Originally Posted By DVC_dad Evolution certainly does exist. Our genetic code evolves, through genetic mutation, which as you stated is a very different thing from natural selection. I dont argue against evolution in order to promote creation. It is possible that evolution is exactly how we crawled out of the prehistoric muck and mire. But to say evolution is the scientific explanation of how two single felled organisms ended up as humans; we are very far from getting to that point scientifically no matter how badly you want to say otherwise. And so what then? Lets say tomorrow evolution is proven scientifically with no room for debate. Evolution or creation...it still disproves nothing about the existence of a supreme being.
Originally Posted By X-san ***I can give you an extremely impressive list of individuals in history who believe in God, the Bible and creation. How about a vast majority of our founding fathers to start with?*** Certainly you could research up a long list of impressive people who believed in Zeus, too. How'd that work out?
Originally Posted By X-san ***it still disproves nothing about the existence of a supreme being*** you can't "disprove" something that is unprovable. you can't even disprove something that is currently beyond our means to prove. I think there is a race of telepathic fish people who breathe an ice cream atmosphere on the planet Shizu six billion and fifty light years from Earth. Prove me wrong.
Originally Posted By dshyates See DVC Dad, that is sort of what I'm saying. Einstein discovered evidence of the big bang, but could never accept the conclusions of his findings because he believed that it points to the existence of a "Genesis" moment. A "Let there be light" event. And he was an athiest who believed that the Universe "Is and always was". More recent finding show there was time before the "Big bang" and point to a theory of multiple explosion the contraction events. Where after a "Big Bang" event the matter of the Universe will only disperse to a certain point because of gravity and then starts to contract upon itself to a central point. Over and over again. Right now we have satellite arrays set to intercept the pre-big bang radio waves that are approaching us and then we will have a clue as to what was going on just prior to the Big Bang. And as far as Evolution goes there is a sect of Christians that accept evolution but see the miracle of life as proof of "guided" evolution. As you know it is called "Intelligent Design". At best I acknowledge that there could be a supreme being, but the one I think may exist has nothing to do with classical Christianity. At best I would be a Deist.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>You can call me crazy, but I can give you an extremely impressive list of individuals in history who believe in God, the Bible and creation.<< They (the Founding Fathers) owned slaves and crapped in a box outside. Sometimes people are wrong or uninformed about things, or don't have access to new technology. The so-called "issues" with evolution or science have long since been resolved. Anyone can pick up any number of books and read the explanations for the "issues" that are raised - gaps in the fossil record, the notion that evolution is just a "theory," etc. The problem is, religionists instead argue the same things that they argued 50 or even 100 years ago. But they don't bother to read the responses of scientists.
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn <They (the Founding Fathers) owned slaves and crapped in a box outside.> There you go. Go ahead and begin to discredit the Constitution. One day it will disappear because it will be forgotten; dismissed as a relic set of useless papers written by a bunch of men who are now dead. When the United States terminates, you'll know who's fault it will be.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>There you go. Go ahead and begin to discredit the Constitution.<< You should probably respond to what I actually say instead of inventing something. I did not bring up the Constitution or try and discredit it at all.
Originally Posted By dshyates Mark, W. has wiped his a$$ with the constitution since he got into office. He has done more damage to our constitutional rights than any individual in the history of this country. I am a constitutionalist and what W. has done is inexcusable, un-American, and dangerous.
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn <Mark, W. has wiped his a$$ with the constitution since he got into office. He has done more damage to our constitutional rights than any individual in the history of this country. I am a constitutionalist and what W. has done is inexcusable, un-American, and dangerous.> I say the same for Justice Hugo Black. I might agree with you with W. Prove it.
Originally Posted By dshyates Suspending the Writ of Habius Corpus and the over reaching powers of the Patriot Act are pretty obvious Constitutional abuses.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<W. has wiped his a$$ with the constitution since he got into office.>>> dshyates, did he put it back in the protective glass case when he was finished? Ewww...I may have to go see that next time I visit DC just to be sure you are telling the truth. Gross, I wonder if you can still read the words through the skid marks.
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn The Constitution is four sheets of sheepskin, not including the Bill of Rights. There should be plenty left over for Obama.
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn <Suspending the Writ of Habius Corpus and the over reaching powers of the Patriot Act are pretty obvious Constitutional abuses.> Explain the 'obvious'.
Originally Posted By X-san I'd be interested to hear that, specifically, as well (I believe it, but I'd like to see the point by point on this one). mrk, can you also provide a point by point on why it ISN'T a matter of Constitutional abuses? Or, at least, why it doesn't seem obvious to you?
Originally Posted By dshyates Here ya go; <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/06/AR2007090601438.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/...438.html</a> And for the second time that month: <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2007/09/judge_rules_provisions_of_patr.html" target="_blank">http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/...atr.html</a> And yesterday the Supreme Court took steps to restore the Writ of Habius Corpus: <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/12/scotus/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/...dex.html</a>
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn Honestly, I agree. The past two presidents did not conform to the requirements of the Constitution. But think of it this way: The president and congress do indeed have the power to execute laws that do not conform to the requirements of the Constitution and its amendments. Only after rulings of the Supreme Court do actions of the executive and legistlature enter the identity of "unconstitutional". Is it bad? yes. Do they have the power to do it? yes.
Originally Posted By dshyates So W. knowingly did things that he knew to be un-Constitutional and knew they would be struck by the Supremes. As I said he wiped his a$$ with the constitution. He has done more things that have been deemed un-constitutional than any other President ever. All the while claiming to be patriotic and wrapping himself with the flag while crapping on the one thing that makes America great, the U. S. Constitution. While Mark is cheering "You go, Buddy." Whatever! Americans don't torture people, imprison without due process, or spy on our own citizens.
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn I'd say FDR and Lincoln did more than Bush in these regards. Where did I cheer "Go Buddy!"? I didn't vote for Bush, either time.
