Free Republic 4th Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $54,592
Woo hoo!! And we're now over 62%!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by betty boop

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • What Caused Life to Come into Existence?

    10/11/2017 12:33:13 PM PDT · 41 of 41
    betty boop to E. Pluribus Unum; xzins
    The blueprint for life is built into the mathematics/physics of the tiniest subatomic particle.

    Maybe we can agree about this. But where did the "blueprint" come from? And why is there life at all? Mathematics and physics are not themselves alive.

  • What Caused Life to Come into Existence?

    10/11/2017 12:33:12 PM PDT · 40 of 41
    betty boop to E. Pluribus Unum; xzins
    The blueprint for life is built into the mathematics/physics of the tiniest subatomic particle.

    Maybe we can agree about this. But where did the "blueprint" come from? And why is there life at all? Mathematics and physics are not themselves alive.

  • Is changing the Constitution the only way to fix Washington?

    08/31/2017 12:52:31 PM PDT · 86 of 86
    betty boop to Art in Idaho; xzins; grey_whiskers; metmom
    For those who think the Article V process is too risky, I ask, "What other options do you see?"

    To me, what's "risky" is the current status quo.

    Indeed, maybe we could elect more Republicans to Congress. But Art, you are so right: What's the point, if there's no dime's worth of difference between GOP politicians and Dem ones, in terms of the "confluence" of their self-serving main political interest, which is simply to preserve their privileges and get re-elected?

    The "official" political culture emanating from Washington cares more about self-preservation at any cost than actually executing their constitutional duties WRT to We the People. We the People, in their view, are simply objects to be manipulated to ensure their tenure in office. They play the game of political survival according to thoroughly corrupt "rules" -- as we see in the Congressional leadership; e.g., Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. They see not rocking the boat as the key to their political survival, and the citizens' interest be damned.

    State Nullification and State Secession cannot succeed in eradicating the general corruption emanating from the federal establishment. Washington has almost infinite power to quash such initiatives, and would be sure to do so, mercilessly. But if the States try nonetheless, we could well see a full-blown civil war as the result.

    The best option, it seems to me, is for the States to convene an Article V convention. If We the People cannot get the federal government back in hand, then our Liberty will be utterly extinguished. The federal government is operating far beyond the mandate -- and constraints -- of its constitutional charter, and is incapable of reforming itself. We the People must do the reforming, or it ain't gonna happen.

    To me, if the American people have anything to fear, it is not an Article V convention. Fear the current corrupt status quo instead.


    Thanks, Art, for posting the excellent listing of resources on this subject.

  • Why Do Republicans Want to Kill Horses?

    08/10/2017 9:45:19 AM PDT · 107 of 108
    betty boop to exDemMom
    The link I posted has a list of quite a few invasive species, but it is not inclusive.

    Well, wild horses and burros are not on this list, complied by the USDA. So point me to a more inclusive list. I've consulted several lists of invasive mammal species in North America, and the American wild horse and burro are on none of them.

    LOL, according to the Executive Order 13112 definition, MAN might well qualify as an invasive species. Certainly, MAN is "naturally aggressive." Wild horses and burros are not. They are "flight" animals, not "fight" animals -- as for instance the wild pig, which is classified as an invasive mammal species on every list I've seen.

    You wrote:

    The feral horses and burros would displace native ruminants: bison, deer, elk, caribou, etc. etc.

    Where is your evidence for this statement?
  • Why Do Republicans Want to Kill Horses?

    08/09/2017 7:30:08 AM PDT · 105 of 108
    betty boop to exDemMom
    To me, an "invasive species" is a species introduced into an environment where it has no natural predators. That is certainly not the case with wild horses and burros, who are subject to many predators, most especially including man. As we particularly see in this case of proposed mass eradication. This is much more than a "scientific issue."

    Other than cattlemen's cattle, what species do wild horses and burros displace?

  • Why Do Republicans Want to Kill Horses?

    08/08/2017 12:07:56 PM PDT · 101 of 108
    betty boop to exDemMom
    P.S.: RE: the supposition that horses are an "invasive species" in America — Based on the fossil record, the very first horse, or "dawn horse," Eohippus, a/k/a Hyracotherium, was abundant in North America as far back as the Early Eocene Epoch, 50 million years ago. It was succeeded by the Mesohippus in the middle Eocene, and it, too was abundant in North America. Both Eohippus and Mesohippus are now extinct, of course. But they proliferate in the North American fossil record, and are recognized as the foundation of the modern horse.

    If the BLM succeeds in conducting a horse holocaust at the behest of a Republican Congress, then to me this signifies that America truly has lost her soul.

