RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (3) < [1] 2 3 >   
  Topic: Intelligent Design Advisor to Chapman 08, A thread for R. Josiah Magnuson< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2006,18:25   

I have emailed Mr. Magnuson of Intelligent Design Advisor to Chapman 08 and asked him if he wants to participate.

(If he does, keep in mind he's a teenager and don't be inappropriate.)

   
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2006,18:28   

Who's Chapman? Why does he need an intelligent design advisor?

EDIT: Ok I know the answer to the first question still not sure about the second.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2006,18:32   

Oh dear.

Quote
Take, for instance, the democracy of Athens, the French Revolution, or the dictatorships of Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, or Mao Tse-tung. Each was formed when the Creatorship of a Supreme Being was rejected, and each was marked by chaos, tyranny, and in most cases, genocide.

The reason for this fact is that a free country is a country under God’s authority to make absolutes, which is derived from His Creatorship. If no absolutes exist, no limitations can be put on government. Countries which are not under God’s authority and absolutes can never be free, but will be governed arbitrarily and lawlessly. Relativism produces despotism.


But wait, there's more:

Quote
Intelligent Design is a movement championing science, to oppose Evolutionism. Proponents of Intelligent Design believe that unfounded faith in the naturalistic paradigm of Evolution is holding back the progress of science. They hold that the presence of design or information in the universe implies a Designer.

There are numerous arguments to support this view. However, the classic argument is our observation in living things of irreducible complexity. This phrase, coined by Dr. Michael J. Behe, simply means something in nature which must have all its components existing to function. That is, its complexity cannot be reduced.

A perfect example of irreducible complexity is the flagellum of a bacterium. The bacterium propels itself with a kind of "whip" which turns, screw-like, through the water. The flagellum is powered by a motor complete with rotor, drive shaft, universal joint, and more!

If Evolution were true, creatures with irreducibly complex systems would have had to make huge, impossible leaps of chance so that all components were created at once. All the parts must be together simultaneously.


I see.

Quote
he's a teenager


I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2006,19:13   

Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 20 2006,16:25)
I have emailed Mr. Magnuson of Intelligent Design Advisor to Chapman 08 and asked him if he wants to participate.

(If he does, keep in mind he's a teenager and don't be inappropriate.)

Why? Or, should I ask, participate in what?

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2006,19:21   

We've already got a mental teenager to kick around on the "Hypotenuse" thread (or something like that; those long words are hard for pinheads).

So what do we need an actual teenager for?

Pizza delivery?

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2006,08:54   

On another board I met a teenager who said that his last science education was in 10th grade, and he knew enough science to know that evolution was wrong and creationism right.  Made me wonder why I bothered to get all those pointless degrees in biology :D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2006,09:05   

Quote (MidnightVoice @ Dec. 21 2006,08:54)
On another board I met a teenager who said that his last science education was in 10th grade, and he knew enough science to know that evolution was wrong and creationism right.  Made me wonder why I bothered to get all those pointless degrees in biology :D

Wow, I was thinking about going back to college (would be my third attempt at it) for a degree in physics.

Guess I won't bother now.

:D

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2006,09:42   

Studying is overrated.  Education is not  :D

And I had a lot of fun at college, but then I was young, and it was London in the sixties and seventies........

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2006,10:02   

So was young Master Magnuson by any chance home schooled?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2006,13:09   

I am not sure he was educated at all :D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
Chapman 08



Posts: 2
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 23 2006,20:10   

;)  Hi!  Here I am.  Thanks for your interest.

Why Chapman would say he needs an ID advisor is because he is running against the threat of of Communism in America, and Communism is based on the Evolutionary worldview.  (It was Marx who stated this, the idea is not Chapman's own invention as some believe.)

It is a great privilege to have an ability to put in my two cents at great forums like this one.  Thanks Steve for the e-mail!

I also have another site besides the ID Advisor one, The Worldviews Revolution.


-R. Josiah Magnuson

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 23 2006,20:43   

Hello R. Josiah Magnuson.

Is there a handle you prefer or is the full name a proper address to you.

It's not about bandwidth, just typing all the letters.

You can call me anything you want but "Mike" or "Mike PSS" works fine.

The PSS stands for "Project Steve Sibling".  My brother is on this list.
Here's a little bit about Project Steve.

You have an interesting take on a lot of subjects.  I scanned through your proferred web sight and one thing did stand out.  You said this...
Quote
Proteins in cells require the use of solely left-handed molecules in their assembly. This means that when the first proteins were formed, they were created out of a solution of 100% left-handed amino acids.
http://worldrevscience.blogspot.com/2006....ds.html


I would state that even though a protein could be chirally left-handed, it's constituent parts do not necessarily need to have chirality.  It would be good to provide a specific example of the protein/amino acid system you are referencing.  Maybe even provide a counter-example also if one exists.

Welcome to the board.  I'm sure others will say the same.

Mike PSS

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 23 2006,23:20   

Hi R. Josiah Magnuson, good to see you here. You make a number of serious claims, and I'm sure people here will have a spirited discussion about them. I'm looking forward to the discussion.

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 23 2006,23:23   

I'm going to make a plea (however useless it may be) and go further than Steve's suggestion.  Here we have a young man firm in his convictions and already under the assumption that an organized effort against religion is underway.  We have an opportunity to attack or teach and I submit that we take this choice very seriously.  By making an honest effort to teach the outcome is not determined and the end result of this exchange could be incredibly fruitful (on both sides, I might add).  If we attack then the assumption of conspiracy will be confirmed, the hostility of science towards religion reinforced, and the end result will acheive nothing of substance.  That's my two cents and I know what many here think of my two cents but I strongly suggest some consideration be given to this plea.

Welcome Mr. Magnuson, I hope you know what you're getting yourself into.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 23 2006,23:26   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 21 2006,10:05)
Wow, I was thinking about going back to college (would be my third attempt at it) for a degree in physics.

If you need any help, let me know.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 23 2006,23:30   

Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 24 2006,00:23)
Welcome Mr. Magnuson, I hope you know what you're getting yourself into.

He's not going to get himself into anything harsh. I'm not going to allow much rudeness on this thread. I think we can have a good discussion here.

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 24 2006,00:52   

Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 23 2006,23:30)
Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 24 2006,00:23)
Welcome Mr. Magnuson, I hope you know what you're getting yourself into.

He's not going to get himself into anything harsh. I'm not going to allow much rudeness on this thread. I think we can have a good discussion here.

Good idea. Looks to me like a youngster is about to be told some shocking stuff (from his POV). I agree with Skeptic's post that carefull handling is far more likely to bring about good results. This could become a very interesting thread.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 24 2006,01:28   

RJM, one thing to consider on the chirality of amino acids, L-aminos occur in eukaryotic organisms but D-aminos are evident in bacterial organisms.  One explanation for the dominance of one form or another in each case is the specific nature of the reactions that they are involved in.  The handedness of a molecule is a description of it's 3-d nature.  The reactions that occur in living organisms are facilitated by enzymes that have very specific reaction sites as far as 3-d structure is concerned.  Look up the enzyme theory of the key and lock if you're not already familiar with it.  It's not as if there is only one type of amino acid available it's just that only one type fits the lock for each group.  If anything this fact is more readily interpreted as evidence of common descent of eukaryotics and early divergence from a common ancestor shared with bacteria.  I realize this description is somewhat vague so please ask questions as there are a number of knowledgable chemists on this board that can address them, hopefully adequately, for you.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 24 2006,02:35   

I'm confused by this thread.
First, who is this Chapman chap?
And how did we get into the middle of a chirality discussion already? Did some posts get deleted?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 24 2006,02:56   

Quote (Russell @ Dec. 24 2006,02:35)
I'm confused by this thread.
First, who is this Chapman chap?

