The Family Research Council trumpets abstinence only sex "education"
Promiscuity Leads the Pact
Despite the angst over fuel prices and the presidential race, rumors of a high school pregnancy pact are stealing headlines in America's largest newspapers
Yep! It's a major issue and should be treated with respect. For example, we probably shouldn't just sweep it under the rug and tell people "don't have sex, it's bad".
and prompting more parents to question what public education is teaching their children about sex.
Because we all know that the solution to any problem is ignorance!
During the 2007-08 school year, Joseph Sullivan, the principal of Massachusetts' Gloucester High School (GHS), noticed a serious spike in the number of girls who became pregnant during the school year. In an interview with Time, he admitted that the teen pregnancy rate had quadrupled at GHS, and he suspected that a group of sophomore girls agreed to "get pregnant and raise their babies together."
Interesting, if true. That would actually sound like a reasoned response to how to manage the pressures of being a parent - form a community and help each other. What would be wrong with that? Is helping each other a problem?
While the media is consumed with whether or not such a pact exists, the story raises far more troubling issues about the school's message on sexuality.
And now we get down to it! Yay!
If these students never struck an agreement, as Gloucester's Mayor Carolyn Kirk insists, we can presume at the very least that these 16-year-old girls thought it was acceptable to be sexually active and become pregnant.
God turned on the equipment to do so, right? Who are we to dispute His judgment?
And why wouldn't they? GHS's own policy encourages it.
If "encourage" means "doesn't vilify a teenager for not following bogus religious rules", then this is correct.
The school offers free on-site daycare for teen moms so that students can bring their babies to school.
As opposed to forcing the girls to drop out because they have to take care of their baby.
It also teaches "comprehensive" sex education to students in the ninth grade, just in time for high school.
So in the science classroom, we should give the kids all of the facts and let them decide. But in sex education, we should only teach them one thing and one thing only. And that thing should be the one thing that the entire species is hardwired not to do. Okay! Got it!
If the school is bending over backward to accommodate teen mothers and encouraging the promiscuity that leads to it,
Remember folks, "encourage" currently means "doesn't vilify a teenager for not following bogus religious rules". This recap courtesy of Webster! Rewriting the dictionary for over 200 years!
these girls would have no choice but to assume that premarital sex and motherhood are acceptable social norms.
Yep! No choice at all! No other places anywhere in the world that they could possibly get information about one of the largest life impacting choices they will ever make!
Parents? No way! They can't talk to them.
TV? Nope! Nothing about sex there!
Internet? Please! There's no sex on the internet! No chat rooms, no IMs, no blogs, no email, no text messages about it. Get serious!
Newspapers, magazines, libraries, et al? No way! These kids can barely read.
Friends? Yeesh! Who do you think is getting these girls pregnant?
Other family members? As if! They're all going to tell them just not to have sex!
There we go! We're fresh out of possibilities. Kids have no choice!
Sarah Brown of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy said, "This is not a story about sex education." Of course it is! It just happens to be a story that liberals are trying to hide, as it confirms--once again--the failure of comprehensive sex education.
Yep! Complete failure! We didn't whip the pregnant girl down the middle of the street for the offense against God of having sex?!? We all fail! Our school had the audacity to teach teenagers about the very instincts that every single human being gets when they hit puberty?!? Clearly that's a horrible idea!
Planned Parenthood celebrated when Gov. Deval Patrick (D) refused the federal funds for abstinence programs in Massachusetts schools. Had he accepted the grant and encouraged schools like GHS to use it to teach sexual restraint, the storyline in this storied fishing village might have been different.
Certainly would have been different! They still would have had sex, but with abstinence only education they would have been branded evil, lying, stinking, traitors to their community as well!
Instead schools like Gloucester insist on promoting promiscuity over abstinence in direct contradiction of the wishes of 78 percent of parents (as expressed in a 2007 Zogby poll)
Note the lack of teenagers who were polled. It's pretty easy to say "no" when you're not the one giving anything up.
Like us, these parents don't understand what's wrong with telling kids to simply say "no." Isn't that the message we give them on other dangerous activities like drug and alcohol use?
So everyone is pre-programmed with a huge smoking drive and if we all didn't smoke the human race would end? Dude, your analogy needs some serious work. Try going after something that the human body really needs - like eating, for example.
We tell them not to smoke. And unlike sex education, we don't hand them filters and say "If you're going to light up, smoke safely."
Yeah, the smoking thing still isn't working. Did you get this one out of "Sucky Analogies to Use to Try to Confuse Idiots"? Or did it come from "1001 Lousy Analogies That Won't Work At All"?
Now that public schools are starting to reap what they've sown with the "just do it" mentality, states are scrambling to accommodate kids and their poor decision-making. On teen sex, it's time to stop treating the problem and start preventing it with the only birth control that is 100% effective--abstinence.
And we're finally to the crux of the issue. Abstaining from sex is 100% effective in avoiding sex. But Abstinence Only Sex Education is utterly proven to be a completely worthless pipe dream. It fails every study that it's been subjected to. More importantly it fails the basic precept of education: That we should be teaching the next generation what we know.
Abstinence Only education is, by definition, refusing to teach the subject that is claims to teach. That, my friends, is always going to be a bad idea.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Friday, July 18, 2008
Dr. Henry Morgentaler, Order of Canada
On July 1st, Canada Day by the way, Dr. Henry Morgentaler was inducted into the Order of Canada! Cause for celebration? Yep! Except for those that dislike freedom and choice and women controlling their own bodies.
See his induction cheapens Wayne Gretkzy's Dad's order, apparently. Read on!
Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty said Tuesday he supports the decision to award abortion crusader Dr. Henry Morgentaler with the Order of Canada.
Dr. Henry Morgentaler was named a member of the Order of Canada on July 1.
McGuinty, himself a Catholic, appears to be the first premier to address the issue publicly. His stance opposes that of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who has said he would have preferred to have seen the award bestowed on someone who unifies Canadians.
Fighting for freedom and personal liberties has never been a very Canadian thing, you see.
"I know that Dr. Morgentaler's been seen as a controversial figure, but I believe in a woman's right to make a very difficult decision," McGuinty said.
Yay McGuinty!
"And if she makes that difficult decision and chooses to have an abortion, I want her to be able to do that in a way that's safe, in a way that's publicly funded. So I know it's divisive, but I think it's important."
You rock, man! I'm going to move to Canada and become a citizen there just so I can start voting for you.
Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean named Morgentaler as a member of the order on July 1 for his services to women and for leadership in the fields of humanism and civil liberties. The controversial appointment was made on the advice of the independent Order of Canada selection committee.
McGuinty's comments came the same day an Ontario Catholic organization returned an Order of Canada medal to the Governor General to protest the decision to give Morgentaler the honour.
sigh
No good deed goes unpunished.