  • Why Do Republicans Want to Kill Horses?

    08/08/2017 11:32:44 AM PDT · 100 of 108
    betty boop to exDemMom
    Horses are an invasive species in the Americas. The truly environmental option is to eradicate them. Aren’t they taking up habitat that should be used by our native ruminants?

    You can't be serious. Wild horses and burros ARE "our native ruminants," NOT an "invasive species." The only beneficiaries of their eradication would be cattlemen who graze their herds on public lands, mainly at taxpayer expense; and the banks that fund their enterprises.

  • Leading Climate Scientist Says Debating Scientific Theories Would Be ‘Un-American’

    07/06/2017 11:13:58 AM PDT · 34 of 49
    betty boop to MAexile
    Science without debate and disagreement isn't science.

    Debate and disagreement surely doesn't include protesting with duct tape on one's mouth. That's what looks like ideology to me.

  • Leading Climate Scientist Says Debating Scientific Theories Would Be ‘Un-American’

    07/06/2017 10:01:01 AM PDT · 9 of 49
    betty boop to Oldeconomybuyer

    Politicized science ain’t science.

  • Majority of Canadians Think Religion Does More Harm Than Good

    07/05/2017 3:59:41 PM PDT · 35 of 35
    betty boop to xzins; conservatism_IS_compassion; marshmallow; metmom; Salvation; marron; P-Marlowe; Alamo-Girl; ..
    Just for the fun of it, let’s parse the wikipedia entry on “social constructivism” [i.e., abuse of language in the service of inversion of reality]:

    "In social constructionist terms, "taken-for-granted realities" are cultivated from "interactions between and among social agents;"

    Wiki gives a nod to “taken-for-granted realities,” thereby denoting them as having real empirical existence. But wiki is silent about how they can be humanly observed realities and why they are taken for granted. Then they toss in a total abstraction, the “social agent.” What on earth is that? It seems the term conceals more than it reveals. I mean, it’s possible to classify mothers, fathers, pastors and priests, policemen, politicians, academics, etc., etc., and Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Fidel Castro, Idi Amin, etc., etc., as members of the “social agent” category. To me, the above passage is total drivel -- unless it is understood as an invitation to expunge, erase all moral distinctions; e.g., as between mothers and Hitler.

    Idle question: Do “social agents” have to be human?

    …[F]urthermore, reality is not some objective truth "waiting to be uncovered through positivist scientific inquiry. "Rather, there can be "multiple realities that compete for truth and legitimacy."

    This would be news to Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, et al. It is the very inversion of the fundamental insight and motivation of the physical sciences, the continuous fundamental premise of scientific inquiry from its historical inception in the ancient world. So now wiki comes along, and spreads a rumor about multiple realities competing for truth and legitimacy – on whose say-so? On what evidence? If there are “multiple realities,” how many of them do such bloviators live in, such that they can compare them in order to establish which one of them is legitimate? By what objective standard or criterion do they use to establish this legitimacy?

    Social constructionism understands the "fundamental role of language and communication" and this understanding has "contributed to the linguistic turn" and more recently the "turn to discourse theory.” The majority of social constructionists abide by the belief that "language does not mirror reality; rather, it constitutes [creates] it."

    Again, it seems to me the social constructionists are trying to invert/subvert, not only reality, but language as well. Historically, words have had stable meanings over time. If they did not, human communication would be impossible. In human languages, words always have external referrents: E.g., the word “dog” describes a particular type of biological being. This relation of word and object is how we know a word validly “means” what it says. But above words, language itself has certain logical properties or “rules of the road” – its syntax – which guides us in structuring our thoughts.

    To allow words and language itself to become the playthings of influential “agents of change” -- nihilistic abstractionists with a will-to-power – is to advance the speedy reconstruction of the Tower of Babel. Which signifies the total breakdown of civil society and the descent into personal and social chaos.

    Or theologically speaking, a descent into Hell.

  • Majority of Canadians Think Religion Does More Harm Than Good

    07/05/2017 11:40:24 AM PDT · 32 of 35
    betty boop to conservatism_IS_compassion; marshmallow; metmom; Salvation; marron; xzins; afsnco; Alamo-Girl; ...
    Thank you so much, conservatism_IS_compassion, for posting the link to Frank Turek's excellent essay, "Atheists Steal Rights From God." In it, he writes:

    ...[Y]ou don't have to appeal to God to write laws, but you do have to appeal to God if you want to ground them in anything other than human opinion. Otherwise, your "rights" are mere preferences that can be voted out of existence at the ballot box or at the whim of an activist judge or dictator.

