Evolution, Birth Control, and Hypocrisy

[0299792458]

(desert rolling plant)

[0299792458]

Some people could also think that not allowing rape is 'Statism running wild'.

Personally I think it's defending the individual right not to be raped. Just as the prohibition of smoking in bars is defending the right not to breath someone else's smoke. And specialy defending the right of the workers who work in those establishments to their health. Just as there are some minimum work conditions in mining or construction and I see no one complaining about that.

[0299792458]

I wasn't comparing

SMOKING IN THE CAR and DRIVING DRUNK

but SMOKING IN PUBLIC CLOSED PLACES and DRIVING DRUNK.

And just to be sure there's no further missunderstanding (and to focus on the main idea of what I said and not on how I said it) I'm not saying it's the same, neither from a moral point of view nor according to the levle of potential harm.

I'm just saying that both behaviours are harmful to public health.

Sorry again for my english if you need any explanation just ask . =)

[0299792458]

What i meant by a right is that in my country Spain, the health system provides free assistance. You do not need a private medical insurance for any medical intervention.

You missunderstood my comparison between drinking and driving and smoking.

(I ll presume it is because of my bad english.) Smoking in a public place is a harm to others, you've probably heard of 'passive smoking', a long term harm, but a harm. While driving drunk is a short term harm to others.

[0299792458]

SMOKING BAN.

Smoking is a harm to the health of both smokers and non-smokers in public places. And in particular to the employees (say in a bar).

Moreover in countries like mine where health is a public right smoking causes tremendous (we're talking about billion euros) expenses for the State.

You have the right to slap yourself in the face. But if by doing it you slap some others too, then it's wrong.

Is it "tyrannical" not to allow people driving while drunk?

No, it's protecting society.

[0299792458]

@0299792458 (BTW: I'd appreciate if native english speakers didn't use the grammar/spelling mistakes I've probably commited because of english not being my mother tongue. Because: "you wrote 'evollution', you idiot" is not an argument.)

=]

[paleocrat]

@0299792458 It depends on how we define public places, I presume. I would like to know what your position is regarding the line that divides private from public places. For example, what is the bare minimum to qualify a privately owned and operated institution as a public place?

Health is a right?

Are you really going to compare drunk driving with driving while smoking? On what grounds? The flame? The hand movements? Mere distraction?

It's Statism run wild.

[0299792458]

@paleocrat

This is not philosophy i. In my country the law specifies closed public places (restaurants, malls, airports [to mention some]) and some specific open areas such as parks for children (there must be a word for this, but I don't know it =]).

I don't know exactly how what is the bare minimum to qualify it as a public place because I'm an engineer and not a lawyer but THERE IS a bare minimum specified by law (could be open to interpretation at some level but not in most cases).

[ariaane]

Paelocrat, some of the things you say are so in accordance with the Church and some are in such opposition.

The Catholic Church does not oppose the theory of evolution, as you seem to imply.

Yes, crazy leftists twist the theory to come up with insane ideology, but it does not follow that the theory has to be dispensed with.

[itubeToodles]

You are right. The Catholic Church doesnt oppose evolution. A catholic may believe in evolution as long as they believe G-d did/caused it.

[paleocrat]

@ariaane I am not sure I was a Catholic at the time. Possibly, but I doubt it. My views of theistic evolution are different these days. Sorry it took a year for me to reply.

[Cefuroxx]

A perfect face for radio indeed, lulz.

[njcatholic]

what time does your show come on?

[brian12934]

I like this guy. That's just about right! Good man.

[loveliberty1776]

Sound thoughts, but Amerika wouldn't be Amerika without dumb sound-bite politicians whose public image is largely a oscillating facade constructed and calculated for personal advantage at the spur of the moment.

The present debates fit the character of the de facto regime. As my favorite pagan pundit H.L. Mencken would say, "Democracy is the pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance" and "Democracy is also a form of worship. It is the worship of Jackals by Jackasses."

[SailinganFD]

I just wasted 9:46 minutes of my life.

[paleocrat]

I just wasted 5 seconds of my life reading your reply... and then another 15 or 20 seconds responding.

Predictably, your criticism lacked any specifics. All too common.

[neillob11]

I applaud his ignorance and imbecilely!

