« Defense Workers Losing Their Jobs Due to Obama's Pacifist Agenda | Main | Open Thread »

Oh. You're one of those. Should have known from some of the other.. uh... 'archaic' thinking on this little blog.

I could easily tear apart your various and sundry complaints about abortion, (but in the end it really all boils down to the fact that you believe in magic, while I do not - you are not a unique and individual snowflake. You are an accident of chemistry; the same decaying organic matter as everything else.)

Find something relevant to complain about. Roe will never be overturned, and funding preventative healthcare is an investment in the future. Get over it.

As ive nentioned before YOU KNOW YOUR A LIBERAL WHEN TOU HAVE A WINDOW STICKER READING,KEEP ABORTION LEGAL AND BUMPER STICKERS READING , SAVE THE REDWOODS,SAVE THE RAINFORESTS

Ahh, to be a freethinker and live in a progressive world beyond the 'archaic' thinking of those backward religious types.

Chesterton's thoughts on magic/miracles and freethinkers:

"But the materialist is not allowed to admit into his spotless machine the slightest speck of spiritualism or miracle"

"The reason is that a Free Thinker does not mean a man who thinks freely; a Free Thinker means a man who is not allowed to think that miracles happen".

"...we are the freer of the two; as there is scarcely any evidence, natural or preternatural, that cannot be accepted as fitting into our system somewhere; whereas the materialist cannot fit the most minute miracle into his system anywhere".

"You hold that your heretics and sceptics have helped the world forward and handed on a lamp of progress. I deny it. Nothing is plainer from real history than that each of your heretics invented a complete cosmos of his own which the next heretic smashed entirely to pieces. Who knows now exactly what Nestorius taught? Who cares? There are only two things that we know for certain about it. The first is that Nestorius, as a heretic, taught something quite opposite to the teaching of Arius, the heretic who came before him, and something quite useless to James Turnbull, the heretic who comes after. I defy you to go back to the Freethinkers of the past and find any habitation for yourself at all. I defy you to read Godwin or Shelley, or the deists of the eighteenth century, or the nature-worshipping humanists of the Renaissance, without discovering that you differ from them twice as much as you differ from the Pope. You are a nineteenth-century sceptic, and you are always telling me that I ignore the cruelty of Nature. If you had been an eighteenth-century sceptic you would have told me that I ignore the kindness and benevolence of Nature. You are an Atheist, and you praise the deists of the eighteenth century. Read them instead of praising them, and you will find that their whole universe stands or falls with the deity. You are a Materialist, and you think Bruno a scientific hero. See what he said, and you will think him an insane mystic. No; the great Freethinker, with his genuine ability and honesty, does not in practice destroy Christianity. What he does destroy is the Freethinker who went before".

To the freethinking progressive, human beings are just an evolutionary notch above the chimps. The machinery of the world is set, and we are just simple animals who need to jump from tree to tree, feed ourselves, reproduce (or not), and then die. It is simple to be a chimp. The freethinker thinks that is wisdom, and Christianity has nothing to offer him. When seen for what it actually is, the Christian world is far more beautiful because it possesses truth and real wisdom.

Anonymouse returns again with yet another heaping spoonful of his usual unhinged stupidity and disdain for the sanctity of human life and all things divine. If the term "archaic" means you are not a godless human secularist, Anonymouse, it is a title proudly worn around here. By the way, Anonymouse, do you have guilt that your mother chose life instead of "preventative healthcare?"

As far as other profiles in moonbattery, it is interesting to note that DeLauro (D-Conn.) is the head of Catholic Democraps, an oxymoronic effort founded after the 2004 elections to assuage leftist Catholics so they can customize their brand of Catholicism to emphasize and politicize their interpretation of social issues, but avoid such guilty feelings and, in Anonymouse's parlance, "archaic" yet crystal clear biblical proscriptions, such as those against murder of the unborn (abortion) and homosexuality. Pelousy, Kennedy and Kerry are psuedo-CINO's, since their hypocrisy with respect to Catholicism is open and obvious.

Ryan (D-Ohio) is a former underling for Jim Traficant (D-Ohio), a felon who was convicted on criminal charges for taking bribes, filing false tax returns, racketeering, and forcing his aides to perform chores at his farm in Ohio and on his houseboat in Washington, D.C., and is currently serving an eight-year prison term with a projected release date of this September. Ryan declared his candidacy for the Congressional seat of his home district. Traficant ran as an independent in the race from his prison cell.