Order 'devalued'
Members of the Madonna House took the medal, along with a letter of explanation, to Rideau Hall, the Governor General's official residence in Ottawa.
The medal had been awarded to the organization's late founder in 1976.
"It is only after much prayer and consultation with our community, as well as with heavy hearts, that we are undertaking this action," Rev. David May, one of the Madonna House directors, said in a news release.
So they took a long, long time to decide specifically to behave like petulant children. Got it!
Catherine Doherty, who died at the age of 89 in 1985, was named a member the Order of Canada for "a lifetime of devoted services to the underprivileged of many nationalities, both in Canada and abroad," according to the Governor General's website.
Sounds really good!
She and her husband started Madonna House in 1947 in Combermere, about 180 kilometres west of Ottawa. The organization now counts 200 members and operates soup kitchens and retreats in seven countries around the world. All involved have taken vows of poverty, chastity and obedience.
May said he believes Doherty would support the organization's decision to return her award.
He prayed to her today and the table lamp bumped just like it used to when she was alive! QED!
"The order has been devalued in recent days, and we are confident that Catherine is spiritually present with us, affirming this gesture of love for our country and for the values which alone can sustain it. Without absolute respect for the gift of life, no society can survive," he said.
Isn't that great, flowery language for forcing a woman to suffer through a pregnancy and bare a child that she doesn't want?
Madonna House's decision to return the award came five days after Rev. Lucien Larré, a B.C. priest, returned his Order of Canada medal to protest Morgentaler's appointment.
And the beat goes on.
Morgentaler fought to legalize abortion
Morgentaler, a Polish Holocaust survivor who immigrated to Montreal after the Second World War, struggled for decades to have abortion legalized in Canada.
Sounds like a scumbag, doesn't he? He really devalues the Order of Canada!
He opened his first illegal abortion clinic in Montreal in 1969 and performed thousands of procedures.
A family physician, Morgentaler argued that access to abortion was a basic human right and women should not have to risk death at the hands of an untrained professional in order to end their pregnancies.
The brute! Giving young women proper medical care?!? Yep, that has devalue written all over it!
His abortion clinics were constantly raided, and one in Toronto was firebombed.
I'm always amazed that anyone can justify murdering someone who has been born as a reasonable response to making safe abortions available. I'm just saying.
Morgentaler was arrested several times and spent months in jail as he fought his case at all court levels in Canada.
On Jan. 28, 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Canada's abortion law. That law, which required a woman who wanted an abortion to appeal to a three-doctor hospital abortion committee, was declared unconstitutional.
Canada now has no federal laws governing abortion, and leaves regulation of the procedure up to individual provinces.
So the man who put his life on the line, risked being murdered, firebombed, and raided, went toe to toe with the federal government, spent time in jail because of it, and in the end won for the rights of freedom and privacy everywhere is given the highest honor Canada can bestow. Bravo!
Anyone who thinks that this man devalues anything needs a remedial course in the Inigo Montoya School for Terminally Dictatorially Clueless.
Congratulations, Dr. Morgentaler!
See his induction cheapens Wayne Gretkzy's Dad's order, apparently. Read on!
Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty said Tuesday he supports the decision to award abortion crusader Dr. Henry Morgentaler with the Order of Canada.
Dr. Henry Morgentaler was named a member of the Order of Canada on July 1.
McGuinty, himself a Catholic, appears to be the first premier to address the issue publicly. His stance opposes that of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who has said he would have preferred to have seen the award bestowed on someone who unifies Canadians.
Fighting for freedom and personal liberties has never been a very Canadian thing, you see.
"I know that Dr. Morgentaler's been seen as a controversial figure, but I believe in a woman's right to make a very difficult decision," McGuinty said.
Yay McGuinty!
"And if she makes that difficult decision and chooses to have an abortion, I want her to be able to do that in a way that's safe, in a way that's publicly funded. So I know it's divisive, but I think it's important."
You rock, man! I'm going to move to Canada and become a citizen there just so I can start voting for you.
Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean named Morgentaler as a member of the order on July 1 for his services to women and for leadership in the fields of humanism and civil liberties. The controversial appointment was made on the advice of the independent Order of Canada selection committee.
McGuinty's comments came the same day an Ontario Catholic organization returned an Order of Canada medal to the Governor General to protest the decision to give Morgentaler the honour.
sigh
No good deed goes unpunished.
Order 'devalued'
Members of the Madonna House took the medal, along with a letter of explanation, to Rideau Hall, the Governor General's official residence in Ottawa.
The medal had been awarded to the organization's late founder in 1976.
"It is only after much prayer and consultation with our community, as well as with heavy hearts, that we are undertaking this action," Rev. David May, one of the Madonna House directors, said in a news release.
So they took a long, long time to decide specifically to behave like petulant children. Got it!
Catherine Doherty, who died at the age of 89 in 1985, was named a member the Order of Canada for "a lifetime of devoted services to the underprivileged of many nationalities, both in Canada and abroad," according to the Governor General's website.
Sounds really good!
She and her husband started Madonna House in 1947 in Combermere, about 180 kilometres west of Ottawa. The organization now counts 200 members and operates soup kitchens and retreats in seven countries around the world. All involved have taken vows of poverty, chastity and obedience.
May said he believes Doherty would support the organization's decision to return her award.
He prayed to her today and the table lamp bumped just like it used to when she was alive! QED!
"The order has been devalued in recent days, and we are confident that Catherine is spiritually present with us, affirming this gesture of love for our country and for the values which alone can sustain it. Without absolute respect for the gift of life, no society can survive," he said.
Isn't that great, flowery language for forcing a woman to suffer through a pregnancy and bare a child that she doesn't want?
Madonna House's decision to return the award came five days after Rev. Lucien Larré, a B.C. priest, returned his Order of Canada medal to protest Morgentaler's appointment.
And the beat goes on.
Morgentaler fought to legalize abortion
Morgentaler, a Polish Holocaust survivor who immigrated to Montreal after the Second World War, struggled for decades to have abortion legalized in Canada.
Sounds like a scumbag, doesn't he? He really devalues the Order of Canada!
He opened his first illegal abortion clinic in Montreal in 1969 and performed thousands of procedures.
A family physician, Morgentaler argued that access to abortion was a basic human right and women should not have to risk death at the hands of an untrained professional in order to end their pregnancies.
The brute! Giving young women proper medical care?!? Yep, that has devalue written all over it!
His abortion clinics were constantly raided, and one in Toronto was firebombed.
I'm always amazed that anyone can justify murdering someone who has been born as a reasonable response to making safe abortions available. I'm just saying.
Morgentaler was arrested several times and spent months in jail as he fought his case at all court levels in Canada.
On Jan. 28, 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Canada's abortion law. That law, which required a woman who wanted an abortion to appeal to a three-doctor hospital abortion committee, was declared unconstitutional.
