy that hides behind innocent civilians over there - before, during and after their attacks on innocent civilians here. So what choices do we have in how we respond?
Our soldiers die over there because of our ridiculous rules of engagement. They're ambushed or blown up with IEDs before they're allowed to go on offense.
Perhaps a reasonable response would be a strategy that includes a strong propaganda war to shed light on our enemy's cowardice in their methods of warfare. Perhaps moderates will be more likely to expose and ostracize the radicals among them. It's not a guarantee they would though.
Then perhaps a renewal of the original Bush Doctrine that any nation-state which supports terrorist acts against the United States is itself an enemy of the United States. Iran is the most glaring example, but Obama is either ignorant of what Iran is doing or too wimpy to deal with them.
Even under the best possible circumstances, there is no way this war or any war can be fought without the suffering and death of innocents. If we don't have the stomach for it, we can look at ourselves in the mirror and tell ourselves how moral we are in our restraint as we're attacked again and again. Ultimately however, we will simply cease to exist as a civilization.
Like it or not, those are the stakes. I believe my friend is right in his belief that most Americans are not ready to do what it takes to win this war. It may indeed be too late.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaS2bRGS86c
This was recorded almost 20 years ago and it is still a great comment on how some things never change.
Anthony, posting a trite You-tube video of a George Carlin routine as a response to my post is insulting.
I only got 1:23 into it, but I don't need to see any more. "We like war. We're a warlike people. We bomb the f--- out of brown people [because we like to]."
No Anthony. Your youthful naivete is showing. Human males are warlike people, not just Americans. We can get on a soapbox and proclaim to the world that we've transcended that unfortunate trait - we've evolved beyond it for you athiestic types - and we won't make war anymore, no matter what other warlike males do to us. We can all be Mohandas Ghandis and Martin Luther Kings and we can cease to exist as a nation state with a Constitution that happens to be the last best hope on earth.
I don't think you understand our enemy, Anthony. There would be no George Carlins in their kind of "civilization." He would be stoned to death. He's a uniquely American product.
George Carlin was a funny guy. Radical Muslims are humorless.
Now it's my turn to post a video. It's long - fourteen minutes - but well worth it. Go here:
http://pjtv.com/v/2930
It shows how political correctness is literally killing us.
Tom, I think you may need to lighten up a bit. I tried to interject some humor into the debate. If you didn't laugh perhaps it's because you know it's at least partially true and don't want to admit it, or maybe you're too uptight.
You're right, Tom. War is not uniquely American. It WOULD be incredibly naive of me to think so. Did I EVER say ANYTHING to the contrary?
Mankind are still animals and no matter what we'd like to tell ourselves, or how many ties we want to wear, we have a natural desire for blood-lust.
I implore you to please stop using the tired, ad hominen attack that if I said what I wanted to "over there" I'd be stoned.
No shit!
Do you really think I don't know that? Perhaps if I showed you my research paper I did for my class (which was choking of liberals) about how Islam, at its core, is a violent religion, you would understand that I recognize "our enemies."
So I will continue to say what I want, when I want, and appreciate that many other places in the world would not allow me to do so.
BUT that doesn't mean that the stars and stripes are to be shielded from my criticism.
I haven't attacked you with the tired "you couldn't criticize the government over THERE" speech when you attack Obama, why would you do so to me?
Also, please stop obsessing about my youth. You sound as if you're threatened. It's a shut down attack that doesn't intimidate me ONE BIT.
I haven't called you old and stubborn.
You could, and the shoe would fit comfortably.
"I guess I should say that I am instead in favor of thinking before one speaks, and considering the effects that what you say will not offend, but harm other people."
Alex, I concur wholeheartedly here. You'd make a good Christian :) This is taught in scripture. James taught that God's people should be "slow to speak and quick to listen." The one part of the PC article I didn't agree with was when she mentioned we shouldn't have to think before we speak.
I get what she's saying, but also believe that we do need to think first. That would solve a whole lot of problems.
"One thing that did worry me about the article was the comments section. Since when have our teachers been "indoctrinating" us with a liberal agenda? I know that I am deeply blessed to go to Fryeburg Academy, but are other schools that drastically different???"
The schools are filled with the liberal agenda. I'm sure Mr. M could better explain this to you than I. Unless things have drastically changed,(in 2 years)FA is extremely liberal. I had one son who was mocked openly for his Christian faith by a very liberal English teacher and another English teacher who showed contempt towards anything Christian.
Maybe you don't notice this because you would fit in a bit easier than a strong Christian student would?
"I've pointed out the inconsistencies in the Bible before, I'm not going to keep repeating myself."
Anthony:
And anytime that some says there is a contradiction I've shown otherwise with the real truth and GET NO RESPONSE back or a response like you just gave me now. In other words, they haven't an answer that doesn't come in the form of mealey mouthed ones. So does that still make you right?
"People (not speaking of you) are largely simple, and ignorant. Just because it is the biggest seller doesn't in anyway make it correct."
So does it make it wrong? People are searching for truth and the meaning of life. The reason why the bible is so well read and searched is because people believe in them they can find the purpose and meaning of life.
"The majority of people in our distant past believed that the earth was the center of the universe and that the sun was a god."
And...the majority of the people living today don't really believe in God. So your point is?
Remember, the people who knew the scriptures DID NOT believe the sun was a god. ONLY the ones who didn't have the scriptures would have believed that. Scriptures are quite clear that the sun is not a god but created by God himself.
It's all written down for our benefit. We just need to sit down and open the book to see for ourselves. Don't take somebody's word for it. Study it yourself.