From what I can make out, Chapman seems to be putting himself up as a presidential candidate in a future USA election. That's about as far as I have got. I don't think that has anything to do with Steve's motivation for starting this thread though. If I am reading it correctly this is going to have more to do with education, religion, politics and lies being told within it/them.

EDIT: This might be the guy. (Chapman?)
http://genechapman.blogspot.com/

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 24 2006,06:44   

Quote (Chapman 08 @ Dec. 23 2006,20:10)
Why Chapman would say he needs an ID advisor is because he is running against the threat of of Communism in America, and Communism is based on the Evolutionary worldview.  (It was Marx who stated this, the idea is not Chapman's own invention as some believe.)

Welcome. I am curious about the statement I quoted above.  Communism is a far left-wing political ideology.  I have also heard evolution blamed for Hitler, who was a fascist.  Fascism, though, is a far right-wing ideology.  I have also seen evolution, when over-generalized as survival of the fittest, presented as the basis of the capitalist system, where the actions of markets determine survival.

So, it seems we evolution being blamed for several very different ideologies. Surely, evolution isn't to blame for all of them.  We can put this aside if you'd rather deal with evolution as biology first.  No worries.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 24 2006,07:33   

I'm sure we can consult Lenny on this one.  I've always been a little confused by labeling the extremes as either right-wing or left-wing.  Fascism bears no resemblance to any modern right-wing philosophy and Communism or Marxism is hardly progressive as is defined by modern left-wing politics.  

Now as far as evolution, the social darwinism movement was extended to explain or justify the capltalist system but even then became politically incorrect with it's diversion into eugenics and the like.  This became more a philosphy of elitists on both sides than the sole property of either politcal persuasion.  

My opinion, I'm sure Lenny and others with have a starkly different opinion but given the Christmas Spirit, I'm inclined to give everybody (both left and right) a pass. Ho Ho Ho.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 24 2006,07:41   

Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 24 2006,07:33)
Fascism bears no resemblance to any modern right-wing philosophy

I'm just curious.  Did you say that with a straight face?

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 24 2006,08:51   

I told you I'm in the Christmas spirit.

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 24 2006,09:23   

Quote (Russell @ Dec. 24 2006,03:35)
I'm confused by this thread.
First, who is this Chapman chap?
And how did we get into the middle of a chirality discussion already? Did some posts get deleted?

RJM is the Intelligent Design advisor to Chapman.  Read SteveStory's web reference at the top of the page.

RJM showed up and gave another web reference to his site.  I called it an "interesting" read.  It's chock full of some pretty drastic claims about science, society and government.

Now, knowing that RJM is a 15 year old (I won't call him "kid" without him earning that label yet) I "started" the discussion of chirality because chiral formation is a chemistry topic that he "might" be able to discuss in detail and logic considerring what I gather is his past educational experience.

Maybe RJM will prove me wrong and be a chemist savant.  Or maybe he's just cutting and pasting others claims without actually understanding the subjects involved.

I certainly didn't want to start the discussion about politics or society.  I could see the dead ends in those discussions immediately.  So I started off with some science softballs.  As skeptic insinuated, there are hard balls available if RJM wants to continue.

Mike PSS

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 24 2006,10:01   

Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 23 2006,23:26)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 21 2006,10:05)
Wow, I was thinking about going back to college (would be my third attempt at it) for a degree in physics.

If you need any help, let me know.

Will do, Steve.  Thanks.

Teaching is perhaps the only productive thing I might do given my age and physical issues, so I'm sure I'll be looking for help with the "Ed." part, too.

Perhaps I can at least contribute to society by helping to ensure our youth are better educated in science than young Josiah.

(Not that Janie and Kate aren't contributing to society as a whole, but that's a wholly different thing...)

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 24 2006,10:38   

This thread arouses a bit of disquiet in me. Here is the level this kid is at:
Quote
I believe I can find either a definite proof for Biblical Creation or a definite proof against Darwinian Evolution within every scientific field. During the next few months, I shall test my hypothesis by exploring as many as I can.

If anyone has an idea for a scientific field for me to look at, please mention it in the comments section below. Otherwise, I shall go at them generally in alphabetical order.

A quick perusal of this kid's blog makes it clear that he is immersed in a culture of biblical literalism.  He appears to hold his beliefs with utter sincerity, investment, and, to the extent possible for a 15 year old kid, commitment. Moreover, he is mapped into a network of creationist propaganda (both personal and web-based) and armed with all of the carefully constructed flapdoodle promulgated therein. Little or nothing didactic is going to be accomplished here, however careful and kind your posts.

Chapman 08: I recommend that you read the AFdave Creator God Hypothesis thread. Anything you post here regarding biological origins founded upon your belief in "God's Creatorship" is going to be utterly shredded (even if kindly and patiently), often by professional scientists who frequent these fora. You are going to be overmatched at every turn.  

This all strikes me as a bad idea. Please tread very carefully, everyone.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 24 2006,12:37   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 24 2006,10:38)
This thread arouses a bit of disquiet in me...
This all strikes me as a bad idea. Please tread very carefully, everyone.

Walking on eggshells springs to mind.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 24 2006,14:12   

Hi R. Josiah Magnuson. I've chosen the nickname "deadman" because my fields are paleoanthropology and archaeology, with graduate degrees from UCLA, although my main focus is archaeology. Oh, and in this regard, I've had to take quite a few classes in multiple fields of science--math, bio, some physics and chem, paleontology, geology, etc.  

Feel free to refer to me as DM, it's just easier. I'll be glad to discuss any issues you feel need to be dealt with.

I read your site and I disagree with a number of points, particularly your statement that evolution is not science, with the implication that religion and evolutionary theory are diametrically opposed, but I promise to keep an open mind on things and to listen to your views. I honestly hope that you will do the same for me.

I also hope that this will be an extended visit for you -- I think it's hard to explain scientific theory and method or the deeper nature of logic without some pretty lengthy discussions, but I'm sure willing to give it a shot. Best wishes on the holidays, DM.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 24 2006,15:22   

Quote (Chapman 08 @ Dec. 23 2006,20:10)
Why Chapman would say he needs an ID advisor is because he is running against the threat of of Communism in America, and Communism is based on the Evolutionary worldview.

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH AHA HA AH AHA HA HA AHA HA AHA HA HA AH AHA HA HA AHA HA HA HAHA AH AH AHA HA HA HA HA AH AHA HA HA HA HA AH AHA HA HA HA HA AHA HA HA HA AHA H A  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 24 2006,15:31   

Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 24 2006,07:33)
I'm sure we can consult Lenny on this one.  I've always been a little confused by labeling the extremes as either right-wing or left-wing.  Fascism bears no resemblance to any modern right-wing philosophy and Communism or Marxism is hardly progressive as is defined by modern left-wing politics.  

