David Paszkiewicz's letter in the Observer

[Guest Guest]

What does “inalienable rights” mean? Many say it means that governments cannot take them away. Sometimes it is expressed as broadly as “no one” can take them away. [http://books.google.com/books?id=tvJRAtsFXJsC&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=%22inalienable+rights+meaning&source=web&ots=jqsGHeG98M&sig=ZOGmv5_hEz0m0fwaRgF-GnBuzn4&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result

http://www.socialstudies.com/pdf/ZP375EX.pdf]

OK, but what does that mean? Governments can take rights away. They do it all the time. Sometimes government even takes a person’s life. Other times, government requires people to serve in the military and put their lives at risk. This is at the very least a deprivation of freedom, albeit a necessary one at times.

Similarly, individuals and groups can take rights away. That happens too. People are murdered. Property is stolen. People are kidnapped or enslaved.

Well then, maybe it means that no one should take rights away. But clearly there are exceptions, such as when a person is justly imprisoned for committing a heinous crime, or when people are conscripted into military service or when a person is killed in self-defense.

So what are the criteria for the exceptions? In the case of imprisonment or justified killing, we say that a person has forfeited rights by wrongful conduct, but a draftee into military service has done nothing wrong in most cases. Military conscription is just a matter of necessity: “we need you to risk your life so we’re going to force you under penalty of law to do it.” Or consider the dilemma of the crowded lifeboat: no one on board has done anything wrong, but unless someone is thrown overboard everyone will die.

So then, are these supposedly inalienable rights contingent? Well then, they’re not inalienable. Governments and even individuals can take them away, justly in some instances.

Just where does this idea of “inalienable rights” get us? Well, maybe phrasing it like that makes it sound absolute, so that people are less likely to carve out exceptions. Maybe it’s useful fiction – but if so, it’s still a fiction.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, contains this statement in its preamble: “Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. . .” Article 1 of the same document consists of the following statement: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” [http://un.org/Overview/rights.html] The reader may notice the absence of any attribution to a Creator or god.

Of course, neither this document nor the United Nations has ended deprivations of human rights, but that is because power still resides in sovereign nations, not in the United Nations charter. However, even if the United Nations gained more power, that would not guarantee universal respect for human rights. Nothing can guarantee that powerful nations will never exert their power to deny rights to the powerless.

Slice it any way you like, it always comes back to the same thing. People choose how to treat each other and how to act in the world. They do so whether they believe in a god, or a Creator, or not.

Declarations – statements of principles – are important, but we should never delude ourselves into thinking that how we treat our brothers and sisters isn’t our choice and our responsibility. Dress them up any way you like, our choices are what shape the world.

Of course, the religious nuts who side with Paszkiewicz have no answers to any of this.

[Guest Guest]

It's fascinating watching people argue about an abstraction. For example, Mr. Paszkiewicz writes in his letter: "If the Michael Newdows of this world succeed in erasing God from public life, people will begin to reject the founding principle that this is 'one nation under God.' It will then be assumed that our rights come from government. The danger is this, if citizens believe government to be the giver of rights, they will then begin to believe government has the right to take them away."

None of that makes any sense. In the first place, it's not truly a founding principle. If it was, slavery couldn't have been written into the Constitution and the United States government could not have sanctioned genocide against the Native American peoples. So the premise is just dead wrong.

Second, rejecting the idea that rights come from God does not lead to the conclusion that rights come from government. Mr. Hohmann is saying what I have been saying, namely, that "rights" describes a choice we make about how to treat people. You can argue, as Mr. Paszkiewicz does, that there's a universal law somewhere (like gravity?) that grants people "rights," but it just ain't so.

Third, rights don't "come from" anywhere. The way Mr. Paszkiewicz puts it, they don't exist. "Rights" describes a relationship, essentially a relationship of forbearance. It's more a verb than a noun. Mr. Paszkiewicz is treating it as a noun. Saying that rights "come from" somewhere is like saying that my marriage "comes from" somewhere. That's sheer nonsense, an example of undisciplined, uncritical mythical thinking. My marriage is a product of choices made by my wife and me and sanctioned by law.

That's not to say that rights aren't important. Of course they are, but they describe a relationship, not a thing. So the appropriate question is under what conditions will they flourish; under what conditions will the relationship of forbearance be maintained? Under some forms of government, rights flourish. Under other forms, rights flourish but only for some. Under some forms, rights are scarce. It doesn't matter where they "come from," even if you want to engage in that kind of magical thinking. What matters is under what conditions do they flourish.