"Please realize that when someone chooses to enter in spiritual debate with me, I won't mince words. It's dishonest for me to do so. I always want to be respectful."
And neither do I. I totally agree with you here.
Let me add tho that kindness is not tolerance. I have no tolerance for lies (contradictions in the bible is a lie from the pit of hell). Kindness is speaking the truth in love. Kindess is love with feet on it. You will always get the truth from me so help me God!
Dawn, I appreciate the fact that you always speak what you THINK is the "truth". Just realize that you are not a better thinker than billions of others who's "truth" differs from yours.....or are you really so arrogant?
"Just realize that you are not a better thinker than billions of others who's "truth" differs from yours"
It's NOT MY TRUTH!
That's the difference!
And there are billions of people who have a different truth that say the same thing: it is not their truth, it is THE truth.
Do you think you are a better thinker than them because you somehow figured out what the "real" truth is? Here is what Einstein had to say about the matter:
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
And, in a "letter, dated January 3 1954, he wrote: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."
But of course you outhought Einstein and realized the "real" truth...congratulations!!
"It is easier to perceive error than to find truth, for the former lies on the surface and is easily seen, while the latter lies in the depth, where few are willing to search for it." Johann Goethe
"I am the way, the truth and the life." Jesus!
Let's see Einstein or Christ? I pick Christ. You can have Einstein. It doesn't matter if Einstein believed in God or not. God believed in him.
Ok, so somebody SAYS that they are "the truth" and that is all the proof you need!?!?
Amazing.
Oh yes, god believed in Einstein enough to send him to burn eternally in hell?!?
Again, you have no way of proving what you believe to be the Truth is anymore the Truth than what billions of others believe, beit hinduism, scientology, or whatever.
Pure blind faith.... dangerous and ignorant
"Ok, so somebody SAYS that they are "the truth" and that is all the proof you need!?!?"
goes much deeper than that. Read my first quote again.
"Oh yes, god believed in Einstein enough to send him to burn eternally in hell?!?"
How do you know Einstein went to hell? God doesn't send anyone to hell. They choose to go.
You are always free to make your choices but you are NOT free to choose your consequences. If you decide to jump off a 10 story building..that's your choice. You do not choose the consequences.
So if you find yourself in the hot zone, don't blame God. You made your choice.
"Pure blind faith.... dangerous and ignorant"
My faith is not blind. Even Helen Keller, blind, deaf and dumb knew there was a God when told. She said "I just didn't know he had a name."
P.S. It's pretty strange to be arguing with me about truth when I list my name truthfully and I'm speaking to an anon who's hiding!
"The man who speaks the truth is always at ease." Chinese proverb
Oh, right, Einstein was the type to just look on the surface for things. No, he never dug deeper for harder to find truths, right?
Preposterous.
Yes, sure, when Einstein was on his deathbed he "chose" to go to hell...thought, "hey, that'd be fun!"
No...Einstein, being the genius he was, saw absolutely NO evidence that hell existed. You keep claiming that your faith is not blind and yet you have yet to mention ANY bit of evidence to support your beliefs. Nope, you simply chose to put your blind faith in an old book riddled with inconsitancies just because it has always been a popular book.
As Sam Harris says in his brilliant book "The End of Faith":
"There is clearly a sacred dimension to our existance, and coming to terms with it could well be the highest purpose of human life. But we will find that it requires no faith in untestable propositions - Jesus was born of a virgin, the Koran is the word of God - for us to do this.
"As Sam Harris says in his brilliant book "The End of Faith":"
and is this Harris dead or alive? Many critics have passed on for generation after generation but the word of God has outlived them all...including their books. Pretty interesting isn't it?
Someone will be here to take your place long after you die. And it won't be YOUR WORD they will be discussing.
Oh and the virgin birth? Pretty interesting when you think about it. Only modern scientists have discovered that a baby's blood in the womb does not mingle with their mother's. The blood comes from the father.
The whole OT deals alot about the subject that life is in the blood and blood is very important when it comes to the subject of salvation.
We also know that impurities in the body can be carried thru the blood vessels infecting organs. What's interesting is that Jesus had no earthly father. That made His blood free from impurities and sin. That's why from the garden of Eden it was all about the "sin of Adam" and later the sinfree life of the second Adam (Christ). Eve was the first to comitt sin but it's always been about sin coming thru one man and salvation coming from the other. Scripture is all about being saved by the "blood of the lamb" or "washed clean by the blood of the lamb."
How in the world would the writers of the OT and even the NT written 2,000 years ago know this about the blood? If they had only known. It makes much more sense than it did when they wrote what they wrote. It doesn't contradict but enhance their writings. Science always supports scripture.
Times that by 10,000 and you get the idea what the bible is all about.
"Yes, sure, when Einstein was on his deathbed he "chose" to go to hell...thought, "hey, that'd be fun!""
First of all neither you nor I can pretend to know what Einstein's last private moments were like.
Second of all hell is a consequence not a choice. Did you not read what I wrote about choices/consequences?
If he chose unbelief, that was his choice. The consequence is hell. God makes up the rules. And when you understand them, they make perfect sense. The problem is, most people aren't interested in the truth. They want their ears tickled. They're more interested in shaking a fist at a God they have no idea about.
"Only modern scientists have discovered that a baby's blood in the womb does not mingle with their mother's. The blood comes from the father. "
Now, Dawn, you have said that your son has been studying molecular biology. I don't know if you heard this fallacy from him, or what. But this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Our modern knowledge of genetics tells us that our blood is determined by the different genes we inherit from *both parents*. In fact, modern science contradicts the father's supposed role of passing on the family characteristics entirely. We are products of chance, based completely on the genotypes of our parents (I am studying this in depth currently).