Now as far as evolution, the social darwinism movement was extended to explain or justify the capltalist system but even then became politically incorrect with it's diversion into eugenics and the like.  This became more a philosphy of elitists on both sides than the sole property of either politcal persuasion.  

My opinion, I'm sure Lenny and others with have a starkly different opinion but given the Christmas Spirit, I'm inclined to give everybody (both left and right) a pass. Ho Ho Ho.

Consult *me*?  What am I, the Grand Poo-Bah or something?


But surprise, surprise, I pretty much agree with you.  The labels "right" and "left" go all the way back to the French Revolution, when the business-owner-supporting Gironde party sat at the right side of the National Assembly, and the worker-supporting Mountain party sat on the left side.

Since then, the appearence of authoritarian Leninism has muddled the entire terminology.

Me, I prefer to draw the continuum based on the attitude towards social, political and economic power.  To me, "left" means someone who wants to decentralize power to the lowest possible level and make it responsible and answerable to those people who elect it -- while the "right" wants to centralize power and insulate it as much as possible from responsibility or the need to answer to anyone anywhere at any time.

Under that view, both the Leninists and the Fascists are extreme right-wingers.  As, interestingly enough, are the neocons and the fundamentalists of all religions.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 24 2006,15:37   

Something for our 15-year old visitor to ponder:




Creationists, Hitler and Evolution

by Lenny Flank

© 1999

A common charge made by creationists is that evolutionary theory is "evil" and is the source of racism in general, and of dictatorial killers in particular. The most often-heard assertion is that Hitler and his racist genocide were the product of "evolutionary philosophy". Henry Morris, for instance, flatly declares, "However one may react morally against Hitler, he was certainly a consistent evolutionst." (Morris, "Evolution and Modern racism", ICR Impact, October 1973) Morris adds: "The philosophies of Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche--the forerunners of Stalin and Hitler--have been particularly baleful in their effect: both were dedicated evolutionists." (Morris, Troubled Waters of Evolution, 1974 p. 33)

How accurate is this creationist finger-pointing? Not very. The creationists are apparently unaware of the fact that Stalinist Russia rejected Darwinian evolution as "bourgeois" and instead embraced the non-Darwinian "proletarian biology" of Lysenko and Michurin (a disaster from which Russian genetics and biological sciences has still not completely recovered). As for Hitler, even a cursory reading of his book Mein Kampf reveals that the true source of Hitler's inspiration and exhortations came from a source that creationists, understandably, would rather not talk about.

Hitler's goal was the "purification" of the "Aryan race" through the elimination of "subhumans", which included Jews, gypsies, Asians, black Africans, and everyone else who was not a white Aryan. Despite the creationists claims that this was based on Darwinain evolutionary theory, Hitler's own writings give quite a different story. The ICR claims that "Hitler used the German word for evolution (Entwicklung) over and over again in his book." (ICR Impact, "The Ascent of Racism", Paul Humber Feb 1987) Like so many of ICR's claims, this one is simply not true---a quick scan of several online English translations of Mein Kampf shows only ONE use of the word "evolution", in a context which does not refer at all to biological evolution, but instead to the development of political ideas in Germany: "This evolution has not yet taken the shape of a conscious intention and movement to restore the political power and independence of our nation."

Had ICR made even a cursory reading of Mein Kampf, they would have seen a quite different source for Hitler's racist inspiration than the one they would have us believe. White Aryans, Hitler writes, are the special creations of God, the "highest image of the Lord", put here specifically to rule over the "subhuman" races: "Human culture and civilization on this continent are inseparably bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he dies out or declines, the dark veils of an age without culture will again descend on this globe. The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise." (all quotes from Hitler, Mein Kampf, online version) Actions which aid the "subhumans" at the expense of the Aryan master race, Hitler declared, were an offense against God: " It is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator if His most gifted beings by the hundreds and hundreds of thousands are allowed to degenerate in the present proletarian morass, while Hottentots and Zulu Kaffirs are trained for intellectual professions."

Rather than basing his racism on any evolutionary theory, Hitler based it squarely on his view of white Aryans as the favored people of God. In fact, Hitler solemnly declares that his program of removing Jews and other "subhumans" from the earth is a divine task forced upon him by the Lord Almighty: "What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproductionof our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purityof our blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that ourpeople may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the Creator of the universe."

Hitler concludes: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord," adding "Compared to the absurd catchword about safeguarding law and order, thus laying a peaceable groundwork for mutual swindles, the task of preserving and advancing the highest humanity, given to this earth by the benevolence of the Almighty, seems a truly high mission." For Hitler, removing the subhumans from earth was not a matter of biology or evolution---it was a divine mandate from God Himself, the "work of the Lord", a "truly high mission".

Even in discussing racial purity and "race-mixing", Hitler chooses not the words of evolutionary biology or eugenics, but points instead to his divinely holy mission: "Historical experience offers countless proofs of this. It shows with terrifying clarity that in every mingling of Aryan blood with that of lower peoples the result was the end of the cultured people. North America, whose population consists in by far the largest part of Germanic elements who mixed but little with the lower colored peoples, shows a different humanity and culture from Central and South America, where the predominantly Latin immigrants often mixed with the aborigines on a large scale. By this one example, we can clearly and distinctly recognize the effect of racial mixture. The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained racially pure and unmixed, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to defilement of the blood. The result of all racial crossing is therefore in brief always the following: To bring about such a development is, then, nothing else but to sin against the will of the Eternal Creator."

The goal of the "folkish government", then, Hitler declares is to "finally to put an end to the constant and continuous original sin of racial poisoning, and to give the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself created."

"The folkish-minded man, in particular," Hitler concludes, "has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will."

In Mein Kampf, Hitler makes an emotional appeal to God to aid him and his Nazis in their divine task: "Then, from the child's story-book to the last newspaper in the country, and every theatre and cinema, every pillar where placards are posted and every free space on the hoardings should be utilized in the service of this one great mission, until the faint-hearted cry, "Lord, deliver us," which our patriotic associations send up to Heaven to-day would be transformed into an ardent prayer: 'Almighty God, bless our arms when the hour comes. ' " Later, when Nazi troops swarmed over Europe, each of them wore an army-issue belt buckle inscribed with the words "God is With Us".

The invocation of God and the Bible in support of racism continues with modern hate groups in the US. Aryan Nations, which also calls itself the Church of Jesus Christ Christian, begins its web site by proclaiming "Praise Yahweh" and its intention to "serve the Lord of Glory and His Holy Race". The American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan note that only those of "Christian faith" can be members, and asks every new recruit "Do you believe in Jesus Christ?" The White Camelia Knights of the Ku Klux Klan declare that "at some point God's people must take action in the defense of our Christian, racial and political beliefs". The Camelia KKK website also explicitly states "We base our beliefs on our Biblical interpretations, not ignorance, superstition or blind hatred." How does the Camelia KKK justify its opposition to "race-mixing"? "White Christian Israelites are under God’s law and covenant. The other peoples of the earth are under nature’s law, which God also created. . . Nature’s law, which is a creation of YAHWEH, dictates that kind reproduce after kind. The different people of the world were never supposed to mix." The Imperial Klans of America declares, "We are a gathering of White Christian men and women." The National Knights of the Ku Klux Klan website declares that they "reverently acknowledge the majesty and supremacy of Almighty God and recognize his goodness and providence through his Son Jesus Christ. We avow the distinction between the races of mankind as decreed by the Lord our God, and we shall ever be true to the maintenance of His Supremacy."

