When the truth is inconvenient . . .

[WestCoastFatGuy 3]

me[/u] is how evolutionists can be environmentalists: if human beings are the pinnacle of evolution, whatever they choose to do to the world around them is their right as granted through their evolutionary superiority.

So if someone believes in evolution, then they also believe that human beings are the pinnacle of evolution and can do whatever they want without consequences? I think I'm lost here.

Also... believing in evolution does not exclude a belief in creationism. As you have often explained patiently to other posters... it's all a matter of common sense and moderation. I think that you have stated that quite eloquently in this thread, as a matter of fact.

With the belief in moderation... isn't it possible that God created his world so that the plants and creatures and humans in it could evolve as needed to adapt to his ever-changing ever-growing universe? For example... many strains of bacteria become immune to antibiotics. That's evolution. If someone accepts evolution on this scale it doesn't mean that they have to jump all the way to man evolving from apes; just as you being a self-described conservative doesn't mean that you agree with every idea or ideal that is espoused by every conservative out there.

I am an animal lover and have spent an amount of money over time for my dog's medical bills that might even cause a PETA enthusiast to cock their head in dismay. Yet, to go the mentality level of those animal activists that you quote would be, in my view, extremism to the max.

I consider myself an environmentalist-in-training. I'm gradually learning more and doing more to leave less of a negative visible imprint on the world as a result of the way I lead my life. I have a long long way to go. I'm in no position to point my finger at others until I have my green house in order... so I'll just go on learning and, hopefully, doing my best to do my part in keeping this world alive for future generations.

Thanks, as always, for your thoughtful posts, Gadget.

[BJean 16]

LBloomR8: Touche' and that's fair!

[BJean 16]

gadget: First off, you live in California. That's quite different from living in Texas, for instance. You got a lot of tree huggers out there. Texans, not so much. We had a little critter in Florida that was keeping a large tract of land from being developed too. It had the owner's hands (and pocketbook) tied, which seemed patently unfair.

I agree with you about much of what you've said. I do not believe that the earth is going to be irreparably destroyed within even close to our or our children's children's lifetimes. It's survived a really long time and bearing some meteoric catastrophy, it will keep on keepin' on. We as a species could be endangered by our environmentally unfriendly practices however.

I believe that we have a responsibilty that we have heretofore ignored, big time, to preserve our environment as much as we can. We have invented all kinds of hideous products for our convenience and to make corporations wealthy.

I lived in Petersburg, Virginia, adjacent to Hopewell, Virginia when Dupont and the tobacco companies were polluting the air and Water and earth so badly, you could hardly breathe and you couldn't enjoy the formerly beautiful rivers and bays all the way up the Chesapeake. You couldn't eat the fish and you wouldn't dare go swimming in those areas.

Now some of our presidents and Congressmen, who have been on the side of greed and big business, would have us believe that allowing some of the chemical companies, and others, to pollute our environment is just unfortunately the cost of living and that it is those corporations' right to do business that turns them an enormous profit.

I disagree. I believe that even our corporations (including car manufacturers) should be compelled to consider our environment when they are designing and manufacturing products for human consumption.

I am not a card carrying member of PETA, and in fact, I think THEY are wackos (descriptive term, that). The fact that they seem to prefer plastic shoes, purses and belts is contrary to what I believe we should be wearing. I know what the manufacture of plastics can do to our environment. We should be wearing fur, wool, leather, linen, cotton, etc., because they are natural. For them to believe that animals are superior to human beings is as crazy as saying that a human embryo is superior to a fully grown woman.

[gadgetlady 4]

So if someone believes in evolution, then they also believe that human beings are the pinnacle of evolution and can do whatever they want without consequences? I think I'm lost here.

I think many people who believe in evolution see human beings as the apex of the evolutionary chain. While this may not universally be the case, if you believe in evolution it shouldn't matter what any species, apex or not, chooses to do -- and how those choices might interfere with other species or the planet as a whole. Other "animals" don't question their decisions or have feelings involved with the killing of other species; for example, bears don’t feel sorrow for the salmon that they eat, nor do they use a pooper-scooper to clean up after their young. If all we are is animals, why should we behave any differently?

Also... believing in evolution does not exclude a belief in creationism. As you have often explained patiently to other posters... it's all a matter of common sense and moderation.

You are correct: there are indeed people who believe in theistic evolution, or as they are often referred to, “crevolutionists’. They believe that God is the ultimate Creator, but he used evolution as his mechanism of creation, rather than the Creation account as detailed in Genesis.

With the belief in moderation... isn't it possible that God created his world so that the plants and creatures and humans in it could evolve as needed to adapt to his ever-changing ever-growing universe?