    This should be obvious to any person who has taken the time and trouble to reason this issue through. But atheists seem to refuse this understanding. Nonetheless, they can't simultaneously deny God and justify any sort of objective moral order.

    And yet they can still speak of "rights," of good and bad. Yet they hold that good and bad are merely expressions of human preferences, opinions. (Maybe even Darwinian evolution.) They have nothing to base their preferences and opinions on. These are expressions of human will (and would-be power). Reason has nothing to do with it.

    Which brings us to polls. It seems we live and die according to "scientific" polling nowadays. Yet the fact remains no matter how "scientific" the poll methodology is, still a poll is a survey of opinion, not of "science." And one man's opinion is just as good (or bad) as any other man's. So what does a poll really tell you? What actual predictive power does it have? It seems to me all a poll is, is a sampling of public emotion, a "snapshot" of surveyed peoples' beliefs at a given moment, frozen in time.

    To me, a "scientific" poll is the modern-day version of reading tea leaves, or inspecting the entrails of a sacrificial animal, or casting I Ching sticks, in order to discern future events....

    Plus polls can be rigged to produce desired outcomes. Much of this depends on the way the poll question is asked. This Canadian poll is an excellent example of same. First off, "religion" is not defined. So people will read their own definition into the poll question. So how can we say all poll respondents are replying to the same question?

    Then again, this was an on-line poll. Participation in such polls is entirely self-selected. Who are these people?

    Speaking as a Christian, if I saw a poll like this online, I'd laugh and move on. The poll question is so stupid (to me) I wouldn't bother to respond to it. But someone with a real ax to grind against God probably wouldn't resist the opportunity to weigh in.

    One doesn't need a poll to discern that Canada is rapidly becoming a thoroughly secularized society. One needs only notice the evidence -- accelerating loss of God-given individual liberty in Canada; for instance, erosions of freedom of speech (hate crime laws)....

    One last thing -- it seems nowadays people of left progressive persuasion are convinced that reality can be transformed by changing the way we speak of it. The power of magical words! The typical form this takes is to lie about reality, on the assumption that if you repeat a lie often enough, sooner or later people come to believe it is truth. But the truth of reality is not changed by this procedure. The result is the widening gap between the actual state of the world as reflected by reason and the state of sanity of the human mind.

  • Stop the Presses! Human Evolution Falsified!

    06/19/2017 8:39:16 AM PDT · 196 of 203
    betty boop to metmom; sparklite2; fishtank; marron; Alamo-Girl
    Today we have all the information we need at our fingertips and the knowledge of math and science that we take for granted they had to discover with NO help from anyone.

    We owe a profound debt to these "Bronze Age desert dwellers," but refuse to acknowledge it. Nor do we acknowledge the debts we owe to the great thinkers of the ancient world, e.g., of the great civilizations of the Fertile Crescent, of ancient Egypt, of Athens, Rome, and -- yes -- Jerusalem. Our own civilization is built on the foundations they established, in law, in science, in mathematics, in social organization, in ethics, in human psychology.

    But, having destroyed history, we ignorantly suppose that the present generation, maybe including recent generations now past, are the sole creators of our "advanced" human civilization -- via the "scientific method."

    Then there is the unstated assumption, fall-out of the logic of Darwinian evolution theory, that people of the past are less worthy than people of the present, because evolution always moves in the direction of "improving" the human stock. Ergo, the more recent human is "better" than humans living in the past. So we can disparage those "Bronze Age desert dwellers" with impunity and not be thought mentally deranged.

    One thought in closing. Darwinism fails to explain why human nature itself remains constant over the millennia. The very same things that worried and challenged those "Bronze Age desert dwellers" continue to be the very same things that worry and challenge us today. E.g., problems of aging, sickness, death; of providing sustenance and safe habitation for one's self and one's family; fear of the power of other men over ourselves; etc., etc. I would argue that nothing has changed about fundamental human nature over the past seven millennia, as captured in the historical records.

    The only thing about man that has changed is not his human nature, but the tools he uses. And I worry that the tools are co-opting the man who uses them.

  • Stop the Presses! Human Evolution Falsified!

    06/14/2017 4:20:05 PM PDT · 185 of 203
    betty boop to sparklite2; fishtank; metmom; marron; Alamo-Girl
    Isn’t it odd that we can see the results of the scientific method in the civilization we have created with it, but when that same method bumps up against the tribal beliefs of some Bronze Age desert dwellers, the scientific method is completely fallacious?

