Roundup

adopt

The State of Illinois refused to let citizens purchase the “Adopt — Choose life” license plate.  The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which refused to hear it.  I don’t know the legal particulars, but I am disappointed at just how transparently pro-abortion the “pro-choice” groups are in Illinois.  If they are really pro-choice, why wouldn’t they be glad to see those license plates out there?  The license plates concede that there is a legal choice and simply encourage people to consider a choice other than abortion. 

More fossil marketing— “Ardi” is just (bad) capitalism in action.  The Ida fossil, while a truly spectacular find, turned out to be an overblown embarrassment with respect to the “missing link” schtick.  It had a very effective marketing approach that earned some people big $$ before everyone realized how over-hyped it was. 

Oh, and of course, macro-evolution is totally as well documented as gravity, even though they keep finding “missing” links (I didn’t know gravity had missing links, but hey, I’m not a scientist.).

“You know the old story about free milk and a cow? Make up your mind to keep the cow in the barn.”— a current and candid analysis of some always timely advice.

Absolutely amazing, even for the grossly biased mainstream media: CNN criticized SNL for a skit about Obama!  But hey, I remember them fact-checking all the Palin skits as well . . . or do I?  At least the White House was smart enough not to comment.


funny pictures of cats with captions
see more Lolcats and funny pictures

0 thoughts on “Roundup”

    1. Who is “they”? Why must you group everyone together? I am pro-choice, and have no problem with that license plate, and I’ve said NUMEROUS times here that I favour adoption over abortion.

      In the end their goal is as many abortions as possible.

      Why on Earth would anyone want somebody to get pregnant only to abort? That makes no sense at all. Never in my life have I heard a single person refer to abortion as a “good thing”, rather than a lesser of two evils. Yet you use it to paint us all with one brush.

      Like

      1. As two your second question.

        Most pro-choicers believe that casual sex is a prerogative, or it is at least something you cannot prevent. Therefore abstinence teaching is either wrong (if you are the first camp) or misguided and pointless.

        So they concede that unwanted pregnancies will persist and even increase.

        Most pro-choicers are also on the left politically. They’d much rather see those pregnancies aborted for environmental reasons (too many people, blah blah blah). So yes, most pro-choicers want the choice to be abortion. Their goal is not to reduce unwanted pregnancy otherwise they’d be on board with abstinence instruction.

        Instead they are for the teaching of imperfect contraception instruction, and using abortion as contraception when those methods fail.

        And there are many on the left that think abortion is a good thing as tool to be used to combat overpopulation.

        Like

  1. OK, you brought it up – now I can talk about evolution!

    Only the media calls these fossils “missing links”. Evolutionary biologists love to find them as well, but they are just a bonus. The fossil record is just confirmation of what we already know. We have all the evidence we need to confirm beyond all doubt that we all have common ancestors without the fossil record even playing a part. Genome research contains the proof, entirely separate from the fossil record. The two combined, giving exactly the same story, is an undeniable proof.

    Like

      1. But you have no basis for that argument. The evidence shows blatantly that there are common ancestors.

        The common designer simply does not work, and it implies that God is not perfect, since he needs to “reuse” inefficient things in his creations.

        Here’s an example that should put to rest the “commonality” argument. The laryngeal nerve is a nerve that controls the larynx in vertebrates. It developed first in fish, where it was a branch of the vagal nerve, and where the most direct path for it to take looped around the aorta. This is still the case in humans, but the nerve goes to the larynx. It goes down the back of your neck, just an inch past your larynx, loops around your aorta, and goes back up to its destination. In humans, this is a little silly, but it’s not that much of a detour – your larynx is not actually too far above your heart. But ask a giraffe how long his laryngeal nerve is (it’s over 10 feet long, when it could be about 1 foot long if it took a direct route) and then wonder if we don’t have common ancestors.

        There are literally hundreds of examples like this. How do you reconcile that with a designer when we have a perfectly good alternate explanation that works?

        Like

      2. I’m feeling generous so I gave you a bonus comment.

        That is easy to reconcile. As always, “science” thinks it knows it all today even though history says that the “facts” will change many times. Junk DNA turned out to be not so junky. It was used to discredit design until they realized it had uses, then all of sudden it was evidence for evolution! Shocking.

        Like

      3. As always, “science” thinks it knows it all today

        It most certainly does not know it all. I think we have only scratched the surface. The point I’m trying to make is that the evidence we have is not to be ignored.