That is indeed what some people believe (as detailed above). I personally find some significant problems with that belief, one of which is death and destruction before the Fall, but that’s for another theological discussion (I think).

For example... many strains of bacteria become immune to antibiotics. That's evolution.

Well, not really. It's actually mutation and/or natural selection (depending on the process involved, which varies depending on the bacteria). I think it’s very important to define our terms here. Evolution within a species, aka mutation, natural selection, or "micro-evolution" (as it is sometimes called), like bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics or the breeding of dogs to produce different types of dogs, isn't evolution. Evolution requires an increase in the quantity and quality of genetic information -- a change in the DNA. No one that I know or have ever heard of disputes mutation, natural selection, or change within a species. The debate is about macro-evolution, or molecules-to-man evolution. It is about change from one species to another, from a fish to a bird, as it were. And about molecules-to-man evolution there is much debate.

If someone accepts evolution on this scale it doesn't mean that they have to jump all the way to man evolving from apes

I don’t think so. If you disputed man “evolving from apes” (or an ape-like creature), you would not be called an evolutionist (as the term is commonly defined today). Most certainly, scientists who subscribe to evolution theory would say you do not believe in evolution.

I consider myself an environmentalist-in-training. I'm gradually learning more and doing more to leave less of a negative visible imprint on the world as a result of the way I lead my life. I have a long long way to go. I'm in no position to point my finger at others until I have my green house in order... so I'll just go on learning and, hopefully, doing my best to do my part in keeping this world alive for future generations.

I commend you for that. What I find especially troubling about most environmentalist wackos (for want of a better term, and as explained above meaning those who are completely sold out to the movement) is that they’re invariably very hypocritical. One day I’ll tell some stories about my environmental wacko, Greenpeace-donating brother.

Thanks, as always, for your thoughtful posts, Gadget.

Right back at ‘cha.

Edited April 8, 2008 by gadgetlady

[gadgetlady 4]

gadget: First off, you live in California. That's quite different from living in Texas, for instance. You got a lot of tree huggers out there. Texans, not so much. We had a little critter in Florida that was keeping a large tract of land from being developed too. It had the owner's hands (and pocketbook) tied, which seemed patently unfair.

Yes, I do live on the Left Coast and there are a lot of tree-huggers here – but I find that while we have them in a concentrated fashion, they are really everywhere. I have seen and heard of many situations around the nation where a landowner’s pockets have been drained for patently stupid “environmental” reasons.

I agree with you about much of what you've said. I do not believe that the earth is going to be irreparably destroyed within even close to our or our children's children's lifetimes. It's survived a really long time and bearing some meteoric catastrophy, it will keep on keepin' on.

Woo hoo! We agree on something!

I remember very clearly the Kuwaiti oil fires and the Exxon Valdez incidents. The reports were that we would NEVER recover and the earth would NEVER be the same. It’s quite an earth we live on with some amazing capacities for self-healing, because these events, while tragic and unnecessary, did not turn out to have the long-term dire consequences that everyone said without a doubt would happen.

I believe that we have a responsibilty that we have heretofore ignored, big time, to preserve our environment as much as we can. We have invented all kinds of hideous products for our convenience and to make corporations wealthy.

What types of "hideous products" are we talking about?

I am not a card carrying member of PETA, and in fact, I think THEY are wackos (descriptive term, that). The fact that they seem to prefer plastic shoes, purses and belts is contrary to what I believe we should be wearing. I know what the manufacture of plastics can do to our environment. We should be wearing fur, wool, leather, linen, cotton, etc., because they are natural.

I remember when plastic grocery bags came out. You couldn’t get your groceries put in a paper bag to save your life, because everyone wanted to make sure we weren’t cutting down too many trees. Then we discovered that plastic bags were causing their own issues, so you were given a choice: paper or plastic (gee, I like both – so I usually split it up LOL!). Now I’m hearing that plastic bags are about to go by the wayside.

The point of my little trip down memory lane is that no matter what we do, we can’t seem to get it right. I agree that fur wool, leather, linen, and cotton are great to wear – but I also don’t have a problem with my crocs, easy-to-clean synthetic purses, and the like.

For them to believe that animals are superior to human beings is as crazy as saying that a human embryo is superior to a fully grown woman.

Ah, we’ve come full circle, haven’t we? Please don’t misinterpret or misstate what I’ve said about unborn babies. I do not believe they are “superior” to their mothers, nor are their mothers “superior” to them. I believe they are both human beings and deserve the equal and unequivocal right to live.

