Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Promise

2008-06-14T23:17:56Z

InHisname:

A [[promise]] in legal terms is a commitment to do something, often in exchange for [[consideration]]. [[Category:Legal Terms]]

For more information see: Pinky-swear.

Debate:Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?

2008-06-14T23:15:28Z

InHisname:

{{debate}}

Consider the following: I'm not wearing any pants

Most (if not all) monotheistic religions are based on faith. Their god (or gods if taken collectively) requires followers to believe without direct evidence. The story of 'doubting' Thomas in the new Testament is typical of such requirements to believe and have faith, often in the face of adversity. In addition, these supreme being have omniscience.

However, Intelligent Design requires that there is an omniscient creator who has used his or her intelligence to underpin the creation of living things, and has left the evidence around for all to see. There is clearly a contradiction here.

Let us suppose that the premise of Intelligent Design is true: that is, that Life as we know it was created by some intelligent being, and this can be asserted from the evidence of our senses, and arguments such as: 'The creation of a living being by chance is as unlikely as a Boeing 757 to be reassembled by a whirlwind from parts in a hangar' are valid. This means that Intelligent Design becomes a 'non-negotiable' fact, which proves the existence of a creator.

However, you cannot now claim that that creator was an omniscient God, otherwise you are claiming that you an incontravertable proof of the existence of God, which denies the idea of 'faith', a cornerstone of monotheistic religion. Therefore it cannot be claimed that the Intelligent Designer is God, unless you are claiming that God created the world, then carelessly left the evidence for all to see. This would deny his omniscience.

This is OK, except that you now have an intelligent designer, whose existence you have to account for. This means that the initial problem has not been solved, merely increased; whereas before, you merely have to account for the existence of creation, you now have to account for the existence of the creation + intelligent designer.

There are only two ways out of this:

(i) By invoking an intelligent designer mark 2. This process can be seen to be impossible, as it clearly leads to infinite regress. There is no get out here, as at no point, can you claim that any of these intelligent designers IS God, because the requirement of 'faith' denies you the luxury of proof, which is precisely what you would be claiming to have.

or

(ii) By invoking a naturalistic process (such as evolution). However, we now have the contradiction that the assumption of the validity of Intelligent Design leads to the conclusion that a 'naturalistic' process created everythiong after all. This is clearly a contradiction.

At best, therefore, it seems that any claim for Intelligent Design cannot be used as evidence of the existence of an omniscient God; at worst, by claiming that Intelligent Design is true you would be asserting the non-existence of an omniscient God, because by possessing proof of the validity of ID, you are denying faith, and therefore undermining God's requirement to believe.

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 04:03, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

This one strikes me as easy: ID is neither provable nor unprovable in the natural world. Therefore it does not provide evidence of a creator. This avoids the crisis of faith.[[User:Tom Stockton|Tom Stockton]] 22:04, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Discuss:'''

'''Warning:''' Religion and logic - strange bedfellows.

It seems to me that what you say is correct up to a point. The logical way out for the [[Intelligent Designist]] must be to accept that God does not require belief without evidence. However, adopting that position has the potential to become embarrassing when, at some point in the future, science demonstrates that ID is wrong. At that point the IDist would be left utterly empty-handed. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 05:52, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Warning''' Don't believe in God because Science is our true master.

Only humans (the clay) tells God (The Potter) you can't do anything for me.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:48, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
: I am obviously completely dense. That remark makes no sense to me at all. Please explain. --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 12:56, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:Jpatt|jp]] is assuming the existence of the IDer (the Potter, notice it's capitalized), in order to utterly demolish your argument. That is, "since the universe ''was'' Intelligently Designed, you are wrong". I find your thesis to be fascinating, although I think there might be loopholes - for instance, YHWH giving some evidence for benevolent creation, but not enough on it's own to justify belief in full without faith. I don't actually think that undermines your point, though. I'm going to have to sleep on this one and come back here later. [[User:Human|Human]] 20:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

This argument sounds like Douglas Adams' "Logical proof of the non-existence of God", which caused Him to 'vanish in a puff of logic'. After all, to the folks who saw Moses, Jesus, or Elijah at work doing miracles, "faith" was no more necessary than you or I need to have 'faith' in gravity. We only need it now because big, flashy, obvious miracles are so few and far between. --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 22:32, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

From listening to what the Pope has to say, it seems as if he believes intelligent design is to narrow an explanation. When science can't explain, intelligent design is substituded. When everything is the origin of God, not just the unexplained. I may be misinterpreting the Pope, but I believe that is the crux of the answer to intelligent design he conveys to faithful.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:45, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:Notice that the Hebrews, even ''with'' the miracles and everything, in both Moses and Jesus' time the ''majority'' of people still did not believe. Faith was still an important factor, even wit all the miracles. [[User:DebateKid|DebateKid]] 13:44, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

==No==

This is a silly question. Intelligent Design says that someone or something created everything, Biblical Creationism merely extends this by saying that God is that someone, and explaining in what order He did it. I don't see that there's any doubt that nothing in "Intelligent Design" contradicts the existence of God - it merely leaves the "name" field blank. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 10:15, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
:Huh? Isn't Intelligent Design was the belief that God laid down some microbes or something on Earth, and after nudging them towards evolution by natural selection, sort of disappeared from the picture (in a [[Deism|Deistic]] sort of way.... At least, what was explained to me was that Intelligent Design only needs to be used to explain irreducably complex processes, and uses evolution to fill in the rest.... [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 12:34, 12 November 2007 (EST)

they can't contradict. intelligent design is a way of making creationism seem like science anyway, so it would be rather nonsensical if they did.
(Rowan)

Catwatcher has some good points but I think that his/her first premise is incorrect in as much as, God would not lead to an infinite regress of events because time itself was created along with matter at the same moment. God, the being, existed before creation outside of what we know as time. It is NOT like He exists forever, because our knowledge through physics of this dimension we know as "time," is limited to what we can study. God is way beyond anything we can study, except with the tools He wanted us to study Him, namely the bible. God entered into time when he created it. Time is actually probably something that is irrelevant to God, except in the sense of our relation to it because he says the first shall be last and the last shall be first. That implies that He only sees time as a human relevancy. In other words, apart from His creation, time is meaningless and pointless to Him.