Canada now has no federal laws governing abortion, and leaves regulation of the procedure up to individual provinces.
So the man who put his life on the line, risked being murdered, firebombed, and raided, went toe to toe with the federal government, spent time in jail because of it, and in the end won for the rights of freedom and privacy everywhere is given the highest honor Canada can bestow. Bravo!
Anyone who thinks that this man devalues anything needs a remedial course in the Inigo Montoya School for Terminally Dictatorially Clueless.
Congratulations, Dr. Morgentaler!
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Mutant mice!
Our friend, Brian Thomas at the ICR, makes another ignorant stab at evolution.
Human Stem Cells Cure Mutated Mice
by Brian Thomas, M.S.*
Researchers are intelligently designing techniques to combat mutations that cause neurological disorders.
Excellent! And here we were worried that they were wasting their time eating caviar and salsa dancing.
If evolution works according to the standard neo-Darwinian model of time + selection + mutation, then why are we interfering with the process?
Is this a trick question? Because we have particular goals in mind that we want to accomplish. That would be the same answer as to why we clean the house instead of just letting nature eventually clean it for us.
Shouldn’t we let evolution run its course?
That would depend on what course nature is running and what we want to achieve.
Perhaps these diseased individuals would grow a new organ or something, and become the next step in our naturally upward progression from hydrogen to human and beyond.
I'm betting not. And I think you agree.
It seems that such evolutionary philosophy becomes practically unlivable.
Your bizarro world evolutionary philosophy is, I agree!
Rather than let ”evolution” take its course, researchers are thankfully taking steps to remedy mutations’ harmful effects.
Woot! Yay for the researchers!
Nature News reported on June 41 the successful treatment of mice that are born with a mutation that prevents myelin from forming around their nerve cells. Without myelin, the mice live tortured, short lives. Myelin-related disorders in humans include multiple sclerosis and adrenoleukodystrophy. The lead researcher of the study, Stephen Goldman from the University of Rochester in New York, described these as “awful, awful diseases.”
Very nasty! Ouch!
His treatment involved injecting human nervous tissue stem cells into the spinal cords of newborn mice. Untreated mice with this mutation typically died young, but some of the treated mice grew myelin and were normalizing as they developed. The successful stem cells were harvested not from human embryos, but from human adults.
As always, the mutation in these mice represents a loss of valuable genetic information. It is this very loss that these researchers are seeking to restore with stem cell treatments.
Very reasonable.
Does anybody else find it ironic that biomedical researchers are pouring their lives into reversing the effects of mutations, after having been taught in our universities and medical schools that mutations are the essential engines of evolution? Perhaps time + selection + mutation isn’t such a good formula after all.
Nope, not in the slightest. The reason why is that those scientists are not stopping evolution, they're stopping that undesirable mutation in mice. Evolution can and will continue on. Rather than challenging the formula above, they're demonstrating that it's true. And then going forward and using that knowledge to help mice and perhaps someday help humans in much the same way.
It is ironic that a group that prides itself on easing human suffering does it's level best to prevent the people who are actually doing real work to help ease suffering.
Human Stem Cells Cure Mutated Mice
by Brian Thomas, M.S.*
Researchers are intelligently designing techniques to combat mutations that cause neurological disorders.
Excellent! And here we were worried that they were wasting their time eating caviar and salsa dancing.
If evolution works according to the standard neo-Darwinian model of time + selection + mutation, then why are we interfering with the process?
Is this a trick question? Because we have particular goals in mind that we want to accomplish. That would be the same answer as to why we clean the house instead of just letting nature eventually clean it for us.
Shouldn’t we let evolution run its course?
That would depend on what course nature is running and what we want to achieve.
Perhaps these diseased individuals would grow a new organ or something, and become the next step in our naturally upward progression from hydrogen to human and beyond.
I'm betting not. And I think you agree.
It seems that such evolutionary philosophy becomes practically unlivable.
Your bizarro world evolutionary philosophy is, I agree!
Rather than let ”evolution” take its course, researchers are thankfully taking steps to remedy mutations’ harmful effects.
Woot! Yay for the researchers!
Nature News reported on June 41 the successful treatment of mice that are born with a mutation that prevents myelin from forming around their nerve cells. Without myelin, the mice live tortured, short lives. Myelin-related disorders in humans include multiple sclerosis and adrenoleukodystrophy. The lead researcher of the study, Stephen Goldman from the University of Rochester in New York, described these as “awful, awful diseases.”
Very nasty! Ouch!
His treatment involved injecting human nervous tissue stem cells into the spinal cords of newborn mice. Untreated mice with this mutation typically died young, but some of the treated mice grew myelin and were normalizing as they developed. The successful stem cells were harvested not from human embryos, but from human adults.
As always, the mutation in these mice represents a loss of valuable genetic information. It is this very loss that these researchers are seeking to restore with stem cell treatments.
Very reasonable.
Does anybody else find it ironic that biomedical researchers are pouring their lives into reversing the effects of mutations, after having been taught in our universities and medical schools that mutations are the essential engines of evolution? Perhaps time + selection + mutation isn’t such a good formula after all.
Nope, not in the slightest. The reason why is that those scientists are not stopping evolution, they're stopping that undesirable mutation in mice. Evolution can and will continue on. Rather than challenging the formula above, they're demonstrating that it's true. And then going forward and using that knowledge to help mice and perhaps someday help humans in much the same way.
It is ironic that a group that prides itself on easing human suffering does it's level best to prevent the people who are actually doing real work to help ease suffering.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
More marriage lunacy!
More twisted fairy tales from our good friends at Protect Marriage.
In this section learn more about the legal and legislative issues surrounding the ProtectMarriage.com Amendment, review frequently asked questions (FAQs) and read articles related to protecting marriage.
Why It’s Needed
1. Children need the love of both a father and a mother.
Which, of course, means that anything other than the love of both a mother and a father is full blown torturing the child. We're talking the equivalent of putting the tyke into a room with Sayid Jarrah from Lost and telling Sayid to use "any means necessary" here. Clearly no child raised with out the love of both a mother and a father (and I'm talking about a female parent and a male parent here) has been anything but a traumatized, homicidal drain on our society.
The body of research-proof is overwhelming and consistent. (Read Glenn Stanton’s writings on the Focus on the Family Web site for more information.)
By all means consult a conservative Christian corporation for all of your research! That's a great idea! Oh....wait a minute...it's not.
2. Traditional marriage deserves protection because of its contributions to societal well-being. The historic purpose for governmental recognition of marriage has been about children and society, not the relationship of two adults. (For more information, consult the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy.)
Yep, no need to give good, loving, caring, hardworking adults those governmental protections! Why would we do a silly thing like that?!?
3. Expanding the definition of marriage by including homosexual relationships adds to the continued disregard for marriage’s ultimate purpose.
