http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14122311/?GT1=8404Hopefully this will make it even more evident to everyone how ridiculous it is to pretend Creationism is science.
Your right it is not a science, it is based of faith. There is no point in trying to prove there is a god because if you believe that he is all mighty then you know he will show himself when he wants to be shown. There would be no way to prove him through science.
Originally posted by stocksvtcontour:
Your right it is not a science, it is based of faith. There is no point in trying to prove there is a god because if you believe that he is all mighty then you know he will show himself when he wants to be shown. There would be no way to prove him through science.
shut your mouth and eat your jesus crackers in peace 
~Andrew
Peanut butter Jesus crackers?
Originally posted by todras:
Peanut butter Jesus crackers?
~Andrew
Originally posted by Pimpalicious316:
Originally posted by stocksvtcontour:
Your right it is not a science, it is based of faith. There is no point in trying to prove there is a god because if you believe that he is all mighty then you know he will show himself when he wants to be shown. There would be no way to prove him through science.
shut your mouth and eat your jesus crackers in peace
Well, that was un-neccessary & not very Christian of you... Espeically when he agreed that creationism is not science.
Originally posted by TourDeForce:
Originally posted by Pimpalicious316:
Originally posted by stocksvtcontour:
Your right it is not a science, it is based of faith. There is no point in trying to prove there is a god because if you believe that he is all mighty then you know he will show himself when he wants to be shown. There would be no way to prove him through science.
shut your mouth and eat your jesus crackers in peace
Well, that was un-neccessary & not very Christian of you... Espeically when he agreed that creationism is not science.
it was a sarcasm laden comment 
~Andrew
Originally posted by Pimpalicious316:
Originally posted by TourDeForce:
Originally posted by Pimpalicious316:
Originally posted by stocksvtcontour:
Your right it is not a science, it is based of faith. There is no point in trying to prove there is a god because if you believe that he is all mighty then you know he will show himself when he wants to be shown. There would be no way to prove him through science.
shut your mouth and eat your jesus crackers in peace
Well, that was un-neccessary & not very Christian of you... Espeically when he agreed that creationism is not science.
it was a sarcasm laden comment
I am so sorry. Please pray for me... 
Originally posted by todras:
Peanut butter Jesus crackers?
It's Peanut Butter Jesus Time!
Peanut Butter Jesus Time!
Peanut Butter Jesus Time!
Peanut Butter Jesus Time!
Way'at? Way'at? Way'at? Way'at?
Now da'yago, da'yago, da'yago, da'yago,
Way'at? Way'at? Way'at? Way'at?
Now da'yago, da'yago, da'yago, da'yago.......etc.
Originally posted by Mr. Hightower FTW:
Originally posted by todras:
Peanut butter Jesus crackers?
It's Peanut Butter Jesus Time!
Peanut Butter Jesus Time!
Peanut Butter Jesus Time!
Peanut Butter Jesus Time!
Way'at? Way'at? Way'at? Way'at?
Now da'yago, da'yago, da'yago, da'yago,
Way'at? Way'at? Way'at? Way'at?
Now da'yago, da'yago, da'yago, da'yago.......etc.
i can't belive i actually watched all that. funnay!
~Andrew
Originally posted by Viss1:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14122311/?GT1=8404
Hopefully this will make it even more evident to everyone how ridiculous it is to pretend Creationism is science.
Hopefully this will make it more evident to everyone how hypocritical liberals are. "I don't believe in it, therefore it must not be true." I thought the democratic party was the party that believed in doing whatever makes you feel good?
Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
Originally posted by Viss1:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14122311/?GT1=8404
Hopefully this will make it even more evident to everyone how ridiculous it is to pretend Creationism is science.
Hopefully this will make it more evident to everyone how hypocritical liberals are. "I don't believe in it, therefore it must not be true." I thought the democratic party was the party that believed in doing whatever makes you feel good?
I have no idea what you are trying to say. That statement is totally off topic.
Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
Originally posted by Viss1:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14122311/?GT1=8404
Hopefully this will make it even more evident to everyone how ridiculous it is to pretend Creationism is science.
Hopefully this will make it more evident to everyone how hypocritical liberals are. "I don't believe in it, therefore it must not be true." I thought the democratic party was the party that believed in doing whatever makes you feel good?
WTF? Why do you choose to lump all democrats, liberals, and atheists together? Why do you choose to be an ignorant bigot? Just because someone doesn't have the same view as you doesn't mean they are wrong. Different does not mean wrong.
I am sorry if I offended the couple of liberals that don't have a problem with organized religion.
I wasn't taking sides in my statement, just pointing out the fact that the same people that are all for defending the rights of people to not believe in crationism, are the first ones to chastize the people that do.
Just because democrats/liberals/whatever want you to have the right to be ignorant doesn't mean we won't make fun of you for it. Go take a freakin' biology course.
Creation through evolution. Nothing says the two can't go hand in hand. If God truly is omnipotent, he can do it any way he pleases. Why not through evolution? It's not that hard to rationalize the two, if you keep in mind that the stories in the Bible are anecdotal rather than literal.
Originally posted by Pimpalicious316:
Originally posted by todras:
Peanut butter Jesus crackers?
~Andrew
peanut butter and gay dudes, a scary thought 
Originally posted by The Spelling Nazi:
Creation through evolution. Nothing says the two can't go hand in hand. If God truly is omnipotent, he can do it any way he pleases. Why not through evolution? It's not that hard to rationalize the two, if you keep in mind that the stories in the Bible are anecdotal rather than literal.
yes well try explaining that to a religious kook!
OK, 99, then we'll marry you to every silly thing Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson say ever.
How's that feel?
Have a nice day overgeneralizing to rationalize your perspective. You're filling the vaccuum left by Packrat and Davo.
BTW, I'm a practicing organized religion member myself. When will evangelical fundamentalists stop trying to impose their version of Christianity upon the rest of us?
Like you think you speak for us? You give away your autocentric self-righteousness on that one.
Take your FAKE apology and cram it into an empty cranial cavity. You'll find one in arm's reach.
Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
I am sorry if I offended the couple of liberals that don't have a problem with organized religion.
I wasn't taking sides in my statement, just pointing out the fact that the same people that are all for defending the rights of people to not believe in crationism, are the first ones to chastize the people that do.
If the world was full of people like you, The US would hardly be "The GREATEST Country in the world" Imagine every other country learning new technology and moving forward while we sit here reading old testamant.
Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
I am sorry if I offended the couple of liberals that don't have a problem with organized religion.