        To be clear – will you be deleting any subsequent comments of mine on this topic? I’m trying my best to be polite, and I’m genuinely interested in your view on this. I’m not being dishonest.

        If you are not going to delete them, will you at least humour me and let me know why you think the giraffe has a 10 foot long laryngeal nerve? Can you think of any reason at all? I would really appreciate a response.

        Like

      4. I have not studied the length of the laryngeal nerve in giraffes. But I do know logic. Yours appears to be:

        1. We don’t know why the giraffe has a laryngela nerve that is 10′ long. 2. Intelligent design is false.

        My view:

        1. We don’t know why the giraffe has a laryngela nerve that is 10′ long. 2. Future scientific studies may explain why it is that long, just like they explained why junk DNA is not junk after all, and just like they explained countless other things to correct previously held views.

        Like

      5. That is not my position. My position is that we do know why the giraffe laryngeal nerve is 10 feet long. In fact, if it were not that long, evolutionary biologists would have a lot of ‘spaining to do.

        As for future scientific studies explaining shy it is that long, why would you trust those studies when you don’t trust the ones that have occurred already? How do you know which ones to trust?

        Like

      6. You are begging the question. You and these scientists “think” you know why it is that long because you assume evolution, just like you thought junk DNA was junk. I get tired of pointing that out, which is why I avoid conversations like this with you.

        Like

      7. All new evidence in any field either supports the current theory, or it goes against the current theory. This happens to support it in a way that explicitly rejects (in my opinion, of course) a designer. I am just asking for your feedback on it, and you are getting angry at me.

        All the pieces of the puzzle fit. It seems that you really do not want them to fit.

        Like

      8. I know I shouldn’t get irritated. I wouldn’t blame a blind man for stepping on my toe. But after the 20th time it gets sort of bothersome — sort of like, “Uh, could you please stand over there?” The blogging equivalent is, “Please take all question-begging comments somewhere else.”

        The pieces fit because you made your own puzzle. Evolutionists force them to fit until proved wrong, then they change the picture on the box. Very tiresome, very unscientific and very dishonest.

        Like

      9. Please, just know that I’m not trying to be disrespectful.

        I’ll admit that biologists look at things from an evolutionary point of view, but I think we can forgive them for that, given that nothing so far has shown it to be wrong, and all the evidence so far fits perfectly with the theory Geologists work with the assumption that the earth is billions of years old, though many people think it is 6000 years old.

        The point is that if something comes up to disprove either theory, that will all change. Biologists should not need to start from square one every time they look at a fossil.

        I honestly don’t know how to talk about this with you without being accused of “question begging”. Do we need to start from square one? I’m not just spouting quotes from books that I have read. I’m seen this stuff with my eyes, in lab experiments, and in the field. I have a really really good understanding about this theory, and it’s kind of disrespectful to equate my knowledge to blindness.

        Like

      10. given that nothing so far has shown it to be wrong

        Deliberately blind man. You just keep re-proving my point that dialogue with you on this is a waste of time. OK, that was your last comment. Fair warning.

        Like

      11. BTW, I’m not angry, I’m just using effective time management. If you have examined as much as you say you have and come to those conclusions, I’d be foolish to waste more time trying to convince you otherwise.

        Like

      12. BTW, I wasn’t kidding. And you also turn any post about evolution into a free-for-all. I was very specific about my criticisms (i.e., the shameless over-hyped marketing). I tried to give you some rope, but once again I’ve wasted my time.

        Like

      13. Neil,

        As a former scientist/engineer, I disagree with your interpretation of scientific thought. We are all well aware of how much we do not know (or, in my line of work, all that we cannot do). As time goes on, actually, scientists are more able to understand that the universe is freakishly complex and are thus more aware of everything that they don’t know.

        Just compare, say, medieval understanding of humours versus the modern understanding of cancer and bacteria – and it’s clear that the medieval people probably thought that they had it all figured out, whereas we are still trying to figure out why cells go rouge.

        Also, there’s a huge disconnect between science itself (hypothesis, testing, analysis, refining the hypothesis, more testing, etc) and the interpretations of scientific results that lay people do. To cite an example that isn’t science per se (i.e. bio/chem/physics), but is sociology, there was a study done about a year ago that showed that teenagers who take virginity pledges were no more likely than their “peers” to stay abstinent and often forgot about making the pledge entirely. Conclusion: virginity pledges – and abstinence education and the whole enchilada – don’t work.

        Problem: the study compared deeply religious, non-pledging teens and deeply religious, pledging teens, both of whom, according to the author of the study, have a much lower-than-average rate of teenage sexual intercourse.