No. It would continue to disregard what marriage means to you and your religion. There's a difference! The really neat part is that we have religious freedom in the USA so we don't have to pay attention to what a particular religion thinks about a secular, legal condition. And that protection is what keeps the government from stomping on your religion!
Where it has been legalized, same-sex marriage decreases the total number of marriages while increasing illegitimacy. Nine European nations have had same-sex marriage since the early 90s—and just 2 percent of same-sex couples in these countries ever bother to marry, while there has been a 46 percent increase in out-of-wedlock births. (Read more)
Okay, I'm just confused. If the argument is that gay couples won't get married anyway, then that's an argument to go ahead and save your money on the campaign. If they aren't going to take advantage of getting married after all, there's no reason to try to stop them from doing so. Really, get your arguments straight here!
4. Expanding the definition of marriage begs the question: Why stop at same-sex couples? What legal basis would remain to limit the number of partners in marriage?
Common sense comes to mind.
5. Legalizing same-sex marriage necessarily mandates changes to all California public-school curriculum. Children will be subjected to a mandatory acceptance of homosexuality and all of its practices. Public school curriculum will actively discriminate against the values of the majority of its community’s families.
Schools teaching tolerance is a good thing. Really! It is!
6. Religious freedom has been the cornerstone of success for the United States of America. It is naïve to believe that when acceptance of same-sex marriage is legislatively or judicially forced upon citizens via employment law, education, or other government mandates, rights of religious liberty won’t decrease.
I hope you're not saying that you think that you have the right to descriminate against others. We were having such a good conversation up until this point! * sigh *
Did you know…?
…that just eight years ago, California voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 22, by 61.4% of the vote, to keep marriage only between a man and a woman.
You don't say!
So why do we now need to amend the state constitution?
Because you just found out that it supersedes statewide propositions!
On May 15, the California Supreme Court ruled that the statutory changes made by Propositoin 22 were invalid. The only way to overturn this is decision is with a Constitutional Amendment. See our news release on this decision. (Read the decision.) The Court declared a right to “same-sex marriage” in direct opposition to the definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman, established by Proposition 22.
Not to point out the obvious here, but usually when a court strikes down a law, it does so in direct opposition to that law. I'm just saying.
In the majority decision authored by Chief Justice Ronald George, he wrote “an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.”
Yay for equality!
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Marvin Baxter stated, “…marriage is, as it always has been, the right of a woman and an unrelated man to marry each other.” Baxter added “…there is no deeply rooted tradition of same-sex marriage, in the nation or in this state.”
True!
Prop 22 added a regular statute to the California Family Code (not the state constitution) to keep marriage between a man and a woman and prevent the state Legislature from redefining marriage without a vote of the people. Since then however, politicians and judges have chipped away at Prop 22 and ignored the will of the voters. For example:
• In 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom thumbed his nose at California voters by issuing marriage licenses to thousands of homosexual couples in open defiance of Proposition 22. Ultimately, the courts declared those so-called “marriages” to be invalid, but left the door open to a future constitutional challenge against traditional marriage.
An elected representative did what he felt was the right thing?!? Now I've seen it all!
• Additionally, the courts have undermined Proposition 22 and marriage by upholding an act of the Legislature that gave homosexual “domestic partners” the full legal status of married spouses. A San Francisco judge ruled that Proposition 22, a regular statute, violates the California Constitution and ordered the licensing of same-sex “marriages.” On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court overruled Proposition 22 and declared that homosexuals have a constitutional right to marry.
Wow...a court overturned an unconstitutional law. Who do they think they are? A judge or something?!?
Seriously, this one is really simple. There are people who love and care for each other who just happen to be the same gender. The purpose of life is happiness: we should just let them be happy with each other. If allowing them to get married helps them on the universal path to their own happiness, it should be our pleasure to open that door for them.
The greatest damage religion can do is to make good people do bad things. These couples are not encroaching on anyone else's life by asking to get married. Standing in the way of their happiness is bad.
In this section learn more about the legal and legislative issues surrounding the ProtectMarriage.com Amendment, review frequently asked questions (FAQs) and read articles related to protecting marriage.
Why It’s Needed
1. Children need the love of both a father and a mother.
Which, of course, means that anything other than the love of both a mother and a father is full blown torturing the child. We're talking the equivalent of putting the tyke into a room with Sayid Jarrah from Lost and telling Sayid to use "any means necessary" here. Clearly no child raised with out the love of both a mother and a father (and I'm talking about a female parent and a male parent here) has been anything but a traumatized, homicidal drain on our society.
The body of research-proof is overwhelming and consistent. (Read Glenn Stanton’s writings on the Focus on the Family Web site for more information.)
By all means consult a conservative Christian corporation for all of your research! That's a great idea! Oh....wait a minute...it's not.
2. Traditional marriage deserves protection because of its contributions to societal well-being. The historic purpose for governmental recognition of marriage has been about children and society, not the relationship of two adults. (For more information, consult the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy.)
Yep, no need to give good, loving, caring, hardworking adults those governmental protections! Why would we do a silly thing like that?!?
3. Expanding the definition of marriage by including homosexual relationships adds to the continued disregard for marriage’s ultimate purpose.
No. It would continue to disregard what marriage means to you and your religion. There's a difference! The really neat part is that we have religious freedom in the USA so we don't have to pay attention to what a particular religion thinks about a secular, legal condition. And that protection is what keeps the government from stomping on your religion!
Where it has been legalized, same-sex marriage decreases the total number of marriages while increasing illegitimacy. Nine European nations have had same-sex marriage since the early 90s—and just 2 percent of same-sex couples in these countries ever bother to marry, while there has been a 46 percent increase in out-of-wedlock births. (Read more)
Okay, I'm just confused. If the argument is that gay couples won't get married anyway, then that's an argument to go ahead and save your money on the campaign. If they aren't going to take advantage of getting married after all, there's no reason to try to stop them from doing so. Really, get your arguments straight here!
4. Expanding the definition of marriage begs the question: Why stop at same-sex couples? What legal basis would remain to limit the number of partners in marriage?
Common sense comes to mind.
5. Legalizing same-sex marriage necessarily mandates changes to all California public-school curriculum. Children will be subjected to a mandatory acceptance of homosexuality and all of its practices. Public school curriculum will actively discriminate against the values of the majority of its community’s families.
Schools teaching tolerance is a good thing. Really! It is!
6. Religious freedom has been the cornerstone of success for the United States of America. It is naïve to believe that when acceptance of same-sex marriage is legislatively or judicially forced upon citizens via employment law, education, or other government mandates, rights of religious liberty won’t decrease.
I hope you're not saying that you think that you have the right to descriminate against others. We were having such a good conversation up until this point! * sigh *
Did you know…?
…that just eight years ago, California voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 22, by 61.4% of the vote, to keep marriage only between a man and a woman.
You don't say!
So why do we now need to amend the state constitution?