If people don't believe in a god, that doesn't mean that they don't believe in and champion rights. That's a horrible thing to say, and it's just not true. Many non-theists are more deeply committed to universal human rights than the average theist. Some of the strongest advocates of universal human rights are Humanists. So are some Christians, some Jews, some Muslims, some Hindus, some Buddhists, some Wiccans, etc. There's simply no connection between Mr. Paszkiewicz's premise and his conclusion.

And you're not well-advised to take the Bible as your guide. There are horrible things in the Bible, in which God supposedly commands people to violate basic human rights. Those passages are not consistent with Mr. Paszkiewicz's argument. You can't claim to believe in a collection of writings that has God denying human rights, and then also claim that God grants everyone inalienable rights.

Let any of Mr. Paszkiewicz's defenders say what "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" means. Exactly what is it describing, and in particular what are the practical effects of this supposed rule of the universe? Be specific. (I'll bet you dinner you can't do it.)

Better yet, let Mr. Paszkiewicz come here and explain it. If he is so interested in making this case, let him make it in a marketplace of ideas. KOTW isn't a perfect forum, but it is a vehicle for open discussion. If he truly wants to make his case, let him make it in a forum where he has to be responsible for what he says, and where he has to defend his beliefs. I've subjected myself to this forum for exactly that reason. You want at me, go ahead, here I am. Let him do the same. It's an invitation, not a command.

And of course, the religious nuts who side with Paszkiewicz have no answers to any of this.

[Guest Guest]

To Paszkiewicz's defenders:

Do you understand what Hohmann means by "the US narrative where historic white male privilege is invisible and thus naturalized - a product of 'God'"?

Lincoln Logger, Patriot and guests-for-Paszkiewicz, how about an answer to this. You've ignored everything else. How about answering just this one question?

And of course, the religious nuts who side with Paszkiewicz have no answer to this.

[Guest Guest]

Hohmann is entitled to his opinion but probably doesn't realize that there were influential founders who opposed slavery and sought its abolitition.

All they do is make remarks that have nothing to do with the issue at hand. OK, so there were founders who opposed slavery and sought its abolition. That doesn't change the fact that there was a paradox, a conflict between the principle and the reality.

[Guest Guest]

Does anyone else wonder what a divorced mother and nurse from supposedly Sacramento, California is doing posting here on Kearny on the Web? Someone who knows so much about the court system and just who happens to agree with every comment that Paul says. Maybe if she wasn't on the computer so much she just might be still married? Just food for thought.

Or they make juvenile and ignorant remarks attacking people. They don't seem to understand the difference between human food and swill.

[Guest Guest]

There are two major points.

1. Paszkiewicz's argument is ahistorical, which means that it's not based on history.

2. I don't know about you, but I'm interested in whether people's rights are respected. I am more interested in whether people are free and safe than in anyone's opinion about where these things "come from." Hohmann is pointing out that in the United States our ancestors declared a belief in a Creator but enslaved and killed entire races of people anyway. So what good did it do? He relies on historical facts to make his point.

If you defend Paszkiewicz, ask yourself a question. If people think rights come from God, how does make the world better than if people just respect people?

And of course, the religious nuts who side with Paszkiewicz have no answer to this question, which is probably the most important of all.

[Guest Guest]

And then the religious nuts who side with Paszkiewicz can't figure out why so many of us a freaking sick of them.

[Guest Guest]

And what is that most credible of descriptions in the bible that explains how we came to be. Please tell us here, spefically how the bible tells the story.

Here are the choices: pond scum or Intelligent Design. I'll go with I.D.

[WilliamK]

And what is that most credible of descriptions in the bible that explains how we came to be. Please tell us here, spefically how the bible tells the story.

I can summarize it for you:

Invisible magic man says the magic words "let there be X", and poof, X magically springs into existence. This goes on for 6 days, until all the X in the universe has appeared (apparently with artificially aged fossils, and light from distance galaxies already in transit, since this all happened only 6,000 years ago). Then invisible magic man had to take a day of rest because, phew, saying magic words and watching things poof into existence is hard work. Apparently still resting, as no one's seen any sign of him.

Creationists like Patriot think that this hocus-pocus fantasy is better than science.

[Guest Guest]

Here are the choices: pond scum or Intelligent Design. I'll go with I.D.