    A few questions and observations about your comment, sparklite2: (1) Are you really proposing that our civilization is entirely or even mainly the result of the scientific method? What about its formation established in Greece, Jerusalem, and Rome that has been perking away for at least the past five millennia? And which helps account for the persistency and givenness of human nature down the ages? When was this tremendous legacy "falsified?"

    (2) Bishop Ussher was not "some Bronze Age desert dweller." However, he did commit a fallacy, IMHO: He evidently believed that the age of the earth could be calculated by summing up the ages of the patriarchs. We could say he was being "selective" in the qualification of relevant evidence. But the so-called "scientific method" is routinely just as selective about what it qualifies as evidence. Case in point: anthropogenic global warming. If the "evidence" does not fit the pre-existing premise, then it is disregarded -- just as Bishop Usher disregarded other possible factors than the ages of the patriarchs in his calculation of the age of the earth.

    How can evolution be "falsified" when so many people have such deep emotional commitment to it? At bottom, such people find it enormously gratifying precisely because it purports to explain how a world can exist that needs no God to explain it. But please tell me, how does one "explain" such things as logic, reason, natural law, mathematics, the persistence of basic human nature over eons, even the scientific method itself? Are such things really the outcomes of directionless, random, mindless evolution over eons?

    Now THAT would truly be miraculous!!!

  • Scientists Are About to Perform an Experiment to See if The Human Mind Is Bound by Physics

    06/01/2017 1:51:04 PM PDT · 76 of 76
    betty boop to TXnMA; Alamo-Girl; marron; hosepipe; MHGinTN
    ...being unlimited by the speed of light, God can examine (and control?) the state of a galaxy a million light years away from us -- as it is at this instant in Universal time.

    We, OTOH, being limited to receiving our information being propagated at the speed of light, can only perceive that galaxy as it was a million years ago.

    IOW, the principle of instantaneity is essential to the concept of Divine omnipotence.

    Agreed on all points in general. The only question I have pertains to the need for God to intervene in Creation so as to "control" anything going on here post-Creation, owing to his character as divine omnipotence, to which you allude when you say he "examines and controls" things.

    From the putative standpoint of God's Eternal Now there is nothing objectionable about this expectation. It seems to me the problem here is, usually human beings do not have a clue how to conceive of or describe God's Eternal Now.

    And evidently, science cannot do this. Science is a human artifact or creature caught in the nexus of space and time: linear, serial, always future-oriented.

    I have reliable sources that aver Sir Isaac Newton, a monotheist, believed that God would have to intervene in his creation from time to time because, on Newton's view, the universe is a mechanical system; and mechanical systems are subject to disorder and breakdown over time. It follows that God as eternal tinkerer would have to step in every now and then to set things aright again.

    Of course, the primary assumption here is that the universe is a mechanical system. Science after Newton tended to be in agreement with this assessment. Especially after science dumped God as irrelevant to their problems (because science deals with direct observables, and God is definitely not such; and assumes everything in the universe finally reduces to a mysterious substance called "matter.")

    I gather this is a prevalent idea, for scientists quoted in the lead article were speculating that "mind" was made of some different class of matter than the rest of the physical, natural world.

    The point is, if it's not some species of "matter," it is outside scientific purview and methods. Yet we are constantly told that science is our most reliable way of knowing "all that there is." So mind must (on this view) be made up of some material "substance" that has thus far escaped human direct detection. But the fundamental assumption here is the mind is still ultimately material.

    Yet as it seems to me FWIW: Materiality is the only category that science has, so they shoehorn everything that exists into this single category.

    RE: Divine omnipotence, some thoughts from Alisdair McIntyre, Professor of Philosophy at Vanderbilt University, in After Virtue [University of Notre Dame Press, 1984]:

    ...[O]mniscience excludes the making of decisions. If God knows everything that will occur, he confronts no as yet unmade decisions. He has a single will.... It is precisely insofar as we differ from God that unpredictability invades our lives.

    My take-away: Omniscience = Omnipotence = Instantiality [timelessness]. These are three differing views of One Who ultimately wills a universe into Being. According to His Logos, nurtured by His Spirit....

    Anyhoot, the "character" of God is not available for scientific scrutiny. Indeed, He is prior to all scientific scrutiny, indeed happens to be the very foundation of logic and genius of mathematics.

    Still, RE: Given the sublime qualities of omniscience, omnipotence, and instantiality -- we now must speak of the Eternal Now and man's participation in it -- the divine LOGOS. We humans merely have the benefit of it, provided we accept the divine offer.