If anything, the role of the father is smaller than that of the mother's, genetically speaking. See, some of our DNA is stored in our mitochondria (our energy-stoves, one may say). This is because mitochondria used to be separate organisms, until they were taken into the cell and *evolved* into what they are today. As they were separate organisms, they retained DNA. This DNA is important in many life functions, and defects can cause multiple types of disease.
Why do mothers matter so much? When a sperm cell fertilizes and egg, the egg grows into the embryo. It is the egg that develops and becomes an infant. In this egg are the embryo's first mitochondria. Fathers have no role in mitochondrial DNA. This disproves the idea that the father is more important.
Ooops, I just realized that my previous comment also disproves this:
"What's interesting is that Jesus had no earthly father. That made His blood free from impurities and sin. That's why from the garden of Eden it was all about the "sin of Adam" and later the sinfree life of the second Adam (Christ). Eve was the first to comitt sin but it's always been about sin coming thru one man and salvation coming from the other. "
Believing in God is one thing, but STILL clinging to creationism is unbelievable and, frankly, sad to me.
A talking snake and 6,000 year old universe has no place in the realm of dinosaurs, mathematics, fossil fuels, and a descending ancestry of humanoid skeletal remains.
Hey, now Anothony the book that makes the talking snake, the virgin birth and a 6,000 year old universe claim is a really old book that is still very popular....so it MUST be true!!
As far as I can tell this is Dawn's ONLY arguement that her faith is not blind. Yikes.
Reading a book written by the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving creator of the universe, wouldn't you expect to be stunned by the brilliance, the clarity and the wisdom of the author? Would you not expect each new page to intoxicate you with its incredible prose and its spectacular insight? Wouldn't you expect the author to tell us things that scientists have not been able to discover yet?
Yet, when we open the Bible and actually read it, we find it is nothing like that at all. Instead of leaving us in awe, it leaves us dumbfounded by all of the nonsense and backwardness that it contains. If you read what the Bible actually says, you find that the Bible is ridiculous. The examples shown above barely scratch the surface of the Bible's numerous problems. If we are honest with ourselves, it is obvious that an "all-knowing" God had absolutely nothing to do with this book.
The reason why the Bible contains so much nonsense is because God is imaginary. The Bible is a book written thousands of years ago by primitive men. A book that advocates senseless murder, slavery and the oppression of women has no place in our society today.
"Our modern knowledge of genetics tells us that our blood is determined by the different genes we inherit from *both parents*."
Yes, Alex, you're right. I picked up somewhere that the blood came from just the father (not from my son). I think what I was trying to remember was the fact that the blood of the fetus and the blood of the mother do not mix. The baby's blood is entirely his own. Which is true. Thanks for clarifying.
"We are products of chance, based completely on the genotypes of our parents."
This is where you're wrong in your worldview: there is less chance in genetics than you think. Human development follws a very specific and systematic patterning from the molecular level to the physiological level. If it didn't then all the pieces wouldn't fit together and work.
"If anything, the role of the father is smaller than that of the mother's, genetically speaking. See, some of our DNA is stored in our mitochondria (our energy-stoves, one may say). This is because mitochondria used to be separate organisms, until they were taken into the cell and *evolved* into what they are today."
What evidence is there for "mitochondria used to be separate organisms"? In many cases, mitochondrial DNA codes for parts of enzymes that the nuclear DNA codes for the other part and without one or the other of them you wouldn't get the complete working enzyme.
In the end, the mother and the father are equally important, because they each contribute approximately half of the child's DNA. Without one or the other you have no child, passing on of the genome, or whatever else you want to call it.
"Would you not expect each new page to intoxicate you with its incredible prose and its spectacular insight? "
It does. I guess you have not read it.
"Wouldn't you expect the author to tell us things that scientists have not been able to discover yet?"
It does. I guess you have not read it. When Job wrote more than 3,500years ago the fact that the earth hangs on nothing how would he know this? When Isaiah wrote in 740 BC that the earth was a circle how did he know this? Columbus sailed in 1492 AD. Maybe Columbus read Isaiah?
Many of our brilliant scientists used the bible as their basis for their findings. Many were strong Christians. I can name them if you'd like. While the bible is not a Science book it does have quite a bit of Science in it. Nothing written in scripture has been disproven yet.
On top of all this, it makes more logical sense than any other book written by man.
"Believing in God is one thing, but STILL clinging to creationism is unbelievable and, frankly, sad to me."
Well Anthony, see it's like this. Truth doesn't change.
I'm sorry you're sad tho.
"This is where you're wrong in your worldview: there is less chance in genetics than you think. Human development follws a very specific and systematic patterning from the molecular level to the physiological level. If it didn't then all the pieces wouldn't fit together and work. "
I'm sorry, I should clarify what I meant. You are correct, human development does follow a very specific patterning. What I meant is that there are literally hundreds of thousands of possible combinations of parents' genes that can be inherited by a child. What genes we have are chosen by chance, through the amazing process of meiosis! :)
Unless, of course, a higher being has a hand in it...
"What evidence is there for "mitochondria used to be separate organisms"? "
I could describe what I can, but instead this person has put it better for me:
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/images/origin_of_mitochondria_in_eukary.htm
Ms. Penniston describes the strong case for mitochondria having evolved from separate, bacteria-like organisms. Of course, we are free to disagree with this, just as we are with the theory of evolution.
I guess we could say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster placed the mitochondria in cells and gave them double-plasma membranes to fool us. The cristae of a mitochondrion do bear a striking, and tasty, resemblance to His noodly image.