Pond scum votes for I.D. Big deal.

[Guest Keith]

Which of the bible's several inconsistent and fantastic stories would you like repeated?

Take you pick. Anything is fine.

[Guest Guest]

Here are the choices: pond scum or Intelligent Design. I'll go with I.D.

No, the choice is to think according to the evidence and reason so that you can conform your beliefs and your actions to reality; or to decide in advance what you want to believe and refuse to think about anything that doesn’t fit with your choice, so that you can do whatever the hell you want to do and blame someone else if it doesn’t work out. Sounds like Bush. Also sounds like Paszkiewicz. Also sounds like you.

“The content of propaganda is not science any more than the object represented in a poster is art. . . . The function of propaganda is, for example, not to weigh and ponder the rights of different people, but exclusively to emphasize the one right which it has set out to argue for. Its task is not to make an objective study of the truth, in so far as it favors the enemy, and then set it before the masses with academic fairness; its task is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly.” http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch06.html

So people like you and Paszkiewicz and Bush and Limbaugh and Hannity rarely make any real argument. You just decide on a conclusion and repeat it over and over. You completely ignore any content that doesn’t fit and support what you’ve already decided to believe. So when you’re asked this:

QUOTE (Keith @ Jan 26 2009, 11:16 PM)

And what is that most credible of descriptions in the bible that explains how we came to be. Please tell us here, spefically how the bible tells the story.

Instead of answering the question, you completely ignore the issue and say this: “Here are the choices: pond scum or Intelligent Design. I'll go with I.D.”

“But the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success.” http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch06.html

And of course you have to make it colorful, so instead of calling it what it is, which is proteins and amino acids and cells you call it pond scum.

“. . . a slogan must be presented from different angles, but the end of all remarks must always and immutably be the slogan itself. Only in this way can the propaganda have a unified and complete effect.” http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch06.html

And if anyone tries to get you to think, you refuse, either by ignoring it altogether or by dismissing it or by demeaning the person who tries to get you to look at the truth. Anyone who doesn’t agree with you is the “other.”

http://politicalpathologies.wikispaces.com...sm+Hitler+Group

[Guest Lincoln Logger]

It's fascinating watching people argue about an abstraction. For example, Mr. Paszkiewicz writes in his letter: "If the Michael Newdows of this world succeed in erasing God from public life, people will begin to reject the founding principle that this is 'one nation under God.' It will then be assumed that our rights come from government. The danger is this, if citizens believe government to be the giver of rights, they will then begin to believe government has the right to take them away."

None of that makes any sense. In the first place, it's not truly a founding principle. If it was, slavery couldn't have been written into the Constitution and the United States government could not have sanctioned genocide against the Native American peoples. So the premise is just dead wrong.

Second, rejecting the idea that rights come from God does not lead to the conclusion that rights come from government. Mr. Hohmann is saying what I have been saying, namely, that "rights" describes a choice we make about how to treat people. You can argue, as Mr. Paszkiewicz does, that there's a universal law somewhere (like gravity?) that grants people "rights," but it just ain't so.

Third, rights don't "come from" anywhere. The way Mr. Paszkiewicz puts it, they don't exist. "Rights" describes a relationship, essentially a relationship of forbearance. It's more a verb than a noun. Mr. Paszkiewicz is treating it as a noun. Saying that rights "come from" somewhere is like saying that my marriage "comes from" somewhere. That's sheer nonsense, an example of undisciplined, uncritical mythical thinking. My marriage is a product of choices made by my wife and me and sanctioned by law.

That's not to say that rights aren't important. Of course they are, but they describe a relationship, not a thing. So the appropriate question is under what conditions will they flourish; under what conditions will the relationship of forbearance be maintained? Under some forms of government, rights flourish. Under other forms, rights flourish but only for some. Under some forms, rights are scarce. It doesn't matter where they "come from," even if you want to engage in that kind of magical thinking. What matters is under what conditions do they flourish.

If people don't believe in a god, that doesn't mean that they don't believe in and champion rights. That's a horrible thing to say, and it's just not true. Many non-theists are more deeply committed to universal human rights than the average theist. Some of the strongest advocates of universal human rights are Humanists. So are some Christians, some Jews, some Muslims, some Hindus, some Buddhists, some Wiccans, etc. There's simply no connection between Mr. Paszkiewicz's premise and his conclusion.