Because you just found out that it supersedes statewide propositions!
On May 15, the California Supreme Court ruled that the statutory changes made by Propositoin 22 were invalid. The only way to overturn this is decision is with a Constitutional Amendment. See our news release on this decision. (Read the decision.) The Court declared a right to “same-sex marriage” in direct opposition to the definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman, established by Proposition 22.
Not to point out the obvious here, but usually when a court strikes down a law, it does so in direct opposition to that law. I'm just saying.
In the majority decision authored by Chief Justice Ronald George, he wrote “an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.”
Yay for equality!
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Marvin Baxter stated, “…marriage is, as it always has been, the right of a woman and an unrelated man to marry each other.” Baxter added “…there is no deeply rooted tradition of same-sex marriage, in the nation or in this state.”
True!
Prop 22 added a regular statute to the California Family Code (not the state constitution) to keep marriage between a man and a woman and prevent the state Legislature from redefining marriage without a vote of the people. Since then however, politicians and judges have chipped away at Prop 22 and ignored the will of the voters. For example:
• In 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom thumbed his nose at California voters by issuing marriage licenses to thousands of homosexual couples in open defiance of Proposition 22. Ultimately, the courts declared those so-called “marriages” to be invalid, but left the door open to a future constitutional challenge against traditional marriage.
An elected representative did what he felt was the right thing?!? Now I've seen it all!
• Additionally, the courts have undermined Proposition 22 and marriage by upholding an act of the Legislature that gave homosexual “domestic partners” the full legal status of married spouses. A San Francisco judge ruled that Proposition 22, a regular statute, violates the California Constitution and ordered the licensing of same-sex “marriages.” On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court overruled Proposition 22 and declared that homosexuals have a constitutional right to marry.
Wow...a court overturned an unconstitutional law. Who do they think they are? A judge or something?!?
Seriously, this one is really simple. There are people who love and care for each other who just happen to be the same gender. The purpose of life is happiness: we should just let them be happy with each other. If allowing them to get married helps them on the universal path to their own happiness, it should be our pleasure to open that door for them.
The greatest damage religion can do is to make good people do bad things. These couples are not encroaching on anyone else's life by asking to get married. Standing in the way of their happiness is bad.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Conservapedia on Creation Science
Conservapedia on Creation Science! Woot!
Creation science
Creation science is science free from atheist and evolutionist bias, which shows that supernatural creation of the material universe by God is consistent and compatible with scientific evidence.
That's an encyclopedic definition?!?
So if we had a scientific theory that was free of "evolutionist bias", showed the universe was made by God in a supernatural event, but had "atheist bias", that isn't creation science, right?
How about we have "atheist bias" and "evolutionist bias" but the universe was created by some competing god down the street? Would that be creation science?
And lest we forget, here is the list of the creaionist theories that are free of "atheist and evolutionist bias", show God to have created the universe, and are compatible with all scientific evidence:
None.
Yep! That's right! Throw in the "all" clause - meaning that the theory has to meet all evidence, not just a few pieces here and there and the entire subject washes away with the tide.
Most advocates of creation science believe the earth is approximately 6,000 years old
This isn't even true if we just talk about creation scientists. It's only the bible literalists that hold to the Y6K motif like a drowning man clutches to a life preserver.
In addition, scientists in the discipline of creation science state that the first law of thermodynamics and second law of thermodynamics argue against an eternal universe.
That would be the same ones that state the Earth is 6,000 years old.
They also claim that these laws point to the universe being created by God.
Great hypothesis! Too bad it failed the testing protocols. Bummer.
Creation scientists also assert that naturalistic processes alone cannot account for the origin of life and that the theory of evolution cannot account for the various kinds of animals and plants.
Can I be a creation scientist, too? Making stuff up and just stating it or asserting it sounds way easier than what real scientists do!
Both evolutionary scientists and young earth creation scientists believe that speciation occurs;
So they don't just state that speciation occurs? How quaint!
however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionists believe is the case. Many scientists in the field of creation science, such as the scientists at Creation Ministries International and Answers in Genesis, assert that the Bible contains an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed.
Ah, back to the assertions. And here I thought we were moving forward!
In addition, Christianity profoundly influenced the development of modern science.
For example, torturing Galileo did, in fact, have a profound influence on him.
Creation Science and Genetic Programs and Biological Information
Scientists in the area of creation science and intelligent design advocates state the genetic code, genetic programs, and biological information argue for an intelligent cause in regards to the origins question.
Broken record time, here, but really just stating stuff isn't science any more than holding your hand over the bible is theology.
Dr. Werner Gitt, former director and Professor of Information Systems at the prestigious German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt), wrote that human beings are the most complex information processing systems on earth. Dr. Gitt estimated that the human body processes thousands of times more information than all the world's libraries contain.
This part might be true. We'd need to see his evidence, but the fact is the human brain is an amazing information processing organ.
Dr. Gitt has written several points regarding the origin of biological information:
It's story time!
1. In his work In the Beginning Was Information Dr. Gitt stated that “There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.”
He might want to read Dawkins, sometime. He has a book or two on this subject. I'm sure it's just an oversight on Dr. Gitt's part to not know of a 159 year old theory.
2. Dr. Gitt argued that the density and complexity of DNA information is millions of times larger than mankind's current technology
Might be true!
and this means a supremely intelligent being was the author of this information
Completely false!
What it really means is that there has to be some mechanism to create this complexity. It's completely false to say that only a god could do that, especially since there are other alternatives.
Similarly, Dr. Stephen C. Meyer in his 1996 essay The Origin of Life and the Death of Materialism, wrote that "the information storage density of DNA, thanks in part to nucleosome spooling, is several trillion times that of our most advanced computer chips.
We're amazingly complex, yep!
3. Gitt stated that the author of the information encoded into the DNA molecule, who constructed the molecular biomachines to encode, decode and run the cells was supremely intelligent.
So another axiom that we either believe or don't. Here a hint, scientists, the ones that actually follow the scientific method and test their theories and other weird stuff that you haven't heard of - like independent reviews - don't believe this axiom. They've even come up with other ways that this could happen. And then tested those ways and found that they work!
Isn't real science fun?!? Yeah!
4. Dr. Gitt asserted that because information is a nonmaterial entity and does not originate from matter, the author of biological information must be nonmaterial (spirit).
And is spooky!
Dr. Walt Brown concurs in regards to the supernatural origin of biological information and states that the genetic material that controls the biological processes of life is coded information and that human experience tells us that codes are created only by the result of intelligence and not merely by processes of nature.
Evidence! *whistles like whistling for a dog* Where are you evidence! Come on over, Evidence! Show yourself...someday!
Dr. Brown also asserts that the "information stored in the genetic material of all life is a complex program. Therefore, it appears that an unfathomable intelligence created these genetic programs."
Appears? Perhaps. Did? No.