"Nothing written in scripture has been disproven yet."
Now that is THE most naive and/or delusional statement I have ever seen here!
Religion is based on FAITH. The definition of faith is : "firm belief in something for which there is no proof"
The differnce with science and religion is that science uses knowledge from evidence that has been collected while religion interprets the belief first and then fashions its docterine to fit the evidence.
Science disproves MANY aspects of the bible, which is ridden through and through with contridictions.
How does the Adam & Eve fairytale fit in with the earth being billions of years old?
What science goes along with the notion of the Noah's Ark fantasy?
Walking on water?
Water into wine?
Rising from the dead?
How was the son of god ignorant to the fact that the mustard seed was not the smallest seed of all?
How did Jesus see all the kingdoms of the world from atop a mountain?
I could go on and own but this is just too rediculous.
Excuse me, but I was talking about Science not miracles. Yes, miracles did happen. They still do happen and are to this day still unexplainable.
Jesus walked on water in front of witnesses. He's God. He can suspends his own laws if he wishes to. It was written down by more than one who witnessed this.
My son is a Scientist and said people don't realize it but there's ALOT of bias in Science.
We all start with a basic worldview bias and build from there. One says I believe in God and starts from there. Others, like you, believe there is no God and start from there.
Much about the theory of evolution has changed over the years as more and more discoveries are made. The Word of God does not change. Many things have been proven that show us that God's word had it all along..like the circle of the earth, and the earth hangs on nothing etc.
Here's a very long list of modern Scientists who accept the biblical account of creation. Under that listing you will see another listing of many famous early Scientists such as Newton, Pascal, Galileo etc.
Also all of your questions can be answered on this site if you really sincerely wish to be educated in this subject.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/
No Dawn, I, and other thinking people, do not start with the idea that there is no god and proceed from there. We start open to all possibilities and form our ideas based on evidence and facts. The complete lack of evidence of a christian god has led me to the belief that one does not exist. I would certainly change this opinion if a god made his or her or its self known. You answered nothing about how science does not gel with the scripture but threw out an all-encompassing escape clause with "miracles".
If YOU really want to be educated try reading some opposing viewpoints - Sam Harris' "End of Faith" for example.
I fear that it is a hopeless case with you though - you are truly delusional with your completely blind faith. You ignore any evidence that doesn't suit you. It is you that needs to be "saved" - I wish you the best.
"You ignore any evidence that doesn't suit you. It is you that needs to be "saved" - I wish you the best."
What evidence have I ignored? I asked you point blank questions that you ignored showing me your bias all along. I've also given you quite a list of well known Scientists, past and present, who support the biblical creation.
It really doesn't matter. It all gets straigtened out in the end afterall. I'm just trying to point you to the truth.
Keep in mind I was once where you are now. I've been on both sides of the fence. You can't say that.
Since you have totally disregarded the book I keep saying has all the answers why not try reading either "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel (an athiest who examines the evidence) or "Mere Christianity" by another well known athiest, C.S. Lewis who was knocked off his feet by the truth and had no alternative but to accept it.
Dawn, what is your explanation for dinosaurs? Isn't it just a little strange that they weren't mentioned in the "all-knowing" bible?
actually they are. Have you not read the book of Job?
I believe in Dinos. Do you think Christians don't?
Also, just to make you think...I don't think cats (among other animals) are listed in the bible either. So what's your point?
woops...that last entry was me.
How long ago did dinosaurs live, Dawn? And how old is the world according to the bible?
Cats didn't rule the earth. The dinosaurs did.
Most of those scientists that you mentioned believed in creationism because at the time THERE WAS NO OTHER EXPLANATION.
We now have an explanation, and an ABUNDANT amount of evidence to back that theory.
Dawn?
The dinosaur/earth timeline?
.....????
The National Center for Science Education has created something called "Project Steve".
NCSE's "Project Steve" is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientists who dissent from Darwinism."
Creationists draw up these lists to try to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a "theory in crisis." Not everyone realizes that this claim is unfounded. NCSE has been asked numerous times to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution. Their response: "Although we easily could have done so, we have resisted. We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!"
So although they have not formally presented their list, they put together this list of scientists named Steve who support evolution. Their list at this time is already longer than the list than Dawn referenced. For more details go to:
http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve
Let's take a closer look at Dawns list of scientists.
Out of the millions of people with masters or greater in science, only a little more than a thousand believe in creationism enough to join a group dedicated to creationism?
I figured it'd be much greater than that. I mean, under 0.12% is kinda pathetic, isn't it? (And that's only assuming 1M people with masters or greater.)
(Pretty funny that there are as many scientists named Steve as could be mustered up for this list!)
If you bothered to count, you would realize that only 8 of those are biologists of any form, and as Anthony mentioned more than half came before evolution was actually discovered. Some aren't actually scientists at all, they're mathematicians (Riemann was a mathematician whose opinion on the formation of biological life has no relevance, nor would Stokes, for example). Some of the examples are just bizarre. There is no point listing anyone from the 17th century to support your opinion (Pascal) or the 18th (Linnaeus) and certainly not the 16th (Bacon). Most of them are completely irrelevant (Yes, Faraday was brilliant, but unfortunately his discoveries of magnetic induction do not lend themselves to support of his religious beliefs).
Way too much for me to go into here. But I'll touch on what I can.
First to Peter.
The point should not be the number of people who believe one theory or the other, but the point is that there are credible scientists who believe in a literal six day creation. This alone should tell you that evolution is not a sure thing. If evolution was scientific fact then how could a credible scientist (especially environmental scientists) possibly be so ignorant to believe otherwise?