[snapelady]

What a waste of time. Utter tripe and nonsense. No wonder certain faculty members, as well as students, are pissed off when it comes to this garbage. My god (Ooooo... Can I say that without the lynch mod coming for me?), give me distillations any day.

[paleocrat]

Faculty and students pissed off. For every one of them I can give you ten who aren't. Ah, but who counts?

Tripe and nonsense. No examples? Not at all surprised. Typical.

[snapelady]

*smirk* "Evading your responsibilities", indeed. You are nothing more than a waste of carbon. "Dark Lord of the Olivet Right"..... Cupcake, you have no idea what "Dark" really is. Instead of just talking your talk, why not actually try experiencing something for once.

[paleocrat]

Believe it or not, I enjoy getting comments like yours. Whack jobs like you make me look better.

I don't know what "dark" really is? I need to experience something for once? Inside jokes are only funny when the other person is in on it. Your comment makes no sense.

btw- Dark Lord of the Olivet Right. The Olivet Right is a Facebook Group. My title is "Dark Lord."

[snapelady]

And... Ya know, it's interesting that you claim that you 'can give me ten who aren't (pissed off)' ... And yet, haven't you stated on your ever so lovely show (*inhale deeply here, and smell the facetiousness*) that 'this college is full of leftists'? So, please - enthrall me with your insights.

[paleocrat]

The faculty and administration is loaded with leftists. The actual student body is rather moderate. This is typical of academia. The top is packed with Marxists, feminists, and homosexuals while the student body embodies the type of evenhanded diversity you'd see in the real world.

Ah, toots, call in to my show! Tell me how you really feel....

[neillob11]

"Whack jobs like you make me look better. " only a certafiable nut would post a video of this caliber.

[arecor]

Your words are big but your ideas are small.

[paleocrat]

Your words were pithy but your criticism is shallow.

I love it when people create an account on the same day they leave a reply on my video. I am always curious as to who they are and how they happened to stumble upon my site.

[676S]

Should we teach ID in skoos?

[woohoojesus]

the pink unicorn accounts for "reality, being, knowledge, ethics, trustworthy sensory experience etc." therefore, the pink unicorn exists.

[paleocrat]

hahaha One has to show, internally and externally, why a pink unicorn accounts for it. Seriously, you are making yourself look rather silly. It always amazes me when people (like you) willingly make yourself look bad on the world wide web. Amazing.

You should call in to my program. I am going to post a video today telling people what I am talking about and how to tune in via the internet.

[woohoojesus]

the pink unicorn accounts for those things in the same way the christian god does. the only difference is the pink unicorn doesn't burn people for choosing the wrong religion.

why should i care about how i look on the web? it's almost completely anonymous.

i'm not calling in to your program for two reasons. 1. because a phone call to the united states is expensive. 2. because i am not a good speaker and i concede you would easily win an oral debate.

[paleocrat]

Ah! I didn't know you were not in the States.

Well, thank you for the compliment on my oratory skills, but I am nice to any and all who call. Most are liberals and atheists, and I have never once raised my voice or been demeaning. I save that for YouTube. : )

You can still listen. If you use Internet Explorer, tune in to wocrfm dot com. It is 7-10pm eastern standard time, like New York.

[woohoojesus]

i didn't say you were a good speaker. :) i just said my speaking skills are poor... but yes, you are a good speaker.

hitler was a good orator too... another nazi comment. ;)

[paleocrat]

oooohh....

[woohoojesus]

so why is my pink unicorn a weak explanation? why can it only be the christian god who sits beside every atom simultaneously, whipping them into line and keeping them in place, thus maintaining the consistency and uniformity of our universe?

[woohoojesus]

you are right paleocrat. evolution is a satanic lie. the roman catholic accepts evolution and therefore, the roman catholic church is satan's puppet.

i will pray for the roman catholics to turn away from evolution before they end up burning in hell.

[paleocrat]

The Roman Catholic Church does not have an official position on the matter. In fact, it has only been Popes in personal discussions or interviews that have talked about the matter at any significant length, and these are far from ex cathedra. On the other hand, inerrancy and infallibility are both dogma. This would include the Genesis account.

Bottom line: You have no clue what you are talking about. It is rather unfortunate that you parade your ignorance on the internet for all to laugh at.