It really doesn't matter how many times you state or assert something. Until you show evidence of that something you've got nothing more than a bunch of unsupported hopes and wishes.
To support his creation science view regarding the divine origin of genetic programs,
Look, ma! They might get around to showing us some evidence!
Dr. Walt Brown cites the work of David Abel and Professor Jack Trevors who wrote the following:
“No matter how many "bits" of possible combinations it has, there is no reason to call it "information" if it doesn't at least have the potential of producing something useful. What kind of information produces function? In computer science, we call it a "program." Another name for computer software is an "algorithm." No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms' genomes programmed? - David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information,” Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8"
Creation Science and the Evolutionary Science Community
Nope. No evidence here. Just an unanswered question. Bummer!
Creation science is not accepted by most scientists either in terms of its claims or as a science, on the pretext that it cannot be disproved and therefore cannot be considered "science".
Yep, that's really, really important.
However, Dr. Walt Brown argues that the field of creation science is scientific.
Okay! State your evidence of this.
Also, creation scientists state the evolutionists' objections to creation science are due to the worldviews and preconceptions of the scientists, rather than on the basis of scientific evidence or the scientific validity of the idea.
Oh, of course. You're not going to give any evidence. How silly of me!
Also, Karl Popper, a leading philosopher of science and originator of falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience, stated that Darwinism is "not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme." Michael Ruse, a leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, conditionally acknowledged Popper's statement: "Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable."
Here's another quote from Karl Popper: “I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation”. You see, Karl found out that he was wrong and so, like a good scientific mind, when he was presented with new data, he changed his mind.
Although a belief in God does not automatically imply a belief in creation science, it is interesting to note that a poll among United States scientists showed that approximately 40% of scientists believed there is a God, while a similar survey found that 93% of members of the United States National Academy of Sciences do not believe there is a God.
And thank you, Conservapedia, for staying on topic!
Creation science
Creation science is science free from atheist and evolutionist bias, which shows that supernatural creation of the material universe by God is consistent and compatible with scientific evidence.
That's an encyclopedic definition?!?
So if we had a scientific theory that was free of "evolutionist bias", showed the universe was made by God in a supernatural event, but had "atheist bias", that isn't creation science, right?
How about we have "atheist bias" and "evolutionist bias" but the universe was created by some competing god down the street? Would that be creation science?
And lest we forget, here is the list of the creaionist theories that are free of "atheist and evolutionist bias", show God to have created the universe, and are compatible with all scientific evidence:
None.
Yep! That's right! Throw in the "all" clause - meaning that the theory has to meet all evidence, not just a few pieces here and there and the entire subject washes away with the tide.
Most advocates of creation science believe the earth is approximately 6,000 years old
This isn't even true if we just talk about creation scientists. It's only the bible literalists that hold to the Y6K motif like a drowning man clutches to a life preserver.
In addition, scientists in the discipline of creation science state that the first law of thermodynamics and second law of thermodynamics argue against an eternal universe.
That would be the same ones that state the Earth is 6,000 years old.
They also claim that these laws point to the universe being created by God.
Great hypothesis! Too bad it failed the testing protocols. Bummer.
Creation scientists also assert that naturalistic processes alone cannot account for the origin of life and that the theory of evolution cannot account for the various kinds of animals and plants.
Can I be a creation scientist, too? Making stuff up and just stating it or asserting it sounds way easier than what real scientists do!
Both evolutionary scientists and young earth creation scientists believe that speciation occurs;
So they don't just state that speciation occurs? How quaint!
however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionists believe is the case. Many scientists in the field of creation science, such as the scientists at Creation Ministries International and Answers in Genesis, assert that the Bible contains an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed.
Ah, back to the assertions. And here I thought we were moving forward!
In addition, Christianity profoundly influenced the development of modern science.
For example, torturing Galileo did, in fact, have a profound influence on him.
Creation Science and Genetic Programs and Biological Information
Scientists in the area of creation science and intelligent design advocates state the genetic code, genetic programs, and biological information argue for an intelligent cause in regards to the origins question.
Broken record time, here, but really just stating stuff isn't science any more than holding your hand over the bible is theology.
Dr. Werner Gitt, former director and Professor of Information Systems at the prestigious German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt), wrote that human beings are the most complex information processing systems on earth. Dr. Gitt estimated that the human body processes thousands of times more information than all the world's libraries contain.
This part might be true. We'd need to see his evidence, but the fact is the human brain is an amazing information processing organ.
Dr. Gitt has written several points regarding the origin of biological information:
It's story time!
1. In his work In the Beginning Was Information Dr. Gitt stated that “There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.”
He might want to read Dawkins, sometime. He has a book or two on this subject. I'm sure it's just an oversight on Dr. Gitt's part to not know of a 159 year old theory.
2. Dr. Gitt argued that the density and complexity of DNA information is millions of times larger than mankind's current technology
Might be true!
and this means a supremely intelligent being was the author of this information
Completely false!
What it really means is that there has to be some mechanism to create this complexity. It's completely false to say that only a god could do that, especially since there are other alternatives.
Similarly, Dr. Stephen C. Meyer in his 1996 essay The Origin of Life and the Death of Materialism, wrote that "the information storage density of DNA, thanks in part to nucleosome spooling, is several trillion times that of our most advanced computer chips.
We're amazingly complex, yep!
3. Gitt stated that the author of the information encoded into the DNA molecule, who constructed the molecular biomachines to encode, decode and run the cells was supremely intelligent.
So another axiom that we either believe or don't. Here a hint, scientists, the ones that actually follow the scientific method and test their theories and other weird stuff that you haven't heard of - like independent reviews - don't believe this axiom. They've even come up with other ways that this could happen. And then tested those ways and found that they work!
Isn't real science fun?!? Yeah!
4. Dr. Gitt asserted that because information is a nonmaterial entity and does not originate from matter, the author of biological information must be nonmaterial (spirit).
And is spooky!
Dr. Walt Brown concurs in regards to the supernatural origin of biological information and states that the genetic material that controls the biological processes of life is coded information and that human experience tells us that codes are created only by the result of intelligence and not merely by processes of nature.
Evidence! *whistles like whistling for a dog* Where are you evidence! Come on over, Evidence! Show yourself...someday!
Dr. Brown also asserts that the "information stored in the genetic material of all life is a complex program. Therefore, it appears that an unfathomable intelligence created these genetic programs."
Appears? Perhaps. Did? No.
It really doesn't matter how many times you state or assert something. Until you show evidence of that something you've got nothing more than a bunch of unsupported hopes and wishes.
To support his creation science view regarding the divine origin of genetic programs,
Look, ma! They might get around to showing us some evidence!