None of these racist websites mentions "Darwin" or "evolution" as a justification for any of their beliefs. All of them talk about "God" and "The Creator" instead.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 24 2006,16:17   

Note to RJM: The Lysenkoism that Stalinist Russia adopted is essentially Lamarck re-written.

Larmarck promoted a notion that "traits" (characteristics such as a longer neck in a giraffe, to use the old example) could be developed during the lifetime of an organism, then passed on to offspring:  
Quote
"In every animal which has not passed the limit of its development, a more frequent and continuous use of any organ gradually strengthens, develops and enlarges that organ...all these are preserved by reproduction to the new individuals which arise."

Darwin largely rejected this, and we know today that this is a wrong view of how things actually work.

On the same topic: while Marx did believe that "Darwinism" influenced his thinking, Darwin did not specifically agree with Marx's views. Darwin himself was a capitalist. Natural Selection specifically applies to Biology, while Marxism largely applies to Economics. All that any of this means is that an IDEA can be misinterpreted or invalidly applied in the pursuit of power.

I think you might agree, RJM, that this is true:  many people have perverted religion while seeking economic domination/power. During the "Age of Discovery," for instance, religion was used as a pretext to dominate, kill, and enslave non-Europeans. Religion was used as justification for many wars **within** Europe as well. This doesn't invalidate the original ideas contained within religion, though -- at least I would never argue that.

In seeking to invalidate modern evolutionary theory by pointing to how it may be misapplied/abused/perverted by people seeking power, you are inadvertantly using several logical fallacies -- poisoning the well, guilt by association, ergo propter hoc, ad consequentiam, etc.
I don't usually like taking the easy way out, but I'd simply like you to take a look at logical fallacies here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy . It will help your arguments to avoid those. Cheers, DM.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 25 2006,12:11   

Quote
Me, I prefer to draw the continuum based on the attitude towards social, political and economic power.  To me, "left" means someone who wants to decentralize power to the lowest possible level and make it responsible and answerable to those people who elect it -- while the "right" wants to centralize power and insulate it as much as possible from responsibility or the need to answer to anyone anywhere at any time.
It's interesting - and complicated - how this dynamic has been playing in the Evo/Creo wars in Ohio.

In general, creationists have favored "local control" of schools, including, of course, curriculum decisions involving evolution. They don't want to answer to any more central authority than the local community.

But, of course, things being the way they are, there are state (and increasingly federal, ironically enough thanks to the current creationist, evangelist christian president) requirements on education.

In Ohio, the State Board of Education is composed of 19 members: 11 elected in local elections from each of 11 districts, and 8 appointed by the governor. While the governor's appointees were perceived to be an obstacle to the creationists' agenda, the Young Earthers mounted fierce, persistent protests against the tyrannical King George-like (III, not dubya) governor's heavy thumb on the scales of the democratic process. In the course of the recent "Intelligent Design" brouhaha in Ohio, however, Republican governor Taft's appointees mysteriously all sided with the creationists and the only opposition to the Intelligent Design juggernaut came from among the 11 locally elected members.

Equally mysteriously, the Young Earthers principled objections to gubernatorial tyranny disappeared from their to-do list.

Now lame-duck governor Taft (who was, apparently born without a spine) has - belatedly, ineffectually, uselessly and not very credibly - announced his opinion that scientists know more about science than the religious right does. His most recent appointments are not ID-friendly. The governor-elect (Strickland) is a Democrat, and - I expect - will be consistently unhelpful to the creationist agenda. It will be interesting to see if the Young Earthers' principled objections to appointed members of the Board of Education are revived.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 25 2006,12:51   

Quote (Chapman 08 @ Dec. 23 2006,18:10)
;)  Hi!  Here I am.  Thanks for your interest.

Why Chapman would say he needs an ID advisor is because he is running against the threat of of Communism in America, and Communism is based on the Evolutionary worldview.  (It was Marx who stated this, the idea is not Chapman's own invention as some believe.)

Just curious. Do you know how many active members of the Communist party there are in the U.S.? Any idea what percentage of the popular vote the Communist candidate for U.S. President typically gets in presidential elections?

I would think Chapman would have bigger things to worry about.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 25 2006,13:02   

Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 25 2006,10:51)
Quote (Chapman 08 @ Dec. 23 2006,18:10)
;)  Hi!  Here I am.  Thanks for your interest.

Why Chapman would say he needs an ID advisor is because he is running against the threat of of Communism in America, and Communism is based on the Evolutionary worldview.  (It was Marx who stated this, the idea is not Chapman's own invention as some believe.)

Just curious. Do you know how many active members of the Communist party there are in the U.S.? Any idea what percentage of the popular vote the Communist candidate for U.S. President typically gets in presidential elections?

I would think Chapman would have bigger things to worry about.

Well, if you look at his blog, Chapman's definition of communism is broad enough to encapsulate elements such as income tax, property tax, estate tax, and the Peace Corps. But enough with the politics.

Bring on the limitless se... um, evolutionary biology!

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 25 2006,13:23   

I'm also curious about a few claims your state on your blog. I'll quote them here:

 
Quote
No Antimatter: The Big Bang predicts that there should be equal amounts of matter (the "stuff" in the universe, that has mass) and "antimatter (a kind of matter with an opposite force or charge than regular matter)." In truth, there is almost no antimatter which scientists have observed. The prediction comes mainly from observation in very reliable atom-smasher tests meant to simulate the Big Bang, in which equal amounts of antimatter and matter were always produced. Computer models and math also show the same thing. But no antimatter exists! Antimatter and regular matter cancel each other out within several milli-seconds in an explosion of energy (E=mc2). Therefore, even if antimatter did exist in the universe as the Big Bang states, it would blow us to bits!


Actually, there's quite a bit of antimatter in the universe, in the form of virtual particles that are created and annihilated on a regular basis and on extremely short (tiny fractions of a second) time scales. Positrons, the electron's antiparticle, are used in medical technology (positron emission tomography, or PET scans, use positrons). Antimatter is created whenever a neutron decays via beta decay, producing a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino. Neutron decay happens all the time in nuclear reactions such as those in nuclear power plants, to say nothing of natural background radioactive decay.

It is true that matter particles vastly outnumber antimatter particles in the universe today. This is entirely to be expected. Given that matter and antimatter mutually annihilate to create radiation, there would be a preponderance of one over the other unless the universe started out with exactly equal numbers of each (in which case the universe would contain only radiation). The matter that is left over today is surplus of matter over antimatter available in the early universe, which is believed to have been caused by a breaking of a symmetry in a way that is currently not well understood. Antimatter particles are still created in various ways throughout the universe, but given the preponderance of matter, most of this antimatter does not last long.