As they point out and you wrote ... "We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of Scientists."
Which list has more people on it is meaningless.
Of course the evolutionist list would have more names- that is the popular theory of the day. These ideas come and go, gain and lose support from scientists. But 100 people who think the sky is green doesn't make it green. In the end evolution and creation have been debated since antiquity (or at least the Greeks) and whether you believe the entirety of scientific knowledge supports one versus the other is entirely dependant on your ideology and/or worldview.
It all starts with our foundational worldview.
Admittedly, I don't particularly like "Answers in Genesis" list. There are a lot of "not real scientists" on there like doctors who don't do research, plastic surgeons, etc.
But, the dissent from Darwin's list is decieving also. For example that list has Dr DeWitt as a signee (someone I know personally), but they list him as being from Case Western Reserve University. While he did go to graduate school there, he's actually from Liberty, (head of the Science Dept and a Ph.d) but Case Western carries more scientific weight. I find it a little decieving. That and there are names of people on there who did not agree to be put on the list.
Either way, none of these lists are exhaustive.
"How long ago did dinosaurs live, Dawn? And how old is the world according to the bible?"
I believe in the bible's account of creation. I believe the dinos were created with the other animals as recorded in Genesis 1.
People forget that the average size of a dino is the size of a sheep. It's the large ones that get all the attention.
How old is the world according to the bible? Are you familiar with the listing of the geneologies at certain key portions of scripture? As far as I know these have not been contested and some of the names have been verified by secular historians via archeology and other historical documentation.
Have you ever heard of James Ussher (17th century)a famous and well respected Archbishop of Ireland? He wrote a complete history of the world in Latin covering every major event from creation to 70AD. His finished project was done in 1650 and published in 1658 called the "Annals of the World." It's been recently published in English.
You may want to start there. His dating came to 4004 BC as the time of creation. He wasn't some illiterate bishop but one that was quite bright and well respected. His writings show his logical and historical reasons for coming up with this date...too much for me to go into here in this format.
Again, it all goes to our foundational belief system or bias. Do we believe man's word or God's word?
I find it very ironic that the exact middle of scripture is Psalm 118:8.
Dawn, you really sum it up when you say:
"It all starts with our foundational worldview."
This implies that you formed your worldview (your blind faith) and THEN look at the facts. In other words your mind is already made up and 99.88% of the scientists in the world are not going to sway you. You cling to the tiny percentage of scientists who say what you want to hear. There will always be some scientists that operate under blind faith like you, they entered their profession with their worldview also already warped by religion. Do you really believe any of these creationist scientists went into their studies open-minded to the idea that the bible was wrong?
But how can one argue with somebody claiming the world is only thousands of years old? You are clearly ignoring the mountains of evidence to the contrary and pretending that some ancient time archbishop knew more than modern scientists. The earth is BILLIONS of years old - scientific fact.
How strange to be so disconnected to the realities of the world. I am seeing more and more evidence that religion is a bad thing. There is not one benefit to religion that can't be achieved by other means.
And you have yet to provide even an inkling of proof that your god is real. Not one.
"Dawn, you really sum it up when you say:
"It all starts with our foundational worldview."
That's exactly right. And you have your own worldview.
Creation makes scientific claims (even Dawkins will admit that) and is supported by some scientists, therefore it is a scientific view. However, neither can be "disproven" (or "proven") and thus, both are considered credible scientific viewpoints.
The difference is that evolutionists are so viciously biased against the idea of creation that they generally cannot bring themselves to even consider that creation may make scientific claims and that the same scientific data they use as evidence for evolution might also be used as evidence for creation.
To this end, they will only define evolution as scientific theory and creation as a set of religious beliefs. On what grounds is one idea science and the other religion?
Please don't say that evolution has been tested by the scientific method and creation cannot be, because that is not true and is merely evolutionist propoganda.
Evolution clearly stands outside the bounds of the scientific method. Until you show me a cat that turns into a dog (just so you know this is a pun), there is no existing observable data that can only be interpreted as evidence for evolution. Because of this, evolution is not proven.
The truth is that creation and evolution are in fact competing scientific concepts, because 1) they make opposing scientific claims, and 2) there are scientists that support both ideas.
Any research scientist knows that there is a great deal of subjectivity in science. If they were objective, you could not get two interpretations for one set of data.
To take things a step further, this idea is also applicable to the evolution/creation debate. The data stands alone as objective, but there are two opposing subjective interpretations of the data that can be made. Just because you strongly believe in one particular interpretation, you cannot discredit the other on the basis of "I don't like it."
So if we all play by the same rules, evolutionists cannot scientifically discredit creation theory in the same way that creationists cannot scientifically discredit evolution theory.
"That's exactly right. And you have your own worldview."
Yes, Dawn, but my world view was not decided until I saw the scientific evidence. I will go with the 99.9% of the evidence over the 0.01% every time. Your worldview was already decided BEFORE examining the evidence.
Yes Dawn, there are a miniscule amount of scientists that will not budge from their biblical worldview. So I'll give you that. That leaves about 99.9% of all scientists believing that creationism has been disproved.(PROVED wrong, not thought wrong....the earth has been PROVEN to be billions of years old).
Still no evidence to support your belief in your god? I thought you claimed your faith was not blind.
Three words:
Flying Spaghetti Monster.
0.000156 % of all green eyed scientists named Conrad that have ever visited Sweden believe in Flying Spaghetti Monsters.
Therefore their existance is in dispute scientifically, so I believe in them. Why not? It's fun believing!
"That leaves about 99.9% of all scientists believing that creationism has been disproved.(PROVED wrong, not thought wrong....the earth has been PROVEN to be billions of years old)."