You are an accident of chemistry; the same decaying organic matter as everything else.

Carrying this line of thinking to its natural conclusion... your life has no intrinsic value, and you can be exterminated for the greater good.

I must be behind the times because I didn't know killing an unborn baby is"preventative healthcare". I would much rather be behind the times than a sick piece of shit like yourself anonowuss.

"I could easily tear apart your various and sundry complaints about abortion,"

Sure you could. You just don't feel like it. You are a gigantic fuckwit, buddy.

"(but in the end it really all boils down to the fact that you believe in magic, while I do not - "

What it boils down to is you think your college grade leftism has any relevance to reality while worthwhile people do not.

"you are not a unique and individual snowflake."

Seriously? Snowflakes are unique but human beings are not? Nice grasp of rudimentary scientific facts, dickhead.

"You are an accident of chemistry; the same decaying organic matter as everything else"

So what's the argument here? Human rights are irrational? Or does the 'accident of chemistry' thing only apply to unborn children?

GoY, exactly. Every leftist/progressive philosophy, when taken to its logical conclusion, leads to madness and then self-destruction. When progress (as opposed to tradition), fairness (as opposed to justice), equality (as opposed to liberty), diversity (as opposed to unity), tolerance (as opposed to truth), etc, become your gods, disorder and then destruction are all that can follow.

oohhh... death threats? im good at this, i guess. how dreadfully droll.

but yes. exactly. there is no intrinsic worth in a human life. any human life. be young have fun drink pepsi, as i believe the saying went. build up a strawman and knock huim down all you like; im glad i have more useful things to do with my time.

oh, and as long as we are quoting the great intellects of the past (btw - i do love chesterton - 'the man who was thursday' is one of the all-time greats) how about Charles Lyell?

[Talking about using the bible as a source for explaining the world around us]: "Never was there a dogma more calculated to foster indolence, and to blunt the keen edge of curiosity".

I can play too. we can go all day. but it serves no purpose, because (once again) my FACTS are not in dispute. Roe will never be overturned. "Magic" is not real. The bible is NOT a primary source, and does not have answers to modern real-world issues. the conclusion: this bill will actually decrease abortions - education = good; ignorance and apathy = bad; ranting about things that will never change = whimsically, pointlessly insane.

I love the essential profundity of the subset "toothless hick"

I could easily tear apart your various and sundry complaints about abortion,"

Sure you could. You just don't feel like it. You are a gigantic fuckwit, buddy.

do you care to raise an issue or 2 for discussion, or has 'fuckwit' exhausted your polysyllabic vocabulary?
come now... so very spohmoric and lowbrow of you...

"I could easily tear apart your various and sundry complaints about abortion, (but in the end it really all boils down to the fact that you believe in magic, while I do not - you are not a unique and individual snowflake. You are an accident of chemistry; the same decaying organic matter as everything else.)"

"Like the wheel of a cart is the mind of a fool;

His thoughts revolve in circles."

Sirach 33:5

An arrogant fool at that. Thanks Anon for proving the relevant wisdom of this quote.

hardly QED - am i supposed to be able to follow the logic of that statement? im gonna call that a non-sequiter and move on...

"I could easily tear apart your various and sundry complaints about abortion"

No.

You couldn't, or you already would have.

Furthermore, your inability to see that any argument you make would be no more valid than any random string of letters in light of your belief that we are an accident of chemicals is a great irony that is probably lost on you. Then again, if being rational was your strong point you wouldn't be a socialist.

I live a long way from the scene. 6000 miles and more. I didnt know about these Catholic Democrats.
I was totally appalled when I heard Pelosi speak. I could not comprehend the ignorance.
Have there been any authoritative remarks from the Church about these 'front' organisations? Do they have any influence?

"Anonymous at July 21, 2009 11:28 AM"

Hoo boy! we got a LIVE one here!

"I could easily tear apart your various and sundry complaints about abortion"

No.

You couldn't, or you already would have.

Uh... care to try? what direction would you like to approach from? health of the mother? population control in general? the malthusian imperative? biblical fallacies? statistical mechanics? i know 'em all...