Nevertheless, it it false to state that the universe contains no antimatter.

Also, it should be borne in mind that the sum total of normal matter in the universe today is vastly outmassed by other, more exotic forms. The sum total mass of normal matter in the universe is probably less than 5% of the total mass of the universe.

 
Quote
Galaxies: Under Big Bang cosmology, the uniformly expanding cloud of gas (which is expanding along with space) had to have suddenly stopped expanding locally and collasped into galaxies at some point. There is no evidence to suggest that explosions can collapse in on themselves and create objects during their outward trip. Both computer models and common sense contradict this tenet of the Big Bang.


Actually, quantum effects guarantee that there were local variations of density in the initially very smooth distribution of matter in the early universe. These density variations have been preserved in the anisotropy of the Cosmic Microwave Background (DMB). The magnitude of these anisotropies match extraordinarily well with computer simulations of galaxy formation in the early universe. It is simply impossible that the initial distribution of matter and radiation in the early universe could have been perfectly uniform. Therefore, the formation of galaxies, galactic clusters, and galactic superclusters was a foregone conclusion, an inevitable consequence of extremely well-confirmed principles of quantum physics.

 
Quote
Rotation of the universe: There is evidence that all the matter in the universe is rotating around a central axis near the center of our galaxy. The Big Bang disallows this concept due to the "Copernican principle" (don't worry, it didn't really originate from Copernicus). The Copernican princple states that the universe is, on average, the same in all directions and will always be no matter how far one goes. There is not supposed to be any center or edge. However, if the universe is rotating, there is a center and edge, and the universe is not uniform as the Big Bang declares. Evolution does not want us to occupy a special place in the cosmos, which we do if the universe is rotating essentially "around us."


I'm unaware of any evidence of net rotation of the universe as a whole. For one thing, it's difficult to imagine what any such rotation would be relative to.

Further, given that the universe is on the order of 150 billion light years wide, the rotation would have to be extraordinarily slow in order to avoid having the observable limits of the universe having rotational velocities vastly in excess of the speed of light.

I would be interested in any references you could give for evidence that the universe exhibits a net rotation around the center of the Milky Way galaxy.

Also, I'd like to correct a common misperception about the Theory of Evolution here, if I could. The Theory of Evolution is a theory about the evolution of life here on earth. As such, the Theory of Evolution has nothing whatsoever to say about the origin of the universe, the presence or absence of antimatter, or the large-scale structure of the universe. Those are all dealt with by quantum physics, general relativity and cosmology, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the Theory of Evolution.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 25 2006,13:28   

Quote (argystokes @ Dec. 25 2006,11:02)
Well, if you look at his blog, Chapman's definition of communism is broad enough to encapsulate elements such as income tax, property tax, estate tax, and the Peace Corps. But enough with the politics.

Bring on the limitless se... um, evolutionary biology!

It would be interesting to see what would happen if someone could get elected president and actually get rid of all taxation. If I didn't have to live here (well, I suppose I could move), it would probably be fascinating to see what would happen.

I wonder if these "abolish the income tax" people have ever really thought through the consequences of their beliefs…

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 25 2006,14:18   

Quote
I wonder if these "abolish the income tax" people have ever really thought through the consequences of their beliefs…
Oh, I think they may have. They seem to be anarchists at heart, with a visceral dislike of any central government. To quote anti-tax crusading hero Grover Norquist:  
Quote
"I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."
Personally, I have trouble reconciling this with their professed patriotism and reverence for the U.S. constitution.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 25 2006,14:26   

Quote (Russell @ Dec. 25 2006,12:18)
Oh, I think they may have. They seem to be anarchists at heart, with a visceral dislike of any central government. To quote anti-tax crusading hero Grover Norquist:      
Quote
"I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."

Maybe, but I bet not all the way. Once the bridges start crumbling, the stoplights stop working, the water isn't drinkable, and we find ourselves living in the Third World, then they'll have some idea of the logical consequences of no government.
Quote
Personally, I have trouble reconciling this with their professed patriotism and reverence for the U.S. constitution.

Yep. The more they claim to love their country, the less they want to pay for it.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 25 2006,16:11   

Quote (Russell @ Dec. 25 2006,12:11)
In general, creationists have favored "local control" of schools, including, of course, curriculum decisions involving evolution. They don't want to answer to any more central authority than the local community.

That, of course, is just a tactical decision, not a strategic political goal.  Their primary goal, of course, is precisely  to dictate to every local school board in the country what they should teach.  I notice that the creationists were all gung-ho about national laws like the 1981 Arkansas "Balanced Treatment Act" or the Santorum Amendment to the "No Child Left Behind Act", which mandated what local school districts must do, whenever it suited their purposes.

Deep down inside, what the fundies want -- ALL they want -- is to tell everyone else what to think and do.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 25 2006,16:16   

Quote (Russell @ Dec. 25 2006,14:18)
To quote anti-tax crusading hero Grover Norquist:    
Quote
"I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."
Personally, I have trouble reconciling this with their professed patriotism and reverence for the U.S. constitution.

Actually, Norquist  (who is a Reconstructionist) is being a bit evasive here.  He doesn't want to get government off our backs.  He wants to get government into our bedrooms.

He, like every other Reconstructionist, has NO reverence for the US Constitution -- indeed, what he wants is to overthrow it and replace it with (his version of) "Biblical Law".  

The Reconstructionists are, in fact, nothing but the Christian equivilent of the Taliban and the Iranian Ayatollahs.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 25 2006,19:13   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Dec. 25 2006,16:16)
Quote (Russell @ Dec. 25 2006,14:18)
To quote anti-tax crusading hero Grover Norquist:      
Quote
"I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."
Personally, I have trouble reconciling this with their professed patriotism and reverence for the U.S. constitution.

Actually, Norquist  (who is a Reconstructionist) is being a bit evasive here.  He doesn't want to get government off our backs.  He wants to get government into our bedrooms.

Not to be contrary, but I am not aware of Grover Norquist having any Christian bona fides. He is pretty much a one trick pony with Americans for Tax Reform. Indeed his outreach to American Muslim communities, as described in the aforementioned Wikipedia bio would make him rather suspect amongst the Reconstructionist set.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 25 2006,23:24   

All this discussion of income tax reminded me that a federal income tax was not established by the Constitution and the Libertarian party have been discussing tax reform and abolishment of the federal income tax for years.  From a historical perspective it's not such a radical idea.  Here's a link that briefly outlines the federal income tax and it's history for those that are interested.

Federal Income Tax

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 26 2006,07:25   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Dec. 25 2006,19:13)
Actually, Norquist  (who is a Reconstructionist) is being a bit evasive here.  He doesn't want to get government off our backs.  He wants to get government into our bedrooms.[/quote]
Not to be contrary, but I am not aware of Grover Norquist having any Christian bona fides. He is pretty much a one trick pony with Americans for Tax Reform. Indeed his outreach to American Muslim communities, as described in the aforementioned Wikipedia bio would make him rather suspect amongst the Reconstructionist set.