I wasn't taking sides in my statement, just pointing out the fact that the same people that are all for defending the rights of people to not believe in crationism, are the first ones to chastize the people that do.
Who is saying you are wrong for believing what you believe? I think they are just stating that there might be flaws in the "theories". You, on the other hand, choose to get personal and call them hypocrites.
You really need to understand the word "freedom" because it also applies to thought. Feel free to start thinking.
Quote:
Who is saying you are wrong for believing what you believe? I think they are just stating that there might be flaws in the "theories". You, on the other hand, choose to get personal and call them hypocrites.
You really need to understand the word "freedom" because it also applies to thought. Feel free to start thinking.
Theories? So you think theres a hole in the theory of gravity?
I can't understand why the vast majority of science accepts the basics of biological evolution just as sound as gravity, relativitly, etc. but just because this doesn't agree with a story in the bible it isn't sound science.
Mind you I am a practicing catholic, democrat btw (who's going to hell for voting for Kerry lol).
If you want to beleive that creationism is the real deal then fine go ahead, that's fine, go teach your kids at home (or a parachial school that doesn't teach evolution) and we'll be fine.
Originally posted by svtizzle4stizzle:
Originally posted by Pimpalicious316:
Originally posted by todras:
Peanut butter Jesus crackers?
~Andrew
peanut butter and gay dudes
\
Don't knock it until you've tried it. Food fetishes are fun.
On topic: at least it appears to have been funded by private donations. Hopefully it will also pay property taxes, unless they play the church property loophole that ought to be eliminated.
Originally posted by PDXSVT:
OK, 99, then we'll marry you to every silly thing Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson say ever.
How's that feel?
I couldn't care less, you have a right to your opinion just as I have mine; whether you or anyone else want to call it kooky, stupid, ignorant, or whatever else you feel.
Quote:
Like you think you speak for us? You give away your autocentric self-righteousness on that one.
Take your FAKE apology and cram it into an empty cranial cavity. You'll find one in arm's reach.
I'm pretty sure that I never claimed to speak for anyone but myself. Like, when I say "I think," or "I feel," I thought that those terms were pretty self explainatory in meaning; I guess some people need everything spoon fed to them?
And I am glad you missed the sarcasm in my apology. I make no real apologies for my beliefs, quotes, feelings, whatever. I am open to debating or whatever, just when I state my opinion I don't care what you think about it unless you can prove me wrong.
Originally posted by Mr. Hightower FTW:
Who is saying you are wrong for believing what you believe? I think they are just stating that there might be flaws in the "theories". You, on the other hand, choose to get personal and call them hypocrites.
Why not get personal? People attack my religious beliefs everyday, I take that personal.
FWIW I don't even believe in creationism. I believe in the combination theory, which I thought of myself (not saying I am the only one, just that I didn't subscribe to another person's theory, rather thought it up on my own) where God created evolution. I do, however, have the decency to respect people's beliefs who DO believe in strict creationism; a trait that many here can't claim as one of their own.
The replies here are perfect examples. Strict belivers of creationism are called "Kooks," and labeled ignorant fools because they think differently than scientists. Scientists can be wrong folks, they have been in the past, and will in the future. Hell, I am sure some things that we hold to be 100% truths today are going to be proven false tomorrow. Remember when the Earth was flat??? How about the SCIENTISTS that said the Sun revolved around the Earth???
Quote:
You really need to understand the word "freedom" because it also applies to thought. Feel free to start thinking.
So I guess thats another one of your not personal, personal attacks that I shouldn't take personally huh? But wait, according to you, I was attacking people personally huh? No wait, I didn't say any names, unlike how you are.
I have the freedome to think however I want, and express any opinion I want within reason.
Originally posted by Tourgasm:
If the world was full of people like you, The US would hardly be "The GREATEST Country in the world" Imagine every other country learning new technology and moving forward while we sit here reading old testamant.
Iran is a good example of a country full of conservative, puritanical, religious, conservatives.
I'll bet they don't tolerate secular debate over there either
Originally posted by jlanger:
Quote:
Who is saying you are wrong for believing what you believe? I think they are just stating that there might be flaws in the "theories". You, on the other hand, choose to get personal and call them hypocrites.
You really need to understand the word "freedom" because it also applies to thought. Feel free to start thinking.
Theories? So you think theres a hole in the theory of gravity?
I can't understand why the vast majority of science accepts the basics of biological evolution just as sound as gravity, relativitly, etc. but just because this doesn't agree with a story in the bible it isn't sound science.
Mind you I am a practicing catholic, democrat btw (who's going to hell for voting for Kerry lol).
If you want to beleive that creationism is the real deal then fine go ahead, that's fine, go teach your kids at home (or a parachial school that doesn't teach evolution) and we'll be fine.
The reason these concepts are called theories is because they are unprovable by the true scientific method, ie observation. Theories come about as a method to explain a given set of facts/data based on a set of presuppositions made by the originator of the particular theory.
That being said, there are creationists out there that do not sit by blindly and ignore scientific evidence. They see the same evidence as everyone else, but they simply have a different set of presuppositions on which thier theory of origins is based; ie that there is a God, and he is powerful enough to create life. True evolutionists do the exact same thing, only thier presuppositions are based (intentionally or not) on the tenets of humanism (google up the human manifesto)
The various theories of Origins are completely and totally unprovable until someone invents a time machine and goes back and observes how it occurred. The various theories of origins, evolution and creation specifically here, are actually relatively obvious conclusions once you understand the presuppositions that drive them.
what do you call a dyslexic agnostic insomniac?
someone who lies awake in bed all night wondering if there really is a dog.
(that was for the 4 people in the world who haven't heard it yet!)
--T.J.
I buy into the seemingly indisputable fact that evolution has some "holes" in it's theory, just as much as creationism has holes in it's theory as well, which leaves a conflicted bloke like me trying to wade through the inconsistencies and fit both together in something that doesn't resemble a complete and utterly laughable mess of logic and faith.
Creationism has little to do with science and has everything to do about faith; evolution on the other hand has a great deal to do about science and at some point there are some things that even science has to take on a bit of "faith". I don't fully discount either theory or story, but neither do I fully buy into either of them the way that extremists on both sides of the topic have positioned these concepts and make no mistake, it's not the moderates on either side that are in control of the way that creationism or evolution are being presented to the masses...
Personally, I don't care as much these days about where we originally came from vs. where we are ultimately going. It's a fun argument to partake in, but I'm willing to bet that God and the monkies didn't plan on homo sapiens doing their damndest to end the party on this ball of dirt before it's time.
Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
FWIW I don't even believe in creationism. I believe in the combination theory
Problem is, "combination theory" or whatever you want to call it has arbitrarily chosen a cutoff to the evolutionary timeline at which point God apparently created life. Lo and behold, that cutoff happens to be at the point where evolutionary evidence more or less stops . So ID/combination theory basically says, "Here's where science hasn't yet been able to provide more evidence. The rest must be magic."
Scientists believe that whatever questions they haven't yet answered must be answerable with more research. If scientists throughout history simply gave up and said "We don't yet know the rest, so I guess we'll stop researching and chalk it up to God," very little of Man's scientific knowledge would exist. So, with all due respect, combining Creationism with evolution makes no sense.
The combination theory does not cut off evolution at any point. All it does is add a religious "who" to the scientific "what/when/how".
Originally posted by ZoomZoom Diva:
The combination theory does not cut off evolution at any point. All it does is add a religious "who" to the scientific "what/when/how".
The first display in the museum is of two people discovering fossils. One of the people is a scientist who wants to know how it got there, and the other one is a Creationist who goes on to show how God created it (which sets the stage for the rest of the displays). So "God created fossils" is basically what I was getting at.
I already covered this topic a while back.
All the intelligent people agree that creationism and so called "intelligent design" are a load of bollocks.
The Theory of Evolution is not unassailable fact (it not imply that is is false, just that the data collected in the last 100 years only provides incomplete understanding) and is something that undergoes constant revision as we puny humans add to our tiny sliver of knowledge.
Faith is a non-provable hypothesis.
Originally posted by Beowulf:
...Faith is a non-provable hypothesis.
So are love and hate, but I see few denouncing their existance for obvious reasons. I'll gladly entertain those willing to try, though...
No matter how far back we take science, it keeps coming down to a completely unknown "entity" or power that orchestrated everything that we are aware of as space and time. I personally think that it takes more faith to belive in some of the evolution theories that have spouted up (given the impossible odds they toss out) vs. a more practical approach towards hybrid Creationism that does embrace scientific fact. I don't buy into "Intelligent Design" anymore than pure Creationism or pure Evolutionism, but I believe that it has the foundation of correct thought though it's off-base with some of it's extrapolations on how homo sapiens came into existance.
One or two abberations in a system is acceptable to my statistical way of thinking; Evolution and how homo sapiens came into existance is based on so bloody many abberations that it's the statistical equivalent of winning the lottery EVERY time you purchase a ticket. Now, if scientists will admit the possibility that the game is "rigged" and that there may be a Higher Power somewhere beyond their ability to postulate and theorize that's playing "filthy buggers" with what they call Evolution, then I might pay more credence to what they are saying. Placing Evolution as a model through statistical analysis brings forth such mathematical absurdities on the odds that homo sapiens came into being in the way that Evolutionists describe that it's laughable...
I uncomfortably straddle the fence on this topic and I completely distrust ANY who claim to have the answer on either side, which has done nothing but to keep me trying to find a more comfortable position on the fence.
I was watching an interesting program about how the German Physicists were trying to add atoms to uranium in the early part of the 1900s. The uranium atom changed each time they tried. A Jewish physicist had been kicked out of Germany but she was still writing letters to the German physicists. She used Einstein�s theory e=MC squared to solve the problem. The Physicists were splitting the atom and a huge amount of energy was being released compared to the size of the atom. The United States saw the potential and built the atomic bomb.
The program was interesting until they got into the theory of the big bang and how everyone is made of space dust.
Originally posted by Beowulf:
Faith is a non-provable hypothesis.
I agree with that... all religions are heresay based on what people wanted to believe.
And whoever believes that god is real, give me an answer to this:
Who is wrong? You, or the other multiple-diety religions (some of which outdate your single-diety religion).
The only thing you can say about that is "the bible says this, blah blah." That's all hearsay since it's just what was told (i.e. stories) for generations and generations before someone decided to write it down. Then it was edited to what King James thought was right...
Sounds like baloney to me!
Many religions have gone and passed over thousands of years, and I forsee that all current religions will pass over in the next few thousand years.
Also, how many times was the world supposed to end according to the bible? Hmm... Guess the bible wasn't written from stories by some all-knowing being! 
Note, I'm not knocking anyone for believing in a religion.
Religion teaches good values to children to follow...
Well, unless your religion is an extremist one!
Originally posted by Big Daddy Kane:
Originally posted by Beowulf:
Faith is a non-provable hypothesis.
I agree with that... all religions are heresay based on what people wanted to believe.
And whoever believes that god is real, give me an answer to this:
Who is wrong? You, or the other multiple-diety religions (some of which outdate your single-diety religion).
The only thing you can say about that is "the bible says this, blah blah." That's all hearsay since it's just what was told (i.e. stories) for generations and generations before someone decided to write it down. Then it was edited to what King James thought was right...
Sounds like baloney to me!
Many religions have gone and passed over thousands of years, and I forsee that all current religions will pass over in the next few thousand years.
Also, how many times was the world supposed to end according to the bible? Hmm... Guess the bible wasn't written from stories by some all-knowing being!
Note, I'm not knocking anyone for believing in a religion.
Religion teaches good values to children to follow...
Well, unless your religion is an extremist one!
Have you ever been to a southern Babtist or Holiness church? They are very extreme. A person would think their pants were on fire but they are only preaching. Anyone outside of their group is considered a cult member, sinner or devil worshiper.
Methodist or Salvation army churches are more moderate.
Originally posted by JaTo:
No matter how far back we take science, it keeps coming down to a completely unknown "entity" or power that orchestrated everything that we are aware of as space and time.
Astrophysicists have made progress explaining how the universe began since telescopes were invented. The big bang happens to be the current accepted theory given the current body of evidence. The fact that it's not yet an iron-clad hypothesis is not proof that some unknown entity "did it for us." It benefits no one except Creationists themselves to explain away whatever we don't currently know as "the work of God."
Quote:
I personally think that it takes more faith to belive in some of the evolution theories that have spouted up (given the impossible odds they toss out) vs. a more practical approach towards hybrid Creationism that does embrace scientific fact.
Combining Creationism with science is "practical" only if you define "practical" as "taking the path of least resistance." Creationism is the opposite of science. Why bother with science at all if you're just going to chalk up every unkown to God?
Quote:
One or two abberations in a system is acceptable to my statistical way of thinking; Evolution and how homo sapiens came into existance is based on so bloody many abberations that it's the statistical equivalent of winning the lottery EVERY time you purchase a ticket.