Look... if you really want to play, I suppose I have awhile longer to waste today before the office closes... but really? you know that my facts are gonna be right, and it wont matter to you because you are a religious zealot who chooses dogma over fact. i cant change that. but you will find me similarly implacable in the face of your attempts to convince me that magic is real and we are all 'sinners' (or whatever the current term of art may be).

So... where's the point?

(Further... who said I'm a socialist? I believe I prefer 'secular humanist deriving pleasure and satisfaction from logical interaction with the universe around me' - but 'if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything loks like a nail' ... so I can be a socialist to you, if it makes your brain process the datum more smoothly)

"Anonymous at July 21, 2009 2:27 PM"

You "know them all", yet you refuse to use any of them. Instead you act like some superior, all-knowing, god-like being who has graced us mear mortals with your presence.

No, you are NOT a "socialist", you are an ELITEIST. I guess (Note that I "guessed") that is why you support abortion: it has always been a way to create a "superior" race. Is that the "investment in the future" you speak of?

The only thing worse than a bore is a POMPOUS bore.

PS: I don't "believe in magic", but I admit to having impure thoughts about Serena and Jeannie.

"Uh... care to try? what direction would you like to approach from? health of the mother? population control in general? the malthusian imperative? biblical fallacies? statistical mechanics? i know 'em all..."

Wow. How about pathologically self-absorbed megolamania?

And while your at it, just to keep us all entertained and to help you burn off some time at the office perhaps you can cite all the great thoughts of all the smartest people that ever were.

We're just in total awe to hear what else will be coming from that stunning god-like intellect of yours.

Oh wait no, that's Obama...

Folks, there is no reason to bother with Anonymous. He knows that abortion kills an unborn child. He does not care. Though all anti-abortion advocates would allow for abortion in cases where the mother's life is in eminent danger, Anonymous sees no intrinsic value whatsoever in the child's life (or anyone else's, for that matter); there is not a single reason his worldview can support to protect something that has no worth, and he will willingly embrace any rationale (population control, etc.) that will justify the logical end of his worldview.

There really is not much you can do for someone like him. He is not really here to argue about the proposed legislation in question, nor about abortion in general. He, like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Victor Stenger, Sam Harris, et. al., is another 'fundamentalist atheist': a poor creature who fancies himself too intelligent for religion, but who is not nearly wise enough to walk away and leave it alone. He'll churn out screed after screed against any religious target he can find, in the process of which he will reveal a theological and historical ignorance too profound to be rectified by any blog post or comment. The most he will succeed in accomplishing is proving to himself that his version of God does not exist, a point which - after 20+ years of religious study - I am certainly willing to grant. It is virtually certain that the God he rages against is too small, feeble, and wooden for any thoughtful person to believe in, and also virtually certain that neither you or I believe in the God that he does not believe in.

So relax. He's just here trying to stir the pot. He needs you a lot more than you could possibly need him.

Jim - "Have there been any authoritative remarks from the Church about these 'front' organisations? Do they have any influence?"

There have been reprimands by the Church, although they have largely fallen on the deaf (and dumb) ears of Catholic Democrats. As one leading Catholic Archbishop put it, the Democratic Party is becoming the Party of Death, because of its unlimited support for abortion. Instead of a poor jackass, a more fitting symbol would be the Grim Reaper with bloody forcepts clenching a crushed fetal skull. The issue is that they can't have their cake and eat it too.

