Flare Sci-Fi Forums: New Mexico Changes Creation / Evolution Policy

This is topic New Mexico Changes Creation / Evolution Policy in forum The Flameboard at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/11/302.html

Posted by Charles Capps (Member # 9) on :

http://cnn.com/US/9910/09/schools.evolution.ap/index.html

Seems Kansas has had an interesting impact on the New Mexico school boards...

'Bout well time.

------------------
Avon: "You really do believe in taking risks, don't you?"
Tarrant: "Calculated risks."
Avon: "Calculated on what? Your fingers?"
-- Blake's Seven, Ultraworld

Posted by LOA (Member # 49) on :

*reads article*

*sigh*

------------------
So far in life I've learned two things are certain:

1) There IS a God
2) You're not Him!

Posted by RW (Member # 27) on :

Thanks for the info. I'll put it in my "places where not to go for the next 50 years until they have developed" book.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Waitaminnit. NM REMOVED The idiotic "Give Creationism Equal Time" clause! THAT'S what the article says!

Reason defeats Superstition!

JOY!!!

Seriously. Giving equal time to creationism is like having a sex-ed class in which you must give equal time to the theory that the STORK delivers babies.

------------------
"We shall not yield to you, nor to any man." -- Freak, The Mighty.

[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited October 10, 1999).]

Posted by Jubilee (Member # 99) on :

About Damn time.... leave creationism in the church where it belongs.

------------------
"...when all that is driving my heart forward
is you, thoughts of you, hopes for you,
and a fading dream with a Mona Lisa smile
that whispers "are you thinking of me too?"

41 days till the dreams become reality...

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

Still, even in that article it says that evolution is the idea that we are decended from apes. Jeez, Darwin was sick of having to dield that one. 'We have a common ancestor' he'd say. 'So you're saying that we were all monkeys originally?' they'd say. 'No, but we were once an ape-like species, some of which evolved into modern apes, some of which evolved into humans' he'd say. 'So, we used to eat bananas and scratfh our armpits then?' they'd say. 'ARGGGHHHH' he'd say.

------------------
Cordellia: "Well, does looking at guns make you wanna have sex?"
Xander: "I'm seventeen. Looking at linoleum makes me wanna have sex."

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

*Opens his mouth and is about to say something*

*Changes his mind and follows LOA's example*

*sigh*

*Changes his mind again when he sees the senseless sentance in 1of2's post*

Look, 1of2, no offence here, but that sentance about sexEd and the stork is completely eronius (SP?) and such a thing can not be compaired to CvsE in any way. Sexual reproduction is an observable biological process, which can be prooven to be true, whereas Evolution is a completely unobservable, unproovable, mathematically impossible biological process. And before someone brings up the "Evolution has been observed in a lab" arguement, I mean the origin of life from non-living matter, and its subsequent changes into different species, which has NOT been observed.

And there's nothing idiotic about the clause. Teaching only one would be no different than the hypothetical circumstances of there being two unproovable unified field theories and only teaching one or the other as absolute truth. Neither Creationism or Evolutionism can be prooven. If, however, one can be disprooven, it could be taught that the other is the only valid theory in existance, but still ONLY A THEORY.

*Notices RW, whom he never recalls seeing before*

*Reads profile*

Aah! You've only been here a couple months longer than I have, and yet you've posted over 600 times! Where are all your posts, that we've never run into each other?

------------------
"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people . . ." To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."
- Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1791

Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :

"If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?
George Carlin

------------------
"One Tequila, Two Tequila, Three Tequila, Floor". George Carlin

Posted by LOA (Member # 49) on :

*just sighs again*

------------------
Can't we all just get along????

Posted by Warped1701 (Member # 40) on :

Omega: You are quite correct in that Creationism nor Evolution can be conclusively proven, at this time. If studied over a long enough period of time, Evolution could be proven or disproven. However, evolution can be taught in the classroom, while creationism cannot. Why, you ask? A little thing in the US constitution called separation of church and state. Legally speaking, no public funded school can teach creationism inside it's doors. Whether one likes it or not, that's the way it is.

------------------
"I see you have the ring. And that your Schwartz is as big as mine!
-Dark Helmet, Spaceballs

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

unobservable... except that it's been observed numerous times. Of course, you've already discounted those examples with... um.. well, not much, really.
unprovable.. see the above.

mathematically impossible.. well, I don't know where you get that, but I'd bet against it in a horse race.

creation, on the other hand, cannot be and has not been observed, for obvious reasons.

come to think of it, I've never actually OBSERVED a baby being put inside its mother's belly.. maybe that whole sperm and egg thing is just a smokescreen... maybe the baby was always there, and there was just some change in the mother's environment that produced it...
and where is the mathematic equation that proves that two undifferentiated cells can form a complete being?

ah, Creationist logic. like throwing snowballs at a burning building.

Anyway, e's right. You can't teach it in schools because it's ILLEGAL, anyway. Offering support for a religiously-oriented supposition, with equal historical evidence as any other gods-and-giants creation myth, without insisting on covering ALL others, is a CLEAR violation.

Oh, and I'll see your Jefferson quote, and raise you mine.

------------------
'In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to Liberty; he is always in allegiance to the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own." ---- Thomas Jefferson

[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited October 11, 1999).]

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

I don't have any nifty Jefferson quotes.

I will point out that I pointed out the answer to that "mathmatically unpossible" answer in the last thread to go over all this.

------------------
I do indeed and shall continue
Dispatch the shiftless man to points beyond
--
Soul Coughing

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Warped:

"A little thing in the US constitution called separation of church and state."

There is no such thing. The only thing in the constitution relating to religion is the first sentence of the first ammendment. "Congress whall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." All that says is that the US government can't have anything to do with religion (and it could be interpreted that an individual state could in theory establish a state religion, but that's for another thread). It's freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. That also means that if the US government tries to pass any law pertaining to the teaching of evolution OR creation, I'll be so annoyed that I will personally take it to the supreme court and have the law overturned, but, again, another topic. Anyway, as far as the constitution is concerned, a state could teach Shinto in its schools and the national government couldn't do a thing about it. At least not legally, as if that matters to the current Atourney General and her boss.

1of2:

"Of course, you've already discounted those examples with... um.. well, not much, really."

Examples of one species changing directly into another? I don't recall. Care to refresh my memory?

"mathematically impossible.. well, I don't know where you get that, but I'd bet against it in a horse race."

I'm refering to the origin of life in this case. the amount of data in ONE average chromosome (anybody know in bytes?) could NOT in any reasonable hypothesis have formed into a usable physical shape, much less in the proper order to function as the effective programming of a metabolizing, self-replecating organism. That would be like telling a computer to spit out random ones and zeros and the ones and zeros just happening to be a Mac OS that would completely blow OS9 away, only far more unlikely.

"come to think of it, I've never actually OBSERVED a baby being put inside its mother's belly"

The point is that you COULD observe it, if you so chose (and you could get some willing subjects).

"where is the mathematic equation that proves that two undifferentiated cells can form a complete being?"

You don't need one. All the genetic data already exists. It's just a matter of combining it. The mathematical point I was making is described above.

"ah, Creationist logic. like throwing snowballs at a burning building."

Yeah, but YOU are the ones throwing the snowballs.

"Anyway, e's right."

No, e's not. See above. I would agree, however, that creationism shouldn't be taught arbitrarily any more than evolution should. How about this: if there is a significant number of students in a school that wish to have a certain religion taught, then the school should set up an OPTIONAL class to teach that religion. So if you live in an area where most people in your school are Bhudists, then the school would teach Bhudism, but you wouldn't be forced to take it, or penalized if you didn't. You could even have two or three different classes for different religions, if you had enough students willing to attend to fill the rooms to a reasonable degree. And I'm including evolutionism in the class "religion" for the purposes of this theory, so if a significant group of students wanted a class on evolution, then a class would be set up to teach it.

