Recent Comments

1. about 3 hours ago on Pearls Before Swine

   Well… that may be because it’s a 10W charger. ;D

2. about 3 hours ago on Over the Hedge

   A caution: there is a difference between basic personal opinion… and publicly attacking faith and God (intentional blasphemy). “What comes from a man’s mouth defines who he is.” That is a difference you would do well to consider.

   No matter what you believe, simple decency should inform you of the pointlessness and basic rudeness in attacking the faith and beliefs of others. Simple common sense should tell you that.

   But this goes beyond basic decency. When you assume the authority to judge God Himself, you take upon yourself all consequences of such attitude and activity. Whether you believe that to be true or not is totally irrelevant.

   The day is quickly approaching that the existence of God will no longer be in question. You currently have free will and the right to believe whatever you wish… but there is no benefit, profit, nor respect in attacking the faith of others, nor in publicly blaspheming God. It is a foolish activity based on extreme arrogance and conceit, not reality or sensibility. Why you feel such activity is necessary in your life… well, that’s a questionable agenda you would do well to examine in yourself.

   “Believe what you will, but respect the beliefs of others.” Excuse my being frank, but failing that, a person is just being a jerk. But more than that, in this particular case if you are mistaken, you could not be more severely wrong about anything in the universe.

   Sensibility, moderation, an open mind, wisdom, and the simple willingness to consider the possibility “I might be mistaken”… these are the keys to a balanced and productive life. Failing that, brings the opposite.

3. about 3 hours ago on Over the Hedge

   The trick with evolution is that evolution itself, as a core concept, is not wrong. But it is wrongly applied, just as you applied it above.

   There is nothing in the concept of evolution that cannot be equally and more rationally explained by the reality of creation. You mentioned similarities in DNA and structure. That similarity would also exist if all these things had the same designer / creator. Evolution is not the only explanation for such things, nor the most rational and realistic.

   The concept of life arriving via evolution is based on a foundation of impossibility, and then adding conjecture and guesswork to the equation. It is assuming that somehow life just “somehow” has the ability to form extremely complex relationships and symbiosis, where no such logic exists in the natural order of things.

   Rather, creation pretty much screams intentional design… but some people ignore that because they simply do not wish to accept the concept of a supreme creator with ultimate authority, no matter how obvious that reality may be.

   You presume to judge God himself, as if your personal knowledge, experience and wisdom qualifies you to take such a stance. As stated before that is your decision… but it is not one based on accurate, truthful science, no matter how much you wish to believe it is. The concept of abiogenesis and evolution does not have accurate, consistent scientific basis. Those concepts are largely conjecture and guess-work. The very process of calculating age of objects is so full of nonsense that it becomes silly. Evolutionists do not agree with one another (much as mankind doesn’t really agree on almost everything). It does not have a rock-solid scientific foundation. It is largely conjecture based on flimsy evidence, easily challenged.

   (cont)

4. about 4 hours ago on Over the Hedge

   T, I understand what you say and I’ll be honest: that is the first post I’ve seen here which contained some rational thought and explanation rather than bias and attitude. I don’t mean that in an insulting or judgmental way; I’m stating it as something for you to consider. There’s a huge difference between having an opinion… and attacking people’s faith and public blasphemy. Huge difference.

   You quoted (word for word) some dictionary definitions of “faith”. I have to point out that dictionaries are reference works, but are not authoritarian texts. First, there are many dictionaries and second,they don’t all agree with one another. In addition, you highlighted the one definition that fits your belief structure, which again indicates bias rather than a balanced view. I state that from a scholastic viewpoint.

   You mentioned abiogenesis and the reality that “science” is still trying to understand that and other aspects of cosmology. Then you compared that to the concept of God, as if God makes less sense. This is not true. There is literally zero probability of abiogenesis. The odds against a single enzyme just forming together is greater than the total number of atoms in several “universes”… and it takes a couple dozen of them to form just the foundation of life. DNA is far more complex, and a living cell magnitudes of complexity beyond that.

   An honest scientist recognizes that when something is absolutely impossible… there must be another explanation— whether he understands that explanation or not.

   cont

5. about 22 hours ago on Dark Side of the Horse

   So where can we find this mythical loquacious rendering of said extraneous and verbose renderings of literature to satiate our intrigue and curiosity so that we as a avid readers might acquire the concept of the methodology which you present to the room entire????

6. 1 day ago on Pearls Before Swine

   “The only drawback is slow charging, but I have cords all over the house.”

   I got past the problem of slow charging by putting my 1.5A and 2.0A chargers in a drawer somewhere and replacing them with a 3.5A quick-charger. Makes a big difference. : )

7. 1 day ago on Over the Hedge

   “Faith is, by definition, holding something as true in the absence of evidence.”

   Since I’ve provided you the cited definition of faith— according to the most authoritarian work on faith in existence… and you’ve ignored that definition repeatedly, I’d have to state your entire set of posts here is basically a collection of personal opinion and bias, formed from your self-constructed and inaccurate definition of faith onward.

   You’re not even trying to understand viewpoints other than your own, and you intentionally ignore points made in answer to your charges and question. “I’m right and you’re wrong” earns no respect, T.

   Hopefully others have gleaned something from this discussion. Actual scripture (based on history and observable evidence) vs biased personal opinion based on… well… biased personal opinion, always has the same result, as seen here and you will yet see.

8. 1 day ago on Phoebe and Her Unicorn

   She missed a great chance to spoil every major Sci Fi movie for the next 20 years.

   I guess she really is a decent person. ;D

9. 1 day ago on Brewster Rockit

   Just when you think there are no numeric quips left, someone adds to the sum total.

10. 2 days ago on Dark Side of the Horse

    " The Eisenhower Administration was a time of prosperity and relative peace with WW2 veterans doing their peacetime jobs with confidence and skill. Then came the 60s and that all went up in smoke."

    While I agree with your take on the turmoil since the 60s (actually, ask the 20’s people about flappers, the 30’s & 40’s generation about swing dancers, the 50’s people about beatniks and Elvis…), I would have to say that just having come through two World Wars, followed by the Korean War and Vietnam War… didn’t leave the world exactly in a time of peace and prosperity. ; )

    Or as numerous historians have said, ‘1914 brought about the end of an era of relative peace, and we have not known peace since’.