http://www.lifenews.com/int941.html
A leading Catholic bishop at the Vatican says the Democratic Party is coming dangerously close to becoming the "party of death" because of its unlimited support for abortion. The party renewed its pro-abortion views in its platform in August, which calls for making taxpayers fund abortions.
U.S. Archbishop Raymond L. Burke, prefect of the Vatican's highest court, says the party "risks transforming itself definitively into a 'party of death.'"
Burke made the comments in an interview with Avvenire, a daily Catholic newspaper the Italy Catholic Conference sponsors.
The former St. Louis archbishop added: "At this point the Democratic Party risks transforming itself definitely into a 'party of death' because of its choices on bioethical questions as Ramesh Ponnuru wrote in his book, 'The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts and the Disregard for Human Life.'"
Burke said the new Democratic Party isn't the same as the one supported by generations past.
He told the paper it was once "the party that helped our immigrant parents and grandparents better integrate and prosper in American society. But it is not the same anymore.
Burke also lamented that pro-life Democratic leaders are "rare, unfortunately."
The Catholic News Service also indicates Burke talked with the newspaper about the abortion-communion debate within the Catholic Church and said he wasn't an isolated position.
"It was shared by Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver, by Bishop Peter J. Jugis of Charlotte and by others," he said.
"But it is true that the bishops' conference has not taken this position, leaving each bishop free to act as he believes best. For my part, I always have maintained that there must be a united position in order to demonstrate the unity of the church in facing this serious question," he added.
Burke said other Catholic leaders are coming to the position that pro-abortion Catholic politicians shouldn't receive communion and noted that the presence of Joe Biden on Barack Obama's ticket has contributed to that sentiment.
The Democratic platform backs unlimited abortions paid for at taxpayer expense but also tries to moderate the party's image with support for childbirth and birth control.l

The party platform is supposed to mirror the principles and policies of the nominee, in this case pro-abortion candidate Barack Obama.
The proposed platform does just that, by promoting unqualified support for abortion and the Roe v. Wade case that ushered in 50 million abortions.
It also includes a short phrase about a woman's ability to pay for an abortion -- meant to tout support for making taxpayers fund abortions.
"The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right," the proposal says.
The final aspect of the language hearkens to Obama's pledge to Planned Parenthood in a July 2007 speech saying his first action as president would be signing the so-called Freedom of Choice Act. That's a Congressional bill that would overturn every abortion limit nationwide from a ban on partial-birth abortions to parental notification laws.

Furthermore, several years ago, 55 CINO Democraps outed themselves as being pro-abortion.

WASHINGTON, March 1, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a so-called 'Statement of Principles', 55 House Democrats have exposed themselves as being pro-abortion. The self-proclaimed 'historic' statement issued Monday, contains the basic message that the proponents support all the politically correct teachings of the Catholic Church such as reducing poverty and increasing access to education and health care but stop short on the Church's teaching on abortion. The letter also conveniently skips over the issue of homosexuality which has serious bearing in public life today.

On abortion, the Democrats make a lame attempt to feign agreement with the Church saying that they, "agree with the Catholic Church about the value of human life and the undesirability of abortion, we do not celebrate its practice." They propose as a solution, not granting unborn children the legal right to life, but rather efforts toward "reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and creating an environment with policies that encourage pregnancies to be carried to term. We believe this includes promoting alternatives to abortion . . ."

The gobbledygook is not being bought by Catholic leadership, both lay and clerical.

Catholic League president William Donohue commented, "The House Catholic Democrats who signed this statement - and 17 of them did not - are trying to convince the public, and especially Catholics, that one can be a good Catholic and differ with the Catholic Church on abortion."

"Perhaps the most convincing evidence that this statement is a sham," said Donahue, " is the fact that Rep. Rosa DeLauro is the point person for this effort. There has never been an abortion she couldn't justify, including the killing of an innocent child who is 80-percent born. Indeed, she previously served as the executive director of EMILY's List, the richest pro-abortion organization in the country. So with her at the helm, the 'Statement of Principle' is nothing more than a 'Statement of Politics.'"

Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, commented that the legislators had "made a big mistake" and introduced "a bundle of contradictions" into the public debate on faith and public service.

"This statement tries to soften the contradiction between creating a just society and tolerating legal abortion," said Fr. Pavone. "The voting records of these legislators are available to anyone who wants to look them up. To fail to protect the unborn, and then to say that you are 'committed to…protecting the most vulnerable among us' is a blatant contradiction."

Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer, President of Human Life International (HLI), responded to the 'Statement of Principles' saying, "On the Eve of Ash Wednesday the day that marks the beginning of the Lenten Season, 'Catholic' House Democrats choose to play the role of Judas in a passion play that ends with the crucifixion of the unborn child."

"The House Democrat so-called 'Statement of Principles' is nothing more than Washington-speak for: 'We support abortion on demand and we do not care what the Church teaches.'