"In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to Liberty; he is always in allegiance to the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own."

Agreed. There are, however, very few religions with actual priests any more. Priests had (have?) actual power over their "subjects'" (for lack of a better word) actions relating to anything. If you don't do what they say, you're excommunicated (or burned at the stake, depending on what era you're living in).

Yours, and two more.

"They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
- Thomas Jefferson to
Dr. Benjamin Rush, September 23, 1800

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God, because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
- Thomas Jefferson

"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive."
- Thomas Jefferson

[This message has been edited by Omega (edited October 11, 1999).]

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

"ah, Creationist logic. like throwing snowballs at a burning building."

Yeah, but YOU are the ones throwing the snowballs.

So, Creationist logic is a burning building?

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"I can't find any good quotations." - Frank G

[This message has been edited by The Shadow (edited October 11, 1999).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

OK, I should have seen that coming. I don't think I understood the original statement too well, but I mean that it's your building that's burning, and you're trying to put it out with snowballs.

Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :

Charles: How about a forum or two just for those who want to debate religon? Leave it invisable, and anyone who mentions religon can be directed there. Omega and First of Two could be mods of heaven and hell. (First of Two haveing his own private hell would be ironic)

------------------
"One Tequila, Two Tequila, Three Tequila, Floor". George Carlin

Posted by RW (Member # 27) on :

Oh man, a religious debate once again. Lemme see if I can put this straight in my head. So what follows is not a lecture, it's me trying to make sense to myself:

There are two theories in this case, there are more no doubt, but these are the ones concerned:

1. An omnipotent being created the universe exactly as it is now.

2. Matter suddenly burst into being, formed into all the celstial bodies including earth. On this earth now, life grew out of chemicals and evolved over time, and is still evolving and will not stop.

Now I admit that both are theories. They both leave something to be desired. The evolutionary idea has some key points that need to be addressed, and is, at best, a bad theory. Creationism though, although from a purely scientifical point of view, maybe, just as likely, to me makes even less sense. It has not even circumstantial evidence, but that's really not the point: it doesn't need to be proven, it is taught as the truth. More people should realise though, neither is the truth. Maybe there is a god after all. But to me, that is extremely unlikely. That's a choice I make. The whole evolution theory though, has valid points that are very likely to be true. Maybe, in a few years, we can perfect the theory even further. So I accept those as the closest we can get to the truth. So. Aha. I think I now understand what I think. :]

Posted by Baloo (Member # 5) on :

I, for one, do not believe the universe is less than 10,000 years old. If it is, God is a liar. There are some who completely discount the theory of evolution simply because it does not square with their chosen cosmology.

I, for one, prefer to accept that evolution appears to explain some elements of the world as we know it. I also accept that the term "species" is a man-made term. It does not necessarily follow that "God's creatures breed true to their "kinds" rules out that a "kind" might span several species, as we understand the term. Since chimpanzees share 98% of human DNA, it would seem to imply that even if God doesn't "experiment", he certainly does like to recycle designs that work well.

"Opposable thumbs? Hmmm... I like that. Let's give hands to the apes and monkeys, too. See? Isn't that precious?
Okay! Last batch! Get me some dirt!"

And now a complete nonsequitor: Just before I replied to this thread, I clicked on a "cars.com" ad and it opened in a new window! Now that's a miracle!

--Baloo

------------------
My mind wanders, but don't worry. It's weak and can't get very far.
--Steve Allen
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/

[This message has been edited by Baloo (edited October 11, 1999).]

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :

Actually, it is NOT illegal to teach creationism in the classrooms... Its just that the government won't be able to support the school that does through aid and subsidies etc.

------------------
Capcoms Forever! Long Live the Great and Almight Capcom!

Posted by Warped1701 (Member # 40) on :

Refusing to fund school districts because they teach religion in their classes, is an economic version of separation of church and state. The reason for the separation between church and state is simple. The founding Fathers took into account the problems that were caused by having the church and the state being one in the same.

Do you see the church involved in government? Not in any official capacity. (The Christan Coalition, ACLU, etc. do not count)

Do you see the church involved in schools? Unless it's a private religious school, no again.

And if there was no such thing as separation of church and state, why is there all the hubub about a District Court judge ruling that there can be no prayer before football games, because it violates Separation of Church and State. Find me somewhere in the US Constitution where it says that the church and the state are one in the same, and I will stand corrected.

------------------
"Give me liberty, or give me death!"
- Patrick Henry

[This message has been edited by Warped1701 (edited October 11, 1999).]

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

*is going to try and look up the State Constitution of Virginia, which I believe Jefferson drafted, and see what IT says about supporting religion at the state/local level.*

Till then, more thoughts of the founding fathers:

"But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes." -- John Adams

"...denominated a Deist, the reality of which I have never disputed, being conscious I am no Christian." -- Ethan Allen

"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies." -- Benjamin Franklin

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming virtue." -- Thomas Jefferson

"Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and the first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus." -- ibid.

"... but the Bible is such a book of lies and contradictions there is no knowing which part to believe..." -- Thomas Paine

But the most relevant are these:

"No citizen shall be compelled to frequent of support any religious worship or ministry whatsoever..." -- Thomas Jefferson. ("support" would most likely be interpreted to include using taxpayer money to fund religious instruction in schools)

"A professorship of Theology should have no place at our Institution [the University of Virginia]." -- ibid. (Here we see that Jefferson was opposed to the teaching of theology of any kind in the University he helped found.)

Given the context and the statements, I think It's likely safe to say that the founding fathers did not intend for ANY government, federal, state, OR local, to have ANY dealing with religion whatsoever. It's also a pretty strong blow to the popular supposition that the U.S. was founded upon "Christian" ideals.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Kosh:

Me likes!

RW:

Oh, good! Someone admits that it's a bad theory. Now if I can just convince you that it's completely unsalvagable...

Baloo:

"I, for one, do not believe the universe is less than 10,000 years old. If it is, God is a liar."

Uh, wha? I don't have any clue what you're talking about here.

A good theory would explain everything that can be observed pertaining to it, not just some things. It would also make predictions that can be tested. Evolution does neither of these.

Jeff:

"Its just that the government won't be able to support the school that does through aid and subsidies etc."

Do you mean the national government? If so, they have no business supporting the educational system in the first place.

Warped:

"And if there was no such thing as separation of church and state, why is there all the hubub about a District
Court judge ruling that there can be no prayer before football games, because it violates Separation of Church and State"

There's a difference between saying that the government can't support religion and saying that any state-funded institution has to be atheistic. US District Court had no legal authority in such a ruling, anyway, because, as I have said, the National Government has no authority whatsoever over the educational system. The case should have stopped at the state level.

Posted by Jubilee (Member # 99) on :

*wonders if Charles knew what he was starting*

------------------
"...when all that is driving my heart forward
is you, thoughts of you, hopes for you,
and a fading dream with a Mona Lisa smile
that whispers "are you thinking of me too?"

41 days till the dreams become reality...

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

"I know you Lord are a jealous Lord. I know the tablet is your competition."
--
M. Doughty

You know, some days go by where I simply have to lean my head out the window and roar at oncoming traffic all the way down the freeway. This is apparently one of those days. Between people apparently willfully ignoring detailed responses to issues brought up before, to my role in all this being completely marginalized because I'm not controversial enough, I'm beginning to wonder what exactly the point is? (That second example was a joke, folks. No sympathy cards or Molotov cocktails, please. )

However, as I believe someone more intelligent than I once said, "their's not to reason why". And so we continue.

