Archive

Posts Tagged ‘commentary’

American Humanist Association new ads

November 13, 2010 Comments off

The American Humanist Association has an expensive ad campaign to combat, not what Scriptures actually say through critical exegesis,  but rather their own false ideas (eisegesis) read into Scripture. It is to show that humanist values are mainstream while religious fundamentalists that read the Bible are not. But don’t worry many are fighting back, like on Ricochet by being… depressed!? Don’t just sit there, report on the story and claim depression. This isn’t how the Bible reads and furthering lack of proper reading by not pointing out the clear fallacies is telling. It is dishonest work by the AHA as their interpretation gleaned from the passages quoted CLEARLY lack any context and thus critical exegesis. Typical of Christian critics they remain dishonest in their approach of reading the Bible.

The main AHA biblical quotes are; 1 Timothy 2 and Hosea 13:16. They juxtapose those Scriptural fragments with quotes of prominent scientists and the like and use their words to contradict the false interpretation that AHA has presented. So instead of being depressed and crying about it, this blog will actually analyze these pieces of Scripture to determine if indeed they represent exactly the notions that are implied by the AHA. If the Scriptural exegesis I present is not the same as the AHA, then one of us has a dishonest agenda. I would hope the eisegetical nature of AHA would sharply show which is the guilty party.

1 Timothy 2:11-12 (NASB):

11A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.12But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.

To think that the writer of 1 Timothy was bashing woman verbally is wishful neo-liberal feminist thinking (feminazi for those in  Rio Linda). What in fact is happening is that the writer is addressing the women of his time and how Christian woman act. The writer was not attempting to use religion to mold future subjugation of woman by man but rather conveying certain characteristics of Christian woman. Namely you should not talk if receiving instruction, much like anybody shouldn’t talk while receiving instruction. Thus, the writer specifies that it is wrong for a woman to exorcise authority over the man if at that time the man was trying to instruct the woman. Modesty and that the true nature of woman is to help man and to give birth to life were highlighted. This is taking into consideration the context of Galatians 3:28 (which the AHA didn’t do because it would of cost them more money to be honest as they had to purchase space to write it) in which clearly favoritism by gender is rejected through equality inherent in biblical Christianity. Check here for more as well.

Galatians 3:28 (NASB);

28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

The AHA opposition to the exegesis of Scripture I have laid out would mean that they don’t endorse respect to a teacher, but rather I guess endorse nonsensical outbursts by woman within the teacher-student setting. Good anti-learning values AHA, really feminist of you. Next up on the laughable AHA quote mining (lack of context) list is Hosea 13:16 (NASB), it states;

16Samaria will be held guilty, For she has rebelled against her God They will fall by the sword, Their little ones will be dashed in pieces, And their pregnant women will be ripped open.

For insightful commentary that does not let you read into the text what you want by leaving out context, read John Calvins’ commentary here. I say to you, what is so depressing about dishonest representation of the biblical text Ricochet? Nothing, when you can use your standing on a high-traffic site to rebut such laughable uncritical organizations like AHA, of which their little ad campaign clearly shows. The fact that space is required to write down the context and fully understand the texts in question, essentially means that the amount of truth allowed by the AHA ad campaign is determined by the amount of money they spend, how ridiculous.

Two debates are online

October 25, 2010 Comments off

I have posted two major debates about Intelligent Design and Biblical exegesis. You can also use the Debates tab to find them and other future debates as I try to find at least some people trying to be honest and critical with their thinking and debate approach. You be the judge.

Please read and sign-up on the Geopolicy Forums to comment or bring a challenge.

New debate @ Liberal Forum

October 25, 2010 Comments off

*UPDATE:* Looks like the debate is over. Full breakdown of most riveting parts ;p, can be found HERE. Enjoy.

Big debate on whether or not Intelligent Design is Science… GASP! I am the poster subzer0, check it out HERE. Trust me it gets better as the pages go on.

Then discuss HERE.