The 55 signatories and the full letter are available online here:
http://www.house.gov/delauro/press/2006/February/catholic_statement_2_28_06.html

The 55 are also listed below:
Joe Baca
Xavier Becerra
Robert Brady
Michael Capuano
Dennis A. Cardoza
Wm. Lacy Clay
Jim Costa
Joseph Crowley
Peter A. DeFazio
William Delahunt
Rosa DeLauro
Mike Doyle
Anna Eshoo
Lane Evans
Charles A. Gonzalez
Raul M. Grijalva
Luis V. Gutierrez
Maurice Hinchey
Tim Holden
Patrick J. Kennedy
Dale E. Kildee
James R. Langevin
John B. Larson
Stephen Lynch
Edward J. Markey
Jim Marshall
Carolyn McCarthy
Betty McCollum
James P. McGovern
Cynthia McKinney
Marty Meehan
Michael H. Michaud
George Miller
James P. Moran
Grace Napolitano
Richard E. Neal
James L. Oberstar
David R. Obey
Frank Pallone
Bill Pascrell
Ed Pastor
Nancy Pelosi
Silvestre Reyes
Lucille Roybal-Allard
Tim Ryan
John T. Salazar
Linda T. Sanchez
Loretta Sanchez
Jose Serrano
Hilda L. Solis
Bart Stupak
Gene Taylor
Mike Thompson
Nydia Velazquez
Diane Watson

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/mar/06030202.html

It is just morally untenable for anyone to claim they can be a devout Catholic and a Democrat at the same time. The 55, as well as the so-called Catholic Democraps should just give it up and admit they have become, like Anonymous - 'secular humanists deriving pleasure and satisfaction from logical interaction with the universe around me' since their actions, versus their scurrilous platitudes, unequivocally demonstrate that they value fetuses about as much as snowflakes.

"Uh... care to try? what direction would you like to approach from? health of the mother? population control in general? the malthusian imperative? biblical fallacies? statistical mechanics? i know 'em all..."

Pick any of them. Your whole premise is a logical joke, so you really have nothing to stand on. As you are a religious zealot, I already know what you are going to say.

"Look... if you really want to play, "

Uh, no, I don't want to play, I want you to man up and support your arguments instead of engaging in baby-talk about what a badass you are.

"are a religious zealot who chooses dogma over fact."

You don't have any proof for this, or maybe it's the fact that I don't support wholesale murder of babies that leads you to classify me with the thing you hate the most:
Christians.

But as you like to say, "when your mind looks like a hammer" (note: this sounds lame, get another comparison) so if it helps you classify me as the object of your hate for your brain to work quicker, do it.

"
and we are all 'sinners' (or whatever the current term of art may be)."

The current "term(s) of art" is you take a great many words to say nothing at all.

You're too busy to annihilate the pro-life argument with your awesome, chance-designed intellect, made of arguments you believe purely on accident, but you can keep trolling here warning about how awesome you are.

"So... where's the point?"

This is what I keep asking you.

"(Further... who said I'm a socialist? I believe I prefer 'secular humanist deriving pleasure and satisfaction from logical interaction with the universe around me' -'"

I prefer an honest (not that such a term has any true meaning in your accidental universe) definition for you, such as: "hypocrite who takes random values in order to ignore the fact that nothing matters because everything is an accident and any value assigned to it is purely arbitrary".

" but 'if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything loks like a nail' ... so I can be a socialist to you, if it makes your brain process the datum more smoothly)"

Many types of unpleasant things are in one category even if they are not necessarily similar. For example: vermin includes cockroaches, rats, flies, etc. Socialist I use to include those whose lives are physically and spiritually sterile. They often choose political beliefs that are everything between bigoted and misanthropic. Like you.

Anonypuss states - "Uh... care to try? what direction would you like to approach from? health of the mother? population control in general? the malthusian imperative? biblical fallacies? statistical mechanics? i know 'em all..."

Why yes, O Oracle Anonymous, pray tell what lies in our country's glorious progressive and secular humanist future under your Dear Leader's guidance ... tell us how happy we will be when we can stop blaming Bush, and embrace the wonders of an Obama-nation? Educate us of the wonders that history has shown befall godless utopias full of spritually-dead dolts? Tell us how we should not cling to our guns and religion, but should derive pleasure and satisfaction like you from logical interaction with the primordeal ooze from whence you came? Surely you can elaborate on how our lives will be enriched and the world will be right again by our Dear Leader's desire to "invest" in "preventive healthcare" by removing all restrictions on abortion?