First of all, we approach Omega's interpretation of the Constitution, which I have boldly called a bit off in the past, and shall continue to do so here. Assuming for a moment that we ignore Founder intent, which is silly, as that makes up a good portion of any Constitutional case, we still must contend with 200 years of that seperation being held as implicit within the spirit of the document. Often by very religious Judges, I should add. Why? Because it cannot be a one way street. The Constitution of Libya happens to include a very similar statement. The state is forbidden from interfering in the people's right to freely exercise the religion of their choice. Of course, that doesn't prevent religion from taking over the state and turning the whole place into a rather draconian affair, wherein you can worship whatever God you choose so long as his name starts with an A and ends with an llah. (My apologies to any Muslim members of the board, BTW. I don't mean to imply that Islam justifies this sort of thing. Simply that it does indeed occur.)

A quick glance of history shows that whenever the forces of religion are allowed to intermingle with the affairs of the state the effects are usually quite disasterous. Jesus himself warns against this. Even when, or perhaps especially when, the religion being pushed is your own. Take a look at poor Rome. Sure, Christianity preached neighborly love and all that. And hey, wouldn't having a nice guy who believed in that running the place be a good idea? The answer, as learned over a period of a thousand years, is a resounding no.

And now, a few examples of observed speciation:

Evening Primrose
Kew Primrose
Trapopogonan
Raphanobrassica
Hemp Nettle
Madia citrigracilis
Brassica

Just a few. All plants by the way, for the simple reason that change in animals takes longer. (Er, that, and I only looked up the plants. )

Omega then gives an analogy regarding the unlikeliness of chromosomes coming together randomly. I've already posted about this the last time we had this debate, and no one bothered to say anything. I assumed this was because I was believed, but apparently I was simply ignored. Therefore, in the interests of completeness, I shall state it again.

One, evolution is not a random process, and any belief that it is is so off base as to render meaningfull debate on the topic almost impossible. Evolution follows a strict set of natural laws. That's why it's called a science. Two, the analogy is used of the MacOS "coming together at random". First of all, this depends on your opinion of the Mac, but I digress.

Second of all, the assumption is again made that evolution is working from nothing each and everytime. That is not true. Evolution keeps what works and discards what doesn't. Simple. By using that process in an otherwise "random" computer, one can generate the line "tobeornottobe" in something like several seconds. All of Hamlet can be generated in a few days. Not an infinite amount of time.

My turn now to draw up an unwieldy analogy. Let's say that my local school board was run by Holocaust revisionists. So they decide that all reference to the Holocaust should be deleted from the World War II history course. Not on the grounds that they have anything against Jews, mind you. Simply because the class didn't give equal time to those who would claim that the Holocaust was merely a fantasy concocted by the Zionist conspiricy. Is this right? They have the majority, don't they?

Or would we say that a school has some obligation to teach what can be proven and demonstrated, and not bend over to support whatever beliefs are currently in vogue? Calling for equal time for creationism in school is the same as calling for equal time for Holocaust denial in history classes, or hollow earth theories in geology class, or crystal sphere theories in astronomy class.

RW: You're mixing your signals. The Big Bang has nothing to do with biology, but quite a lot to do with cosmology and astronomy. At any rate, there is evidence that undeniably points towards such an event. The universe does not care whether we are comfortable with that thought or not.

What Baloo is talking about is rather blindingly obvious. There is an entire universe of evidence out there indicating that things have been around for quite some time. Now either that evidence has been purposefully designed to trick us, which certainly doesn't match up with the idea of a benevolent God, or that evidence is what it is, and our beliefs must take that fact into account.

And evolution meets up with all the qualifications of a scientific theory. Please explain how it does not.

The rest is just rather typical anti guv'mint stuff, and not really in the scope of this argument. (As I see it, anyway.)

------------------
"Quadrilateral I was, now I warp like a smile."
--
Soul Coughing

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Sol:

OK, first, my interpretation of the US Constitution. I see the constitution as a contract between the states and the national government. When a territory ratifies the constitution and becomes a state, it effectively says "We will send representatives, pay taxes, and do everything the constitution says we must. We will also agree not to do what the constitution say we can not, such as make a treaty with another nation. If an ammendment is ratified by 2/3 of the states, we agree to accept it as part of this contract, whether we ratified it or not." The US government, which, by its very nature, must hold to the terms of the contract, says "OK, we'll provide for your defence, and all the other things the constitution says we must do, and we won't do anything the constitution tells us not to do." The problem with all these programs I don't like is a clause in this contract saying that the national government has no power not granted it in the constitution. The states agreed to do what the national government said WITHIN THE LIMITS of the constitution, and the US government, by virtue of the tenth ammendment's very existance, agrees to the same thing. Thus the national government should have no power not explicitly granted in the constitution.

I believe all the examples of specitation you gave are hybrids of pre-existing species, correct? That doesn't constitution evolution in my book. No new genetic material, just a recombination of old material into a new pattern.

As for the randomness of chromosome origin, I don't think you understood me. I was refering to the original formation of the first cell. Even if it only had one chromosome, the amount of data stored in that one would still be enormous. There would only be a certain number of DNA patterns that would make the cell a self-sustaining organism (say, 1,000,000,000; probably a gross overestimate, but I'll be nice). There are so many possible permutations of DNA in that one chromosome that the chances of hitting on any one of those billion by any random process are not significantly different from zero.

What do you mean, Evolution isn't random? Something is tried, and if it doesn't work, something else is tried. Sounds random to me.

You're right. Your analogy is unwieldy. The Haulocaust happened. There is physical evidence to back it up. There are pictures. There are survivors still alive today. Evolution has no physical evidence that isn't misinterpreted. There are no witnesses. N concievable test can be performed to show it to be true. My idea for teaching religion in optional classes relates to things that are scientificly unproovable.

"Calling for equal time for creationism in school is the same as calling for equal time for Holocaust denial in history classes, or hollow earth theories in geology class, or crystal sphere theories in astronomy class."

Again, evidence in favor of Holocaust, solid Earth, and Heliocentrism, and against denial, hollow Earth, and crystal sphere. Evolution has no evidence for it, and much evidence against it. Creation has none either way. Neither should be taught as absolute fact.

"At any rate, there is evidence that undeniably points towards such an event [as the big bang]."

Such as? I've heard none that can't be explained as something else.

"What Baloo is talking about is rather blindingly obvious. There is an entire universe of evidence out there indicating that things have been around for quite some time. Now either that evidence has been purposefully designed to trick us, which certainly doesn't match up with the idea of a benevolent God, or that evidence is what it is, and our beliefs must take that fact into account."

How many times do I have to point out that it's possible that the supposed evidence is being misinterpreted, and that you may just be wrong!? This is, what, the third time? Can you just not admit the possibility that what you're being told is WRONG?

"And evolution meets up with all the qualifications of a scientific theory. Please explain how it does not."

I already did. "A good theory would explain everything that can be observed pertaining to it, not just some things. It would also make predictions that can be tested. Evolution does neither of these."

I'm not anti-government. I'm anti-government-expanding-beyond-the-boundries-stated-in-the-constitution.

Posted by Elim Garak (Member # 14) on :

Jubes: Somehow, I doubt he did...

The words "evolution" and "creation" and Pandora's Boxes around here.

------------------
Elim Garak: "Oh, it's just Garak. Plain, simple Garak. Now, good day to you, Doctor. I'm so glad to have made such an... interesting new friend today." (DS9: "Past Prologue")

Posted by HMS White Star (Member # 174) on :

Actually anything having to do with Christianity is Padora's box

Well Sure Omega that's how the government is supposed to work and let's be honest, yes the federal government is in direct violation of the Constitution. The trouble is the only damaged party (the states) aren't taking there troubles to the Supreme Court, why, I believe the term is "Show me the Money", or the Feds are giving the states tons of money to let them ignore that there rights are being violated. Of course there is the interstate commerce clause with has been bent to some really weird areas to allow the federal government to do what they want (I not say that's bad, I am just saying that that the interstate commerce clause should only cover...interstate commerce, however the one time it was used to make owning a gun illegal with 1000 feet from a school, what the hell does that have to do with interstate commerce [yes I know that law got struck down, thank God] in other areas it has been helpful, but a line must be drawn).
O yes RW is a long time member he's been here...a while.