Enjoy!

tharock220, on 25 October 2010 – 04:45 PM, said:

I’m going to start a little game. It’s called Restan’s Buzzword Bingo, stolen from Dilbert of course. Every time restan uses a biology buzzword(genetic, biochemistry, etc) the first person to point it out gets a point. I’ll paypal the first person to five points a $1000 check. I think I’ve demonstrated I know far more about genetics than you do. 

Joking aside, what separates you from other great apes. I’ve already asked the question but got no answer. What’s a great ape??? Can you point to a single characteristic diagnostic to them that humans don’t possess???

subzer0 response
Merely because humans possess the same characteristics as apes doesn’t mean that they are or have to be related, as I have already shown to you through convergent evolution. I have shown your taxonomy lacking from sources. Your hierarchical taxonomic system DEMANDS assumption that the only way is common ancestry.

You choose to believe it is all.

sigsfried, on 25 October 2010 – 05:36 PM, said:

What convergent evolution can explain the telomeres in the middle of the chromosome. 

Ok if you don’t believe in evolution why do genetic algorithims, which mimic evolution, work so well?

subzer0 response
Chromosomes are genetic traits. Convergent evolution is the independent appearance of the same trait in different lineages.

I believe in biological evolution to an observed limit. This includes processes/mechanisms of mutation, environmental pressures, natural selection, speciation etc that produce ONLY phenotype change.

Convergent evolution is a type of biological evolution can be called convergent phenotypes as that is the result.

Let the debate begin! Geopolicy Forums are LIVE!

October 22, 2010 2 comments

*UPDATE*: Forum registration now fully functional! Sorry about the trouble… Now let the debate begin! :)

Forums are in effect. Bring it on, let the debate begin! There have been recent comments upon the nature of evolution within recent political debates. Perhaps we can start there?!

Either way, Click HERE and join the Geopolicy Forums! Be one of the first to start posting and debating, a most critical foundation of knowledge and science and to the long-lasting life of our republic.

Debate going down @ The Right Scoop

October 20, 2010 Comments off

Here it is folks, an intense debate by yours truly, and commenter Dan_Tumser. This was sparked by Christine O’Donnell debate against Chris Coons dealing with teaching the theory of evolution. The Right Scoop has the Beck commentary in video form. O’Donnell was questioning Coons governing philosophy of not allowing states to control school curriculum.

Also, spark up debate in the comments here! Bring it on! This is what Conservatives do, we are not afraid of the ideas.

Some highlights:

Dan_Tumser responding to geopolicy (Tony):
From your language I have to ask if you accept the veracity of cladistic phylogenetics. If this is the case then where do you draw the line in the nested hierarchy separating the “kinds,” and “sorts?” By what basis do you do this and how is it not arbitrary?Responding;
1. Look at any phylogenetic “Tree of Life,” and taxonomic classifications combined with fossil aging, the strata they have been found in and genetic analysis. Working backwards, Homo Sapiens is found as a species of Hominoidea (apes) which is part of the Anthropoidea clade. Go further back and you hit Primates.You can’t outgrow your ancestry. If you accept cladistic phylogeny at all you will need to accept the monophyletic hierarchy, which with the studies I listed and more is constructed chronologically, morphologically and when we have access to the genome, genetically, and they all line up. 

The process of systematic classification set up by the hard-line creationist Carrolus Linneaus puts us both in the apes, which comes from monkeys, making us both. He knew and admitted this himself, his challenge to the scientific community was to find an explanation for this or refute it. It has not been refuted, the basics of his taxonomy are the basis of a much more detailed and extensive system today. What did happen though was the Theory of Evolution explains this perfectly.

If the word monkey means anything at all, you and I qualify, accept it.

2. There are multiple different kinds of Speciation actually, there isn’t only what you see with ring species. What you describe is Parapatric & Peripatric speciation, but you leave out Sympatric speciation, Phyletic speciation and Punctuated Equilibrium.