        Obviously, the science isn’t bad on that one – in fact, given that the control matched the other group almost perfectly, thus eliminating all other variables, it was pretty stellar as far as those things go. It was the conclusions that were drawn from the science that is the problem.

        Likewise, the science of any area can be sound, but with unsound conclusions.

        Like

    1. I hope you enjoyed your one comment 😉 .

      Fossil evidence for evolution = big joke.

      The rest of your comment = “just so” story that is also evidence by a common designer.

      Like

  2. Wrong. The imperfection of creation doesn’t imply imperfection of the creator.

    Giraffes can’t talk, or understand my question, so why would I ask? 🙂

    I reconcile it in what I said in another thread. God created it that way and I if he wanted me to know why he’d reveal it to me. And your explanation only works because you want it to, not because you have evidence that it is so. That is where you atheist fall flat. In the end you only have theories that you call “perfectly good alternate explanation that works”. The problem is that most of the time they do not work.

    Like

  3. Giraffes can’t talk, or understand my question, so why would I ask?

    Touche 🙂 Funny that we are also talking about the giraffe’s larynx.

    And your explanation only works because you want it to

    What I want is to know the truth. The fact that it happened is what makes it interesting to me. Do you not see that this quirky placement of the larynx might indicate a progression of changes that, for tiny changes, made little difference to the efficiency of the nerve, but when looked at as a whole, represents a huge efficiency blunder? It’s just so bloody obvious. Your explanation for this is that “God works in mysterious ways” and that he doesn’t want us to understand this particular part of his creation.

    This example I’ve given is a good example that anyone can understand, but when you move to the DNA level, as we now have the ability to do, the various blunders and inefficiencies of life forms is more extreme. The use of particular amino acids where another one would be far better suited happens all the time, but represents what the life form had to work with, and what existed in previous generations.

    Have you looked at the fossils that exist along the evolutionary path of the whale? It’s such a complete progression from a land mammal to a sea mammal, and fossils exist all along the way showing the complete transition. The evidence is there – you can go to a biology department at any major university and actually touch this stuff.

    I really don’t mind pondering the existence of God, and wondering what caused the world to come into existence, but I don’t see where we get anywhere denying basic facts, and evidence you can see and touch.

    Like

    1. Wait a minute. I thought all creatures evolved from sea creatures initially? So are you saying whales “evolved” from land creatures into sea creatures? Wouldn’t that be devolution? Wouldn’t that disprove evolution as evolution is about progression?

      The problem is we do not have evidence you can see and touch. You think you do, but you do not. True science is based on reproducible evidence. Anything short of that is theory. Any good scientist will tell you that.

      Like

      1. Neil is going to delete this, so hopefully you get to read it first.

        Evolution is not about progression, it is about adaptation. Whales evolved from land mammals who were much like wolves, who of course, originally evolved from sea creatures, like all animals. That’s why they give birth to live young, and breath air. We have fossils from every single step along this transition. It’s absolutely amazing to see the nostrils of the land mammal gradually move backwards along the skull to where the whale’s blowhole is now.

        Another bit of evidence that I love is the movement of whales. They gain forward momentum by extending their spine to move their tail in exactly the same way that a dog extends his spine to help move his legs. The movements are eerily similar, and completely different from fish.

        All of these fossils are available for you to see and touch. If you have another explanation for them, I’m listening.

        Like

      2. Thanks for proving that dogs and whales are both mammals. Only a Darwinist, through faith in that belief, could gather that what you said above proves evolution.

        And I am sorry, but evolving from sea to land back to sea is hardly in line with evolutionary thought.

        Like

      3. Hi LWA — sorry to cut off Ryan’s side of this conversation but it is just so pointless. When they assume full blown macro evolution as their worldview and can’t concede anything that goes against it then dialogue is a waste of time. Maybe he can visit your blog to discuss it!

        Like

      4. You’re being a coward Neil. I’m answering direct questions to me. I left it alone yesterday, and moved on. You delete my comments, but leave the questions, which are equally off-topic?

        I’ll concede anything you want if you have evidence, but you don’t often present it, and you don’t listen to my rebuttal. If your view of the origins of life is that fragile, perhaps you should open your mind to something else. You don’t need to reject God to see that we evolved.

        Like

      5. Ryan, you just don’t get it. I’ve explained this to you too many times and weary of your straw men and equivocations. Welcome to the world of moderation.