Creationism has been disproved? Really? By whom? Did you not read what I wrote? Where are you getting 99.9%?
How can it be disproved? Who was there to give verification that it didn't happen as recorded in Genesis? The earth has been proven to be billions of years old? Really?
Again, did you read what I wrote?
"Still no evidence to support your belief in your god? I thought you claimed your faith was not blind."
God's fingerprints are all over the place. Just open your eyes. The testimonies of millions of changed lives are also proof...including mine for one thing.
I once was where you are. God has made himself very known to those who searched for him. I know he's as real as I know my three children are. Read some bios from former atheists who couldn't help but see God (like me) when they searched for him. How much soul searching have you done? Read "Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel which is all about the evidences out there, from history, archeology, science, ancient literature, eyewitness evidence, circumstantial, etc.
Another evidence is the fact that the Jews are in their homeland today. Forget about just surviving after wandering the world with no country to call their own for 2,000years. This is huge evidence. They should have easily disappeared assimilating into other countries...but they did not.
Because the bible is clear that they would survive intact no matter because God has a place and purpose for them. Consider that and then go back and read about all the other ancients who never made it. And this was all written down by God for our benefit thru man way before 1948.
I collect biblical commentaries from way back (1500-1800's) and in many of them they speak about the Jews having to come into their own homeland for the end time prophecies to take place. It seemed like an impossibility when they wrote, but trusting in the scriptures they saw it, writing it down but never seeing it in their own time.
From the world's POV that was NEVER going to happen. I've read articles in the early 1900's that were very much against any Jewish homeland. It was NOT even a remote possibility. Nobody was in favor but a few zionists. "With God all things are possible."
Harry Truman unexpectedly (imagine that) changed his vote just before the big UN vote allowing the Jews to locate in their homeland after WWII. His secretary of State, George Marshall was not happy nor were many others but because of Truman's influence the UN voted unexpectedly in favor of the Jews. But it was God's plan and just one of the many evidences out there that there is a God in control.
The miracles that led to them coming into their own country in 1948 is nothing short than amazing if you knew the whole story that goes way back to 70 A.D.
All you had to do was go back to scripture written 2,000 years before and I could have told you this was going to happen before it did like the commentaries tell us today. In fact, I can tell you other things that are on the horizon before they will come to pass..maybe even in our own time.
But in the end it really doesn't mater anyhow. Because no evidence will be enough to convince you until God opens your eyes to it. That's how it is for all of us.
Keep scorning God with a closed fist to heaven and you'll never really know the truth on this side of eternity. But you will eventually because the truth always prevails.
"How can it be disproved? Who was there to give verification that it didn't happen as recorded in Genesis? The earth has been proven to be billions of years old? Really?"
Faith cannot be disproven because it isn't science, and therefore cannot be measured. Just like I can't "prove" to you that Zeus and Thor don't exist.
As far as the age of the universe goes, every scientific experiment and mathematical equation done comes to the same conclusion, that the visible universe is about 13.8 billion years old. If you look at the fossil and sedimentary record, it is also clear that the earth is probably 4.5 billion years old.
The earth is in a constant state of evolution, the world is not static as creationists would have you believe. Plate tectonics constantly recycle the earths crust (which is why we have earthquakes). Mountains and canyons weren't always there, they are the result of a constantly shifting earth. Why is this data that is verifiable and has been verified a million times over unbelievable to you, but a book written by a bishop centuries ago is?
Actually I know that answer, it's because you believe what you believe no matter what, and will cherry pick ANYTHING and twist ANYTHING to conform to your worldview.
The great thing about science is that scientific theories are not finite. We don't know it all so theories are always subject to change or slight modification in light of new evidence.
It is also my earnest hope that you don't actually believe that man and dinosaur walked the earth at the same time, as your logic suggest.
But Anthony, Dawn KNOWS dinosaurs walked the earth with humans...she saw it on the Flinstones!
Dawn, if it all started with Adam and Eve, where did blacks and other races come from?
"The great thing about science is that scientific theories are not finite. We don't know it all so theories are always subject to change or slight modification in light of new evidence.?
That's right. I agree with you here. While theories come and go, the Word of God endures. I have no problem with Science. The bible doesn't contradict true Science. It's the pseudo Science that I have a problem with. There's lots of that floating around. Whenever you have something genuine, I don't care what it is, there are also imitations that do follow.
My son(a Scientist) was collaborating on a TBI (traumatic brain injury)case with an atheistic Scientist. They were discussing Ken Ham's new Creation Museum in KY and all the hoopla that surrounded it's grand opening a few years back.
This atheist was commenting on what a bunch of idiots the creationists were not knowing my son was a devout believer in creation Science. The reason he didn't know is because my son (Ph.d) is very well respected in his field of Science and has been published in a few Scientific Journals. The thought being the more you know about Science the less you will of the Creation theory.
Not the case. Now who's the idiot? Have you seen the movie "Expelled?" It was right on and I was told about all this way before Ben Stein took it to the big screen.
What is the difference between "science" and "pseudo-science"? Easy - anything that Dawn does not believe is pseudo-science. Over 99% of scientists believe creationism is impossible - so? Must be pseudo-science.
Now where did those black people come from? No answer?
"Dawn, if it all started with Adam and Eve, where did blacks and other races come from?"
From Adam and Eve or more specifically Noah and his three sons named Shem, Ham and Japeth.
If you read the accounting and geneologies in Genesis you'd see that the Hebrews came from Shem, the Blacks from Ham and the Europeans from Japeth going by where they settled down.
