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.

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

    09/28/2005 5:10:18 AM PDT · 13 of 301
    NVD to Adder

    You 'hit the nail on the head', I hope that others realize that this case is not about teaching an ID curriculum but simply reading a disclaimer.

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

    09/28/2005 5:08:46 AM PDT · 12 of 301
    NVD to PatrickHenry

    Yeh and the faulty logic of separation of church and state.....1st amendment my a##!

  • Intelligent design on trial

    09/28/2005 5:06:31 AM PDT · 22 of 63
    NVD to Dr. Dyson

    Thanks, I'll look it up.

  • Intelligent design on trial

    09/28/2005 4:44:23 AM PDT · 19 of 63
    NVD to Dr. Dyson
    The Big Bang theory is much more scientific than just saying "God did it" in order to explain unknown phenomena

    My point exactly.......reduce the argument of ID to a simple 'God did it'.

    Many very intelligent people can come to different conclusions based upon their background and their eduction. I am not ready (like many myopic creationists) to say that evolution is the antithesis of ID. I agree with some of Darwin's theories, but I believe it takes more faith to believe in an evolutionists theory of the beginning of existence than it does to believe that there was an intelligent design behind all life.

    When I see a watch that has washed up on the beach, I don't automatically think....this was created over millions of years by water erosion......I find it more reasonable to say, this watch was created by a watchmaker.
  • Intelligent design on trial

    09/28/2005 4:21:00 AM PDT · 16 of 63
    NVD to bvw

    Good point! I agree!
    Yes, I am a creationist but the argument of most naturalists disregard ID simply because they consider it faith or religion, but never science. There is a scientific component to ID in addition to what you mentioned in your previous thread.

  • Intelligent design on trial

    09/28/2005 4:03:32 AM PDT · 13 of 63
    NVD to Junior

    I would like to know more about how the world began......was it "Big Bang"?
    My assertions have been called myopic in the past but the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, the anthropic principal, and irreducible complexity make sense to me (I see evidence in nature every day). My problem is that there can never be a DISCUSSION on FR because those that agree with evolution do not explain the holes in their own argument and reduce the ID argument to creationism or religion.

  • Intelligent design on trial

    09/28/2005 3:36:57 AM PDT · 4 of 63
    NVD to Junior

    Criticizing Charles Darwin does not make one a creationist, despite the allegations of many Darwinists, whose arguments often are reduced to petty ad hominem attacks

    Never heard that here!

  • Intelligent design on trial

    09/28/2005 3:34:39 AM PDT · 3 of 63
    NVD to Crackingham

    What we recommend," the institute says, "is that teachers and students study more about Darwinian evolution, not only the evidence that supports the theory, but also scientific criticisms of the theory."

    Yea, please explain how the beginning of the world began. Was it the "Big Bang Theory"? That sure sounds scientific!

  • Global warming: Something New Under the Sun?

    09/21/2005 12:27:44 PM PDT · 13 of 31
    NVD to kidd

    Why is the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface increasing? The authors of the Science papers don’t have a firm idea, but most tend to think that it has to do with the atmosphere becoming generally cleaner as a result of less pollution being emitted into it rather than actual changes in the solar output.

    What a hoot, the heating of our earth is actually OUR FAULT, due to decreasing pollution!

  • Petty Officer In Navy Has Something to Say to Cindy Sheehan

    08/31/2005 12:22:49 PM PDT · 12 of 48
    NVD to martin_fierro

    Isn't it "Anchors Aweigh" ?

  • Conservatives (And Republicans) Can Be Proud of Their Civil Rights Record

    05/19/2005 12:22:36 PM PDT · 9 of 11
    NVD to joinedafterattack

    Link to the congressional write-up with more detailed information and background.

  • Intelligent Decline

    05/19/2005 7:44:10 AM PDT · 32 of 835
    NVD to NVD

    The evolutionists have now left the building!

  • Intelligent Decline

    05/19/2005 7:43:01 AM PDT · 30 of 835
    NVD to frgoff


  • Intelligent Decline

    05/19/2005 7:42:19 AM PDT · 28 of 835
    NVD to Right Wing Professor

    This must by why Darwin himself said that he shudders to think of how his piecemeal evolution could explain the human eye.

  • Intelligent Decline

    05/19/2005 6:34:48 AM PDT · 6 of 835
    NVD to Nicholas Conradin

    Indeed, it is sad and tragic.

    What is sat and tragic is this article, which does nothing to hurt the ID case, but continues to make Darwinists look like 5 year olds who don't want to debate issues like irreducible complexity or the anthropic principle. They continue to sit back and claim that they "own" the same science that they cannot explain through genetic mutations. In addition to this myopic belief system, they continue to sling mud at those who question the holes in their "scienctific theory".

    In fact, Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute testified that there is a "tremendous amount of criticism of the theory that students should be permitted to know about." For example, nearly 400 scientists, including professors at MIT, Rice, and Yale, have signed a Discovery Institute statement that questions "the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life."

    In addition, other Darwinian skeptics are flying under the radar. For instance, the April 28 issue of the science journal Nature reported approaching a skeptical researcher who declined to be interviewed because he did not want to hurt his chances for tenure.