He has also been part of the Council for National Policy, a Reconstructionist group founded by Tim LaHaye.

Norquist has lots of ties to lots of fundies.  His aim is to cut off taxes as a way of "starving the beast"  -- making it impossible for the government to carry out "leftist" social programs by denying it enough money to do so.

His ties to Muslim nutters are indeed not unusual amongst American fundies --- ICR and AIG both give lots of money to Muslim fundies in Turkey and Europe.  The American fundies and the Muslim fundies, after all, have a lot in common.

Norquist got in more trouble over his involvement in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal than he did over his coddling of Muslim nutters.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 26 2006,07:29   

Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 25 2006,23:24)
All this discussion of income tax reminded me that a federal income tax was not established by the Constitution and the Libertarian party have been discussing tax reform and abolishment of the federal income tax for years.  From a historical perspective it's not such a radical idea.  Here's a link that briefly outlines the federal income tax and it's history for those that are interested.

Federal Income Tax

NO specific law or tax is established by the Constitution.

Of course, political parties are also not established by the Constitution.

(shrug)


But if you want to talk about the "illegality" of income taxes, I think Kent Hovind is the guy you wanna talk to.  (snicker) (giggle)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Bing



Posts: 144
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 26 2006,09:22   

Has anyone else notice that the young Master Maggy has only posted once on this thread to announce his arrival, and that the rest of the posts are by the usual suspects?

Given his websites are chock full of the typical creationist boilerplate I must ask why we're repeating this exercise?  That he's an award winner from AiG only secures his bona fides.

There's more than enough evidence out there to destroy the literalist's Creation Myth Confirmed by Science hypothesis.  How many times must we re-invent the wheel?

We already have our one intractable fundagelical wingnut, do we really need another?  And will AFDave get jealous when he sees he's been replaced with a younger model?

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 26 2006,10:24   

Quote (Bing @ Dec. 26 2006,09:22)
Has anyone else notice that the young Master Maggy has only posted once on this thread to announce his arrival, and that the rest of the posts are by the usual suspects?

I'm not really surprised.  I don't think we could have honestly expected a 15 year old to wade into this.  Plus, if he really wanted an honest discussion he would have had to been ready to sincerely question his assumptions.  I'm not sure anyone at 15 is prepared to do that.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 26 2006,14:47   

Quote
Has anyone notice[d] that the young Master Maggy has only posted once on this thread to announce his arrival, and that the rest of the posts are by the usual suspects?
Yes, well. Is that all that surprising? If anything of value has been found on afdave's thread, it sure as heck hasn't come from afdave.

I guess what might be interesting about this thread, if the young man in question really wants to participate, is the window into the thinking of a young recruit to an extremist cult. Unlike afdave, at his advanced age, I give a 15-year-old a decent chance of eventually recognizing flawed logic and rescuing himself.

Meanwhile, nothing wrong with chatting among ourselves. Grover Norquist's connection with the christian right, for instance, if it's true (I will check it out for myself), is news to me. I might have guessed he was more likely to be of the Ayn Rand school of public spirit.

Perhaps while we're waiting, Skeptic would like to entertain us by expatiating on his thoughts for financing the government, if he thinks the income tax is illegal.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 26 2006,17:47   

Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 25 2006,23:24)
the Libertarian party have been discussing tax reform and abolishment of the federal income tax for years.

As someone once said, "The Libertarians lose me when they start talking about charging me money to use the sidewalk."

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 26 2006,18:03   

Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 25 2006,23:24)
Here's a link that briefly outlines the federal income tax and it's history for those that are interested.

Tax and bank issues always seem to bring out the nutters.  As I recall, there was one fruitcake at PT a couple months ago who posted a big long missive about how the Jesuits deliberately sank the "Titanic" in order to remove prominent financiers like John Jacob Astor who were opposed to the establishment of the Federal Reserve system.  

(sigh)

The Federal Reserve, like the income tax, has long been a favorite target for the hyper-rightwing John-Bircher-type nutters.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 26 2006,21:19   

I don't think income tax is illegal but it's not a given either.  There are certainly other options some of which may or may not be better.  I'm not so opposed to a consumption tax but when broadly applied I'm not sure how fair it becomes.  I guess I would assume I'm like most people and oppose taxes just on general principle.  One thing I would change though is withholding.  It appears that more than convenience it's purpose is to lull the taxpayer into a complacent attitude.  People pay less and less attention to tax policy because it's taken care-of for them and government gains more and more opportunities to raise taxes because no one is minding the store.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 26 2006,23:36   

Libertarianism in a VERY general sense, reminds me of Communism -- and I mean no insult to anyone holding either political views -- a disparate set of concepts never really put to the test which incorporate idealistic notions about economics and human behavior that have not been shown to hold true in actual practice in an industrialized landscape (not that I don't admire SOME of the ideals of both).

Back in 1999, I had the opportunity to question Libertarian Presidential candidate Harry Browne on specifics of Libertarian socio-economic ideas that he held to. I asked about things like Federal Bank insurance, disaster relief to a major port, food and drug regulations regarding safety, corporateering,  etc., and while he was able to admirably parrot the lofty but insubstantial (devoid of details) rhetoric of Nozick, Mises, et al, he ran from specifics as fast as he could.

I have yet encounter any work that meaningfully wrestles with "the pathetic level of detail" I'd like to hear about in Libertarianism (i.e. above the theoretical level), but perhaps someone could refer me to some reading?

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
tiredofthesos



Posts: 59
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 26 2006,23:47   

Skeptic,
 You have a unique ability, shown yet again on this thread.
 Whenever your opinions - and you never post anything else, really (which is fine, but I and perhaps others wish you would stop the pretense that anything else is there) - even threaten to become "reasonable" I am immediately convinced that there must be something essentially wrong with my current way of viewing the question, while holding in reserve the slim possibility of coincidence (of the "even a broken clock" type).
 Perhaps you really  mean no harm, but it ain't enough. No siree!

 That's a very, very narrow, if mostly harmless, mind you have. :(

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 26 2006,23:55   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Dec. 26 2006,17:47)
Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 25 2006,23:24)
the Libertarian party have been discussing tax reform and abolishment of the federal income tax for years.

As someone once said, "The Libertarians lose me when they start talking about charging me money to use the sidewalk."

Or, my favorite libertarian jokes:

A libertarian is:

a) a Republican who smokes pot,
b) a Republican who doesn't believe in God,
or
c) a Republican who lives in his mother's basement.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2006,08:00   

Quote (tiredofthesos @ Dec. 26 2006,23:47)
Skeptic,
 You have a unique ability, shown yet again on this thread.
 Whenever your opinions - and you never post anything else, really (which is fine, but I and perhaps others wish you would stop the pretense that anything else is there) - even threaten to become "reasonable" I am immediately convinced that there must be something essentially wrong with my current way of viewing the question, while holding in reserve the slim possibility of coincidence (of the "even a broken clock" type).
 Perhaps you really  mean no harm, but it ain't enough. No siree!