------------------
HMS White Star (your local friendly agent of Chaos and a d*mn lucky b*st*rd:-) )

Posted by Montgomery (Member # 23) on :

Actually, I think it's more a case of whenever the Constitution is mentioned you start getting lengthy posts, the sound of Pandora's boxes being opened creakily and the rush for the door by all the European posters.

------------------
"FOOLS! Will I have to kill them ALL?!?!"

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

"Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever."
--
The Baron Munchausen

"They're like two positively charged ions!"
--
Milhouse

I'd like to start out with another amusing anecdote, but I'm afraid my mind is preoccupied with thoughts of schoolwork, love, poetry, and other things that would ban me from the city of New York. So, are we doing the five minutes or the full half-hour?

I couldn't help but notice this tidbit pop out at me from the section regarding the Constitution.

"The problem with all these programs I don't like..." (Emphasis mine.)

But the Federal programs you do like, those can spend all the money in the world, eh? Screw the space program, unless it's building Star Wars?

This is, of course, a fundamental problem with the partisan mentality as a whole. No one ever has any real solution. My grandfather will spend hours detailing the horrible liberal plot to destroy private business and turn the nation into the socialist home of the Antichrist. But by God, those drug companies charge too much! There should be a law! True solutions to our problems can only come when we begin to recognize the value of good ideas, regardless of their source.

Furthermore, I am curious as to the source of the presumption that smaller government leads to an increase in personal freedom. It is personal freedom that is our goal, yes? Because states' rights for the sake of states' rights is a silly thing indeed. Please point out some examples of small governments providing more freedom historically. As I've said before, I'll take the independant Federal Marshall over the "old boys' network" Sheriff any day.

"I believe all the examples of specitation you gave are hybrids of pre-existing species, correct? That doesn't constitution evolution in my book. No new genetic material, just a recombination of old material into a new pattern."

First of all, no. Second of all, changing your definitions every ten seconds doesn't exactly make for a very convincing position.

"As for the randomness of chromosome origin, I don't think you understood me. I was refering to the original formation of the first cell."

Well, that's the problem, then. What exactly are you getting this from? Where does the idea that the structure of a chromosome sprang whole from Zeus' thigh come from? Again, you aren't actually bothering to address what evolution really says. Merely what you want it to say in order to advance your own position.

I'm afraid my Holocaust analogy is perfectly accurate. There is plenty of evidence confirming it, yes. However, Holocaust deniers construct arcane methods to deny every bit of it. Gas traces in the ground? False readings. Eyewitness accounts? Poorly remembered wartime events. Does this pattern sound at all familiar to you?

"How many times do I have to point out that it's possible that the supposed evidence is being misinterpreted, and that you may just be wrong!? This is, what, the third time? Can you just not admit the possibility that what you're being told is WRONG?"

Could you perhaps calm down? First of all, I would burst out laughing if I didn't break down crying first. I'm saying that multiple independant studies all indicate that life has evolved from more primitive ancestors. You're saying that a magical book told you that everything appeared in a week a few years before the foundation of Egyptian civilization. And I'm the one who cannot admit that I might be wrong? Science is based on the principle that things can be disproved. I have over the course of this argument had to conceed several points, almost always due to mistakes I made while researching. You, on the other hand, simply ignore things, or change the nature of the subject.

Your argument against evolution seems to boil down to three or four basic points.

1.) Evolution offends your religious beliefs: For this, I am deeply and honestly sorry. But some things don't go away when you stop believing in them. Darwin should present no more of a threat to your beliefs than Copernicus.

2.) There were no witnesses, hence nothing can be determined: Clearly wrong, given just a basic understanding of how science works. It's called interpolation and extrapolation. Remarkably useful tools. It's how Newton could say beyond a reasonable doubt that gravity effects the moon in the same way it does an apple, even though he had never been to the moon and had no way of observing its motion completely. If you honestly want to judge science in this way, you must cast ALL of it out. Every textbook, every theory...everything. Because the very nature of science demands that nothing can be known for certain. It can merely be confirmed to the point where to withhold agreement would be foolish based on the evidence.

3.) Every bit of evidence ever produced in favor of evolution is a lie: I'm tempted to trot out Mr. Sagan's famous quote regarding extraordinary claims. Not one scientist believes in God? Not one scientist is antagonistic enough to his fellows to want to find holes in their theory?

I think an honest examination of evolutionary theory clearly shows that it has been hotly debated by the scientific community since its introduction. Scientists still don't agree on all of the mechanisms. But the fact that it does indeed happen is confirmed beyond reasonable doubt by uncountable numbers of independant inquiries.

Oh, and your definition of a theory is only partially correct. Classical mechanics cannot explain the actions of every object in the universe. Does this mean Newton was in on some bizarre calculus conspiricy? No. It simply means that over time our understanding has grown to include things the original theory could not. Classical mechanics works for the everyday universe. Relativity works for things traveling very fast, and for the rest of the of the macroscopic universe. Quantum mechanics works for the microscopic universe. Someday quantum gravity will likely tie all those together. Does that mean that our old equation of F=MA is false? Of course not. It simply doesn't hold true for every possibility.

Is evolutionary theory the be all and end all on the subject? No. It seems very likely that our understanding will continue to grow on this topic here too. But the fundamentals stay the same.

------------------
"Quadrilateral I was, now I warp like a smile."
--
Soul Coughing

(Holy HTML, Batman!)

[This message has been edited by Sol System (edited October 13, 1999).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

"Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever."
--
The Baron Munchausen

I'll have to remember this one. I like it.

"But the Federal programs you do like, those can spend all the money in the world, eh? Screw the space program, unless it's building Star Wars?"

Point taken. I probably should have said "that I have a problem with." And you're right. I've never thought about even NASA not being provided for. Thus, to stay consistant, NASA shouldn't exist. You could probably find a loophole somewhere by placing NASA under indirect military control, and thus part of the national defence clause? I believe that is how it started. Or maybe, just maybe, if people want congress to do all these things that the constitution doesn't say that say they can do or create, they can pass an ammendment saying that the federal government can, in fact, do these things. I doubt many people would be opposed to an ammendment allowing for interstates, so it wouldn't be too much trouble to pass.

"Furthermore, I am curious as to the source of the presumption that smaller government leads to an
increase in personal freedom."

Simple. Less government programs, less government regulations for those programs, more freedom. Another idea of mine: Say welfare shut down on a national level and was picked up by most of the states. (I'm assuming that there would be one or two that didn't like welfare for some reason.) Each state would probably have different programs. If one state's failed, that state could try a program that another state is using. Eventually, all the states would end up using the best possible welfare system found for their own well-being. As it is, you've only got one governing body, and one country to try things in. One petri dish and sceintist instead of fifty pairs.

"Please point out some examples of small governments
providing more freedom historically."

Early US, maybe? Basically, the idea is that big governments that control everything are invariably opressive. Thus smaller government.

"First of all, no[, they weren't all hybrids]."

Ah. So can you describe the ones that weren't, please?

"Second of all, changing your definitions every ten seconds doesn't exactly make for a very convincing position."

Evolution can refer to many different things. You've pointed out one definition, I've used at least two others. I don't consider the combination of two existing species into a third Evolution because the two original species could reproduce to begin with, and would thus have to be scientifically classified as the same species.

"Where does the idea that the structure of a chromosome sprang whole from Zeus' thigh come from?"

Because I've never heard anyone give any better ideas, including you. What other possible explination could there be, by your theory? The only one I can think of is that billions and trillions of cells were, in fact, formed, but that only one or two had the proper DNA sequence to stay alive. Only that could offset the improbability of hitting the right combination. The problem here is that no one has any idea under what circumstances a single cell could form by itself, much less trillions of them.