Dr. Walt Brown cites the work of David Abel and Professor Jack Trevors who wrote the following:
“No matter how many "bits" of possible combinations it has, there is no reason to call it "information" if it doesn't at least have the potential of producing something useful. What kind of information produces function? In computer science, we call it a "program." Another name for computer software is an "algorithm." No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms' genomes programmed? - David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information,” Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8"
Creation Science and the Evolutionary Science Community
Nope. No evidence here. Just an unanswered question. Bummer!
Creation science is not accepted by most scientists either in terms of its claims or as a science, on the pretext that it cannot be disproved and therefore cannot be considered "science".
Yep, that's really, really important.
However, Dr. Walt Brown argues that the field of creation science is scientific.
Okay! State your evidence of this.
Also, creation scientists state the evolutionists' objections to creation science are due to the worldviews and preconceptions of the scientists, rather than on the basis of scientific evidence or the scientific validity of the idea.
Oh, of course. You're not going to give any evidence. How silly of me!
Also, Karl Popper, a leading philosopher of science and originator of falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience, stated that Darwinism is "not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme." Michael Ruse, a leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, conditionally acknowledged Popper's statement: "Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable."
Here's another quote from Karl Popper: “I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation”. You see, Karl found out that he was wrong and so, like a good scientific mind, when he was presented with new data, he changed his mind.
Although a belief in God does not automatically imply a belief in creation science, it is interesting to note that a poll among United States scientists showed that approximately 40% of scientists believed there is a God, while a similar survey found that 93% of members of the United States National Academy of Sciences do not believe there is a God.
And thank you, Conservapedia, for staying on topic!
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Hagee on cremation
John Hagee's comedy FAQ show continues on. This time with cremation!
Q. Is it wrong for a Christian to choose to be cremated?
A. Burial and cremation are personal choices;
So we’re done. The answer is “No.”
the Bible does not prescribe a particular method for disposing of bodies after death.
Still “No.”
However, Christians have historically followed the Jewish custom of burial, for several reasons.
So “Yes”, then?
First, it shows respect for our physical bodies, which are the creation of God. We are "fearfully and wonderfully made," the Bible says (Ps. 139:14).
Fear, a wonderful trait for any religion.
Jesus Himself chose to come to earth in a physical body just like ours, and He was resurrected in that same body.
As told in the clear contemporary documentation of…I’m sure it’s around here somewhere…
Lets see, Jesus was a big, important figure in first century religion. I’m sure there are lots of people who wrote about him at the time…
Rats.
No worries. I’ll keep looking!
Our bodies are also destined for resurrection;
Really?!? I thought that was reserved for “the Family”
our "natural" bodies will be gloriously transformed into "spiritual" bodies when the dead in Christ are raised (1 Cor. 15).
Sounds great!
At that time, when we receive our glorified bodies, it will not matter whether we were buried or cremated at death.
So we’re back to “No.” Your concision is amazing!
Many Christians who have perished in fires have been involuntarily cremated.
Clearly “No.”
Think of those believers who lost their lives in the collapse of the World Trade Center, for example.
“Randolph Scott!”
Most of the bodies were not recovered; the victims' remains were obliterated and their ashes scattered in the massive pile of rubble. It was humanly impossible to identify the dead, yet the God who created them can identify their bodies down to the last atom.
Cool! Just a side question – for the guy who had just clipped his fingernails before the planes hit, do those atoms count as still his? At what point do the atoms of someone’s spit stop being part of him and start being not his atoms anymore? I’m just asking.
And He will resurrect them "in the twinkling of an eye," exactly as He will those Christians whose bodies were buried and decomposed naturally.
So we’re back to “No.”. It seems odd to use 262 words just to say “No.”
Burial or cremation is a very personal choice.
Ah! A time honored tradition of school kids reaching a word requirement – repeat yourself unnecessarily.
You should discuss it with your closest family members before making a decision, so they will be comfortable in carrying out your decision and living with the memories.
Very good advice! It got really wordy in the middle and never really said “No, it’s not wrong”, so Johhny, you get a C+.
Q. Is it wrong for a Christian to choose to be cremated?
A. Burial and cremation are personal choices;
So we’re done. The answer is “No.”
the Bible does not prescribe a particular method for disposing of bodies after death.
Still “No.”
However, Christians have historically followed the Jewish custom of burial, for several reasons.
So “Yes”, then?
First, it shows respect for our physical bodies, which are the creation of God. We are "fearfully and wonderfully made," the Bible says (Ps. 139:14).
Fear, a wonderful trait for any religion.
Jesus Himself chose to come to earth in a physical body just like ours, and He was resurrected in that same body.
As told in the clear contemporary documentation of…I’m sure it’s around here somewhere…
Lets see, Jesus was a big, important figure in first century religion. I’m sure there are lots of people who wrote about him at the time…
Rats.
No worries. I’ll keep looking!
Our bodies are also destined for resurrection;
Really?!? I thought that was reserved for “the Family”
our "natural" bodies will be gloriously transformed into "spiritual" bodies when the dead in Christ are raised (1 Cor. 15).
Sounds great!
At that time, when we receive our glorified bodies, it will not matter whether we were buried or cremated at death.
So we’re back to “No.” Your concision is amazing!
Many Christians who have perished in fires have been involuntarily cremated.
Clearly “No.”
Think of those believers who lost their lives in the collapse of the World Trade Center, for example.
“Randolph Scott!”
Most of the bodies were not recovered; the victims' remains were obliterated and their ashes scattered in the massive pile of rubble. It was humanly impossible to identify the dead, yet the God who created them can identify their bodies down to the last atom.
Cool! Just a side question – for the guy who had just clipped his fingernails before the planes hit, do those atoms count as still his? At what point do the atoms of someone’s spit stop being part of him and start being not his atoms anymore? I’m just asking.
And He will resurrect them "in the twinkling of an eye," exactly as He will those Christians whose bodies were buried and decomposed naturally.
So we’re back to “No.”. It seems odd to use 262 words just to say “No.”
Burial or cremation is a very personal choice.
Ah! A time honored tradition of school kids reaching a word requirement – repeat yourself unnecessarily.
You should discuss it with your closest family members before making a decision, so they will be comfortable in carrying out your decision and living with the memories.
Very good advice! It got really wordy in the middle and never really said “No, it’s not wrong”, so Johhny, you get a C+.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
God hates bison
From the same loony bin that brought you creationism as viewed from a banana (but only the selectively bred bananas, of course) we now bring you the bison!
Buffalo easy to kill, but a real nightmare for evolutionists to explain.
E. Norbert Smith, Ph.D.
It is difficult to imagine an indigenous people any place in the world more closely connected to an animal than were the various Native American plains tribes to the American Bison or buffalo. Indeed, even today tribal leaders refer to the time before the disappearance of the buffalo. Their disappearance marked the end of a way of life that had been in harmony with nature for thousands of years.
With the notable exception of not really being in harmony with the bison. I'm just saying.