 That's a very, very narrow, if mostly harmless, mind you have. :(

I'm not sure what you mean here.  Yes, this is my opinion as I was responding to Russell's question about my opinion, unless I misunderstood his question.  I would say that 99% of everything on this board is opinion.  There's certainly data to support these opinions but I would assume that's how peoples' opinions are formulated.  I'm also not sure what I said that you took to be narrow-minded.  It was such a small post but if you could point it out to me I would appreciate that.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2006,11:26   

Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 26 2006,21:19)
One thing I would change though is withholding.  It appears that more than convenience it's purpose is to lull the taxpayer into a complacent attitude.  People pay less and less attention to tax policy because it's taken care-of for them and government gains more and more opportunities to raise taxes because no one is minding the store.

I can assure you that I (via an accountant) take great care to ensure that I only pay the taxes that I have to pay!  :D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2006,12:11   

Quote
I guess I would assume I'm like most people and oppose taxes just on general principle.
I doubt that most people oppose taxes on "general principle" if by "principle" you mean philosophical or ethical ideal. Most people probably want their individual tax burden to be as low as possible, but I, for one, don't oppose the whole idea of taxes, and I don't think I'm particularly odd in that.

I'm no expert on American history, but I have the impression that import tariffs used to account for a much larger fraction of the government's revenue. What alternatives do you envision other than taxes and tariffs?

(I am opposed, incidentally, on "general principle" - the ethical kind - to the sorry, distressingly common, practice of raising money by state lotteries. I'm no fan of dumb, but I don't believe in running the government on it. Here's one area where I find myself in solidarity with the Fundies, and somewhat at odds with my fellow non-Republicans)

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2006,12:30   

Quote
I guess I would assume I'm like most people and oppose taxes just on general principle.

Yep.  I don't need any government that can't sustain itself on fresh air and sunshine.  For instance, if I need a road to drive somewhere, I'll just buy one.  If my house catches on fire, I'll put it out myself.  If someone steals from me, I'll just do my own police work, then try them in my own court.  My kids don't need any education that I can't give them myself.  All of this would be easy, if the IRS would just let me keep 100% of the money I earn.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2006,12:43   

So far, this thread seems to have about as much to do with Intelligent Design as Intelligent Design has to do with explaining the diversity of life.

Just sayin.'

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2006,13:13   

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Dec. 27 2006,12:30)
Quote
I guess I would assume I'm like most people and oppose taxes just on general principle.

Yep.  I don't need any government that can't sustain itself on fresh air and sunshine.  For instance, if I need a road to drive somewhere, I'll just buy one.  If my house catches on fire, I'll put it out myself.  If someone steals from me, I'll just do my own police work, then try them in my own court.  My kids don't need any education that I can't give them myself.  All of this would be easy, if the IRS would just let me keep 100% of the money I earn.

Exactly so. Here in the UK it seems to me that taxes are just accepted as the price for living in a civilised land. One party, a while back, even made putting up taxes part of it's manifesto pledge.
The opposition party policy is not to slash taxes, believe it or not (that's already got them into trouble!;) but to "optimize" (ever the mantra of the politician I know) for savings.

When taxes were cut for the richest % in the USA, that more then anything else told me where the current POTUS interests lie. Why do that? The richest could have struggled by on a little less...

:(

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2006,14:21   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 27 2006,13:13)
When taxes were cut for the richest % in the USA, that more then anything else told me where the current POTUS interests lie. Why do that? The richest could have struggled by on a little less...

:(

That made me think a bit. What possible (good) reason could there be to cut the taxes on the richest?

I actually thought of 1. Maybe the richest people generate wealth much more efficiently than civil servants/politicians. It is possible that having the richest people have more monetary power will benefit an economy.

Now I don't know that as a fact but I deem it possible. I am assuming that the very richest do not put their money into a savings account or just blow it on mind altering drugs but tend to invest in industry etc.

Just a thought.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2006,18:11   

Quote (ericmurphy @ Dec. 27 2006,12:43)
So far, this thread seems to have about as much to do with Intelligent Design as Intelligent Design has to do with explaining the diversity of life.

Just sayin.'

Well heck, it ain't like we HAVE any "intelligent design movement" to talk about any more, eh?

;)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2006,18:22   

I am surprised that intelligent people comtinue to fall for the "cutting taxes on the richest" lie

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2006,18:39   

Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 27 2006,18:22)
I am surprised that intelligent people comtinue to fall for the "cutting taxes on the richest" lie

What, you don't think that's a staple of the Republican party? Or is it you don't see what the problem is with it?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2006,18:41   

Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 27 2006,16:22)
I am surprised that intelligent people comtinue to fall for the "cutting taxes on the richest" lie

Or do you think taxes on the richest taxpayers aren't lower now than they were in the past? In the late fifties, the highest marginal tax rates were around 90%. Now they're below 40%. Is 90% !> 40%?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2006,19:01   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Dec. 27 2006,14:21)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 27 2006,13:13)
When taxes were cut for the richest % in the USA, that more then anything else told me where the current POTUS interests lie. Why do that? The richest could have struggled by on a little less...

:(

That made me think a bit. What possible (good) reason could there be to cut the taxes on the richest?

I actually thought of 1. Maybe the richest people generate wealth much more efficiently than civil servants/politicians. It is possible that having the richest people have more monetary power will benefit an economy.

Now I don't know that as a fact but I deem it possible. I am assuming that the very richest do not put their money into a savings account or just blow it on mind altering drugs but tend to invest in industry etc.

Just a thought.

Alas, that hypothesis falls on it face . . .   In the US today, the wealthiest 1% of the population owns about 35% of the total wealth.  (When you consider just "unearned income", which excludes salaries and includes things like stock dividends, bonds, and interest, that percentage held by the top 1% almost doubles.)

That percentage has not changed very widely ever since the Census Bureau began keeping records.  

Through decades of Democrats, Republicans, welfare state, reaganomics, supply side, Great Society, New World Order, Compassionate Conservatism, etc etc etc, the wealthiest 1% of the US has pretty much always owned between 30-40% of the total wealth.  Investments went up, investments went down, joblessness went up, joblessness went down, inflation went up, inflation went down, but the super-rich always kept what they had.  So you see, the super-rich DO generate welath.  Alas, though -- they keep all of it for themselves.

That shows pretty clearly whose interests the US government has always protected -- no matter who is in power.


And, ironically, it very often happens that increasing investment in industrial capacity will actually WORSEN the situation.  That is a function of the free-market "business cycle".  The problem, in a nutshell, is that free-market economics does not produce widgets simply because people NEED them -- it produces widgets only if people can PAY for them.  And, in a market economy, the only way most people get money is from their job --- their "income" is, at the same time, the owner's "expense".

The iron rule of the free market is for owners to reduce costs (and remember, the worker's income is the owner's cost) as much as posible to maximize profits.  At the same time, owners are utterly dependent upon all of the workers (who make up the vast bulk of the marketplace) to use their income to buy things.  Hence, it is in every business owner's interests to have HIS workers paid as little as possible (to cut expenses and increase profits) but to have every OTHER owner's workers paid as *much* as possible (to give them more income so they can buy more widgets).  

Indeed, modern industrial capacity is capable of turning out gazillions of widgets.  The problem, of course, is that these widgets aren't given away for free --- they only go to people who can afford to BUY them.  The free market doesn't care if people are starving and need bread --- if they have no money, they get no bread.  Period.  No money, no widgets.