[woohoojesus]

"Bottom line: You have no clue what you are talking about. It is rather unfortunate that you parade your ignorance on the internet for all to laugh at. "

that's rich, coming from a guy who thinks he knows evolution inside-out.

[paleocrat]

The issue is with worldviews and the framework wherein science is possible. I demonstrated in a paragraph how you are a babbling buffoon. No atheistic evolutionist has yet to be able to come up with the necessary preconditions, given their presuppositions, for origin, reality, being, knowledge, or ethics. Not one.

Apples and oranges.

[woohoojesus]

we don't need to explain origin and reality. we only need to know they exist (which we do, by simple observation).

[paleocrat]

hahaha Beg the question. Wallow in the arbitrary. That is fine with me. It just shows that you don't mind committing intellectual suicide. And how, without accounting for reality and being, can we account for meaningful and accurate sensory experiences? Round and round we go, when atheists will answer, nobody knows...

[woohoojesus]

without origin and reality, we wouldn't be here, so they must be real. there's no begging the question there.

christianity can't account for those things either. saying "god created reality" is no better than saying "santa reality." christianity is a horribly weak explanation for the existence of the universe because it isn't backed up by any evidence.

[paleocrat]

hahaha It's here, so it must be real! hahaha

You do realize that this is the same fallacy committed in saying "I think, therefore, I am"?

I wasted too much time with atheists on this one to start back with the ABCs.

[woohoojesus]

"hahaha It's here, so it must be real! hahaha"

of course.

[paleocrat]

This is the same as saying "I think, therefore I am." I'll catch you up to date here: That maxim is a philosophical joke. It begs the question! It assumes existence prior to its conclusion.

Even so, the issue is how we can account for reality, specifically a reality that is both uniform and knowable.

[woohoojesus]

would you still consider christianity the only possible explanation of the universe if you hadn't been born in a society with a large christian influence?

if you had been born in turkey, attended a muslim school with muslim friends, and sent to a mosque on the sabbath, you would probably be praying to allah instead.

[paleocrat]

Already dealt with this question.

The worldview, that network of related presuppositions, is what is being discussed. Presuppositionalists deal with Muslims too. The questions are just as important for them to answer as anyone else. We all must answer. Atheists can't. Muslims can't. No worldview but the Christian worldview can account for thees things under discussion.

[woohoojesus]

atheists can't answer those questions, but we're working on it.

in history, deities have been used to fill in gaps in knowledge. god was used to explain lightning until science discovered the true reason. until darwin, god was used to explain life on earth (darwin's explanation being much better because it explains the specific patterns among living things whereas christianity can't).

[paleocrat]

1. You are correct. Atheists cannot answer those question.

2. God of the gaps. If I hadn't defended myself from that claim 1,000 times over on YouTube, I'd do it again here.

3. Darwin's explanation is absurd. Regardless, why do you expect the Bible to go into great detail over specific patterns among living things? The purpose of the book is redemptive history.

[woohoojesus]

"3. Darwin's explanation is absurd. Regardless, why do you expect the Bible to go into great detail over specific patterns among living things? The purpose of the book is redemptive history. "

so how do you account for the patterns we see among life? did god create that pattern to deceive us into thinking evolution is true?

[woohoojesus]

"1. You are correct. Atheists cannot answer those question."

nor can christians. "the invisible man did it" is not an answer, because it isn't tied to any objective evidence.

[paleocrat]

Objective evidence? We are talking about presuppositions: the lens through which we interpret and accept evidence. We are talking about whether or not the notion of objective evidence is possible give your worldview. Seriously, you are way behind here.

Gotta get ready for my radio program tonight. I wish I had more time to waste, but I don't.

[woohoojesus]

oh i see, god doesn't need to be backed up by evidence. as long as christianity can answer certain questions (even though there are alternative possibilities) then that's enough to show god exists.

[paleocrat]

No, presuppositions cannot be backed up by evidence in the traditional fashion. This is because presuppositions are those very things that determine how we evaluate, interpret, and accept evidence. This is rather elementary. All of us have them. We are all left arguing for our presuppositions on the same lines. We are not unique here.

You are wasting my time...

