Roundup

Three fallacies of evolution — Isn’t it a fact just like gravity?  Uh, not quite.

Why Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (and not Michael Jordan) is the greatest player in NBA history — OK, I’m a little biased since Kareem was my favorite since I was 10 years old (when he was with Milwaukee), but I thought the writer made an excellent case.  Man, I loved to watch him play. 

I still root for the Lakers but it isn’t the same as in the 80’s. 

Ann Coulter had a great column on George Tiller.  She exposes the media hypocrisy of falling over themselves saying how Muslims aren’t violent yet projecting Tiller’s murder on the whole pro-life community. 

Why aren’t liberals rushing to assure us this time that “most pro-lifers are peaceful”?

She details the blood money with which Tiller bought off politicans.

And also this:

I wouldn’t kill an abortionist myself, but I wouldn’t want to impose my moral values on others. No one is for shooting abortionists. But how will criminalizing men making difficult, often tragic, decisions be an effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the shootings of abortionists?

Following the moral precepts of liberals, I believe the correct position is: If you don’t believe in shooting abortionists, then don’t shoot one.

I heart satire.

Mormons lying for the Lord? — an exhaustive and eye opening piece.

Be sure to check out the Young Cons (Young Conservatives).  Good stuff!  There is hope for the future of the country.

Hat tip: Conservatism with Heart

0 thoughts on “Roundup”

    1. The sad part is those abortionists murders haven’t saved any unborn babies because abortion is so prevalent women can find them a dozen for a dime.

      But you make a good point, the score is vastly in the abortionists favor, and no one condones what the whackos that kill abortion doctors have done.

      Like

  1. Very rarely do I get 1/3 of the way into a serious piece and then stop reading because of the staggering length. Wow. The piece on Mormonism is very, very well done. If I still lived in a part of the country where I encountered Mormons regularly, I would start the long process of memorization on that piece.

    As a Christian, I often hear the old-tired-line about “look at all the terrible things Christians have done.” To which I reply, “All we ask is that you judge us not based on our own sins, but on our founder and how well the best of us imitate him.”

    And I think this is a fair metric for secular level debate. Christianity should be judged on the merits of Jesus, and Christians should be judged on those among us who imitate him the best.

    This same standard can be applied to Islam, Buddhism, or any other religion. Including Mormonism.

    The best case against Mormonism is its founder. The Mormons who we would call the “best” Mormons actually do the worst job of imitating Smith. Our natural, God given, sense of virtue instantly recognizes that Mormonism is not the true religion when we apply rational criteria.

    Like

  2. The Coulter column is excellent, and lefties are *already* claiming that her final paragraphs are an indication that she’s OK with Tiller’s murder. Their lack of recognition (real or phony) that it’s a jab at their own “I wouldn’t have an abortion, BUT…” rhetoric is sad.

    Like

  3. Neil

    I’ll match the young con video, and raise you a shai linne….please forward it to Chuck, maybe he will learn something.

    Like

  4. Yes, I agree the writer made a good case for Jabbar. Being a Bulls fanatic, and never being particularly fond of the Lakers, I’m stickin’ with MJ. I also like the writer’s opinion of Pippen. Pip was about as close to being Jordan without being Jordan for many of those championship years. He’s someone that a team could have and should have been built around.

    Back to Jabbar, I always thought he had a great basketball name before his unfortunate conversion. “Lew Alcindor”! In the same way, I much preferred the better boxer’s name of “Cassius Clay”! Man. If that ain’t a boxer’s name, one doesn’t exist. “Dwight Braxton” was another great boxer name until he converted to Dwight Muhammed Qawi. I wanted to name my band “Cassius Clay”, but was out voted.

    Like

  5. I am sorry, I know this is more of a serious discussion, but I just couldn’t resist. Every time the topic of evolution comes up, the song “Did Charlie make a monkey out of you?” pops up in my mind. That’s how seriously I consider the Theory of Evolution. I held some interest in Father Gregor Mendel’s research on genetics, when I was briefly flirting with the idea of taking up the medicinal field as my line of profession. Anyway, no matter how hard the evolutionists try, they really are not going to come up with infallible proofs.

    Like

  6. That evolution piece was good. I am so tired of idiotic so-called rationalist saying “the theory of evolution is a fact”, hidding behind the “scientifc” defition of theory, as if that somehow gets rid of the specualtive nature of the “theory” part.