They depended on the unlimited bison for food, clothes, tools, medicine, ornaments and shelter. Have you marveled at the success of Native Americans in killing bison survival? Their success plagued me until graduate school. Let me explain.
Please do! That sounds like fun!
Historically there were actually three ways bison were killed by Native Americans. Some were stampeded over cliffs or trapped in box canyons. This can only occur in a limited number of places and could surely not support a vast plains people for centuries. A second way was running down a single animal by horse. Often it took as many as 5 or more fresh horses to finally fatigue the bison. This would only work after Europeans introduced horses and even then could only provide a few animals so the question remains.
Inefficiencies galore.
The third method and the one most often seen on TV involves a horse back rider shooting a running bison with a bow and arrow. This is the one that bothered me for years. I am not a bow hunter, but the idea of hitting the heart of a running bison from a galloping horse seems difficult if not impossible. This problem was uniquely solved by the Creator of man and bison.
God hates bison?
With the notable exception of the American Bison most mammals have two separate pleural or lung cavities. As we all know, one side of our chest can be penetrated collapsing that lung, but the other side remains intact and the remaining lung can support life. The bison has what is called an incomplete mediastinum, that is there is but one pleural cavity containing both lungs. Thus the problem for the Native bow hunter with or without a horse is solved. An arrow must only penetrate the chest at any point and both lungs collapse. The fatally wounded animal would only continue a few yards providing unlimited food, clothing and tools.
Perhaps not unlimited food, but the basic point is valid: The bison has an Achilles heel and the native tribes milked that weakness for everything it was worth. Pretty reasonable of them, really, especially since running out of bison wasn't even a consideration for them.
Before the availability of horses bison could be shot by stealth from a blind or other hiding place. One problem is solved yet another serious comes to mind...a problem seldom mentioned, yet demanding an answer.
There's more?!? Cool!
The problem is for the evolutionist.
Excellent! Scientists love mysteries. What is it?
Other than providing food for hungry people, of what selective advantage is an incompletely divided mediastinum?
Not much of one, which is why a divided mediastinum is an evolutionary advantage.
From an evolutionary sense this makes absolutely no sense.
It makes no sense that there would be creatures in various stages of evolutionary advantages? No, that makes perfect sense actually. And that is exactly what you'd expect to see if evolution is correct.
Indeed conventional wisdom would argue for its elimination from the gene pool.
Which the natives happily provided!
Yet it did remain and fed a continent of Native American for centuries.
There were a lot of them to mow through.
It must indeed require faith and dedication to remain an evolutionist. I am glad I know the Creator of Bison and Native Americans. You can know Him too.
Okay, lets just get down to brass tax here. There's no particular evolutionary advantage to the incompletely divided mediastinum compared to a completely divided mediastinum. But there's no particular disadvantage to it until you start facing a predator armed with projectile weaponry. Then that basic problem of getting pierced once in the chest becomes a really, really big deal.
So what does evolution say will happen for the bison? It says that absent a predator that can take advantage of this weakness, it'll thrive. It's big, bad, and has massive endurance. Evolution further says that once it faces a predator that can take advantage of that weakness, the bison is in a world of hurt. Both of these match up exactly with what actually happened.
It must indeed require faith and dedication to remain a creationist!
Buffalo easy to kill, but a real nightmare for evolutionists to explain.
E. Norbert Smith, Ph.D.
It is difficult to imagine an indigenous people any place in the world more closely connected to an animal than were the various Native American plains tribes to the American Bison or buffalo. Indeed, even today tribal leaders refer to the time before the disappearance of the buffalo. Their disappearance marked the end of a way of life that had been in harmony with nature for thousands of years.
With the notable exception of not really being in harmony with the bison. I'm just saying.
They depended on the unlimited bison for food, clothes, tools, medicine, ornaments and shelter. Have you marveled at the success of Native Americans in killing bison survival? Their success plagued me until graduate school. Let me explain.
Please do! That sounds like fun!
Historically there were actually three ways bison were killed by Native Americans. Some were stampeded over cliffs or trapped in box canyons. This can only occur in a limited number of places and could surely not support a vast plains people for centuries. A second way was running down a single animal by horse. Often it took as many as 5 or more fresh horses to finally fatigue the bison. This would only work after Europeans introduced horses and even then could only provide a few animals so the question remains.
Inefficiencies galore.
The third method and the one most often seen on TV involves a horse back rider shooting a running bison with a bow and arrow. This is the one that bothered me for years. I am not a bow hunter, but the idea of hitting the heart of a running bison from a galloping horse seems difficult if not impossible. This problem was uniquely solved by the Creator of man and bison.
God hates bison?
With the notable exception of the American Bison most mammals have two separate pleural or lung cavities. As we all know, one side of our chest can be penetrated collapsing that lung, but the other side remains intact and the remaining lung can support life. The bison has what is called an incomplete mediastinum, that is there is but one pleural cavity containing both lungs. Thus the problem for the Native bow hunter with or without a horse is solved. An arrow must only penetrate the chest at any point and both lungs collapse. The fatally wounded animal would only continue a few yards providing unlimited food, clothing and tools.
Perhaps not unlimited food, but the basic point is valid: The bison has an Achilles heel and the native tribes milked that weakness for everything it was worth. Pretty reasonable of them, really, especially since running out of bison wasn't even a consideration for them.
Before the availability of horses bison could be shot by stealth from a blind or other hiding place. One problem is solved yet another serious comes to mind...a problem seldom mentioned, yet demanding an answer.
There's more?!? Cool!
The problem is for the evolutionist.
Excellent! Scientists love mysteries. What is it?
Other than providing food for hungry people, of what selective advantage is an incompletely divided mediastinum?
Not much of one, which is why a divided mediastinum is an evolutionary advantage.
From an evolutionary sense this makes absolutely no sense.
It makes no sense that there would be creatures in various stages of evolutionary advantages? No, that makes perfect sense actually. And that is exactly what you'd expect to see if evolution is correct.
Indeed conventional wisdom would argue for its elimination from the gene pool.
Which the natives happily provided!
Yet it did remain and fed a continent of Native American for centuries.
There were a lot of them to mow through.
It must indeed require faith and dedication to remain an evolutionist. I am glad I know the Creator of Bison and Native Americans. You can know Him too.
Okay, lets just get down to brass tax here. There's no particular evolutionary advantage to the incompletely divided mediastinum compared to a completely divided mediastinum. But there's no particular disadvantage to it until you start facing a predator armed with projectile weaponry. Then that basic problem of getting pierced once in the chest becomes a really, really big deal.
So what does evolution say will happen for the bison? It says that absent a predator that can take advantage of this weakness, it'll thrive. It's big, bad, and has massive endurance. Evolution further says that once it faces a predator that can take advantage of that weakness, the bison is in a world of hurt. Both of these match up exactly with what actually happened.
It must indeed require faith and dedication to remain a creationist!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)