[WestCoastFatGuy 3]

I think many people who believe in evolution see human beings as the apex of the evolutionary chain. While this may not universally be the case, if you believe in evolution it shouldn't matter what any species, apex or not, chooses to do -- and how those choices might interfere with other species or the planet as a whole. Other "animals" don't question their decisions or have feelings involved with the killing of other species; for example, bears don’t feel sorrow for the salmon that they eat, nor do they use a pooper-scooper to clean up after their young. If all we are is animals, why should we behave any differently?

You are correct: there are indeed people who believe in theistic evolution, or as they are often referred to, “crevolutionists’. They believe that God is the ultimate Creator, but he used evolution as his mechanism of creation, rather than the Creation account as detailed in Genesis.

That is indeed what some people believe (as detailed above). I personally find some significant problems with that belief, one of which is death and destruction before the Fall, but that’s for another theological discussion (I think).

Well, not really. It's actually mutation and/or natural selection (depending on the process involved, which varies depending on the bacteria). I think it’s very important to define our terms here. Evolution within a species, aka mutation, natural selection, or "micro-evolution" (as it is sometimes called), like bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics or the breeding of dogs to produce different types of dogs, isn't evolution. Evolution requires an increase in the quantity and quality of genetic information -- a change in the DNA. No one that I know or have ever heard of disputes mutation, natural selection, or change within a species. The debate is about macro-evolution, or molecules-to-man evolution. It is about change from one species to another, from a fish to a bird, as it were. And about molecules-to-man evolution there is much debate.

I don’t think so. If you disputed man “evolving from apes” (or an ape-like creature), you would not be called an evolutionist (as the term is commonly defined today). Most certainly, scientists who subscribe to evolution theory would say you do not believe in evolution.

I commend you for that. What I find especially troubling about most environmentalist wackos (for want of a better term, and as explained above meaning those who are completely sold out to the movement) is that they’re invariably very hypocritical. One day I’ll tell some stories about my environmental wacko, Greenpeace-donating brother.

Right back at ‘cha.

Wow. As much respect as I have for you on so many issues, sometimes I feel like I'm just getting a word-for-word recitation of right-wing websites. This whole business of "defining terms" is repeated over and over again on these websites. Natural selection is one of the four parts of Darwin's theory. Micro-evolution, adaptation... whatever term you want to use is an integral part of the theory.

Additionally, your (in my opinion) simplistic and judgemental view that believers in evolution view humans as animals that do not care or should not care about how their actions affect others (land or animal) seems purposefully inane.

The bigger picture for me here is this: I don't have to be a bible literalist to have faith in God and His creation. Whether the story of creation in the account of Genesis is a realistic portrayal of the beginnings of life or whether it is a parable intelligently written so as to allow all human beings (regardless of education or intellect) to be able to understand the "big picture" that God is a mighty Creator and that all basis of life comes from Him, matters little to me. In my mind, God could just as easily have created a world with humble beginnings to intentionally slowly evolve over time. Either way... to me... it's the same powerful compassionate creative God... and I'm in awe of His creation.

The first words of the bible weren't written for hundreds of years after Moses left the desert. I have confidence and unswerving faith that the intentions and underlying messages in the bible are true and provide to me all the proof I need of His existence/presence. Do I believe that the stories of the bible (especially in light of all the numerous translations) are historically accurate or occurred exactly as written? Absolutely not. In fact, the more inaccuracies that I find... the more I am compelled to INCREASE my faith in God. Many times these inaccuracies turn out to better align themselves with other religions in the world and make sense as to why there are so many similarities in the lessons and parables found in them. To me, this is true evidence of one God and I find great solace in in it.

[gadgetlady 4]

Wow. As much respect as I have for you on so many issues, sometimes I feel like I'm just getting a word-for-word recitation of right-wing websites. This whole business of "defining terms" is repeated over and over again on these websites.

Well, sorry about that. I don't spend much time, if any, on right-wing websites, so I didn't get the idea to define terms from them. For all I know, it's also said on left-wing wing websites. The need to define terms came from the logical assessment of the discussion of evolution.

Natural selection is one of the four parts of Darwin's theory. Micro-evolution, adaptation... whatever term you want to use is an integral part of the theory.

But it is not the controversial one. No one disputes natural selection, so to say that if you believe in natural selection then you believe in macro (molecules-to-man) evolution is not accurate. Precisely why the terms need to be defined.

Additionally, your (in my opinion) simplistic and judgemental view that believers in evolution view humans as animals that do not care or should not care about how their actions affect others (land or animal) seems purposefully inane.

I didn't at all say that believers in evolution don't care about how their actions affect others. I asked the question: why should they care if the "other" animals don't care? Personally, I believe they SHOULD care.