The problem with people like you Anonymous, as GeronimoRumplestiltskin aptly points out, is that your comments reflect that your god = your ego. Sadly, if somewhere you lost or rejected faith and hope in God when you took some twisted path of your life that got you to this point, I hope you can one day reclaim it.

What it comes down to is this: an unplanned pregnancy is a temporary inconvenience (in most cases), while abortion permanently destroys human life. Logic says that temporary inconvenience must be preferable to the destruction of life, else all life is devalued.

I could easily tear apart your various and sundry complaints about abortion, (but in the end it really all boils down to the fact that you believe in magic, while I do not - you are not a unique and individual snowflake. You are an accident of chemistry; the same decaying organic matter as everything else.)

Posted by: Anonymous at July 21, 2009 11:28 AM

Thanks for demonstrating quite clearly the nihilism behind support of abortion and evolution, lovely.

As for archaic, I suppose you'd have to admit, now that it's been proven that fetuses retain memories, that it's archaic to still think of them as non-living entities?

I mean, a progressive free thinker such as yourself wouldn't want to get left behind by scientific advancements, right?

Not sure why I'm responding to someone who is sounding more and more like the evil one himself, but... (btw, it's 'preventive', not 'preventative').

Anon, you might 'love' Chesterton, but you don't understand him. He dissects and deconstructs the entire leftist world-view from A to Z. In TMWWT, he calls your leftist pessimism a crime against your fellow man; he calls your atheism an abomination against yourself. You either love laughing at GKC and love contradicting your own ideologies, or you don't understand him. Or, you don't know him at all and you're just claiming to read him as a device to take his arguments off the table and stifle debate.

Most on the sanctimonious, condescending left prefer to live in the bleak and bound world found in the clever philosophies of Marx/Engels, Darwin, Freud, Nietzsche, Lenin, Sanger et al. In them they find truth and comfort. Most conservatives understand that, by historical evidence, these philosophies have ended in the madness that was the most murderous century in human history -- the progressive 20th. I prefer the beautiful and free world found in the wisdom of philosophers such as Augustine, Aquinas, Francis, Chesterton, Wojtyla, and Ratzinger, who have answered the existential questions, turned bleakness into beauty, freed the world from bound leftist ideologies, and hold the only hope for the future of mankind.

Understanding the proclivity of the liberal mind to attach itself to disheartening and binding madness, is answered by the mental disorders of spiritual impoverishment, moral adolescence, and leftist guilt; and by the most important observation of all: their obvious egotistical desire to proclaim their self-professed intellectual superiority that comes in the package with progressive atheism.

The war between liberal and conservative thought is fought in trying to sway the sway-able to either accepting leftist despair, or accepting supernatural salvation. Modern psychology fails because it tries to prove that we belong to this world. Christian theology succeeds by allowing us the liberty to see the mysterious value in human life and to live for a higher purpose, because Christian common sense tells us that we do not fit into this world, and this world is not our ultimate home.

Quoth the anonymous leftist twit:

but in the end it really all boils down to the fact that you believe in magic, while I do not - you are not a unique and individual snowflake. You are an accident of chemistry; the same decaying organic matter as everything else.

The Religion of the Blind Watchmaker; that which is of such faith that, if Christians had it, they could relocate Everest and Kilimanjaro, swap the Alps and the Andes.

Most mutations are harmful, a few are neutral, the very rare mutation is beneficial. Yet it is this rarity which, together with natural selection, fills the role for constructing organic machines dwarfing what we humans, with all our intelligence, have been able to achieve in modern engineering.

We are unable to devise even an algorithm that reliably reconstructs a color image when given only a grayscale one as input, yet the staggering complexity--organized, selective complexity, with roles and functions for each part just within a single cell!--of our own bodies is something that was made by an algorithmic process (random mutations + natural selection).

"Given billions of years, enough beneficial random mutations can accumulate to achieve it," they say. Great. So, after all the time atheists chide believers in God for hiding Him in undetectable incorporeality, atheists do the same thing, hiding their omnipotent god of chance+selection under an unfalsifiable layer of millions upon millions of years. Aren't you glad to be rid of faith!