Your example of the frog and fish is absurd, what you describe would in fact disprove the Evolution you claim it would evidence. It’s essentially the same as asking for a Crocoduck, and I hope you don’t like Kirk Cameron. As I showed in my response to #1, you can’t outgrow your ancestry, a frog’s descendants will always be a frog just as we will always be apes. That’s how taxonomy works.

Evolution doesn’t say such radical changes happen in single generation, something like that would be so genetically disimilar to even it’s nearest relatives even hybridization would be impossible. Evolution happens over long periods of successive incremental changes. You know this, you are either strawmanning or are misinformed.

What you say actually happens is what I compared to walking 20ft, but for some reason you insist on a barrier with no evidence stopping species from reaching the 20miles.

3. Then explain to me the Design/creation explanations for Atavisms and the ERVs in our 3billion base pair genome that we share in common with other apes in the EXACT same places. Also the evidenced relationship of T-rex and modern Aves.

4. You essentially claim induction for design is sufficient over methological naturalism. It is a leap to supernatural causation. I don’t understand why people still rely on the Teleological Argument, Hume and Kant eviscerated it ages ago.

You seem to be operating under a misapprehension. “neo-darwinists,” if you are so fond of the word, don’t say that genetic drift and environmental pressures worked any differently in the past. You point to several things that are actually argued by people like myself and somehow claim that it is evidence against our side of the public debate (there is no debate among biologists).

There is nothing about Evolution that says a frog would give birth to something so radically different as a “fish” and not be a frog. That would disprove Evolution and be evidence for creation. You concede that new species can develop so I have to ask again in case it got lost in the rest of my post.

The textbooks of ID say that the designer poofs these basic archetypes into existence fully formed, so what are your definitions of the “kinds,” “sorts,” or archetypes? How far back in the phylogenetic record do you go to start work with your scissors and arbitrarily cut clades out to move them off to the side arising seperately.

Examples will do, since the wording would probably be pretty vague.

(I’m working on a paper while I write this, if that was unclear, please say so and I’ll edit or fix in another post)

Geopolicy – Tony response
2. You are all wrong. Speciation has several types which are; Allopatric, peripatric, sympatric, parapatric speciation types. All dealing with extremes of geographical isolation.
Punctuated Equilibria, or PE, is not a type of speciation. It is an attempt by Stephen Jay Gould to explain the observation of lack of gradualism in the fossil record originally proposed to be there by Darwin. Gould asserts that species can change instantaneously on geologic time scales (i.e thousands of years). Speciation is the mechanism, in its many forms that could have caused PE. PE is not speciation proper.
20 feet to 20 miles. OK fine, that is completely in line with creationist thinking because the thing walking 20 miles didn’t change drastically or come from the same single cell or whatever. To follow the logic further, many different base patterns walked 20 miles genetically developing similar conserved areas along the way through convergent evolution. Into what we can observe today.3. Its a biological evolution explanation not ID or creationist. The biological evolution process is called Convergent evolution. Convergent evolution causes the independent appearance of the same trait in different lineages.4. Methodological naturalism or the Scientific Method essentially, is used significantly with ID. That is how you derive that things were designed not spontaneously happening or created in the first place. ID determines things are guided, not unguided and spontaneously happening. 

4a. A frog has to give birth to something radically different after generations. If it doesn’t than how can we have one single common ancestor? Answer is, we don’t, we have poly base patterns and poly processes that formed the tree of life that we try to follow in the fossil record today with incredible neo-darwinist assumption and bias.

4b. No ID textbook ever states that the “designer poofs these basic archetypes.” You have to separate foundations of study and interpretation if you are to understand. That sentence I quoted from you is the origin of life discussion, centered on philosophy or theology of creationism. Frankly its pretty disrespectful how you present it as well…

Quick note… Now that we know we are dealing with philosophy and theology rather then scientific observation. God could of quite possibly utilized abiogenesis, designing it to create life out of nothing. You see there is a blending of philosophy/theology and science there, that is creationist language. So, to be scientific or like an ID theorist and not a creationist, the answer is: “abiogenesis was designed to happen.”