    Like

    1. Yeah, you gotta love this quote: “Evolutionists consistently make eye-brow raising claims.”

      Especially considering the writer, Cornelius Hunter, and others believe that a supreme, all powerful, all knowing, ethereal diety is responsible for it all.

      Yeah, my eyebrows are raised alright.

      Like

      1. Mark:

        Now you want to go cosmological? Oh come now, scientific theory in that area is even more speculative? Worse yet anyone who actually looks at the current cosmological origins theories about our universe and who still denies the possibility of a God is truly an wilfully ignorant person.

        Like

      2. There you go raising my eyebrows again. What do you see in cosmological origin theory that could possibly lead you to believe in the possibility of a god? You are inserting something into the theory without even a slight scientific basis.

        Like

      3. I don’t know Mark, which Cosmological origins model are you going with? Are you talking the Friedmann-Lemaître Model or the Cyclic model? Pick one, and we can discuss it.

        The problem with your type is your incredible arrogance predicated on what little you know about this world, let alone this universe, through current scientific method.

        Mistake number one, you ignore thousands of years of information from hundreds of societies and sources because it is “spiritual” in nature. Aside from the blatant modernist arrogance, it limits your ability to know what you are looking at in regard to the temporal and spatial actuality you attempt to measure and it limits your ability to know what you should be looking for.

        Mistake number two, you act as if the your lack of taking into account presuppositions or postulates from sources outside your limited theoretical speculations is “rational” or that you actually are on some intellectual high ground because of your willful ignorance which is an asinine position.

        Like

      4. DJ Black Adam; you accuse Mark 2 of arrogance, yet you are prepared to make statements along the lines of “anyone who doesn’t see God in this is wilfully ignorant.”

        I’ve seen this sort of argument more and more just lately, and it smacks of desperation. Yes, there are a lot of things the scientific method can’t yet explain, but “Goddidit” is NOT a satisfactory fallback position. Sorry but you don’t get to be right by default.

        Like

      5. RacingBoo:

        You write: “DJ Black Adam; you accuse Mark 2 of arrogance, yet you are prepared to make statements along the lines of “anyone who doesn’t see God in this is wilfully ignorant.”

        Yep, I stand by it. The statement is based on your “scientific method” you all love to tout so well when you are describing things that by definition are beyond you. Human psychology isn’t one of those things, or in this case it is more sociological than psychological because it is a type of group think that the faux scientific atheistic community wishes to forward.

        It is my observation, that more times than not, atheistic so-called “rationalist” who have some desire to disapprove a “god” (or should I say the Christian God, since they tend to not mention any others) are often willfully ignorant of God’s existence. Basic statistical sampling, purely scientific, should be right up your alley. You xdcon’t want there to be a god (for a variety of purely psychological / emotional issues) so you set out to prove there is not one by demanding that theist “prove” a god within your limited tools upon which you attempt to measure this temporal / spatial actuality.

        You go on with: “I’ve seen this sort of argument more and more just lately, and it smacks of desperation. Yes, there are a lot of things the scientific method can’t yet explain, but “Goddidit” is NOT a satisfactory fallback position. Sorry but you don’t get to be right by default.”

        You frame a false dichotomy, which is tantamount of the position you are trying to defend. You first create this fiction that what I believe comes down to “Goddunit”. This to try to act as if you have some intellectual high ground and are dealing with some backwater uneducated individual, typical move from the faux scientific atheistic community . Sure, I believe God is the CAUSE of this actuality we inhabit, the how is what I can and often do discuss regarding the cosmological origin theories that are popular today.

        The thing is where your theory ends, I can still speculate, because like I said, I do not purposely handicap myself with your communities typical arrogance and willful ignorance, as you choose to ignore information that can clarify things.

        Your choice, thus the term “willful” ignorance. No insult meant, if the shoe fits, say ouch and wear it. I don’t “argue” God, adversus solem ne loquitor.

        Like

      6. How thin does this right hand column get?

        You make a lot of assumptions about me. I hope I fit nicely into the little box you’ve made.

        If I’m wilfully ignorant of God’s existence it’s because I’ve looked for him, thought I’d found him, then realised there wasn’t anything that I couldn’t attribute to my own imagination. If that’s being “wilfully ignorant” then I guess I’m guilty as charged.