It's no wonder a lot of people who deeply think about the implications of evolution end up being New Agers, pantheists, panpsychists, cosmotheists and other sorts of mystics. To believe this scheme of things has gotten like this all by itself is patently irrational (except if you choose to ignore the implications), and to believe in a Supreme Thinker and Designer could lead to the terrible consequence of acknowledging a Lord, so that's the only way to go.

I apologize (don't we all nowadays?) if I have offended any Darwin-believing evolutionists with my blasphemous ravings, but faith is weak if it cannot stand up to critical scrutiny. {wink}

I love it. I really was going to let the zoo return to normal, but i just have to say this one, final thing to "Conservigilant":

You set up the same tired argument as all religious people trying to play science. ("Complexity, organization, and probability" would be a reasonable diminuitive for that series of thoughts, yes?)

This is the very definition of why i do not like religious-based decision making, or trains of thought. Look at exactly what your argument is: "I don't get it. It is too complex. I just don't understand how this can be. Therefore... nobody can understand it. Ever. We should all stop looking, and say 'it is god. i promise'."

I will, once again, quote Lyell:

"Never was there a dogma more calculated to foster indolence, and to blunt the keen edge of curiosity".

If all I value is raw intellect (yep), then is it a shock to you that I find myself opposing the viewpoint of indolence, apathy, and willful ignorance? See how it is not about anything but the fundamental mindset of those who 'believe' versus those who 'learn'?

I'm just saying...

You set up the same tired argument as all religious people trying to play science.

The argument is only "tired" in the sense that religious people are tired of getting evasions instead of answers to this argument. Like yours precisely.

This is the very definition of why i do not like religious-based decision making, or trains of thought.

This isn't about what you like, grasshopper, it's about what the truth is. Coincidentally, what I don't like is the way you atheists have rigged the game to exclude God--or intelligence in general--from the range of possible answers to questions humans ask.

Look at exactly what your argument is: "I don't get it. It is too complex. I just don't understand how this can be. Therefore... nobody can understand it. Ever. We should all stop looking, and say 'it is god. i promise'."

You just love drawing caricatures, don't you? My argument was far more, y'know, nuanced than what you're saying here. But I shouldn't have expected you to get it, so let me try something simpler:

You're an archeologist and you just unearthed an arrowhead. It's not a very elaborate arrowhead, and there's quite a chance it could have formed by natural processes like the hexagonal stones in the Giant's Causeway did, but you incline toward, and you certainly don't discount outright, the possibility that somebody made, designed the arrowhead. And if you offer that option before a board of your peers, fellow archeologists, not one of them thinks you're somehow "stymying science," "giving up prematurely" or the like.

Yet that is precisely what you've done regarding the possibility of intelligent design in biology.

Now, I already know the standard answers to this, foremost of which is, "But we know human beings design arrowheads. We don't know about any intelligence desiging biological organisms." And so what? So, what we know is the barrier to all further knowledge? If science had always had this attitude, we'd still be using Stone Age technology! Then it is not believers in an intelligence behind life, but atheists like you, who are responsible for stymying the progress of science. Once again, moonbats are guilty of exactly that which they blame their opponents for.

I will, once again, quote Lyell:

Mere opinion. I thought you atheists types were against the argument from authority?

See how it is not about anything but the fundamental mindset of those who 'believe' versus those who 'learn'?

You too believe. And, as I said, you're much more of a believer than I or any other theist will ever be. You put your faith in the extraordinary claim that rare beneficial mutations coupled with natural selection are sufficient to generate complexity beyond mankind's wildest imagining. I will quote what one of yours, the late atheist scientist Carl Sagan, said, despite his hypocrisy about it: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

The claim: "Random mutations + natural selection + time = organized complexity." Proof please! And by proof, I don't mean negative examples like flightless birds, the human appendix and other instances of natural selection taking away features; I mean the formation of all the amazingly intricate components in a single cell, I mean the evolution of limbs, in short, I mean credible demonstrations of how evolution can build--build complex organized systems, and not just algorithmic symmetries like snowflakes or Dawkins' laughable "biomorphs."

Proof--otherwise I'm justified in regarding evolution as nothing but a modern cosmogonic myth made up in subservience to the Progressivist, Materialist zeitgest of the 19th century, and propped up to support the same today. An atheistic fairy-tale for grown-ups.