[woohoojesus]

god has been pushed further and further back by science and now the only questions left are those like "how did the universe originate?" (the type of questions you're asking). god is hanging on by his fingertips, and will slip off once science answers these questions.

i could create a religion which accounts for the things which you claim only christianity can account for. and i think it's important to point out that christianity can't account for everything.

[paleocrat]

I am not just asking about origin. I am talking about reality, being, knowledge, ethics, trustworthy sensory experience, etc. The list could go on. We are talking about world and life views. These aren't peicemeal issues. You may get away with this when dealing with VenomFangX types, but not presuppositionalists. Nice try.

Create a religion. Go for it. For now, we are the ONLY ones with answers. You guys keep trying...

[woohoojesus]

"Create a religion. Go for it. For now, we are the ONLY ones with answers. You guys keep trying..."

i could create it if i had enough time. this hypothetical religion would also account for the things which christianity can't account for, thus making it superior.

[paleocrat]

hahahahaha I would, but I won't, but it would be better than yours! hahahaaha

I heard stuff like this on the playground.

See ya, gotta get ready for my radio show.

[woohoojesus]

"hahahahaha I would, but I won't, but it would be better than yours! hahahaaha"

all i'm saying is that it's POSSIBLE for a religion to be created which accounts for all those things.

and yea, it would be better than christianity- people wouldn't be tortured for all eternity for choosing the incorrect religion.

[woohoojesus]

you're saying i'm begging the question because i use science to come to the conclusion that the preconditions for science must exist, right? well, the same problem exists with religion.

if i ask you how did god originate, what would you say? god is infinite? god has no origin? well, infinity and origin are concepts which were supposedly created by god. so how do you account for the rules which allowed god's existence?

[paleocrat]

No. You use presuppositions before using science. You use presuppositions to interpret reality, evaluate evidence, and make decisions one way or another.

I have dealt with this stuff so many times I am getting tired of it. Where did God come from? Seriously, at least be original. No offense, but I have little tolerance for atheist comments these days.

[woohoojesus]

is this an originality contest now? i'm not asking where god came from, i'm asking you to explain the rules and conditions which allowed him to exist.

[paleocrat]

If I hadn't answered this question from at least 20 other atheists on my site over the past month, I wouldn't be so exasperated.

Two things:

1. The law of causation doesn't require that every cause is an effect. It simply states that every effect has a cause. We insist that God is an uncaused cause.

2. Atheists only have a handful of options. A material universe without beginning? Infinite regress of cause and effect? Out of nothing? Pick your poison.

[woohoojesus]

right, and how did the law of causation come to exist?

why are christians only allowed to resort to an uncaused cause?

how do you know atheists only have a handful of options? just because you lack the imagination to think of possibilities does not mean they are few in number.

[paleocrat]

We believe that laws reflect God's character and nature. Insofar as man's perception of that law, it never "came to exist." We recognized the fact that it existed.

Christians aren't the only ones. I included in my list "a material universe without beginning." Insert: Cause.

Typically, the more intelligent atheists stick with one of the options I listed. It isn't exhaustive, just typical.

[33LB]

"... and we had these random mutations that just coincidentally turned into humans down the road..."

have you ever opened a biology textbook?

you don't even give a reason why other apes should be given the same rights as humans. you simply throw the paper away- probably because you couldn't think of an intelligent response.

[paleocrat]

Yes, I have opened a biology book. More than one in my 5 years of education.

I didn't throw the paper away. That would leave me lost, due to the fact that it is my textbook. What I threw away was a copy of my notes about that topic.

I looked at the issue from a sociological and ethical perspective. I asked listeners to consider the ramifications of such ideas, on law, ethics, and inter-creature relations.

[33LB]

if you've opened a biology textbook, then you would know that we didn't just "coincidentally" turn into humans. it was done by natural selection, which is nothing like coincidence.

why should a foetus have more rights than a fully grown, conscious, adult gorilla?

[UnBeguiled]

I agree with you that non-human primates should not be considered persons. But how would you define a person? If an intelligent alien species paid us a visit, would you consider them non-persons?

[antipelagian]

If we are in the same moral community, will we also gaurantee endangered female primates the "right to choose"?

[RogerOnTheRight]

Regarding moral equivalence of non-humans, I look forward to the day chimpanzees march the street for civil rights. Pimp my chimp!