Posts by NVD

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • US would lose vs China

    11/23/2005 4:05:27 AM PST · 39 of 311
    NVD to Non-Sequitur
    We would win a conventional war against any opponent. How can one parallel what is happening in Iraq today with a conventional war? We defeated Iraq in a matter of days using conventional war tactics: air, sea and ground. At one time before Sadaam was defeated, I believe Iraq had the 4th largest military in the world (someone correct me if I am wrong), and they were beaten easily by any accounts. We must distinguish between a conventional war and terrorist techniques. There is not a country that could stand toe-to-toe with the US military and win!
  • FR Debate: Intelligent Design vs. Birth Defects, Can They Be Reconciled?

    11/11/2005 6:56:29 PM PST · 176 of 415
    NVD to js1138
    In my philosophy, ID and my world view go fit together like a hand in a glove. My God is the intelligent designer, as he was for centuries and centuries. And most many of the same naturalists you have quoted in the past, followed the formula above.

    Try to wrap your brain around this....
    Most evolutionists or naturalistic scientists insist that an intelligent cause has no place in science. But the truth is that several branches of science use the concept of intelligence and have even devised tests for detecting work of an intelligent design. Consider forensic science. When a police finds a body the first question is, Was death the result of natural causes or foul play (an intentional act of an intelligent agent)? Pathologists perform a battery of fairly straightforward tests to get the answer. This same fact can be said for the likes of cryptographers, archaeologists, and astronomers. So are naturalistic scientists and intelligent design related.....a resounding yes is the answer!
  • FR Debate: Intelligent Design vs. Birth Defects, Can They Be Reconciled?

    11/11/2005 6:31:12 PM PST · 153 of 415
    NVD to RightWhale

    Devolution- The process of becoming morally, physically, or metally worse.

  • FR Debate: Intelligent Design vs. Birth Defects, Can They Be Reconciled?

    11/11/2005 6:20:54 PM PST · 142 of 415
    NVD to js1138

    I have always been mystified why ID advocates get snippy when you question the competence of the designer.

    I believe that your contention is the following: How does the Bible reconcile God’s goodness and power with the presence of evil, sin, and suffering? Logically there is only one way to reconcile these two statements without denying any element in them: There must be a source of sin outside God.
    God is good and created a perfect world. But the one of the things that makes humans intelligent beings is freedom. They have the freedom to turn away from God or to obey him. And to turn from God, the source of all goodness, is to create evil. Evil does not have an independent existence, nor was it created by God. Evil was created by sin.
    Your next question: If God is omniscient, why would he create such a mess? In order for God to ensure that we could not sin, he would have to tamper with our freedom… create us not as full beings but as robots programmed to do what he wanted. Knowing this would only make us incapable of loving God or loving one another, for genuine love cannot be coerced. Also, without free will, we would not be capable of moral responsibility, creativity, obedience, loyalty, or heroism. Thus, the only way God could create beings that are truly human was to take the risk that they would use their freedom to choose evil.

  • FR Debate: Intelligent Design vs. Birth Defects, Can They Be Reconciled?

    11/11/2005 5:48:53 PM PST · 93 of 415
    NVD to Wolfstar
    I concur......most of those who believe in only evolution reduce the argument to psychological reductionism; people believe in God because there are benefits derived from believing. But this argument can go both ways. For it can be said that there are likewise certain benefits derived from not believing in God. Who wants to abandon personal preferences and be held accountable to an absolute moral standard for every action?
  • FR Debate: Intelligent Design vs. Birth Defects, Can They Be Reconciled?

    11/11/2005 5:22:47 PM PST · 58 of 415
    NVD to Wolfstar
    This article obviously is referring to genetic mutations. But, what is a mutation? Since each gene is a code of instructions, a mutation is akin to a typing error a changed letter here, a spelling error there. But, this poses a problem for the evolutionary philosophy; if you introduce a missing phrase or spelling errors into a report, it is unlikely to make the report more understandable. As we can see in your post, most mutations are harmful, and sometimes lethal, so if the mutations were to accumulate, wouldn't the result be devolution?
  • FR Debate: Intelligent Design vs. Birth Defects, Can They Be Reconciled?

    11/11/2005 5:04:02 PM PST · 26 of 415
    NVD to Wolfstar

    A myopic this same philosophy, I would assume that evolutionary principles also would not apply to such genetic abnormality. Is not the purpose of evolution for a species to continue in an upward development? As a species developed would not it conquer such aberration?
    I tend to think that such difficulties would actually draw individuals closer to a higher power. This utter helplessness only makes one search for strength in something greater.

  • Intelligent design on trial

    11/07/2005 12:31:08 PM PST · 49 of 63
    NVD to RogueIsland
    The school board is defending an October 2004 decision to require students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. Teachers were opposed to the statement, which says Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact," has inexplicable "gaps," and refers students to the textbook "Of Pandas and People" for more information.
    Excerpt taken from PhillyBurbs

    The textbook will be used as reference material, not part of the curriculum. Darwin's theory, is just that, a theory......with no possible way to check all of his notions.
  • Intelligent design on trial

    11/07/2005 9:52:12 AM PST · 45 of 63
    NVD to tufail
    Point 1:
    You do not understand the case nor ID. The specific ID case in the Dover SD is simply to read a disclaimer that says that many do not believe that the source of our complex nature is due to evolution. I don't disagree with all evolutionary concepts but I question the beginning (that was my shot at 'Big Bang')......simply b/c it has never been rationally explained. I tend to believe that their is a higher power, a creator simply because of the irreducible complexity argument as well as the anthropic principle (as ID outlines). When I look at the complexity of our universe, I can only come to one conclusion.....there had to be a creator. I believe it takes more faith to believe otherwise.
    Like you, I do not want religion taught in schools but ID, and more specifically the Dover case is not about religion.
    Point 2: There is not "wall of separation" as you indicated above. Our Constitution has two religious clauses: the establishment clause and the free exercise clause (in neither do you see a separation of church and state). The whole notion is a fallacy based upon a faulty case in the 1940's (Everson v Board of Ed.) based upon a personal letter that Jefferson had written the Danbury Baptists. Check out for more info.
  • Big Rise in Profit Places Oil Giants on the Defensive

    10/28/2005 3:09:58 AM PDT · 7 of 112
    NVD to Young Scholar

    Why does it not bother you that 'big oil' has made huge profits on the back of the hurricane crisis? Do you consider this price gouging? If so, do you actually believe that consumers hold no purchasing power?