If individual evolutionary steps are taken on their own without examining the story behind why each step represents a milestone, sure, it looks like a leap of logic. But if you consider that we're talking about a period of a billion years, in which time countless organisms tried and failed to evolve, you realize evolution theory is more trial and error than dumb luck. It's not like the individual steps of the evoutionary chain just happened to turn out that way in direct succession.
FWIW I don't pretend to know if the big bang or evolution will turn out to be 100% correct. In fact IMO every scientist should take a critical eye to whatever hypothesis he's working on. But I do know that trying to combine science with Creationism won't get us any closer to an answer.
Originally posted by Tom Thumb:
Have you ever been to a southern Babtist or Holiness church? They are very extreme. A person would think their pants were on fire but they are only preaching. Anyone outside of their group is considered a cult member, sinner or devil worshiper.
Methodist or Salvation army churches are more moderate.
I've met some Southern Catholics before, but never any Southern Babtists...
All I know is they are VERY religious!
Originally posted by Viss1:
Astrophysicists have made progress explaining how the universe began since telescopes were invented. The big bang happens to be the current accepted theory given the current body of evidence. The fact that it's not yet an iron-clad hypothesis is not proof that some unknown entity "did it for us." It benefits no one except Creationists themselves to explain away whatever we don't currently know as "the work of God."
I know many people of faith that do not take the default position that if they don't know something then "divine intervention" was involved. I do not discount the work that has been done or the insights that astronomy, astrophysics, mathematics or pure science has given mankind, but all that work has utterly failed to bring forth concrete answers on the origins of existance in this particular dimension we inhabit. Some of the greatest minds in science and mathematics this day and days gone by do reluctantly admit that most research murkily points to some "external" power having a hand in the design of things...
Originally posted by Viss1:
Combining Creationism with science is "practical" only if you define "practical" as "taking the path of least resistance." Creationism is the opposite of science. Why bother with science at all if you're just going to chalk up every unkown to God?
You're kidding me, right? The most intellectually and spiritually difficult thing I do in my life is try to bridge my personal beliefs about God and my intellect as someone who thirsts for knowledge in all forms. Scripture, common sense and scientific method do tend to butt heads and rub certain areas completely raw, but because they do so I see no reason to abandon one completely for the other.
I would say I have probably chosen one of the more difficult and convoluted paths to take as again, it is one that's rife with second-guessing, doubt and at times wild uncertainty...
Originally posted by Viss1:
If individual evolutionary steps are taken on their own without examining the story behind why each step represents a milestone, sure, it looks like a leap of logic. But if you consider that we're talking about a period of a billion years, in which time countless organisms tried and failed to evolve, you realize evolution theory is more trial and error than dumb luck. It's not like the individual steps of the evoutionary chain just happened to turn out that way in direct succession.
I don't buy it; there are too few precursors to homo sapiens that play out your side of the statistical story and mammals in terms of a species or even looking a step further at a genus. The "leaps" that evolution has taken at times in certain kindoms I can grasp, but chalking up homo sapiens' climb to the top in such short order strains the theory of evolution to the breaking point when it's been the ONLY abberation of this magnatude in the system.
Originally posted by Viss1:
FWIW I don't pretend to know if the big bang or evolution will turn out to be 100% correct. In fact IMO every scientist should take a critical eye to whatever hypothesis he's working on. But I do know that trying to combine science with Creationism won't get us any closer to an answer.
You misunderstand me; I don't wish that scientists to dust their hands off and claim that the search is over and slap up a label that says "God" on top of the evolution charts. What I do wish is that what is seemingly the collective intellectual ego of the scientific community would remember that some of the most extreme experiences and events in human history have been driven by things they have NO ability to measure (i.e., love, hate, faith, doubt) and to at least acknowledge the possibility of the Divine in certain aspects of life. I wish for the search to continue and I would like the scientific community to give the religious community at least a modicum of respect for the beliefs they hold. To reciprocate, the religious community needs to become much more accepting and tolerant of scientific study, even studies that are uncomfortable to those that choose doctrine and canon over scientific method.
I do not respect arrogance from avowed atheists on this topic, nor do I respect the arrogance from holy-rollers on it, either. The problem is that I see more arrogance than understanding from both sides on this topic than anything else.
Originally posted by JaTo:
Some of the greatest minds in science and mathematics this day and days gone by do reluctantly admit that most research murkily points to some "external" power having a hand in the design of things...
This is news to me! Please name one modern day researcher who "reluctantly admits" that some external power directed the evolutionary process. I'm not concerned with the "days gone by" persons since evolutionary theory has come a very long way in the last 10-20 years.
You appear to have chosen your words carefully here, so I assume you have some basis for this statement.
Well, since you discount Einstein and then Hoyle (a renounced Anglican that still found some form or concept of "God" in astrophysics) because they are too "old"...
I take it you've heard of Stephen Hawking; he's certainly no atheist, though agnosticism or deism has been more along the lines of what he routinely professes. There's no scoffing when he mentions the concept of God and is known to allow the existance of a Creator to enter in his train of thought...
...or is he just plain nuts?
Hugh Ross, though probably blacklisted by the some in the scientific community, holds some interesting arguments for God. I would submit that he holds a Christian view of God, but his thoughts on a Creator are quite compelling, even without the quotes on scripture.
The fact is that astrophysicists and evolutionists are hitting a "brick wall" in terms of coming to grips on what originated or started the "big bang" and that there's been a scramble by some to prop up any and every other theory (no matter how far-fetched or weak) just to avoid addressing the concept of an "external creator", while some are allowing this to enter the peripheries of the discussion. Let's face it: getting around the Laws of Thermodynamics is a complete and utter b**ch and that's pretty much what's is left for those more intent on disproving the existance of an external Creator.
Those are 4 off of the top of my head; I'll dig up a few more that I've read on.
Whoever is a non-believer answer me this:
How does your science explain the spark of life? What is it that turns a mass of molecules to a living organism in any form?
I am Catholic, but I also understand that science & the quest for knowlege can re-inforce or conflict the teachings that I have learned. Similarly, any scientist must accept truth when his theories are de-bunked. Learning does not stop when the sermon is over, but rather a new world of knowlege opens.
I think evolution is real, and that it happens faster or slower than science may imagine depending on the species & the environmental conditions that require adaptation from that species.
Yet I retain my faith.
One can live in the brave new world, yet respect & honor the traditions of faith. One side calling the other stupid because they don't have the answer to 'this question or that', is nothing but destructive & errodes the respect & dignity each demands. Live, & let live.
Peace, baby!
Originally posted by TourDeForce:
... What is it that turns a mass of molecules to a living organism in any form? ...
Gravity.