"I'm afraid my Holocaust analogy is perfectly accurate. There is plenty of evidence confirming it, yes. However, Holocaust deniers construct arcane methods to deny every bit of it. Gas traces in the ground? False readings. Eyewitness accounts? Poorly remembered wartime events. Does this pattern sound at all familiar to you?"

Yes, actually. Do these people have a website? I'd like to actually look at their supposed evidence, and then decide. But first, assuming that they are, in fact, wrong, the problem here is that I could easily use the same analogy relating to you. They're trying to proove something, and when presented with evidence that their methods are flawed, they ignore it and keep going. So, yeah, I'd say it does sound familiar.

"Could you perhaps calm down?"

Sorry. My dad's got something like 40% hearing, and my brother is deaf in one ear (on top of being somewhat learning-impaired and responding to anything anyone says to him with "huh", or "wha?"), so I have to repeat things alot around here. Get's kind of annoying. Of course, if my dad didn't have bad hearing, he probably would have been sent to Vietnam and shot, and if my brother hadn't caught meningitis when he was two, I probably never have been born, so I guess I should count my blessings. Again, my apologies.

"I'm saying that multiple independant studies all indicate that life has evolved from more primitive ancestors."

Not all. I'm saying that multiple independant studies indicate that life did NOT evolve from more primitive ancestors. The only reason you accept the ones that say "Evolution" is because that's what you personally believe. Same with me. No one can be said to be objective. I, though, listen to the evidence and do my best to refute yours. Quite a bit of mine has been ignored. In the end, what our previous argument boiled down to was the fact that all the evidence you had was Archaeopteryx, which has been irrefutably shown to be false, and the skeletons from China, of which I know nothing, and thus can't say what they are. Tell me: what dating method was used to determine the age of archaeopteryx?

As for your points:

"1) Evolution offends your religious beliefs"

No. The teaching of Evolution as absolute fact in schools with no mention of other theories offends my sense of reason. You can believe what you want without affecting me, just don't try to shove it off on someone elses kids.

"2) There were no witnesses, hence nothing can be determined"

Ah, no. Nothing can be PROOVEN. Newton could assume that Earth's gravity affected the moon, and his assumption would have been logical and rational based on what he knew. If, however, there was something he didn't know or didn't take into account, he would have assumed something to be true, when it was in fact false. The only way to proove something outside mathematics is to see and measure it for yourself, and even then, your instruments can be out of calibration, your test-tubes could be dirty, or any number of other things. There's no way to truely PROOVE anything scientifically.

"3.) Every bit of evidence ever produced in favor of evolution is a lie"

Again, I've never said that. In fact, that's what I was ranting about in my last post. I've said that every bit of evidence ever produced in favor of evolution is being misinterpreted.

"Classical mechanics cannot explain the actions of every object in the universe. Does this mean Newton was in on some bizarre calculus conspiricy?"

What is it with you, anyway? Just because he didn't take something into account doesn't mean that he was part of a huge conspiracy. He just didn't know about what he wasn't taking into account. You say that if all evidence in favor of Evolution is misinterpreted, then there must be a huge conspiracy. It's possible that the evidence is simply being misinterpreted because people don't like to admit that they're wrong, and some will accept anything they're told if it lets them keep their theory. Even scientists can be wrong now and again, you know.

"Is evolutionary theory the be all and end all on the subject? No. It seems very likely that our understanding will continue to grow on this topic here too. But the fundamentals stay the same."

But even the fundamentals don't explain everything pertaning to them. My theory (spontaneous creation, decreasing c, hydroplate, flood, liquefication, etc.) does. It fits the evidence, and it makes predictions that can be tested. Yours does neither.

Posted by HMS White Star (Member # 174) on :

I impressed, we are having another C/E agruement...why does anyone try anymore, neither side will convince the other. I just throw up my hands and say forget it. I DON'T CARE. I don't care what people's beliefs are, what they do in private, or anything along those lines as long as no one gets hurt. Damn it life is to short to argue about stupid shit like this. *Double clicks on blinking Seti@home*, Let's talk about concert stuff like yesterday I saw I guy hit a telephone pole, break out his window and run from the cops. And my stupid shit manager helped the in capturing the guy (my manager is my friend he does stupid shit sometimes). That's real life not this stupid agrue about stuff that will never be resolved, Dang I going to write a story now.

------------------
Step 1: Become a senior member,
Step 2: ?,
Step 3: Global Domination.

[This message has been edited by HMS White Star (edited October 14, 1999).]

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

This is becoming laughable, so I'm shifting the focus a bit. The evolution debate has become pointless here. I'm to the point where I'm quite certain that Omega could not believe me if I punched him in the face, disappeared, and came back a week later and said "I punched you in the face," because he couldn't see any evidence of it, or where the primordial fist came from.

BTW, we already know its fallacious to assume that the cell as we know it is the least complex bit of life. Virii, mitochondria and self-replicating DNA are simpler. They are also hard to preserve, hence the paucity of microscopic fossils. I put it to you, though, that some cells are MUCH simpler than others (red blood cells, for example) and so a progress can be inferred.
Amino acids (known to exist primordially)
Proteins (believed to have)
Simple RNA / DNA
Complex RNA / DNA
Very simple cells
Viruses
Simple cells (red blood)
Mitochondria
Complex Cells
Microscopic life with specialization.

The ONLY example we don't have concrete evidince for (YET)is very simple cells.

But I digress...

Sol: Please point out some examples of small governments providing more freedom historically.

Omega: Early US, maybe? Basically, the idea is that big governments that control everything are invariably opressive. Thus smaller government.

ME: And the early US government FAILED MISERABLY. That's why it only lasted ten years. Each state under the Articles of Confederation acted selfishly, with no regard for the needs of the republic as a whole. They taxed each other to death, squabbled amongst themselves nearly to the point of armed conflict. And then there was Shay's Rebellion. The pre-constitutional government was stable for about 6 years, then things went rapidly downhill.

Regulation or chaos? You choose.

The "State's Rights" concept of government doesn't work. It never has. It didn't work for a small country of thirteen states, and it SURELY won't work on a huge country of fifty. Basically, it's taking power out of the hands on one regulatory machine, and giving it to a bunch of smaller ones even less equipped to handle it, and all working at cross-purposes. Kind of like the difference between a Indy race and a demolition derby.

Besides, I just posted a couple quotes on how the founding fathers made it clear that religion should be kept out of state institutions as well, so the strength of your argument from that angle evaporated before you made it.

[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited October 13, 1999).]

Posted by Warped1701 (Member # 40) on :

First is quite correct about the Articles of Confederation, and how it proves that small government is bad. When you take early US history, you learn why they failed, and it was because it put too little power in the hands of the government. Hell, they couldn't even raise an army to fight the Revolutionary War with! The only reason we won the war is because of the state's militias, which were only required to fight inside state borders, and foreign aid from France, Spain, and the Dutch. If America had followed the Articles of Confederation to the letter, there would most likely be a Union Jack flying over this nation. Small government doesn't work. The founding fathers knew it, scrapped the Articles of Confederation, and created the Constitution. As First said, would you prefer anarchy, or order?

------------------
"I see you have the ring. And that your Schwartz is as big as mine!
-Dark Helmet, Spaceballs

Posted by HMS White Star (Member # 174) on :

Hey a small vs. large governmental agruement I can live with this

Well what I believe Omega was speaking about in Small government refered to the pre-New Deal government before the Federal Government had so much power in the affairs of States (which under the current system is clearly unconstitutional, but the money given to States makes them not contest it, Can you say "Bribe").

Actually I don't know anymore I do want less government spending, but I don't want people to get hurt. Perhaps a reasonable compromise is if we can pay off some money on the principle on the national debt I would not care where the money when.