And you're not well-advised to take the Bible as your guide. There are horrible things in the Bible, in which God supposedly commands people to violate basic human rights. Those passages are not consistent with Mr. Paszkiewicz's argument. You can't claim to believe in a collection of writings that has God denying human rights, and then also claim that God grants everyone inalienable rights.

Let any of Mr. Paszkiewicz's defenders say what "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" means. Exactly what is it describing, and in particular what are the practical effects of this supposed rule of the universe? Be specific. (I'll bet you dinner you can't do it.)

Better yet, let Mr. Paszkiewicz come here and explain it. If he is so interested in making this case, let him make it in a marketplace of ideas. KOTW isn't a perfect forum, but it is a vehicle for open discussion. If he truly wants to make his case, let him make it in a forum where he has to be responsible for what he says, and where he has to defend his beliefs. I've subjected myself to this forum for exactly that reason. You want at me, go ahead, here I am. Let him do the same. It's an invitation, not a command.

Funny how important Paul always thinks he is especially on this website. Calling someone out on KOTW where most people post as guest, especially you, and then comment on yourself makes you so much of a man. I am sure Mr. Paszkiewicz has better ways to spend his time then have to justify himself to Paul. And now Paul is gambling on here better. How absolutely earthshaking. And also pointing just the horrible things in the Bible doesn't mean that there aren't good things inside it. I bet more people have used he Bible as a guide at some point than you non-believers would like to believe. It's like condemning this website because of a few bad posts. There might be some good things to post here. It's just that I am waiting to hear just one of them from you. His personal attackes against Paszkiewicz is so old now. The comparison that comes to mind is the A-Rod obsession with Jeter. Two people jealous of the other.

[Guest Guest]

Here are the choices: pond scum or Intelligent Design. I'll go with I.D.

Here are the choices: science or a story. Science won't tell me all the answers today, but it gives more answers and is more reliable than any story. If I go with science I'll know more tomorrow than I do today, and if the world goes with science, people will know a lot more 100 years from now than they do today. If we go with the story, we won't know any more 1,000 years from now than we do today. In fact there probably won't be any people because if we keep doing things based on what we wish was true instead of what is true, we're going to destroy ourselves. So I'll go with science.

[Guest Guest]

Hohmann is entitled to his opinion but probably doesn't realize that there were influential founders who opposed slavery and sought its abolitition.

George Washington: "There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it."

(It's true Washington owned slaves but they belonged to his wife when they were married. They were freed in his will. Also, I have been in Washington's slave quarters, the accomodations were better than the average frontier family. They were brick with fireplaces)

John Adams: "Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total exterpation of slavery from the United States...I have, through my whole life, held the practice of slavery in abhorence."

Benjamin Franklin: "Slavery is ... an atrocious debasement of human nature."

Alexander Hamilton: The laws of certain states ... give an ownership in the service of Negroes as personal property ... But being men, by the laws of God and nature, they were capable of acquiring liberty --- and when the captor in war ... thought fit to give them liberty, the gift was not only valid, but irrevocable."

James Madison: "We have seen the mere distinction of color made in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man.

Remember, the colonies were deeply divided over the issue of slavery early on. In 1776 the primary order of business was defeating the British. If slavery were the primary issue in 1776, the Southern colonies might not have declared independence. They would view the Northern colonies as being more abusive of their rights than the British. As wrong as that view was, it was their view. If Independence was to be achieved, it could only be achieved through colonial unity.

Fortunately, the Declaration of independence formed the political basis for the abolition movement. Abolitionists pointed politically to the Declaration as the Nation's creed challenging American's to live up to it. Morally, they appealed the the Bible. For evidence, read Uncle Tom's Cabin. It is a polemic against slavery and is so full of Bible verses it reads like a sermon. The book was written in 1850 (11 years before the Civil War) and opened the eyes of Americans in the North to their Hypocrisy in allowing slavery in the South. President Lincoln called the author, Harriet Beecher Stowe, "The little woman who started a great big war." How did she do this? She did this by convincing Northerners that racial slavery was not Biblical and they had a moral responsibility to end it.

In closing, the sin of racial slavery was paid for in the blood of 600,000 white Americans, the vast majority of which were Christians. In fact, the Union Army marched into battle singing the Battle Hymn of the Republic. The most powerful and explicitly Christian lines of the Hymn are below:

"In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,

With a glory in His bossom that transfigures you and me;

As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,

While God is marching on."