        Like

      7. @RacingBoo:

        You write: “How thin does this right hand column get?”

        Now THAT is a mystery.

        You write: “You make a lot of assumptions about me. I hope I fit nicely into the little box you’ve made.”

        I am only going off of the statements that you made.

        You write: “If I’m wilfully ignorant of God’s existence it’s because I’ve looked for him, thought I’d found him, then realised there wasn’t anything that I couldn’t attribute to my own imagination. If that’s being “wilfully ignorant” then I guess I’m guilty as charged.”

        I can’t speak to how “willful” your specific ignorance in regard to God is, I can only “Speculate” as such that is “theoretical” (pun intended). I will say that if you thought it was Him, and you now think it was your imagination, then would wager it was your imagination. I have to ask was your search for God an exercise of intelligence, emotion or an actual desire for relationship and spiritual revelation?

        Like

      8. DJ

        You said, “Mistake number one, you ignore thousands of years of information from hundreds of societies and sources because it is “spiritual” in nature. Aside from the blatant modernist arrogance, it limits your ability to know what you are looking at in regard to the temporal and spatial actuality you attempt to measure and it limits your ability to know what you should be looking for.”

        And “Mistake number two, you act as if the your lack of taking into account presuppositions or postulates from sources outside your limited theoretical speculations is “rational” or that you actually are on some intellectual high ground because of your willful ignorance which is an asinine position.”

        You know, DJ, if we hadn’t made these “mistakes” – we’d still be locked in the Dark Ages. We’d be so locked in what we don’t know that it would block us from finding out what we can know.

        Do tell, since I’m so arrogant, what am I “looking at in regard to the temporal and spatial actuality?” …because you obviously know. And just what is it that I should be looking for?

        As for the “lack of taking into account presuppositions or postulates from sources outside [scientific] limited theoretical speculations,” … Just what is it you expect me to do? Pray for the knowledge? Yeah, that’ll work. I’m sure to be reading in next month’s scientific journals about the art of prayer and how much knowledge I can gain from it.

        Tell you what, DJ, you take into account these presupositions from sources outside scientific speculations and try to get a hubble-like telescope – or any other satellite – into orbit.

        Look, let the scientific community keep studying with their “limited” toolset and they’ll let you, with your “rational” and spiritual intellect, change your version of reality based on their findings.

        With the limitations you want to place on scientific study, God would still be living in the clouds. But, hey, we’d be much better off spiritually I guess.

        Like

      9. @Mark:

        As ususal, your tempral and spatial view of this actuality causes you to not see the forest for the trees.

        I have no problem with science, I follow quite a bit of it, physics and astronomy specfically. You a framing a false choice, it isn’t “science” or “faith”.

        The fact is, much of what you would consider “mistakes” (i.e. the stuff you haven’t read) givee me a much better vantage point as we come across scientifc truths.

        You want to drive half blind, your choice.

        Like

      10. DJ

        So my (science community) mistake in scientific study is not reading the Bible? You truly must be joking. How about the Koran, the Vedas, Tao-te-Ching, etc. How about the books used in any of literally hundreds of other religions.

        Must I be versed in every religion or philosophy before I can study science? Appearantly so, because otherwise I would be “driving blind.”

        It is you who are blind, DJ. Your own philosophy and religion have blinded you to the point of idiocy.

        Like

      11. Mark2:

        I have read the Vedas, the Qu’ran, the Enuma Elish, etc., etc. there is something to be learned from those books.

        The fact that you disregard scripture (any scripture), will always be a roadblock to you understanding of Humanity or this universe we inhabit.humanity.

        But I digress, I have a practice of not getting between the ignorant and there desire to remain ignorant. Enjoy.

        Like

  7. RE: Young cons. I hate rap. Why must Conservatives lower themselves to Liberals levels to gain acceptability?

    Stay with the classics and leave rap to the thugs.

    Like

  8. I “heart” sarcasm too, Neil, and Ann Coulter is really good at it. She never pulls any punches either which is why the libs hate her… and she probably laughs all the way to the bank! 🙂

    Like

    1. Hi Gayle,

      What I also find interesting about Coulter’s critics is that they focus exclusively on style points and never on content (at least for the ones I’ve read). That’s par for the course.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s