The use of language in that manner escapes otherwise intelligent scientists forcing them to commit philosophical bias within peer-reviewed science articles.

m_quick post
This is getting ridiculous. When Beck says ignoramus crap like this it discredits everything else he says. Rush and Beck (and probably a lot of conservatives) should just stop trying to talk about science.Seriously, he sounds like an idiot. No one says we evolved from monkeys. There are about 2 dozen “missing links” from a common ancestor of all primates to homo sapians. He can easily look this up. From Australopithecus to Homo habilis to Homo ergaster etc.We have google. There’s no excuse. 

geopolicy (Tony) response

Why do these different missing links have to prove one common ancestor? Why couldn’t there be two ancestors or many original ancestors, or can be called base patterns? Why can’t these missing links be either fully primate or fully human?

One ancestor for humans, and one ancestor for primates, etc, etc. These parallel lines of ancestry produce immense similarity because of convergent evolution. It does not show one common ancestor as the new-darwinists think but two independent common ancestries.

In what way is that scientifically inaccurate to posit that? It isn’t, it is inaccurate because it contradicts your neo-darwinist philosophy.

Rossi vs Murray Debate

October 14, 2010 Comments off

Here is a run-down for those who didn’t see it. Dino Rossi and Patty Murray debate October 14, 2010. I have below accumulated the debates finer points. Overall I think Rossi won, but not by much, both need a more dynamic attitude.

Opening Remarks

Dino Rossi: Need course correction, America in trouble. Very gracious.

Patty Murray: My family is hurting, I can get country back on track. We can work together.

Iraq

Dino Rossi: Gives context of pre 9/11, and defines nature of evil somewhat. Agrees with Obama on Patreus, but not on date certain for withdraw of troops. Give military what they need.

Patty Murray: I saw Pentagon. Republicans and Democrats came together. Have been in Afghanistan for to long, tell America how we are fighting. Karzai not good partner. Ummm, the question was about Iraq specifically, Murray goes into Afghanistan.

Rossi rebut: Karzai and Taliban meeting highlighted. Cautiously optimistic on it.

Murray rebut: Says Rossi supports supporting tax cuts for wealthy, says troops deserve more. How are we paying for the wars.

Jobs for Washington

Murray: Important question. Fights for investments, about campuses and health care. Went to Washington DC for investment. Says they are targeted investments.

Rossi: 17.4% unemployment in Washington. Rossi is small business. Says people won’t expand businesses because of climate government created. Murray adjourns before tax cuts were dealt with. More spending for jobs with Murray.

Murray rebut: Repeat.

Rossi rebut: Stability needed, Murray doesn’t get it. Don’t punish success with high tax rates.

Nuclear waste clean-up and federal budget

Rossi: Cuts to federal budget needed. Worked to balance budget without raising taxes, and dissected budget. End stimulus, 275 billion. Reducing federal employment to pre-Obama levels.

Murray: Talks about moral and legal obligation about Hanford waste. Part of our defense. 3,000 people employed stimulus cleaning Hanford.

Rossi rebut:  Obama to shut down Yukka mountain. Murray silent on Yukka.

Murray rebut:  Priority of Hanford, she takes it on.

Social Security

Murray: Important programs for seniors and disabled. Never privatize Social Security. Obamacare good for Medicare cause of fraud. Within the budget. No specifics just general values.

Rossi: Social Security as piggy bank by Democrats. Threat is debt that Murray helped build up. Can’t pay back. Murray raised taxes on Social Security. Murray is double-speaking. Murray cut medicare by 500 billion.

Murray rebut: Extend Bush tax cuts is bad.

Rossi rebut: Murray raised taxes on SS. Murray reduce spending on Medicare by 500 billion, will impact seniors.

Obamacare – Republicans repeal, Democrat reading bill

Rossi: 695 dollar fine if you don’t buy Obamacare, 500 billion cut to Medicare. Boeing 150 million having to pay, many jobs not created because of it. Let people be customer, won’t add to debet, etc.