    The divine qualities of Omniscience = Omnipotence = Instantiality [Timelessness] were not hatched here on earth, according to some kind of Darwinian evolutionary (read: random) process, nor out of manipulations of "matter" -- still a term in need of a definition these days. Along any timeline, such as humans experience habitually.

    Must sign off for now. But not before saying that I have no "objections" to quantum theory. I find it positively enticing. But that's a subject for another time. Maybe.

    Best wishes and prayers, dearest brother in Christ!

  • (VANITY) Rudyard Kipling on the 2016 Election

    10/10/2016 8:12:40 AM PDT · 12 of 12
    betty boop to grey_whiskers

    GO DONALD!!!!

  • Presque Isle Maine Trump field sign

    09/29/2016 11:25:06 AM PDT · 99 of 99
    betty boop to Atomic Vomit
    Fantastic! Thank you, Atomic Vomit!

    Presque Isle is my hubby's home town. He still has lots of family there. He is thrilled with your sign, too!

  • Do Creation Scientists Publish in Mainstream Journals?

    09/13/2016 12:59:10 PM PDT · 41 of 41
    betty boop to xzins

    I’d love to take a trip to Kentucky! If I’m ever in that neck of the woods, I’ll be sure to visit Ken Ham’s ARK.

  • Do Creation Scientists Publish in Mainstream Journals?

    09/13/2016 9:05:09 AM PDT · 39 of 41
    betty boop to xzins
    Hi dear brother!

    Oh, I'm still around, still a regular monthly supporter of this great conservative forum. Mostly, I've just been reading, not commenting much. Twice I almost replied to a post from you. But it would have been something along the lines of, "Gee, I agree with you completely!" Not very interesting.

    Mainly, I've been fairly "speechless" lately.... :^)

    But I'm staying tuned!

    Thanks so much for writing, dear brother in Christ!

  • Do Creation Scientists Publish in Mainstream Journals?

    09/12/2016 1:06:22 PM PDT · 35 of 41
    betty boop to TXnMA; Cottonbay; xzins; Alamo-Girl
    As for the YEC folks, unfortunately, I find them so irrevocably wedded to the "six earthly-rotation days" -- that the most vocal of them will believe HRC is a saint before they will even allow the relativistic time view to be mentioned.

    Though I have had some highly-respected YEC collaborators over many years here at FR, I have always been perplexed by their apparent notions about time. It seems that time, for them, is a series of events, a chain of causation, that proceeds in only one irreversible direction, in a relentlessly linear fashion. There is no "up" or down"; there is only the (finite) straight line. But because we can speak of "events," we have measurable quantities.

    Well, so far, so good -- so far as the mortal body is concerned. It is fully subject to the tender mercies of "events" in space and time as summarized in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Its changes go according to this law, and they can be measured and quantified by science.

    But what does any of this have to do with Life, or with the immortal soul? Neither proceeds along such a "timeline." Both utterly transcend it.

    A very great poet -- T. S. Eliot -- put this problem succinctly:

    Man lives at the intersection of time and timelessness.

    So, I wonder, if YECSs really do hold that "biological time" -- i.e., time as we humans normally experience it during the course of our normal lives without any thought at all, that is to say time as finite, sequential, and linear -- then where does the eternal human soul "live" in such a time order? Certainly, GOD DOESN'T!

    I hate to say it, but I've often been struck by the similarity in reasoning and habits/methods of thought between die-hard Darwinists and folks of YEC persuasion.... Both communities seem ultimately wedded to a doctrine, which has become an object of worship in itself. It becomes the filter through which all of Reality is to be viewed....

    Talk about "relativity!" Einstein, who unified space and time, told us to expect that any observer could observe only that which can be observed from his own individual point of view, or inertial frame....

    Dear TX, I viewed the graphic you sent me via FReepMail. Just beautiful, and so TRUE! It successfully reconciles Genesis I and state-of-the-art scientific cosmology....

    Just one more thing before I close: If the YEC insists that God's creation took "six earthly-rotation days" calculated (By Bishop Ussher) as 6,000 years, then isn't he implying that God's Creation took place in human time?

    Which would mean that God is not the Creator....

    Thank you so much for writing, dear Brother!

  • Dark Matter May Be Completely Invisible, Concludes World's Most Sensitive Search

    07/22/2016 7:01:09 AM PDT · 82 of 88
    betty boop to Phlap; TXnMA; xzins

    Well, we can’t “see” quarks either, they have never been isolated or directly observed. But there is considerable evidence that they actually exist. It seems possible to me that some things in nature are seen, not directly, but only in their effects.