------------------
Step 1: Become a senior member,
Step 2: ?,
Step 3: Global Domination

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

1 o' 2:

Virii need a host, mitochondria can't live outside a cell, and self-replicating DNA has the same problems as a cell with but one chromosome would (see previous posts). And if protiens are so simple, why can't we create them in a lab? We can create a few types of amino acids (out of dozens that exist), so why not protiens? And how DO you know that amino acids existed primordially, anyway?

"And the early US government FAILED MISERABLY."

Check my reply to HMS.

"Besides, I just posted a couple quotes on how the founding fathers made it clear that religion should be kept out of state institutions as well, so the strength of your argument from that angle evaporated before you made it."

I'm not saying that a state SHOULD declare Shinto or whatever as their official religion. I'm just saying that if they did, the US government couldn't constitutionally do anything about it. Religion should have nothing to do with the state government, either. I agree with that. My problem is that the US government is sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.

Warped:

Again, see HMS reply.

HMS:

You got it, HMS. Before New Deal, not before constitution. And if the states get back their power, the debt WILL be paid off. If the government could stop spending so much money, they could drop taxes dramatically and STILL start paying off the debt.

Posted by bryce (Member # 42) on :

*thought CC banned C/E topics for a month*

Ya know, the debating I've done lately is Calvin's/Wesley's theology. I kinda like it that way and I have a mid-term in the morning! I'll say this: ANY religious belief will come from the "heart" not the mind.

I am carrying a 3.3 gpa or so right now, but my spiritual life is heading for the provost's list.

*got a 98 on his Torah test*

------------------
With 17 hours of class, guess what I'm doing.

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Why do I continue? Well, I could list a whole bunch of well thought out reasons, but I think I'll let Flansburgh speak for me.

"It was sweet, like lead paint is sweet."

As for the rest, I'll get to it later.

------------------
"Quadrilateral I was, now I warp like a smile."
--
Soul Coughing

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Charles banned anything having to do with religious views on sex for thirty days, bryce. This ban should lift on Oct. 29, if anyone cares.

Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :

You know, I've discovered something. There is life away from computer screens! Baseball, Football(Euro or American) Women/Men(depending on your preference), Food(I love Food). I think you are all fimilar with TV. Music(God, what I wouldn't give to live alone again, and turn up the volume), BEER, Cars!! And what do you guys do on pretty days like it is here today(Sunny, 70 degrees F) Argufy:to argue over; to argue stubornly; wrangle.
In the words of the greatest actor of our time:GET A LIFE.

just kidding about Shatner

------------------
"One Tequila, Two Tequila, Three Tequila, Floor". George Carlin

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

Wow.

You know, HMS kinda has a point there. No-one's convincing anyone here, despite well laid out arguments on certain peoples parts. so let's call it a day.

But...

There's nothing more infuriating than when someone refuses to agree with your viewpoint. It doesn't matter how much evidence you show them for it. It doesn't matter how much you can disprove their theories. They stubbornly refuse to believe it. And you keep arguning with them.

BTW, dirty pool you used a few posts back Omega. Using emotional stuff that isn't directly related to the argument isn't really gonna get Sol to agree with you now is it?

------------------
Cordellia: "Well, does looking at guns make you wanna have sex?"
Xander: "I'm seventeen. Looking at linoleum makes me wanna have sex."

Posted by Warped1701 (Member # 40) on :

HMS:

Though I will admit that big government isn't the best thing to ever come along, it has shown that it can be better than small government can. Before the New Deal, the government was small, and had little control over many things. That is true.

It is also true that before the New Deal, many territories were part of the "Wild West". And that "Wild West" (no reference to the movie ) was unlawful, and had no order. It took the involvement of the federal and state government to take gain control over the wild territories.

Before the New Deal was enacted, the US was in the middle of a deep depression. FDR's New Deal may have expanded the government, but it also ended the depression in less than 8 years. It provided jobs, and improved the country at the same time. That's what the New Deal, and increasing government involvement was all about. Though I will concede that somewhere along the way, someone misplaced those thoughtful ideals, in place of lining their pockets.

------------------
"I see you have the ring. And that your Schwartz is as big as mine!
-Dark Helmet, Spaceballs

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Omega, I really think we need to address this NASA issue. You make the claim that the Constitution prohibits the existance of the program. Do you seriously believe that it was the intent of the Founding Fathers to make sure that space travel would always remain an impossibility? The Constitution is not meant to act as a hinderance to freedom. Why do you think that to provide for NASA's existance we have to hand it over to the military? Isn't it possible, in some tiny, tiny way, that the world has changed just a little since the 1700's? I somehow doubt providing for space travel was high on the list of things to do at the Continental Congress. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be high on ours.

My point is, the Constitution is not meant to be a document permenently embedded in the Revolutionary era. I think it should be a constantly evolving guideline. And yet, ironically enough, I am completely opposed to almost every amendment idea to come down the pipe. Hence, your suggestion that we should amend the Constitution everytime we want to build a highway strikes me as being silly at best, and quite dangerous at worst.

------------------
"Quadrilateral I was, now I warp like a smile."
--
Soul Coughing

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

Never being one to miss out on a good Constitutional argument I must comment. But first I haven't read this thread for a couple of days because, well because I thought it was going to come down to my religious dogma can beat up your scientific research any day.

Firstly: "Before the New Deal, the government was small, and had little control over many things. That is true." isn't exactly true. With every major military conflict that the United States engaged in, the government grew. The major growth of the U.S. government came with the Civil War. The New Deal era represents the culmination of events that began with the necessity of saving the Union or loosing the American experiment in democracy forever.

Moreover, the regulatory powers of the government began in earnest in the 1890's. As the people of the U.S. learned that the unchecked growth of corporate robber barrons constituted a serious threat to the health and saftey of the people who worked for them.

Which leads to a point that a strict literal interpretation of the Constitution is bollocks, and remains the fantasy of the right-wing. The beauty of the Constitution is that is has survived for so long because the framers left leeway in the document that allows it to grow and to come to terms with modernity.

The framers were wise enough to understand that the future would bring events that people like an Adams or a Jefferson could never invision in their strangest dreams. Take the creation of the atomic bomb for example. Does the 2nd Amendment cover in terms of specific languange that I, as a memeber of a "well regulated militia" can have one in my basement? Hmm, not covered. I'll put one on my shopping list.

In a very real way, in the federal system of the United States, there exists the primacy of the Federal Government over the individual states to insure that the body lives inspite of the resistance of the foot.

The Preamble reads "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish the Constitution of the United States of America." The healthy polity of the United States rests on the balance of vague phrases and specific language of the Constitution...and the living, expanding intrepretation thereof.

------------------
What good is money if it can't inspire terror in your fellow man?
~C. Mongomery Burns

[This message has been edited by Jay (edited October 15, 1999).]

Posted by Coddman (Member # 10) on :

Barf! Barf! BARF!

------------------
...Approaching the big 250...

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Warped:

"Before the New Deal was enacted, the US was in the middle of a deep depression. FDR's New Deal may have
expanded the government, but it also ended the depression in less than 8 years. It provided jobs, and
improved the country at the same time. That's what the New Deal, and increasing government involvement was
all about. Though I will concede that somewhere along the way, someone misplaced those thoughtful ideals, in
place of lining their pockets."

I think you've just found our problem. The government has to have limited economic control, in order to prevent depressions and such. I think that this is what was meant by Article I, Section VIII: "The Congress shall have the Power To... provide for the... general Welfare of the United States". My belief is that this was intended to give the Congress leeway in case they have to do something before they can pass an ammendment. It's a short-term measure only. The entire problem is that this one sentance gives completely boundless power to the national government. Congress can do whatever they want, if it promotes the general welfare. I believe that one delegate refused to sign the Constitution because of this clause. The Constitution has only one vague point, and this is it. What's to prevent Congress from blowing up New York and justifying it by saying that it was for the general welfare of the US? That clause should never have been included in the constitution. The New Deal was a good idea, but it's gone way too far.