Originally posted by Hightower GT:
Originally posted by TourDeForce:
... What is it that turns a mass of molecules to a living organism in any form? ...
Gravity.
So, if I put a bunch of chemicals in the correct proportions into a paper cup, (* POOF *) life happens?
Originally posted by JaTo:
Well, since you discount Einstein and then Hoyle (a renounced Anglican that still found some form or concept of "God" in astrophysics) because they are too "old"...
I take it you've heard of Stephen Hawking; he's certainly no atheist, though agnosticism or deism has been more along the lines of what he routinely professes. There's no scoffing when he mentions the concept of God and is known to allow the existance of a Creator to enter in his train of thought...
...or is he just plain nuts?
Hugh Ross, though probably blacklisted by the some in the scientific community, holds some interesting arguments for God. I would submit that he holds a Christian view of God, but his thoughts on a Creator are quite compelling, even without the quotes on scripture.
The fact is that astrophysicists and evolutionists are hitting a "brick wall" in terms of coming to grips on what originated or started the "big bang" and that there's been a scramble by some to prop up any and every other theory (no matter how far-fetched or weak) just to avoid addressing the concept of an "external creator", while some are allowing this to enter the peripheries of the discussion. Let's face it: getting around the Laws of Thermodynamics is a complete and utter b**ch and that's pretty much what's is left for those more intent on disproving the existance of an external Creator.
Those are 4 off of the top of my head; I'll dig up a few more that I've read on.
I think you are confusing the "origins of life" with evolution. No scientist pretends to know what existed before the Big Bang. If someone wants to say that god was the instigator then I would not argue with them. I have no problem with someone believing that god had a hand in the evolutionary process either. Neither of these issues has anything to do with the topic being discussed here though.
I'm confusing neither; I initially responded to the Evolution train of thought that was being progressed here and it turned into something a little different.
So, to get back on topic, what should be the next item up for discussion since I've apparently "missed the boat"?
Originally posted by JaTo:
So, to get back on topic, what should be the next item up for discussion
Beer. Is it simply the greatest thing ever invented, or merely the greatest drink ever invented? Discuss.
This discussion did indeed move away from the original point (which I was partly responsible for), so I guess my next step will be to check out the museum and report back
Originally posted by Viss1:
Originally posted by JaTo:
So, to get back on topic, what should be the next item up for discussion
Beer. Is it simply the greatest thing ever invented, or merely the greatest drink ever invented? Discuss.
But what created beer? Science or god?
Originally posted by BloodyTomFlint:
Originally posted by Viss1:
Originally posted by JaTo:
So, to get back on topic, what should be the next item up for discussion
Beer. Is it simply the greatest thing ever invented, or merely the greatest drink ever invented? Discuss.
But what created beer? Science or god?
God used science to create beer. It's a hybrid theory. [flame bait] Besides, Dr. Pepper is better than beer! [/flame bait]
Originally posted by BloodyTomFlint:
Originally posted by Viss1:
Originally posted by JaTo:
So, to get back on topic, what should be the next item up for discussion
Beer. Is it simply the greatest thing ever invented, or merely the greatest drink ever invented? Discuss.
But what created beer? Science or god?
Beer IS god & created man.
Originally posted by TourDeForce:
Originally posted by BloodyTomFlint:
Originally posted by Viss1:
Originally posted by JaTo:
So, to get back on topic, what should be the next item up for discussion
Beer. Is it simply the greatest thing ever invented, or merely the greatest drink ever invented? Discuss.
But what created beer? Science or god?
Beer IS god & created man.
That theory makes sense, now if we could just prove it...
Oh, and what to you mix with the Dr. Pepper to make it better than beer?
Originally posted by BloodyTomFlint:
Originally posted by TourDeForce:
Originally posted by BloodyTomFlint:
Originally posted by Viss1:
Originally posted by JaTo:
So, to get back on topic, what should be the next item up for discussion
Beer. Is it simply the greatest thing ever invented, or merely the greatest drink ever invented? Discuss.
But what created beer? Science or god?
Beer IS god & created man.
That theory makes sense, now if we could just prove it...
Oh, and what to you mix with the Dr. Pepper to make it better than beer?
Dr. Pepper by itself is the nectar of the gods. It needs nothing. It is perfection incarnate.....wait...is that like saying Jesus is Dr. Pepper?
Originally posted by The Spelling Nazi:
Originally posted by BloodyTomFlint:
Originally posted by TourDeForce:
Originally posted by BloodyTomFlint:
Originally posted by Viss1:
Originally posted by JaTo:
So, to get back on topic, what should be the next item up for discussion
Beer. Is it simply the greatest thing ever invented, or merely the greatest drink ever invented? Discuss.
But what created beer? Science or god?
Beer IS god & created man.
That theory makes sense, now if we could just prove it...
Oh, and what do you mix with the Dr. Pepper to make it better than beer?
Dr. Pepper by itself is the nectar of the gods. It needs nothing. It is perfection incarnate.....wait...is that like saying Jesus is Dr. Pepper?
Hey, you didn't fix my mistake. You must be all messed up on your Dr. Pepper.
So Dr. Pepper is the nectar of the gods, yet beer is god. Therefore beer > Dr. Pepper. I think I read that in the Bible somewhere.
Originally posted by BloodyTomFlint:
Originally posted by The Spelling Nazi:
Originally posted by BloodyTomFlint:
Originally posted by TourDeForce:
Originally posted by BloodyTomFlint:
Originally posted by Viss1:
Originally posted by JaTo:
So, to get back on topic, what should be the next item up for discussion
Beer. Is it simply the greatest thing ever invented, or merely the greatest drink ever invented? Discuss.
But what created beer? Science or god?
Beer IS god & created man.
That theory makes sense, now if we could just prove it...
Oh, and what do you mix with the Dr. Pepper to make it better than beer?
Dr. Pepper by itself is the nectar of the gods. It needs nothing. It is perfection incarnate.....wait...is that like saying Jesus is Dr. Pepper?
Hey, you didn't fix my mistake. You must be all messed up on your Dr. Pepper.
So Dr. Pepper is the nectar of the gods, yet beer is god. Therefore beer > Dr. Pepper. I think I read that in the Bible somewhere.
Oops...missed that mistake! I'm all hopped up on sinus meds, so I am not as vigilant today.
You're combining someone else's post with mine. I never said beer was God. I'm still right. Dr. Pepper rules.
It's great that you have faith that you are right but do you have proof?
Originally posted by BloodyTomFlint:
It's great that you have faith that you are right but do you have proof?