Murray: Murray read it and wrote some of it. Families struggling, deserve to choose plan and doctor. Control costs increase access. Talks about stack of papers yet releases a bill that is stacks of paper… Irony much?

Rossi rebut: Sold a plan to reduce cost and increase access, businesses are paying more. Can’t keep health care, Murray voted against that specifically. Double-speak Murray.

Murray rebut: Heard talking points. Kids and seniors are cared for, so Rossi is bad.

Don’t ask don’t tell repeal

Rossi: Its working. Waiting on report and commanders, military has to say first. He will listen.

Murray: Sponsor of repeal. Talks to military vets who say they support who wants to serve in military.

College tuition

Murray: She knows how people feel. Family worked hard. Student loans, Murray voted against bank involvement. Federal government responsibility for everybody to go to college.

Rossi: Youngest of 7, raised on public teacher salary. He worked hard. Grants and student loans he supports. Make sure loans are available more generally.

Murray rebut: Will Rossi agree with Murray about banks not being involved. Money go to students.

Rossi rebut: Students need more options. Limited options because of government

Amnesty to illegals

Rossi: Big issue. Complete federal government failure. No amnesty. Control of borders, tall fence with high gate, physical barrier. Know who is here to chase American dream and worker programs.

Murray:  Comprehensive immigration reform. Talked to farmers, clear laws needed. Protect borders, south and north. Make sure kids have place to work. Pathway to citizenship, fine, learning English.

Rossi rebut: Murray approves of amnesty. Secure border.

Murray rebut: Rossi forgot he voted for amnesty form. Comprehensive immigration reform needed, farmers need security and border.

Mudslinging in advertisements what do they approve of each other

Murray: Applaud Rossi by getting into race. Rossi heart and passion. Supreme Court decision worries her.

Rossi: Murray does good work with veterans. His ad was the truth.

Partisan gap bridging

Rossi: Hallmark of what he did as State Senator. Democrats controlled, Locke was governor. Put together blanced budget that was bi-partisan. Murray working with majority, her suport of partisan bills.

Murray: Washington comes first. Bush tried to close vet hospitals, she fought for them. Obama went against vet health care, she went after him. Hanford, she takes on both Republicans and Democrats. Will work with anyone apparently.

Democrat slavery, Republican liberty

October 14, 2010 Comments off

Political party platforms define the governing political philosophies and how they are to be applied. Platforms for the Democratic party began in 1840, while the Republican party platform began in 1856. It is important that either party was entirely focused on the Constitution more so than any current platform seems to do, although Republicans are showing promise.

The very first Democrat party platform was in 1840 and it lists 9 Resolved principles of which politics form.  There is only one mention of slavery and it is number 7. It states;

7. Resolved, That congress has no power, under the constitution, to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several states, and that such states are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs, not prohibited by the constitution; that all efforts by abolitionists or others, made to induce congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences, and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people, and endanger the stability and permanency of the union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend to our political institutions.

Line one, prior to “;” essentially says that congress should not interfere with, “domestic institutions of the several states”. Now the important part surfaces, as to what these institutions are, namely institutional slavery stating that all efforts by “abolitionists” to rid the US of slavery (one of the United States most tragic histories) was actually to reduce happiness of the people and should not be entertained by any political institution, namely congress. The federal government should not determine the outcome of slavery, inherently the Democratic party saw nothing wrong with slavery, and in fact thought it made people happy. It stays the same for the 1840, 1844 and 1848 platforms until 1852 in which several other governing principles were introduced. Number 7 specifically dealt with slavery, and had lasted since 1840, it was now not given a number and moved below that last number  of 9. Then below, there is an added portion that states;

Resolved, That the democratic party will resist all attempts at renewing, in congress or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question, under whatever shape or color the attempt may be made.