    You have no idea what you are talking about, which makes me glad that you "as a consumer" have absolutely no power. The country would be a sad place if we gave people like you any say in things.

    Why don't you explain yourself; your comment was vague.

  • Big Rise in Profit Places Oil Giants on the Defensive

    10/28/2005 2:52:26 AM PDT · 4 of 112
    NVD to Leisler
    The problem is called price gouging. How ethical is it for a company to increase profits behind the screen of hurricanes? This makes me as a consumer want to personally ban those companies who profits skyrocketed in the past quarter.
  • Miers and the Duck Test: Quacking is not enough

    10/24/2005 3:01:20 AM PDT · 16 of 23
    NVD to Garry Boldwater

    I can't stand listening to these closet-leftist, pinko, RINO's such as: Rush Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan, Michele Malkin, Laura Ingram, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol and Alan Keyes.

    Up early smokin'? Some of your list of "closet-leftist, pinko's" include some of the foremost thinkers in our party today; pushing a conservative agenda that is followed by our representatives. I find it odd that individuals like yourself have the gall to call someone who disagrees with Bush's nomination a "pinko"......take a look in the mirror, maybe it is you who is drinking the "sweet stuff".

  • Kangaroo Court (Professor Michael Behe, appearing at the left's verision of the Scopes trial...)

    10/20/2005 5:31:22 AM PDT · 21 of 153
    NVD to John Locke

    exerpt from:

    The development of potentiality to actuality is one of the most important aspects of Aristotle's philosophy. It was intended to solve the difficulties which earlier thinkers had raised with reference to the beginnings of existence and the relations of the one and many. The actual vs. potential state of things is explained in terms of the causes which act on things. There are four causes:
    Material cause, or the elements out of which an object is created;
    Efficient cause, or the means by which it is created;
    Formal cause, or the expression of what it is;
    Final cause, or the end for which it is.
    Take, for example, a bronze statue. Its material cause is the bronze itself. Its efficient cause is the sculptor, insofar has he forces the bronze into shape. The formal cause is the idea of the completed statue. The final cause is the idea of the statue as it prompts the sculptor to act on the bronze. The final cause tends to be the same as the formal cause, and both of these can be subsumed by the efficient cause. Of the four, it is the formal and final which is the most important, and which most truly gives the explanation of an object. The final end (purpose, or teleology) of a thing is realized in the full perfection of the object itself, not in our conception of it. Final cause is thus internal to the nature of the object itself, and not something we subjectively impose on it.

    God to Aristotle is the first of all substances, the necessary first source of movement who is himself unmoved. God is a being with everlasting life, and perfect blessedness, engaged in never-ending contemplation

    Everything that I have read from Aristotle indicates that he believed in an Intelligent Designer, not random acts and mutations that evolution would indicate. The intelligent designer that he wrote about and believed in just happened to be God.

  • Rape, Evolution, and "Right to Life"

    10/18/2005 10:04:56 AM PDT · 31 of 134
    NVD to holeinchilada

    draconian abortion laws needs to be abandoned

    Yeah, great idea Slick! Eight year olds should be able to abort their fetus'.......Lord knows it is important to save their mother's boyfriend. I agree their should be no parental notification laws or age limits imposed on abortion. What a foolish statement!

  • Survey: What rights do you value? (FREEP!)

    10/18/2005 9:38:17 AM PDT · 25 of 32
    NVD to jdege

    The Public radio folks very subtly placed the "right to privacy" in the midst of all of our other rights granted by Amendments to the Constitution. Do these folks understand that the "right to privacy" is case law (Griswald) and that it continues to be debated on its merit for the past 4 decades? Myopic fools!

  • Reserving Judgment on Miers

    10/13/2005 2:45:07 AM PDT · 32 of 55
    NVD to RasterMaster

    to appoint one of the top 50 lawyers,

    I believe you mean one of the top 50 WOMEN lawyers.......this narrows the field down significantly. When I heard W. say this, I couldn't believe he was using this agrument to pursuade anyone.

  • Witness: intelligent design has identified God as designer

    09/28/2005 9:53:08 AM PDT · 23 of 212
    NVD to Allen In So Cal

    s much as I feel comfortable with religion in moderation in most all public aspects, gummint included, I don't with ID in school. It is about teaching God and the bible in a school classroom. It is! And that belongs in a church.

    You obviously don't understand ID!

  • Witness: intelligent design has identified God as designer

    09/28/2005 9:45:35 AM PDT · 18 of 212
    NVD to inquest

    Great Point!

  • Ex-Teacher Testifies in Evolution Case [Day 3 of trial in Dover, PA]

    09/28/2005 5:55:31 AM PDT · 16 of 301
    NVD to kpp_kpp


  • Ex-Teacher Testifies in Evolution Case [Day 3 of trial in Dover, PA]

    09/28/2005 5:15:13 AM PDT · 14 of 301
    NVD to PatrickHenry

    Your links do nothing to show that ID is scientifically incorrect.