Sol:

"Do you seriously believe that it was the intent of the Founding Fathers to make sure that space travel would always remain an impossibility?"

What the founding fathers intended is irrelevant. It's what they SAID when they wrote the constitution that matters. The text of the constitution is all that matters, and we have to go by it, not their intentions.

"The Constitution is not meant to act as a hinderance to freedom."

You're right. It's a guarentee of freedom. That's why the national government can't go beyond it.

"My point is, the Constitution is not meant to be a document permenently embedded in the Revolutionary era. I think it should be a constantly evolving guideline."

That's what ammendments are for. I don't think that we need an ammendment for every interstate. Just one that covers transportation in general. The constitution is strict and literal, and there's very little room for interpretation. Can you come up with a clause somewhere that can in any way be interpreted to mean that you can have a space program?

Jay:

"...I thought it was going to come down to 'my religious dogma can beat up your scientific research any day.'"

*decides not to dignify this with a response*

"Which leads to a point that a strict literal interpretation of the Constitution is bollocks, and remains the fantasy of the right-wing."

And why is that? I think an ammendment could easily be passed allowing the government limited economical regulatory powers, for instance. If the people knew that, without this ammendment, monopolies could control everything, then I can guarentee that they'd vote it in. With an ammendment, you wouldn't need to rely on some vague interpretation of something that isn't even there. The government would have clearly defined and contained powers, which is the way democracy is supposed to work. Anyone can place anyone else in check. One man can take a case to the supreme court and change hundreds of laws. All vagueness does is lead to a government being able to take more and more power, which of course they will. That leads to socialism. We all know what happens then.

"Take the creation of the atomic bomb for example.
Does the 2nd Amendment cover in terms of specific languange that I, as a memeber of a "well regulated militia" can have one in my basement? Hmm, not covered. I'll put one on my shopping list."

That's a good point. It does say "well-regulated", though. I'm sure there are laws stating who gets inspected and when, and what they can have. Besides, a nuclear weapon is going to damage public and private property, no matter where it's detonated in the country. If, however, you just had one in your basement as in your example, they could probably justify constant inspection, having a guard contingent on duty at all times, even dismanteling the thing to see if there are any possible ways to detonate it by remote, then putting it back together. They could not constitutionally prevent you from having one, though.

"The healthy polity of the United States rests on the balance of vague phrases and specific language of the Constitution...and the living, expanding intrepretation thereof."

There's only one vague phrase that gives the government any power in the constitution, and it's the "general welfare" clause that's already been discussed. All the others are quite specific.

Coddman:

Should I ask?

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

"What the founding fathers intended is irrelevant. It's what they SAID when they wrote the constitution that matters. The text of the constitution is all that matters, and we have to go by it, not their intentions."

Ah, yes, follow the LETTER of the Law, and ignore its spirit. Where HAVE I heard that before...?

It's funny, in a sad sory of way, these people who insist on sticking to strict literal interpretations of everything...

a bat is still not a bird, you know.

"Mongo fear change."

Did you ever consider the name "Odala?"

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

OK, maybe I should restate that. Their intentions aren't irrelevant, just highly subordinate to their actions. The spirit of the law matters, but the letter matters far more. Just because things like interstates aren't provided for in the constitution doesn't mean that they can't be. It would be far simpler to change the letter of the law than to use some liberal interpretation of it's spirit to justify the government's actions.

"It's funny, in a sad sory of way, these people who insist on sticking to strict literal interpretations of
everything... "

Really? I'd like to see anyone try and interpret the second and tenth ammendments in such a way as to justify the liberal attacks on them.

As for the rest of your post, I really have no idea what you're talking about.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

I thought not.

"a bat is still not a bird" -- a reference to Literal Interpretation. In Deuterotomy, while telling the Israelites what they can and cannot eat, God classifies the bat in with the birds. A strict, literal interpretation (which you claim to favor both with the Constitution and the Bible) MUST lead to the (erroneous, incidentally) conclusion that a bat IS a bird. I mentioned this fact some time ago. You attempted to refute it, but were forced to stray into interpretation to do so.

"Odala" in the Voyager Episode "Distant Origin," Minister Odala was the leading member of the Ministry of Elders of the Voth people. He was the one who categorically rejected the "Distant Origin Theory," because it conflicted with Voth Doctrine. Sound familiar?

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

"You attempted to refute it, but were forced to stray
into interpretation to do so."

And what's wrong with that? I seriously doubt that the ancient Hebrews knew that there was a difference between bats and birds, so their word that we translate as bird probably would have covered that which we call a bat as well. Something more like "flying things that aren't insects", possibly. And I go for strict literalism, unless metaphor is obviously intended. Like Jesus' parables: if His answers were taken literally, most of the gospels would be completely non sequitor, but as metaphor, they work. Conversely, you can take all of Genesis to be true, and it makes perfect sense, so why resort to metaphor?

"He was the one who categorically rejected the "Distant Origin Theory," because it conflicted with Voth Doctrine. Sound familiar?"

The only thing it reminds me of is the mideval Catholic church, who were so rigid in their interpretation and so unwilling to admit that they were wrong that they would sooner kill someone than examine the evidence. I reject Evolution based on the evidence; evidence which you have yet to refute.

Let's put it into perspective, shall we? You have yet to post any evidence that I have not refuted. I have posted evidence that you have not refuted. I'd say that puts me in the lead by quite a bit.

And wasn't Odala female? I just haven't seen that ep in a while.

Posted by HMS White Star (Member # 174) on :

Seriously who's Mongo?

Ok this doesn't sound like a Republican vs. Democrat this is much older like a Federal Supremicacy vs. States Rights, or a Federalist vs. a Republican (or Democrat, or Republican-Democrat, they changed there names really quickly). So this is a very old agruement much, much older than anyone here (even Baloo ). I can't say I really agree with Omega, his strict interpretation would make it very difficult to do much of anything, anyway the Congress can basically create what laws it needs to govern the nation.

Section 6 clause 18, To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Omega said "What the founding fathers intended is irrelevant. It's what they SAID when they wrote the constitution that matters. The text of the constitution is all that matters, and we have to go by it, not their intentions."

As strange as that originally sounded, that is completely true, we can't go by what the founding fathers intended only by what they wrote down, however that doesn't mean we can interprete what the Constitution means in the current environment that the founding fathers would could never dreamed (of course the past is also a lot like the future, so they could have dreamed of some of it). Anyway the Supreme Court has long ignored the actual thoughts of the founding fathers and would rather support earilier Supreme Courts compared to what the Founding Fathers might have or might not have thought.

All one can judge is deeds and actions, not thoughts.

------------------
Step 1: Become a senior member,
Step 2: ?,
Step 3: Global Domination

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

"And I go for strict literalism, unless metaphor is obviously intended."

In your own words.. it doesn't matter what was intended, just what was written down.

You, sir, are insisting on having your cake and eating it to.

Incidentally, who decides what is "obviously intended" as metaphor? Or is anything that conflicts with what you know to be reality obviously intended to be metaphor by default?

That's a pitiful "easy out," something I'd expect from a J's Witness or one of those other sects that keeps predicting the End and keeps being wrong. "Oh, that's not real.. it was obviously a metaphor..."

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

I've got it! Evolution is a leg!

Though I'm afraid that joke is probably lost on everyone but Frank.

Now then...you've won, eh Omega? Uh...sure. I thought I could win by using all of those silly arguments and skipping past every point you made. And my achingly short and poorly researched responses were constantly changing the subject.

However, I blame it all on my proximity to Oregon. Oregon is bad, you know.

[HA! Two references in one post. I amaze even (Or perhaps only) myself.]

------------------
"Quadrilateral I was, now I warp like a smile."
--
Soul Coughing

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

"I've got it! Evolution is a leg!"