The bigger picture for me here is this: I don't have to be a bible literalist to have faith in God and His creation. Whether the story of creation in the account of Genesis is a realistic portrayal of the beginnings of life or whether it is a parable intelligently written so as to allow all human beings (regardless of education or intellect) to be able to understand the "big picture" that God is a mighty Creator and that all basis of life comes from Him, matters little to me. In my mind, God could just as easily have created a world with humble beginnings to intentionally slowly evolve over time. Either way... to me... it's the same powerful compassionate creative God... and I'm in awe of His creation.

That's your belief and that's fine and I can see your reasoning in it. I have theological issues with it, just as you have issues with my beliefs -- and that's fine, too.

the more inaccuracies that I find... the more I am compelled to INCREASE my faith in God.

Can you share some of the inaccuracies you've found?

[WestCoastFatGuy 3]

Can you share some of the inaccuracies you've found?

I'll share just one because I don't want to have a full-on theological hi-jacking of this thread, nor am I interested in a theological debate. I offer this not suggesting that you need accept it or even believe it.

So much of the "church" is based upon the belief that Jesus was born of a virgin. In our culture, virgin refers to a woman who has not had sex. The stories of His birth that I grew up with in my church (Lutheran- Missouri Synod) and my converted faith, Roman-Catholicism, taught that His divine nature was confirmed in that He was born of Mary, who was a virgin.

The original New Testament text from which the Hebrew and subsequent other translations originated was in Greek. The original word translated to Hebrew as "virgin".... correctly translated would be "maiden" or "young woman".

To many this suggestion is heresy. To me, after research and reflection, it is nothing more than a small translation error that does nothing to divert my faith in God. The child, not the fact that the child was of a virgin birth, is the evidence of the prophecy. The child, regardless if by sperm and egg or Divine, was still the Son of God. In my mind, even more Divine in that the birth was prophesied.

As I stated, I don't expect you to accept this. There are several websites that attempt to 'explain-away' this mistranslation and the subsequent embracing of the virgin birth as the heart of soul of christian teaching. Despite all their 'explaining', I have yet to read a credible argument that debunks it.

There are numerous geographical and time-based innacuracies between the apostles and their retelling of the story of His birth. Again, they do not deter me as the basis or essence of the stories are the same and all point to the most important event of all... the birth of Christ.

[gadgetlady 4]

I'll share just one because I don't want to have a full-on theological hi-jacking of this thread, nor am I interested in a theological debate. I offer this not suggesting that you need accept it or even believe it.

So much of the "church" is based upon the belief that Jesus was born of a virgin. In our culture, virgin refers to a woman who has not had sex. The stories of His birth that I grew up with in my church (Lutheran- Missouri Synod) and my converted faith, Roman-Catholicism, taught that His divine nature was confirmed in that He was born of Mary, who was a virgin.

The original New Testament text from which the Hebrew and subsequent other translations originated was in Greek. The original word translated to Hebrew as "virgin".... correctly translated would be "maiden" or "young woman".

To many this suggestion is heresy. To me, after research and reflection, it is nothing more than a small translation error that does nothing to divert my faith in God. The child, not the fact that the child was of a virgin birth, is the evidence of the prophecy. The child, regardless if by sperm and egg or Divine, was still the Son of God. In my mind, even more Divine in that the birth was prophesied.

As I stated, I don't expect you to accept this. There are several websites that attempt to 'explain-away' this mistranslation and the subsequent embracing of the virgin birth as the heart of soul of christian teaching. Despite all their 'explaining', I have yet to read a credible argument that debunks it.

Right off the top, without doing any research on this at all, I'd throw this back to one thing: Luke 1:33-34 and Matthew 1:20 -- describing both Mary and Joseph's reactions to the announcement from the angel -- contradict this claim. Because (or if) virgin meant maiden or young woman, that doesn't necessarily means Mary was NOT a virgin (as commonly defined). I don't see this as an inaccuracy in Scripture at all.

There are numerous geographical and time-based innacuracies between the apostles and their retelling of the story of His birth.

I understand that you don't want to get into this, but I just have to say I've never seen any. I've seen claims of inaccuracies in the Bible all the time, but I've never had anyone show one to me.

[WestCoastFatGuy 3]

Right off the top, without doing any research on this at all, I'd throw this back to one thing: Luke 1:33-34 and Matthew 1:20 -- describing both Mary and Joseph's reactions to the announcement from the angel -- contradict this claim. Because (or if) virgin meant maiden or young woman, that doesn't necessarily means Mary was NOT a virgin (as commonly defined). I don't see this as an inaccuracy in Scripture at all.