Nicely played! But that goes for the "beer IS God" statement too!
Originally posted by The Spelling Nazi:
Originally posted by BloodyTomFlint:
It's great that you have faith that you are right but do you have proof?
Nicely played! But that goes for the "beer IS God" statement too!
To my knowlege God has not been effectively proven or dis-proven.
Cheers!
Originally posted by BloodyTomFlint:
It's great that you have faith that you are right but do you have proof?
Believing is proof enough for some people. They choose not to dig for truth. Ignorance is a way of life for MANY aspects of MANY peoples' lives.
If you blindly believe something for long enough, and are taught this from day 1, you accept this as fact. Once you start to question things is when you embark on the road to TRUE discovery.
I was talking about beer, no need to get all serious.
Originally posted by Hightower GT:
Originally posted by BloodyTomFlint:
It's great that you have faith that you are right but do you have proof?
Believing is proof enough for some people. They choose not to dig for truth. Ignorance is a way of life for MANY aspects of MANY peoples' lives.
If you blindly believe something for long enough, and are taught this from day 1, you accept this as fact. Once you start to question things is when you embark on the road to TRUE discovery.
You speak as if faith & knowledge/science are mutually exclusive, and I say they need not be. Your first paragraph may hold water for some small portion of the faithful, but it's extreme for most as the majority are reasonable people.
Your second paragraph suggests that faith & science are necessarily contradictory, I suggest that they are not, & can even compliment each other. You seem awfully close-minded for somebody who gives the impression he seeks discovery & truth.
Originally posted by JaTo:
I'm confusing neither; I initially responded to the Evolution train of thought that was being progressed here and it turned into something a little different.
Fair enough! Now back to the sentence that made my skin crawl.
Originally posted by JaTo:
Some of the greatest minds in science and mathematics this day and days gone by do reluctantly admit that most research murkily points to some "external" power having a hand in the design of things
Where is the reluctant admittance? I wouldn't consider Einstein's off-hand references to god while describing certain phonomenon, as admittance that looking to a higher power was the only answer to questions not yet answered.
What I'm looking for is a statement like, "our ability to explain the origins of the universe are limited in these areas and can only be explained by injecting a higher power into the equation.
Originally posted by BloodyTomFlint:
I was talking about beer, no need to get all serious.
Beer is liquid bread, it's good for you!
Originally posted by BloodyTomFlint:
I was talking about beer, no need to get all serious.
Beer is liquid bread, it's good for you!
I'm just gonna go ahead and blame the double post on IE7b3 mmmkay... 
Originally posted by TourDeForce:
... You seem awfully close-minded for somebody who gives the impression he seeks discovery & truth.
What?
My first paragraph accurately described probably more than half the people in the world (not just Christians). You also need to remember there are plenty of people that have various beliefs based solely on "My parents and church told me this, so it has to be true." That's what I was referring to. They have been programmed to not question this.
As for me being "closed-minded"; a single paragraph does not one man make. How about you not rush to judgement.
Originally posted by Hightower GT:
My first paragraph accurately described probably more than half the people in the world (not just Christians).
That is an assumption, not an accurate description. If you claim it's accurate, I'd like to see backup.
Originally posted by Hightower GT:
You also need to remember there are plenty of people that have various beliefs based solely on "My parents and church told me this, so it has to be true." That's what I was referring to. They have been programmed to not question this.
I've conceeded that there are some people like this, but not nearly so many as you allude to.
Originally posted by Hightower GT:
As for me being "closed-minded"; a single paragraph does not one man make. How about you not rush to judgement.
I'm not judging, just questioning what seem to be blanket statements suggesting the majority of the faithful are religious zealots that have no use for, or tolerance of, science & the persuit of knowledge. You're painting with a broad brush and I don't like it because it would color me as well. Frankly, most of the faithful I've known (and there are likely thousands I've met & spoken with) are quite in contrast to what you describe, and I can't recall personally knowing any that are so radical as you state. My experience on the subject is quite different than the picture you portray & I'd like to see some evidence that I'm wrong.
At least one fact cannot be disputed. Beer HAS created human life.
Huh?
TDF, are you really wanting evidence from Hightower GT that he has met different people from you?
If you're on an "offer me proof" crusade, how about you offer proof that the people you met were actually the same people he met?
And where were your lofty objections to use of broad brush strokes when that particular brush was being used by 99blacksesport?
Originally posted by TourDeForce:
I've conceeded that there are some people like this, but not nearly so many as you allude to.
Have you ever been to a place I like to call "Middle America" ? I have lived in it for 31 years and I was raised to be one of those people that I described. And since I wasn't describing JUST the US, what kind of interactions have you had with people in/from other countries? What about different religions? Have you taken on a personal quest to research all religions and speak to many people that have these beliefs? (I did a while back)
I do agree with you that there are plenty of intelligent/wise people that practice a religion. However, once you can see the masses/lemmings, you'll see what I am talking about. It's a routine/safe repetition for them. They have also been embedded in them from birth that if they continue these routines, they will go to heaven (or equivalent)
Oh, and don't forget to fill up the offering plate!!!
Originally posted by Hightower GT:
Originally posted by TourDeForce:
I've conceeded that there are some people like this, but not nearly so many as you allude to.
Have you ever been to a place I like to call "Middle America" ? I have lived in it for 31 years and I was raised to be one of those people that I described. And since I wasn't describing JUST the US, what kind of interactions have you had with people in/from other countries? What about different religions? Have you taken on a personal quest to research all religions and speak to many people that have these beliefs? (I did a while back)
I do agree with you that there are plenty of intelligent/wise people that practice a religion. However, once you can see the masses/lemmings, you'll see what I am talking about. It's a routine/safe repetition for them. They have also been embedded in them from birth that if they continue these routines, they will go to heaven (or equivalent)
I have been to middle America, and I point out that M.A. is not the population center of this nation. Your point of reference is skewed if you think M.A. religious attitudes are typical of most Americans.
Yes, I have been to other countries. How 'bout you? I've also had, & continue to have, long standing friendships with persons of various religions, including two of my former employers who were both Muslim men from Iran. I spoke to them extensively about Islam, Iran, & the prevailing sentiments of their friends, family, and the general population of Iran itself. Far fewer radicals than I would have thought based on TV coverage, unfortunately, the radicals are armed, organized, & instill fear in the general population. These conditions prevent the majority from speaking out for fear of having their entire families wiped out. So what gets on TV? The radicals, not the typical man on the street. There you have it in a nut shell (pun intended).