  • March 7,1975 Senate Votes Easier Cutoff Of Filibuster; Democrats change filibuster with 56 votes

    05/19/2005 3:23:38 AM PDT · 30 of 41
    NVD to TheEaglehasLanded

    Good information about Wilson's push to create a filibuster law where unending debate would end.
  • 'Intelligent design' proponents willing to drag U.S. further behind (Bonnie Erbe)

    05/12/2005 10:48:38 AM PDT · 95 of 152
    NVD to HolgerDansk

    You are absolutly correct! Many want to reduce ID's scientific arguments to mere faith and belief. They refuse to look at the "meat" of the argument.

  • 'Intelligent design' proponents willing to drag U.S. further behind (Bonnie Erbe)

    05/12/2005 10:46:01 AM PDT · 93 of 152
    NVD to js1138
    Wow, such deep thinking!! The point is that much of Darwinism cannot be explained due to the complexity of not only organisms but items on the cellular level. Darwin himself used the word "shutter" when he found that he couldn't explain his belief that piecemeal evolution could create an eye. The same is true on the microbiological level the flagellum of a cell cannot be explained through evolution.
    The late Francis Schaefer uses the analogy of a fish with the principle of irreducible complexity......He asks the question, "What would happen to a fish that evolved lungs? He would drown.

    Your answer--the lungfish (not a good answer) Turn your philosophy on yourself.....Can evolution be true when many items within it cannot be explained scientifically? My belief-- You need more faith to believe in evolution than in ID---This says nothing about Creationism v. Naturalism
  • 'Intelligent design' proponents willing to drag U.S. further behind (Bonnie Erbe)

    05/12/2005 9:54:27 AM PDT · 61 of 152
    NVD to Coyoteman

    You don't seem to truly understand ID. ID uses principles like irreducible complexity and the anthropic principle to explain how such an wide variety of species developed on this earth. ID explains the complexity of this earth and the beings on it rather than just saying that complexity is due to a number of random acts. ID is not a world view (which you don't seem to understand--you are mixing Creationism with ID).

  • 'Intelligent design' proponents willing to drag U.S. further behind (Bonnie Erbe)

    05/12/2005 6:34:40 AM PDT · 6 of 152
    NVD to RexBeach
    No specifics on Intelligent Design equals an illogical argument and intellectually dishonest argument. The people who rail on Intelligent Design never want to discuss specifics only blast ID as illogical saying it deals with faith and religion.
  • Bibles banned on playgrounds: Legal group challenges restriction on student activity at recess

    05/12/2005 5:08:33 AM PDT · 22 of 30
    NVD to Stoat
    Not only should parent boycott the school but the parents involved should sue the administration for a violation of their 1st Amendment rights to exercise their beliefs freely.
    I want to know why lawyers never invoke the second piece of the religious clauses of the 1st Amendment. Our founding fathers wanted to protect the citizenry from an intrusive government infringing on our rights to exercise our beliefs freely. This is not a free speech problem!
  • Sojourners: Christianity Wedded to Marxism

    02/25/2005 6:05:09 AM PST · 13 of 33
    NVD to Fred Hayek

    Great Point!

  • HELP, you Ed. Law Scholars

    02/25/2005 5:59:55 AM PST · 14 of 19
    NVD to Nuzcruizer

    One as you mentioned, is to give the dues to your Church

    I wish I could do this but I believe that under the Abood ruling, I cannot send my $ to charity that is religious.

    infiltrate the union, take the positions of president, etc. and determine the direction the union is going, as well as where the dues get spent

    This point is well taken, and may be my next course of action. Thanks

  • HELP, you Ed. Law Scholars

    02/25/2005 5:56:27 AM PST · 13 of 19
    NVD to Publius6961

    Here, in California, it must be an "approved" destination (non-religious).
    If that is the union's decision, I will fight it. For instance, the Salvation Army may be designated as "not acceptable", although their main public benefit is non-religious.

    The law is the same......the local association and the non-member select the "non-religious" organization. If I choose to move in this direction, I will be sure to make sure that the charity is of my choosing :)

  • Sojourners: Christianity Wedded to Marxism

    02/25/2005 5:50:53 AM PST · 8 of 33
    NVD to SJackson

    The Sojourners community uniformly welcomed the Communists’ victory in the revolution

    Oxymoron? Christians who don't see their sinful natures, believing in an idology of Marxism? Wow! This Marxist philosophy goes against everything the Bible teaches....... believing that through man/ social policies/ governement, we can create a utopia on earth. Hasn't this philosophy failed miserably?

  • Sojourners: Christianity Wedded to Marxism

    02/25/2005 5:42:30 AM PST · 4 of 33
    NVD to Tribune7

    Don't forget about the Pope! This is how he will be remembered.

  • HELP, you Ed. Law Scholars

    02/25/2005 5:24:44 AM PST · 8 of 19
    NVD to Publius6961

    Abood v. Detroit Board of Ed. was a federal case.
    "leg to stand on" was a mere colloquialism .

  • HELP, you Ed. Law Scholars

    02/25/2005 5:21:52 AM PST · 7 of 19
    NVD to RedBloodedAmerican

    Good point....That way, I can trace where my 78% is going (although the law states that the "right to work" $ cannot go to political causes)

  • HELP, you Ed. Law Scholars

    02/25/2005 5:00:17 AM PST · 1 of 19
  • Die in Britain, survive in the US

    02/11/2005 6:34:35 AM PST · 10 of 28
    NVD to RexBeach

    Correct! Most states have laws that protect even illegal aliens when it comes to health care. Anyone can go into the emergency room and be treated free of charge (free for all except the tax payers).