Adam and Eve and later Noah coming from the Middle East (modern day Iraq) had skin color that would be considered middle brown tones. Adam and Eve must have had lots of genetic variation in their DNA.
My whole family has brown eyes yet I have a grandson with bright blue eyes. How did that happen when both his parents did not have this color? Their DNA had this variation marker in it from a previous relative somewhere.
Keep in mind that biblically speaking there is only one race, the human race. Interracial marriages were not forbidden by God only marriages between believers and unbelievers were forbidden.
I don't know Dawn, it doesn't seem like 2 people and all the inbreeding that must have ensued would really result in the multiple races in humankind.
Why did Noah forget to put dinosaurs on the Arc? That IS why they went instinct, isn't it?
"Now where did those black people come from? No answer?"
for crying out loud...you just asked this question and didn't even give me a chance to respond (which I did do). Pretty pushy if you ask me.
Why is it you Anons ask me all these questions but hardly any of you answer mine? Are my questions to hard?
Every worldview, no matter, has to answer these five basic fundamental questions.
1) Where did life come from? (origins)
2) What does it mean to be human? (identity)
3) What is the purpose of life? (meaning)
4) How should I live? (morality)
5) What happens after I die? (mortality).
The Evolutionary Theory is sunk in the water when it comes to the subject of origins because you CAN'T get something from nothing. That IS a Scientific fact and begins it all.
"I don't know Dawn, it doesn't seem like 2 people and all the inbreeding that must have ensued would really result in the multiple races in humankind."
There are alot of things that don't "seem" right to us but happen scientifically. I still can't figure out how they get those monster planes to fly in the sky.
"Why did Noah forget to put dinosaurs on the Arc? That IS why they went instinct, isn't it?"
Who said he didn't? It said all the animals went on that ark two by two and some by sevens. Now it doesn't mean they were full grown does it? What if they were babies? Besides that, remember the average size of a dino was the size of a sheep. Some were birds, some were fish. We just tend to think of the gigantic ones they dig out of the earth.
Do you have any idea the size of this ark? Think about the big Ocean Liners of today and you'll have an idea. Ever go on a cruise? How big was your boat? That will give you an idea how big this boat was.
As far as the reason why dinos went extinct from a biblical POV here's a link to answer your question:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/what-happened-to-the-dinosaurs
keep in mind the word "dinosaur" was not even invented until 1841 so the fact that the word dinos are not mentioned in the bible is correct. But large sea monsters or dragons were mentioned in a few places giving us the idea that our modern word dinosaur is just another term for the large creatures mentioned in scripture.
YOU can't figure out how those big planes fly, but scientists CAN!
Scientists CAN also say that the world is billions of years old, which puts the whole creationism thing to rest.
The arc was that big? wow! How did Noah manage to build something like that?
So you DO believe that dinosaurs existed at the same time as people??!!??
And how many "credible" scientists back you on that notion?
Sunk in the water when it comes to origins?
You certainly are out of touch, Dawn. Two words:
BIG BANG
BIG BANG
yep...Bang! God said it and it happened.
What do you have?
What do I have? I have 99.9% of all scientists on my side.
I checked out the religious site about dinosaurs. Cute. It looked like it was made for children. Weird that an article on the age of dinosaurs never mentioned Radiometric dating. Or other techniques include analyzing amino acids and measuring changes in an object's magnetic field. Scientists have also made improvements to the standard radiometric measurements. For example, by using a laser, researchers can measure parent and daughter atoms in extremely small amounts of matter, making it possible to determine the age of very small samples.
But all these facts don't jive with the bible so it must be pseudo-science, right?
Your site also mentioned that "dinosaur blood cells" might have been found, but the subsequent chemical analysis did not demonstrate that red blood cells had been found, neither were they able to discover the presence of hemoglobin molecules. What they found was "heme," which is not a complete hemoglobin molecule, but a part of a broken down hemoglobin molecule, the part that the iron atom attaches to. There are four heme sites in each hemoglobin molecule where the iron attaches to the molecule. Heme is "an iron-porphyrin compound that occurs as a prosthetic group in hemoproteins."
Bahhh, pseudo-science, again.
Sorry, Dawn, but it is you that have nothing. Nothing but your blind faith.
Dawn, here is a very interesting article that came from USA Today. (in 2 parts) I am interested to hear your opinion on it.
...begs a question that he and like-minded creationists might not want asked. If they're objectively wrong about the genesis of the Grand Canyon and other geologic matters — you'll be hard-pressed to find a mainstream scientist who says they aren't — must they concede that God does not exist?
That, of course, is a rhetorical question. No amount of scientific evidence will convince an ardent creationist of the validity of human evolution or that the Earth is billions of years old.
Nevertheless, the question frames a problem with the stance of the anti-science creationists that threatens not only their version of the world's origins, but also the credibility of their religion itself. Because by attempting to marshal empirical evidence in support of their beliefs, they enter the debate on the scientists' terms — terms that cannot possibly work in favor of a literal reading of the Bible. By playing in this arena, haven't the creationists already lost the argument?
As the evangelical writer and religion professor Randall Balmer points out, confronting the public with objective evidence of the Bible's literal truth is misguided at its core. Writing about intelligent design (a counter to evolution that sees an unidentified "designer" behind the world's creation), Balmer says, "Paradoxically, when the Religious Right asserts intelligent design is science, it implies that faith in God is … inadequate, that it needs the imprimatur of the scientific method."
To most people, it sounds like Wise is going "all in" with a losing hand. Do religious believers really want the truth of their faith wagered on an attempt to prove that countless scientists have somehow botched their reading of the fossil record?
?