        Like

  4. It does not logically follow that a perfect God would produce a creation that is itself immediately perfect.

    Since perfection is unchanging, a perfect creation would also be unchanging.

    A God with a perfect will and a perfect intellect need not produce a creation that is itself perfect, only one that is capable of achieving a perfect end (that is to say, the best possible end, which is unity with Himself)…

    WHICH is exactly what Christians say about creation. And which is why we say that Heaven is forever, because once perfection is reached we can’t change to become un-perfect.

    I hope this helps clear up a few matters.

    Like

    1. LCB, of course a creator is not required to create perfect creatures, but would it not follow from his perfection that he created them in a perfect way? Creationist always point to the amazing structures of the body, and show that they prove a designer by their sheer perfection. Now that we have examples of terrible design, is that out the window?

      How do you think it all happened? Are you of the mind that God created all creatures at once, in their current form?

      Like

      1. No. That would not follow. In fact God is clear in His Word that this creation is imperfect. This is the material realm where imperfection exists.

        In the spiritual realm that His followers will know there is perfection.

        Like

      2. Ryan,

        They only need to be created for a perfect end (by perfect in this sense we mean the ultimately good end). A perfect creator can use imperfect creations to achieve perfect ends.

        I’d be glad to discuss this topic with you more if you’d like, but it would derail from the current topic a bit (we’d have to discuss, essentially, how God could only create the best possible world, and that’s essentially defined by having creature that are capable of free will).

        As a philosophical side note, there are some who have advanced the argument (Jewish philosophers like Maimonides I THINK, but it’s been a decade+ since I read him) that imperfect in creation is proof of God’s perfect. They essentially argue that imperfect beings can create more imperfect beings, but for God to create imperfect beings reveals his perfection, since it shows him creating something utterly different from Himself. Not necessarily the most convincing argument, but it is certainly an interesting and thought provoking one.

        How do I think it all happened? I subscribe generally to the common scientific position on the matter. It was, after all, a Catholic Priest who developed the Big Bang theory that we use today.

        Like

      3. To this discussion of God’s creation being perfect or otherwise, I submit this notion: God’s creation was created perfectly and would have remained so but for sin being introduced by Adam’s unfortunate choice of snack food. Once that happened, and he and the little lady were evicted from the Garden, imperfection was the theme of the day, with death and decay ever present, and the need for “survival” and the means to achieve it becoming a necessity.

        Like

  5. Neil, tell all your friends in Illinois to move to SC. We’re working on the “Choose Life” plate, but we already have a “In God We Trust” plate. We also have a “Special Olympics” plate, but I’m afraid the President will get rid of that one.

    Interesting enough, we have a “Secular Humaists of the Low Country” plate. I didn’t know that until I did some research for the first paragraph above. “To apply for a Secular Humanist plate, you must present a current organizational membership showing that you are a current and active member of the organization.” I think if we get a “Choose Life” plate you’ll have to show that your mother chose life.

    One more about the “Choose Life” plate, wouldn’t it be fair to have a “Choose Death” plate? I wonder how many people would choose that plate?

    Regarding the above comments about evolution and the giraffe. Reminds me of the 1977 movie Oh God! Little boy asks God why he made giraffe’s necks so long. George Burns (almost as old as God) says that he had to so they could reach the trees. Little boy says why not make the trees shorter? Burns says “I didn’t think of that.” (Ok, not scriptural, but funny).

    Like

    1. I think if we get a “Choose Life” plate you’ll have to show that your mother chose life.

      I usually don’t choose the comment of the week on Wednesday, but there it is!

      Re. “choose death” — I had that in the post but took it out. It was something like, “If they want to have a license plate that says ‘Abort – Choose Death'” then I’d be fine with that. Truth in advertising and all.

      LOL re. the short trees.

      Like

    2. Randy, are you from SC? I didn’t know we had “Choose Life” plates. I h ave this teacher that insist that she is not pro-abortion but just want choice to be available for women but then I have to ask, for women to choose what? abortion?

      Like

      1. Mercedes, yes, I’m from SC. After your question I went back and looked and it appears we do have the Choose Life Plate.

        This is the website: http://www.scdmvonline.com/DMVNew/plategallery.aspx

        it says “The Choose Life S.C. plate is available to all SC residents. Fees from the sale of the plate will be distributed to SC Citizens for Life/AKA Choose Life S.C. to support pregnancy care centers. The fee for the plate is $35.00 every 2 years in addition to the regular registration fee.”

        How much more pro-choice can you be?

        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 )

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