America certainly has dark stains on its past, however, it has always been the influence of those committed to Biblical truth who have righted its injustices.

For a more recent example, read Martin Luther King's speeches. They are rife with Scripture references. (Afterall, he was a Christian and a pastor)

So they knew it was wrong but they did it anyway.

And you completely overlook the fact that the Confederate states cited the Bible explicitly in defending slavery.

How does any of that support your argument?

[Guest *Autonomous*]

Non-believers have no credibility. Anyone that believes we were all hatched in pond scum cannot think clearly.

That is technically true. I don't actually know that anyone actually believes that we came from pond scum though.

[Guest *Autonomous*]

Here are the choices: pond scum or Intelligent Design. I'll go with I.D.

False dichotomy. Odin creating the earth from the corpse of Ymir is as likely as the Christian god going poof and everything appearing. The real dichotomy is reality vs. a 2000 year old book. We reject ID not becuse it is religious (though it is) but because it has been proven wrong. What with you already being on the internet, perhaps you should do a 5-second Google search for the transcript of the Dover trial where ID was spanked mercilessly.

The smug superiority of Creationist idiocy is so funny that I'd almost be sad to see it go.

[Guest Guest]

Funny how important Paul always thinks he is especially on this website. Calling someone out on KOTW where most people post as guest, especially you, and then comment on yourself makes you so much of a man. I am sure Mr. Paszkiewicz has better ways to spend his time then have to justify himself to Paul. And now Paul is gambling on here better. How absolutely earthshaking. And also pointing just the horrible things in the Bible doesn't mean that there aren't good things inside it. I bet more people have used he Bible as a guide at some point than you non-believers would like to believe. It's like condemning this website because of a few bad posts. There might be some good things to post here. It's just that I am waiting to hear just one of them from you. His personal attackes against Paszkiewicz is so old now. The comparison that comes to mind is the A-Rod obsession with Jeter. Two people jealous of the other.

Sure there are good things in the Bible.

1. So what? The question is whether belief in a Creator is important to our system of laws or a necessary foundation for our country.

2. Just because there are good things in the Bible doesn't mean that Judeo-Christian theology makes any sense as a whole. Use the Bible for what it's worth, but you can't ignore its problems if you want to use it as the basis for an entire religion.

[Guest Guest]

Funny how important Paul always thinks he is especially on this website. Calling someone out on KOTW where most people post as guest, especially you, and then comment on yourself makes you so much of a man. I am sure Mr. Paszkiewicz has better ways to spend his time then have to justify himself to Paul. And now Paul is gambling on here better. How absolutely earthshaking. And also pointing just the horrible things in the Bible doesn't mean that there aren't good things inside it. I bet more people have used he Bible as a guide at some point than you non-believers would like to believe. It's like condemning this website because of a few bad posts. There might be some good things to post here. It's just that I am waiting to hear just one of them from you. His personal attackes against Paszkiewicz is so old now. The comparison that comes to mind is the A-Rod obsession with Jeter. Two people jealous of the other.

Mr. Preacher-Teacher COULDN'T WAIT to discuss these issues with a group of captive teenagers who wouldn't talk back to him but he won't have the discussion with an adult who is more than capable of taking him on. A letter to the local newspaper invites comment. The fact that some people may not agree with him isn't reason for complaint. It took a lot for one of his fellow history teachers to say publicly that he's just pushing his agenda, which of course is exactly what he's doing.

The reason Mr. Preacher-Teacher won't discuss it here is that he knows people won't agree with him. Deep down, he knows he's spitting out rubbish. He's not interested in the truth, he just wants to push his religion on anyone who won't disagree. He's a hypocrite, a coward and a buffoon.

Funny how Lincoln Logger and other right wingers always attack the person instead of addressing the issues. Paul was responding to the content of what Mr. Preacher-Teacher wrote, it wasn't personal at all. What I just wrote was personal.

[Guest Paul]

Funny how important Paul always thinks he is especially on this website. Calling someone out on KOTW where most people post as guest, especially you, and then comment on yourself makes you so much of a man. I am sure Mr. Paszkiewicz has better ways to spend his time then have to justify himself to Paul. And now Paul is gambling on here better. How absolutely earthshaking. And also pointing just the horrible things in the Bible doesn't mean that there aren't good things inside it. I bet more people have used he Bible as a guide at some point than you non-believers would like to believe. It's like condemning this website because of a few bad posts. There might be some good things to post here. It's just that I am waiting to hear just one of them from you. His personal attackes against Paszkiewicz is so old now. The comparison that comes to mind is the A-Rod obsession with Jeter. Two people jealous of the other.