Hence, as production levels go higher and higher, they outrun the ability of the market to absorb all those products.  Total worker wages aren't enough to pay for all the widgets produced by the economy.  Hence, not all the widgets get sold (and remember, it doesn't matter a whit whether or not people NEED the widgets -- all that matters is whether they can PAY for them).  Hence, profits go down.  And, indeed, the more that gets invested into production, the more widgets don't get sold -- and the deeper the economic crisis becomes.  There is only one way to resolve this "demand crunch" --- idle some of the productive capacity, therefore producing fewer widgets (thereby gaining the ability to sell them all).  By idling production capacity, profits go up.  

When profits go up, more owners want in, and thus, once again, more money gets invested in increased production capacity, which increases the demand for labor and therefore drives wages up.  Rising wages, though, mean falling profits.  As profit level falls, so does investment.   The demand crunch kicks in again, production capacity is once again idled, wages once again fall -- and we ride the carousel all over again.  Hence, the business cycle.  

The problem was best summed up in a (perhaps apocryphal)
story told about Walter Reuther, a former head of the auto workers union.  According to the story, the Ford Company, in order to cut costs and increase profits, decided to replace all the workers in one of its plants with mechanical robots.  They gave Reuther a tour, and as they walked amongst the clattering machines, a Ford executive smiled and asked, "Well, Walter, how are you going to get these robots to go on strike?"  To which Reuther promptly replied, "Well, Mr Ford, how are YOU going to get these robots to buy cars?"

Oddly enough, one thing that saved the "free market" from its inevitable fate was the very thing that "free market" supporters hate the most --- the "welfare state".  What the "welfare state" does is create "nonproductive demand" --- it gives money to people who then use it to buy widgets, but they do not increase production levels.  Hence, the "demand crunch" is relieved --- industry can produce and sell far more widgets than it otherwise could, because the income from the "welfare state" can absorb that demand without adding anything to productive capacity.  Keynesian economics at its finest (and something no "free amrket" could survive without).

Another economic lifesaver, oddly, is the bloated military budget, which also adds zillions of dollars of income to the economy, but produces no widgets, thus helping to alleviate the "demand crunch" and keep the "market economy" from imploding upon itself.

There was, it so happens, one period in American history where there were simultaneous cutbacks in the "welfare state" and cutbacks in the military budget.  The late 1970's were, therefore, marked by the worst US economic crisis since the Great Depression, and to get out of it, Reagan promptly expanded military spending to levels previously unknown in US history.  And, oddly enough, the "supply sider" Reagan also increased government deficit spending to previously unknown levels.  After all, when it comes to protecting profits, ideology often falls by the wayside.  Just ask the Democans and the Republicrats.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Chapman 08



Posts: 2
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2006,19:44   

Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 24 2006,01:28)
RJM, one thing to consider on the chirality of amino acids, L-aminos occur in eukaryotic organisms but D-aminos are evident in bacterial organisms.  One explanation for the dominance of one form or another in each case is the specific nature of the reactions that they are involved in.  The handedness of a molecule is a description of it's 3-d nature.  The reactions that occur in living organisms are facilitated by enzymes that have very specific reaction sites as far as 3-d structure is concerned.  Look up the enzyme theory of the key and lock if you're not already familiar with it.  It's not as if there is only one type of amino acid available it's just that only one type fits the lock for each group.  If anything this fact is more readily interpreted as evidence of common descent of eukaryotics and early divergence from a common ancestor shared with bacteria.

Thanks for mentioning the word "interpreted."  All evidence can be (and is) interpreted differently, depending on what the fundamental axioms of those involved are.

Many Evolutionists will assert that they have no biases or presuppositions.  Of course, creationists point out that Evolutionists are indeed biased to believe that the origins of everything can be explained by naturalistic means.  

The kind of science which puts men on the moon or sends nanobot machinery into cells is not the same as the "science" which attempts to explain where people originated or how the universe was birthed.  Here-and-now-world science was not there to observe how life began and changed through time.  So unless we one day build a time machine, we will forever build origins theories on pre-existing ideas.  

If this is so, how can one who wants to know what the beginning was actually find out?  Can we solve the origins debate?

In order to solve the origins debate, we must test the pre-existing ideas which we have against our here-and-now-world observations.  This operation science can in fact do.  When we take our here-and-now-world observations and churn them through the Evolutionary presuppostion, we come up with one interpretation, and when we take our here-and-now-world observations and churn them through the creationist presupposition, we come up with another interpretation.  Whichever interpretation of the evidence works best, that is the correct interpretation.

My current position is that there are a number of things which the Evolutionary presupposition has failed to explain.  The LH/DH amino acid problem is just one of these.

Thanks for the discussion!


-RJM

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2006,20:29   

Quote (Chapman 08 @ Dec. 27 2006,19:44)
My current position is that there are a number of things which the Evolutionary presupposition has failed to explain.  The LH/DH amino acid problem is just one of these.

Evolutionary theory is not the basis for chirality, chemistry is.  The only relevance that evolutionary theory even has in this discuss [of chirality] is to include it in a comprehensive theory.  If that's the best response you've got then I highly suggest that you refrain from any further posting and start reading.  These guys are going to eat you alive with a response like that.  I hate to be disappointed but I had hoped that we had a prodigy on our hands.

  
Bing



Posts: 144
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2006,20:52   

Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 27 2006,20:29)
I hate to be disappointed but I had hoped that we had a prodigy on our hands.

Maybe we've only got a Ham prodigy or possibly a Hovind Savant.

Q:  How do you know when you've found a Hovind Savant?

A:  He's in jail for tax fraud while he's still in his 20s.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2006,21:01   

Quote (Chapman 08 @ Dec. 27 2006,19:44)
Of course, creationists point out that Evolutionists are indeed biased to believe that the origins of everything can be explained by naturalistic means.

But ID isn't about religion.  No sirree Bob.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2006,21:10   

Quote (Chapman 08 @ Dec. 27 2006,19:44)
My current position is that there are a number of things which the Evolutionary presupposition has failed to explain.

No kidding.  There are LOTS of things that science can't explain.  

I suppose that's why scientists still have jobs, and haven't all retired to the Bahamas by now.

(sigh)  Let me give you a friendly word of advice, Junior.  Don't yammer ignorantly about topics that you don't know anything about.  It just makes you look like, well, a snot-nosed little boy who thinks he's bigger than he is.  Some of the people here are professional scientists who long ago forgot more about any scientific topic than you ever knew in the first place.

Why don't you wait until you've graduated high school (or you're at least old enough to shave) before you run around shooting your uneducated pig-ignorant mouth off about all the world's scientists being wrong about this or that.

Geez.


I'm glad I'm not young enough to know everything.  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2006,21:40   

Ah, but didn't we all know everything as teenagers and just proceeded to get dumber and dumber with each passing year.  :D

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2006,21:46   

I now understand this thread was a bad idea for a number of reasons, such as the existence of Lenny Flank. So I'm closing it.

   
  73 replies since Dec. 20 2006,18:25 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (3) < [1] 2 3 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]