I understand that you don't want to get into this, but I just have to say I've never seen any. I've seen claims of inaccuracies in the Bible all the time, but I've never had anyone show one to me.

This is my last post on this topic, because one needs to go into the topic with their eyes open to other views to even have a discussion. I told you you might not agree and I don't expect you to. Your response, however.."right off the bat" made me laugh out loud because I never even gave you the chapter or verse from whence it originated (Isaih 7:14, BTW). But, then again, you're going to see what you see despite any volume of research that I present. That is the way it has been on the topic of global warming, which started this thread. You post articles full of inacuracies... posters, including myself, rebut them with credible evidence and you say that weren't asserting that they were correct... that you just found them "interesting."

Gadget... I'm just going to agree to disagree, because there's no way you're ever going to concede any view that you ever have. How, at 41 years of age (we're almost exactly the same age) you have become so set in your ways is beyond me... but you have every right to do so.

All my best to you...

[gadgetlady 4]

This is my last post on this topic, because one needs to go into the topic with their eyes open to other views to even have a discussion. I told you you might not agree and I don't expect you to. Your response, however.."right off the bat" made me laugh out loud because I never even gave you the chapter or verse from whence it originated (Isaih 7:14, BTW).

I'm sooooooooo confused. You were questioning whether Mary was a virgin at the time of Christ's conception, based on what the definition of the term "virgin" was (interesting that we're again dealing with defining your terms, BTW). What I said, "off the bat", was that even if the definition of "virgin" had nothing to do with sexuality (and I don't know; I haven't studied it), Mary and Joseph each had a reaction when they were told Mary was pregnant, and that reaction was lack of comprehension as to how. So even if the word "virgin" didn't mean "not having had sex", their reactions confirmed that they hadn't. I don't know why I needed chapter and verse to have that discussion.

[BJean 16]

Backing up just a bit. Gadget in your response to mine, you said that you do not believe that the baby's value "trumps" the value of the mother and that you believe that they can both live. I know you have posted that on the other thread.

My point is that in a perfect world, although both might be able to survive and live healthy lives, ours is not a perfect world and sometimes a choice must be made.

[gadgetlady 4]

Backing up just a bit. Gadget in your response to mine, you said that you do not believe that the baby's value "trumps" the value of the mother and that you believe that they can both live. I know you have posted that on the other thread.

My point is that in a perfect world, although both might be able to survive and live healthy lives, ours is not a perfect world and sometimes a choice must be made.

I understand the point you were making, but you said ". . .is as crazy as saying that a human embryo is superior to a fully grown woman." My point is that no one person, whether the CEO of a major corporation or a homeless person, whether a disabled adult or a healthy toddler, whether a sex-slave in India or a prostitute in DC, has a greater right to live than another. Ours is not a perfect world, but when both parties can live, no one person has the right to kill another because they deem the other's life isn't worthy.

[luluc 6]

I've read with interest this thread, and though sidetracked at times, I have a comment with the Green Concept & trying to do what's right for the Environment.

My husband and I bought a ranch coming up on 3yrs now - and are remodeling/renovating our Farm House. This is a Ceiling to Floor remodel, replacing plumbing/electric/hot Water heaters/air units/septic/propane tanks/etc - the list grows daily. My husband is an engineer, always wanted a "Green" house - and for the most part we have made improvements to do so where appropriate. Where this does "Not" work in my opinion is when dealing with the local town (politics) & generally "Used" services in the area. This could be a TX thing, but you don't fight or challenge certain services - including how you get water onto your property. We've wanted to make "green" choices during this renovation - and have been told flat out we will not be supplied propane, if it's "not' their tank we buy (not enviro friendly). Our water line stops about a mile from the house, and it "has" to be shared w/our neighbor who is next door....but there are 32 acres between us - because there is no initiative to bring it closer to our home. So water choices can't be made, they have to be shared. Now we have no issue w/our neighbor - quite friendly - but there are a LOT Of Government entities that really inhibit our ability to do what they're preaching as far as "Go Green".

Ok - just my story, I do have a nice green house that I'm growing veggies for the first time, tying to do my part:tongue:

[BJean 16]

No. When the law prohibits women from being able to making decisions affecting their mental and physical health, women will die as a result.

Not allowing women to choose is saying that women do not have the right to their own bodies. A fertilized egg is part of a woman's body and you can't have it any other way.

Laws should not intervene so that it costs a woman her right to living a healthy life. And the arguments that anti-choice lobbyists make are pretty convincing evidence that they do not care if a woman lives or dies if she is unable to make her own choice. They use terms like "inconvenience" and "abortion as birth control". They either are ignorant of the facts, or they don't care.