"Though I'm afraid that joke is probably lost on everyone but Frank."

and me damn your eyes!!

------------------
What good is money if it can't inspire terror in your fellow man?
~C. Mongomery Burns

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

H.M.S.

More like Conservative vs. Liberal, I think.

"Congress can basically create what laws it needs to govern the nation."

Only within the bounds stated within the constitution, as the clause you referenced pointed out.

And I say again, if you have to change part of the constitution to be valid in todays environment, then don't just reinterpret it, CHANGE IT. There is a process by which it can be done, you know. If the constitution SAID that the federal government could manage a transportation system, I'd have no problem with it.

Shouldn't you change your sig? : )

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

1of2:

"In your own words.. it doesn't matter what was intended, just what was written down. "

OK, maybe I should spell it out a little more plainly. "I go for strict literalism, unless metaphor is obviously intended in what was written." Will that do? Basically, metaphor only if it makes no sense in context otherwise.

And I think those sects are funny, too. If someone said that the world was going to end last month in a ball of purple flame caused by an alien being called Lavos, and this makes sense in the context of the rest of their teachings, it's logical to take what they say literally, no?

Sol:

"...you've won, eh Omega?"

I keep being misquoted. I said that I'm winning, not that I've won. Would you care to be more specific as to what "silly arguments" I've used, because none are really coming to mind. And what points did I skip past? Again, none come to mind. Achingly short responses?! Some of my posts were six pages long and took me an hour to write!

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

"There's only one vague phrase that gives the government any power in the constitution, and it's the "general welfare" clause that's already been discussed. All the others are quite specific."

How odd, we seem to disagree yet again.

Let's look at some, but not all of the phrases the make up the Constitution shall we?

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;" How is it intended that they do that? Would a bill by Congress outlawing the movement by trucks of chicken feathers from California to Oregon be Un-Constitutional? How bout one that said you can't fly from New York to Kansas? The Congress has to the power to regulate trade between the states does it not? But then the Constitution does not say anything about airplanes or trucks does it? So it's general vagueness comes in handy for dealing with modernity.

2nd Amendment:
"A well-regulated militia..." What does that mean today? Sounds to me that like it gives right to Congress to, oh say regulate guns. But if you ask some of the gun owners out there, they believe just the opposite. Hmm.

4th Amendment:
"...unreasonable searches and seizures..." Sound rather vague to me. What constitutes an unreasonable search? Certainly that phrase has been fought over in the court system a great deal over the last few years. I think that the law enforcement officials of the old west would a different opinion about what was reasonable vs. today's police while conducting searches. Vague and open to interpretation.

8th Amendment:
"...nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted..." The facinating thing is that over the years, the death penalty has come into question as to being cruel and unusual. Aside from the rightness or wrongness of said penalty, the manner of execution is under question in several states. No longer do people get hanged, and electicution is on the way out in many cases. Does the Constitution specify the manner of penalty? Nope, it leave it open to intrepretation and not therefore specific.

9th Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." What specific rights? One would think that in the strict interpretation of the Constitution, we would need to have these listed lest we come up with some not on the approved list.

Enough to give one pause to about the specificity of the Constitution and how the phrases were open-ended to allow for interpretation and growth without the need to add an amendment every time some one sneezed.

------------------
What good is money if it can't inspire terror in your fellow man?
~C. Mongomery Burns

[This message has been edited by Jay (edited October 16, 1999).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

That's what the clause referenced by HMS is talking about (I'm taking his word that it exists, as I can't seem to find it while scanning my copy). Congress gets to define "Cruel and Unusual", "Unreasonable", "Well-regulated", etc. The problem comes when congress has to define the welfare of the US. Again, they could just blow up New York and say it was for the general welfare. And nothing in the constitution that I've ever seen can justify national transportation systems (since we seem to be using that as an example a lot), no matter how you interpret it.

Posted by HMS White Star (Member # 174) on :

as a restatement that section I printed out came from Article I, Section 6, clause 18.

Well Jay all the second Amendment does is allow the government, however the regulate militia, not regulate guns, if you read it literally. Here why they would believe that guns cannot be regulated "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Actually I did that to show how a statement can have a completely different context if you don't show the full text, btw here is the full text.

Amendments to...Article II.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

To really show how fair I am here is the section that speaks of what a Militia actually is...

Article I, Section 8, Clause 16:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Here a part of Article V that shows that the Army and Militia's are different "...except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia..."

Here's another Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States..."

So what does all this mean well first it means the Federal government can regulate militia (damn it I read the Article wrong ). The Army is a distinct organization, from the Militia, period, it was never designed to be there army. Third, Article I, Section 8, Clause 16: says "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia..." so that means that the Federal Government are supposeds to pay for weapons, however it doesn't state whether or not the members can keep there weapons at home (I believe this was assumed). Finally the Second Amendment modifies the Article I, Section 8, Clause 16, to allow the members of the Militia to bring there weapons home. Does this mean that non-Militia folks can have guns, I think so, however that's more of a Supreme Court to decide.

------------------
Pinky we will so rule the world...as soon as I figure out what step 2 is.

[This message has been edited by HMS White Star (edited October 16, 1999).]

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

HMS, lord knows that I did not want to open up a debate on guns. But thanks for showing how interpretation is at the heart of the Constitution.

------------------
What good is money if it can't inspire terror in your fellow man?
~C. Mongomery Burns

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Board problems prevented me from responding with my usual timely wit.

At any rate Omega, what do you mean? I didn't even mention you. Surely you aren't suggesting that I was sarcastic? I do not have even an ounce of such feelings. I'm shocked, really.

------------------
"Quadrilateral I was, now I warp like a smile."
--
Soul Coughing

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Sorry. I needed to get off the phone, so I was in a hurry and misread your post. I seem to apologize for my previous posts alot.

Your responses were good (mostly) and well-researched (again, mostly), but you did skip over some very important points I made, and never explained how that "amorphous paste" was found on that Archaeopteryx fossil if it's not a forgery.

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Ok, I was being sarcastic that time too, see? It's like this running theme thing.

Anyway, if it be another argument you seek, I suppose I'll do my best to oblige you. Just as soon as look up the details on Beck's tasty new album.

------------------
"Quadrilateral I was, now I warp like a smile."
--
Soul Coughing

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Again, sorry. I'm still getting used to text-based communication of emotion. You loose a lot of variables that you have in verbal communication.

I'm not too keen on another all-out CvsE argument, as I'd like to focus on the upcoming election, but if you'd care to explain the amorphous paste and show any holes in my young-earth theory (hydroplate-flood-liquefication-decreasing-speed-of-light), I'd be happy to listen.

Posted by HMS White Star (Member # 174) on :

To Jay: Well honestly I don't want to start one either, but it would be quieter than some of the debates we have had recently, it's just that when people mention the second Amendment I have never seen anyone cross refrence what each term meant (at least what the founding fathers thought it meant).

------------------
Pinky we will so rule the world...as soon as I figure out what step 2 is.

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Well, to be honest, between First and myself, I'm pretty confident that we've shown your argument to be full of holes. Unless there is new stuff you'd like to bring up.

------------------
"Quadrilateral I was, now I warp like a smile."
--
Soul Coughing

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

I'd lay pretty good odds that the whole "amorphous" thing is either a misstatement, a poorly cited opinion in a decades-old paper, or an out-and-out fib. C'ers are famous for that sort of thing.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Oh, incidentally, one of my sources tells me (and I hesitate to mention this only because I haven't independently confirmed the facts yet) that a team of researchers at a major university once examined the "liquefaction" theory in a laboratory, and, after dozens of trials, determined that it was an out-and-out fraud, and that nothing like the sorting that would be necessary to explain the fossil strata order found in the real world actually can happen with "liquefaction."

I'll be spending some time trying to find the original data.