As far as research on theological radicalism, no, I have not done that. My experiences are admittedly limited compared to somebody who does research, but they are extensive enough to give me a general idea on what is going on out in the world, I think. Are there radical & wrong-headed religious people? Yes. Do they typically represent the majority view for their particular faith? In my experience, No.
I also have yet to hear any valid support for your assertions.
Originally posted by TourDeForce:
I also have yet to hear any valid support for your assertions.
Support? Sorry, I don't have signed statements from all the people I have talked to in my life. Nor have I kept plane ticket stubs from national/international trips (well, maybe one from Australia, and my most recent European trek.)
The view of your world differs from the view of my world. Your world is what you make of it; and that's not a bad thing.
And yes, "middle america" does seem to represent at least an electoral majority. Why else do you think Dubya got elected twice?
Originally posted by Hightower GT:
Why else do you think Dubya got elected twice?
Because middle America has good sense in what a good leader is.
Originally posted by Hightower GT:
Originally posted by TourDeForce:
I also have yet to hear any valid support for your assertions.
Support? Sorry, I don't have signed statements from all the people I have talked to in my life. Nor have I kept plane ticket stubs from national/international trips (well, maybe one from Australia, and my most recent European trek.)
I was actually hoping for some synopsis of the research you said you had done, or some information pertaining to the sources you may have utilized/referenced in that research report.
Oh, well.
Now as far as 'W' is concerned, note that I live in Florida, and I voted for him... Six time in 2000 alone. 
j/k, man!
Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
Originally posted by Hightower GT:
Why else do you think Dubya got elected twice?
Because middle America has good sense in what a good leader is.
Hahaha!!! Yeah, what he said. 
Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
Originally posted by Hightower GT:
Why else do you think Dubya got elected twice?
Because middle America has good sense in what a good leader is.
You know, Dubya has his good and bad points, but the real reason he has been elected twice is because he was a way better option than "the other guy" both times.
Originally posted by Rara:
Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
Originally posted by Hightower GT:
Why else do you think Dubya got elected twice?
Because middle America has good sense in what a good leader is.
You know, Dubya has his good and bad points, but the real reason he has been elected twice is because he was a way better option than "the other guy" both times.
I dunno...
Originally posted by spgoode:
Where is the reluctant admittance? I wouldn't consider Einstein's off-hand references to god while describing certain phonomenon, as admittance that looking to a higher power was the only answer to questions not yet answered.
Read more; Einstein and others have made more than just passing references to some "Higher Power" possibly having a hand in the design of things...
Of course many scientists dance around the topic to a degree as unquestioned "faith" in science can be the everlasting carrot in front of the donkey (much in the same light that unquestioned faith in religion is); if one can keep postulating and theorizing, then one does NOT have to admit the possibility of a completely external force having an active part in the creation of the world as we know it, even when the gathered evidence constantly points to the miraculous.
Originally posted by spgoode:
What I'm looking for is a statement like, "our ability to explain the origins of the universe are limited in these areas and can only be explained by injecting a higher power into the equation.
The fallacy there is that the more we discover, the less limited our explainations are, so you will not find that statement uttered. What you will find is that some of the brightest minds in science have stated that mere chance and random events are not a logical or sufficient explaination for creation or how evolution has progressed homo sapiens vs. other species in the animal kingdom and that some sort of "designer" could be the likely explaination, given that all of them are incomplete at best.
Originally posted by JaTo:
What you will find is that some of the brightest minds in science have stated that mere chance and random events are not a logical or sufficient explaination for creation or how evolution has progressed homo sapiens vs. other species in the animal kingdom and that some sort of "designer" could be the likely explaination, given that all of them are incomplete at best.
I have no doubt there are some bright people that believe this,(intelligent people being religious has always been a mystery to me)however there are many more that do not.
Here are some statistics for you concerning religiosity in the sciences.
"Whereas 90% of the general population has a distinct belief in a personal god and a life after death, only 40% of scientists on the B.S. level favor this belief in religion and merely 10 % of those who are considered 'eminent' scientists believe in a personal god or in an afterlife."
http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm
Originally posted by spgoode:
"Whereas 90% of the general population has a distinct belief in a personal god and a life after death, only 40% of scientists on the B.S. level favor this belief in religion and merely 10 % of those who are considered 'eminent' scientists believe in a personal god or in an afterlife."
http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm
I wonder what those statistics looked like in 1950 at the dawn of the atomic age. I would suggest that those stats have more to do with the prevailing indoctrination in our institutions of higher learning. Conversely, how many Notre Dame grads retain their beliefs. If that number matches the stats you put up, it would certainly get a more serious consideration from me.
Originally posted by TourDeForce:
Originally posted by spgoode:
"Whereas 90% of the general population has a distinct belief in a personal god and a life after death, only 40% of scientists on the B.S. level favor this belief in religion and merely 10 % of those who are considered 'eminent' scientists believe in a personal god or in an afterlife."
http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm
I wonder what those statistics looked like in 1950 at the dawn of the atomic age. I would suggest that those stats have more to do with the prevailing indoctrination in our institutions of higher learning. Conversely, how many Notre Dame grads retain their beliefs. If that number matches the stats you put up, it would certainly get a more serious consideration from me.
Yeah, those flimsy-minded "eminent scientists" are so easily swayed that 90% abandon their faith in college because those evil atheist professors tell them to.
You read only 1/2 of my post... Which does kinda sound silly when you put it in that context... Seems typical of some people these days, ignoring the parts of a debate they have no rational response to.
Originally posted by TourDeForce:
Seems typical of some people these days, ignoring the parts of a debate they have no rational response to.
Welcome to the real world
Originally posted by TourDeForce:
I would suggest that those stats have more to do with the prevailing indoctrination in our institutions of higher learning.
I ask in all seriousness how much discussion of God and the afterlife takes place in the typical BS-level bio/anthro/astro/physics/math class.
Originally posted by Viss1:
Originally posted by TourDeForce:
I would suggest that those stats have more to do with the prevailing indoctrination in our institutions of higher learning.
I ask in all seriousness how much discussion of God and the afterlife takes place in the typical BS-level bio/anthro/astro/physics/math class.
Virtually zero. And when it is mentioned, it is discussed with ridicule and derision.
Originally posted by TourDeForce:
You read only 1/2 of my post... Which does kinda sound silly when you put it in that context... Seems typical of some people these days, ignoring the parts of a debate they have no rational response to.
Well, you got me there. 
I have no rational response to your ponderances about how the statistics I posted would apply to 1950's scientists or Notre Dame graduates. When someone comes up with those statistics, I'll get back to ya.
Originally posted by Rara:
Virtually zero. And when it is mentioned, it is discussed with ridicule and derision.