I don't need this aggravation and am very well aware that some people just plain hate me. I don't post under my own name because I think I'm important. I do it because I think it's important to be personally accountable for what we say and do. I can't force you to do the same, but then you can't force me to stop saying it's a shame that people don't communicate more openly. I think our town and our country and our world would be much better if we did.

Staying on that thread, I haven't personally attacked Mr. Paszkiewicz. I have invited him to have a discussion. He and I agree that religion is a very important subject, but we don't agree why it's important. If I took the time to write to the local newspaper about something I cared deeply and passionately about, I would open myself to discussing it - especially if I was convinced that it was absolutely essential for the welfare of all humanity. His choices are his own, but I don't think they are consistent with what he says he values and believes. Again, you don't have to agree with my opinion, but you can't stop me from expressing it. It's an honest and open invitation, and if he keeps writing - which I fully expect he will - I'll probably keep inviting him to have an open discussion.

The Bible has many wonderful passages in it. Beautiful things, pearls of great and profound wisdom. The parables are my favorites, along with statements like "From him who has much . . ." and of course the Golden Rule. I've said that here many times and cited many biblical passages right here on KOTW. But I don't think that a literal interpretation makes sense or that its parts all fit together into a coherent whole. And since religion is by definition the quest for a coherent whole, I don't think that a literal, fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible is defensible. Anyone who says that the Bible is the inspired word of God - I don't think they can defend that view.

So I open myself here and if you want to attack me, you can. But I would appreciate it if you would at least try to read what I'm actually writing instead of distorting it.

[Guest Patriot]

Here are the choices: science or a story. Science won't tell me all the answers today, but it gives more answers and is more reliable than any story. If I go with science I'll know more tomorrow than I do today, and if the world goes with science, people will know a lot more 100 years from now than they do today. If we go with the story, we won't know any more 1,000 years from now than we do today. In fact there probably won't be any people because if we keep doing things based on what we wish was true instead of what is true, we're going to destroy ourselves. So I'll go with science.

Did you ever question why science has never uncovered any evidence of the origins of life? (Clue) There isn't any.

[Guest Keith]

Did you ever question why science has never uncovered any evidence of the origins of life? (Clue) There isn't any.

Can you prove it? BTW there aren't any credible clues in the bible either.

[Guest Guest]

Did you ever question why science has never uncovered any evidence of the origins of life? (Clue) There isn't any.

That's false. Science has uncovered many things about the formation of amino acids and proteins, and they are working to understand the formation of the cell. This is the same way that science has made most of its major discoveries, including the development of medicines and medical treatments that have saved your life or the life of someone you care about. If everyone took your attitude, there would be no science and tens of millions of people over the age of 60 would be dead.

Did you ever question why none of the supernatural claims of any theology has ever been verified, or why no theology has ever generated any progress in the fund of human knowledge? Of course you haven't, because you made up your mind what you wish to believe and you ignore all the facts.

[Guest Guest]

Here are the choices: pond scum or Intelligent Design. I'll go with I.D.

Those are the choices if you're a moron. The actual choices are:

1. Established science that proves its worth by being successfully applied every day (you know how we don't worry about polio anymore? Guess why--vaccines are created as a direct result of our knowledge of evolution)

2. Creationism (the Dover case), which can't be proven and has no application whatsoever to anything in reality. If you disagree, name one testable prediction that creationism makes.

By the way, "primordial soup" is a metaphor for a variety of chemicals etc., like the US being called a "melting pot" does not literally mean we're all cooking in a cauldron. If you feel stupid for taking the term literally, good; you should, you willfully ignorant fool.

[Guest Guest]

Here are the choices: science or a story. Science won't tell me all the answers today, but it gives more answers and is more reliable than any story. If I go with science I'll know more tomorrow than I do today, and if the world goes with science, people will know a lot more 100 years from now than they do today. If we go with the story, we won't know any more 1,000 years from now than we do today. In fact there probably won't be any people because if we keep doing things based on what we wish was true instead of what is true, we're going to destroy ourselves. So I'll go with science.

What do you think of this saying:

'Science may not have all the answers, but every answer we have, we got from science.'