It is clear the Democrat party does not want any change in the use of slavery for America. In 1856, the Republican party is birthed and the 1856 Republican political party platform is defined! How does the Democrat party deal with such opposition to their view that slavery makes people happy? They now make a more coherent argument for slavery, as well as concluding that they are reasserting their focused energy toward that position. The whole platform becomes entrenched with defense of slavery. I will quote some of the more interesting and telling portions below, but not quoting all parts that mention the word “slavery”.

Resolved, That we reiterate with renewed energy of purpose the well considered declarations of former Conventions upon the sectional issue of Domestic slavery, and concerning the reserved rights of the States.

1. That Congress has no power under the Constitution, to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several States, and that such States are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs, not prohibited by the Constitution; that all efforts of the abolitionists, or others, made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences; and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people and endanger the stability and permanency of the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend of our political institutions.

2. That the foregoing proposition covers, and was intended to embrace the whole subject of slavery agitation in Congress; and therefore, the Democratic party of the Union, standing on this national platform, will abide by and adhere to a faithful execution of the acts known as the compromise measures, settled by the Congress of 1850; “the act for reclaiming fugitives from service or labor,” included; which act being designed to carry out an express provision of the Constitution, cannot, with fidelity thereto, be repealed, or so changed as to destroy or impair its efficiency.

3. That the Democratic party will resist all attempts at renewing, in Congress or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question under whatever shape or color the attempt may be made.

As you can see, point 1 mirrors point 7 from their historical platforms from 1844 to 1852. The great Compromise of 1850 had already finished, halting a four year confrontation between slave supporting states of the South and then non-slave states of the North or free states. This uneasy tension that culminated in 1850 followed the Mexican-American War (1846–1848). Thus in point 2, the Democratic platform was the support of the “compromise measures”, thus because of it being law, could not be agitated or repealed, etc. Point 3 is again a reiteration of what was stated in the 1852 Democrat party platform.

How did the Republican party deal with such law and entrenched interests by the Democrat party? Their 1856 party platform states the following;

This Convention of Delegates, assembled in pursuance of a call addressed to the people of the United States, without regard to past political differences or divisions, who are opposed to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise; to the policy of the present Administration; to the extension of Slavery into Free Territory; in favor of the admission of Kansas as a Free State; of restoring the action of the Federal Government to the principles of Washington and Jefferson; and for the purpose of presenting candidates for the offices of President and Vice-President, do

Resolved: That the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence, and embodied in the Federal Constitution are essential to the preservation of our Republican institutions, and that the Federal Constitution, the rights of the States, and the union of the States, must and shall be preserved.

Resolved: That, with our Republican fathers, we hold it to be a self-evident truth, that all men are endowed with the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that the primary object and ulterior design of our Federal Government were to secure these rights to all persons under its exclusive jurisdiction; that, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished Slavery in all our National Territory, ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it for the purpose of establishing Slavery in the Territories of the United States by positive legislation, prohibiting its existence or extension therein. That we deny the authority of Congress, of a Territorial Legislation, of any individual, or association of individuals, to give legal existence to Slavery in any Territory of the United States, while the present Constitution shall be maintained.

Resolved: That the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign powers over the Territories of the United States for their government; and that in the exercise of this power, it is both the right and the imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism—Polygamy, and Slavery.

The first paragraph calls for a restoration of principles to “Washington and Jefferson”. Secondly the reliance upon the Declaration of Independence as embodied within the Constitution is honored and preserved which is essentially, if arguing against slavery, liberty for all! Thirdly after paraphrasing the pertinent parts of the Declaration of Independence, the Republican duty is presented;

… to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it for the purpose of establishing Slavery in the Territories of the United States by positive legislation, prohibiting its existence or extension therein.

Thus to Republicans, the Democrats are interpreting the Constitution in an incredibly racist way, not using an honest originalist perspective. If all are to have liberty and if the Constitution is the best government to facilitate and foster individual liberty and it being the supreme law of the land, to the Republicans;

it is both the right and the imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism—Polygamy, and Slavery.