PART 2
But here's the rub: Wise acknowledges that nothing can convince him that Earth is older than five or six thousand years. Why? Because the Bible is his ultimate authority. "The most important thing," he says, "is that you ought to be able to trust your God and the claims the Bible makes."
Given their rock-solid religious convictions, creationists such as Wise ultimately are not interested in science, in setting aside preconceptions and following trails of observable evidence to logical, testable conclusions.
Why, then, are they bothering with fossils and geology and quasi-scientific exhibitions that purport to prove that the Bible "can be trusted," as the organizers of the Creation Museum phrase it? No doubt, concern for the public credibility of their faith has a lot to do with it. They appear to have accepted that we live in a rational age, one that will not abide propositions that lack objective evidence to back them.
How ironic, then, that by dabbling in science to promote their beliefs, anti-science creationists are more likely eroding the very credibility they aim to bolster.
How many Americans are ready to accept the proposition that science has made a colossal error interpreting the fossil and geological record and — more radical still — that the validity of Christianity depends on proving it? If anything, a stance like this repels those wavering between faith and disbelief and gives skeptics one more reason to reject religion.
A suggestion to creationists: Let science be science, and let religion prevail in the vast areas where science has little or nothing to offer. It's not as though science has an answer for everything of consequence. The purpose and meaning of life, the existence of good and evil and love and hate, the nature of a human soul and what becomes of it at death, the existence and will of the divine — these are questions that belong to ethics, philosophy and, of course, religion.
No, religion shouldn't be picking this particular fight with mainstream science. Can't the Bible literalists concede matters of empirical evidence and rational inquiry to science and devote themselves to the questions of ultimate meaning — the mighty questions that rightly occupy religion? Their religion doesn't need any scientific proof. Why should their own faith
Sorry Dawn, but you're bad at arguing.
Everything I and the others have said regarding the origins of the universe and the Earth have been measured and have produced ACTUAL EVIDENCE.
While your responses are "Hey, my book says you're wrong and has absolutely no evidence to back it up! It says that it is true therefore it is!"
Two of every animal and Dino on earth on a cruise-liner equivalent?
Childish.
Anthony, I'm not arguing. I'm answering questions. That's it.
You pretty much ignore what I write and ignore my questions in your quest to be heard. Your unadmitted bias is showing.
You equate evolution with science and creationism with religion. Why? because you are biased towards one over the other. You can't have a rational discussion with someone who won't admit their biases.
Gravity can be tested (true Science). I can drop a hammer from the top of a building and it will fall.. always fall. Evolution is very elusive (pseudo science). You can't just put some atoms in a test tube and generate life. They are not equal.
Creationism is a model (or theory, or hypothesis, etc) that is used by some scientists to make predictions about the world. Yes, evolution is also a theory used to make predictions about the world. Who says that creation science is not useable? That is your opinion. Mine is the opposite. I don't see any use for evolutionary theory, but I see a whole lot of good in creation theory.
Tell me, oh wise one, how evolution has been used to breed bacteria to produce insulin. Last I knew it was a hormone. Doctors found out that if you don't have it, bad things happen. That's not evolution. If anything that's devolution. which is a prediction made by the biblical creation theory: things were created perfect but this world system is breaking down over time until the return of Christ, at which time he will restore all things.
Like I keep saying..truth will prevail. No hard feelings.
Dawn, here is what you don't/can't understand...our biases are FORMED by science. We don't go into examining scientific data WITH a bias...we GET our bias from what we see scientifically.
We admit we are biased. Because of the scientific proof and evidence that we see our rational selves form a bias. So lets have a rational conversation...one based on what we know by fact and scientific proof and not one we base on blind faith.
You may not see any USE for evolutionary theory, and maybe there isn't any. But that doesn't stop the facts from being what they are. I base my opinion on scientific evidence which is HEAVILY on the side of evolution.
Bacteria? They evolve too. We hope our brains evolve fast enough to outsmart the "bad". You have to admit that our brains, and science, have evolved from the days of flat earth and sun revolving around the earth days....right?
No hard feelings here either. And I too hope with all my heart that the truth does prevail.
"I base my opinion on scientific evidence which is HEAVILY on the side of evolution."
but it's not Peter. One thing most people don't understand is that both sides have the SAME evidence. We just come to a diff conclusion BASED ON our biases. That's really it.
We look at the evidence and say "ah ha! Look what God did."
You look at the evidence and say "ah-ha look how nicely we evolved."
The flat earth was NEVER a part of scripture. It says very clearly that the earth was a circle. I think Columbus and others knew this because they read it. Also just as the physical world revolves around the SUN so too does the things of the spirit revolve around the SON!
So,some things that Science has come up with was already in scripture to begin with. I even think about the whole cloning thing going on today. Isn't that what God did with Adam and Eve when he took one rib and fashioned Eve from it?
Sorry Dawn, you are deluded, uninformed or not being honest wheb you claim there is as much scientific evidence for creationism as evolution. There is 100 times as much evidence for evolution...you are either hiding from it or ignoring it. Scientists know how old bones are. What they know does NOT fit with the scriptures, pure and simple. You need to get your head out of the sand and stop being afraid of what you might discover if you take an honest, unbiased look at the scientific evidence. But you never will - you are a prisoner of your blind faith.
So your answer is nothing but an attack with no facts only opinion?
So be it. I'll let you have the last word.
No, Dawn, it is YOU with no facts. THere are TONS of scientific facts against you.
You have yet to give ONE bit of factual/scientific evidence in your claim that your god is real.
None.
Try it...just ONE fact. Give your best shot. What is the one biggest piece of PROOF that you have?
All you have is blind faith.
Post a Comment