That's what I figured. Any guesses as to whether that's changed in the last 50 years?
Originally posted by Viss1:
Originally posted by Rara:
Virtually zero. And when it is mentioned, it is discussed with ridicule and derision.
That's what I figured. Any guesses as to whether that's changed in the last 50 years?
Actually yeah. There was a study that showed people that where more very religious/conservative where more likely to breed and have more kids than people that where more agnostic/liberal. So, in 50 years, I imagine there would be more people in this country that where very religious/conservative now.
Hurray for child tax credit (where the gov't gives you MONETARY INCENTIVES TO BREED and the people that don't have kids FOOT THE BILL!!!) 
Originally posted by Hightower GT:
Hurray for child tax credit (where the gov't gives you MONETARY INCENTIVES TO BREED and the people that don't have kids FOOT THE BILL!!!)
Don't get me started at how our government and society discrminates against people w/o kids.
Originally posted by ZoomZoom Diva:
Originally posted by Hightower GT:
Hurray for child tax credit (where the gov't gives you MONETARY INCENTIVES TO BREED and the people that don't have kids FOOT THE BILL!!!)
Don't get me started at how our government and society discrminates against people w/o kids.
I guess i've never realized that, but it is so true. What can I say, I guess i'm young and niiave.
Originally posted by ZoomZoom Diva:
Originally posted by Hightower GT:
Hurray for child tax credit (where the gov't gives you MONETARY INCENTIVES TO BREED and the people that don't have kids FOOT THE BILL!!!)
Don't get me started at how our government and society discrminates against people w/o kids.
See, I don't look at it that way. Having a child is a very expensive venture, and the government has been convinced to keep the burden lower for those facing that. The reason being, that a child born here is a future asset as a taxpayer for the government.
Its not discriminating against those without kids, its simply protecting thier future income.
Originally posted by Rara:
Originally posted by ZoomZoom Diva:
Originally posted by Hightower GT:
Hurray for child tax credit (where the gov't gives you MONETARY INCENTIVES TO BREED and the people that don't have kids FOOT THE BILL!!!)
Don't get me started at how our government and society discrminates against people w/o kids.
See, I don't look at it that way. Having a child is a very expensive venture, and the government has been convinced to keep the burden lower for those facing that. The reason being, that a child born here is a future asset as a taxpayer for the government.
Its not discriminating against those without kids, its simply protecting thier future income.
I'm paying $3,000/year on property taxes to educate other peoples children too. However, it is better than the alternative. I'll need them to pay my social security when I'm retired, and I want them paying a lot!
I believe that the extra services they consume (particularly the $8000+ a year for 12 or 13 years) as enough public investment into our future and enough subsidization of parents. Giving them tax breaks so they don't even pay their fair share towards society is just excessive.
You chose to have children, nobody forced it on you, so don't force the expense on me. If you can't afford to raise them without discriminatory tax breaks, then you shouldn't be having them in the first place.
Everybody should pay the same percentage of his or her income in taxes regardless of any demographic measure.
That doesn't even get into how I'm forced to put up with people's screaming brats anywhere I go. They don't even discipline them or shut them up or take them outside if they're being obnoxious. If I misbehave, I'm thrown out. Parents should be required to keep their children decently behaved or get thrown out. If I ever thought about acting the way some of these brats behave in stores, I would have been dead.
Originally posted by ZoomZoom Diva:
Everybody should pay the same percentage of his or her income in taxes regardless of any demographic measure.
Wrong. No individual should be paying income tax. IC was imposed on the American people in 1862 as an 'emergency' measure to fund the Civil War. In 1895 the U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled that the income tax was unconstitutional because it was not apportioned among the states by population in conformity with Constitutional requirements. In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system.
Gripe to the government about that! Repeal the 16th Amendment!!
I support the income tax as the fairest and most ethical form of taxation, as a proportional income tax has each person pays his or her share and the amount is not discriminatory based on demographics or behavior.
Originally posted by ZoomZoom Diva:
I support the income tax as the fairest and most ethical form of taxation, as a proportional income tax has each person pays his or her share and the amount is not discriminatory based on demographics or behavior.
I prefer the burden be shifted to businesses - especially businesses that are not based in the USA. Some considerable amount of profits taken by foreign companies should remain here in the states as part of the price they pay for access to our huge consumer market.
Income is income. That includes corporate taxes and the share of net income based on share of sales for foreign companies doing business in the U.S. Tax it all at the same flat rate.
The reason I don't recommend doing it based on profits in the U.S. market is because a multinational could easily shift expenses so the U.S. unit never turns a profit.
Originally posted by ZoomZoom Diva:
I believe that the extra services they consume (particularly the $8000+ a year for 12 or 13 years) as enough public investment into our future and enough subsidization of parents. Giving them tax breaks so they don't even pay their fair share towards society is just excessive.
You chose to have children, nobody forced it on you, so don't force the expense on me. If you can't afford to raise them without discriminatory tax breaks, then you shouldn't be having them in the first place.
Everybody should pay the same percentage of his or her income in taxes regardless of any demographic measure.
That doesn't even get into how I'm forced to put up with people's screaming brats anywhere I go. They don't even discipline them or shut them up or take them outside if they're being obnoxious. If I misbehave, I'm thrown out. Parents should be required to keep their children decently behaved or get thrown out. If I ever thought about acting the way some of these brats behave in stores, I would have been dead.
Cheers to this post!
I pay property taxes and gladly accept that I am helping kids become educated. I spend an awful lot of my tax money on causes I don't support, I sure as hell am not going to complain about paying a little to help kids. On a side note, this thread has taken a serious tangent.
Originally posted by Pete D:
Originally posted by ZoomZoom Diva:
I believe that the extra services they consume (particularly the $8000+ a year for 12 or 13 years) as enough public investment into our future and enough subsidization of parents. Giving them tax breaks so they don't even pay their fair share towards society is just excessive.
You chose to have children, nobody forced it on you, so don't force the expense on me. If you can't afford to raise them without discriminatory tax breaks, then you shouldn't be having them in the first place.
Everybody should pay the same percentage of his or her income in taxes regardless of any demographic measure.
That doesn't even get into how I'm forced to put up with people's screaming brats anywhere I go. They don't even discipline them or shut them up or take them outside if they're being obnoxious. If I misbehave, I'm thrown out. Parents should be required to keep their children decently behaved or get thrown out. If I ever thought about acting the way some of these brats behave in stores, I would have been dead.
Cheers to this post!
ARRRGH! I wholeheartedly agree!