I believe the study of intelligent design is an avenue to reach a scientific audience with Gods plan. I am VERY scientific, and I needed some science to point me in the right direction before I was saved. It may be more important/relevant to a strict scientific community because it IS a scientific theory that has LOTS of evidence behind it. And really, all other theories far short. The most popular, evolution, for instance is not something we can study be the scientific method; But, I.D. is something we can witness all day long every single day. Complex, information loaded "things" are over-loading our senses all the time.

-matt

Debate:Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?

2008-06-14T23:15:08Z

InHisname:

{{debate}}

Consider the following:

I'm not wearing any pants

Most (if not all) monotheistic religions are based on faith. Their god (or gods if taken collectively) requires followers to believe without direct evidence. The story of 'doubting' Thomas in the new Testament is typical of such requirements to believe and have faith, often in the face of adversity. In addition, these supreme being have omniscience.

However, Intelligent Design requires that there is an omniscient creator who has used his or her intelligence to underpin the creation of living things, and has left the evidence around for all to see. There is clearly a contradiction here.

Let us suppose that the premise of Intelligent Design is true: that is, that Life as we know it was created by some intelligent being, and this can be asserted from the evidence of our senses, and arguments such as: 'The creation of a living being by chance is as unlikely as a Boeing 757 to be reassembled by a whirlwind from parts in a hangar' are valid. This means that Intelligent Design becomes a 'non-negotiable' fact, which proves the existence of a creator.

However, you cannot now claim that that creator was an omniscient God, otherwise you are claiming that you an incontravertable proof of the existence of God, which denies the idea of 'faith', a cornerstone of monotheistic religion. Therefore it cannot be claimed that the Intelligent Designer is God, unless you are claiming that God created the world, then carelessly left the evidence for all to see. This would deny his omniscience.

This is OK, except that you now have an intelligent designer, whose existence you have to account for. This means that the initial problem has not been solved, merely increased; whereas before, you merely have to account for the existence of creation, you now have to account for the existence of the creation + intelligent designer.

There are only two ways out of this:

(i) By invoking an intelligent designer mark 2. This process can be seen to be impossible, as it clearly leads to infinite regress. There is no get out here, as at no point, can you claim that any of these intelligent designers IS God, because the requirement of 'faith' denies you the luxury of proof, which is precisely what you would be claiming to have.

or

(ii) By invoking a naturalistic process (such as evolution). However, we now have the contradiction that the assumption of the validity of Intelligent Design leads to the conclusion that a 'naturalistic' process created everythiong after all. This is clearly a contradiction.

At best, therefore, it seems that any claim for Intelligent Design cannot be used as evidence of the existence of an omniscient God; at worst, by claiming that Intelligent Design is true you would be asserting the non-existence of an omniscient God, because by possessing proof of the validity of ID, you are denying faith, and therefore undermining God's requirement to believe.

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 04:03, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

This one strikes me as easy: ID is neither provable nor unprovable in the natural world. Therefore it does not provide evidence of a creator. This avoids the crisis of faith.[[User:Tom Stockton|Tom Stockton]] 22:04, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Discuss:'''

'''Warning:''' Religion and logic - strange bedfellows.

It seems to me that what you say is correct up to a point. The logical way out for the [[Intelligent Designist]] must be to accept that God does not require belief without evidence. However, adopting that position has the potential to become embarrassing when, at some point in the future, science demonstrates that ID is wrong. At that point the IDist would be left utterly empty-handed. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 05:52, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Warning''' Don't believe in God because Science is our true master.

Only humans (the clay) tells God (The Potter) you can't do anything for me.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:48, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
: I am obviously completely dense. That remark makes no sense to me at all. Please explain. --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 12:56, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:Jpatt|jp]] is assuming the existence of the IDer (the Potter, notice it's capitalized), in order to utterly demolish your argument. That is, "since the universe ''was'' Intelligently Designed, you are wrong". I find your thesis to be fascinating, although I think there might be loopholes - for instance, YHWH giving some evidence for benevolent creation, but not enough on it's own to justify belief in full without faith. I don't actually think that undermines your point, though. I'm going to have to sleep on this one and come back here later. [[User:Human|Human]] 20:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

This argument sounds like Douglas Adams' "Logical proof of the non-existence of God", which caused Him to 'vanish in a puff of logic'. After all, to the folks who saw Moses, Jesus, or Elijah at work doing miracles, "faith" was no more necessary than you or I need to have 'faith' in gravity. We only need it now because big, flashy, obvious miracles are so few and far between. --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 22:32, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

From listening to what the Pope has to say, it seems as if he believes intelligent design is to narrow an explanation. When science can't explain, intelligent design is substituded. When everything is the origin of God, not just the unexplained. I may be misinterpreting the Pope, but I believe that is the crux of the answer to intelligent design he conveys to faithful.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:45, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:Notice that the Hebrews, even ''with'' the miracles and everything, in both Moses and Jesus' time the ''majority'' of people still did not believe. Faith was still an important factor, even wit all the miracles. [[User:DebateKid|DebateKid]] 13:44, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

==No==

This is a silly question. Intelligent Design says that someone or something created everything, Biblical Creationism merely extends this by saying that God is that someone, and explaining in what order He did it. I don't see that there's any doubt that nothing in "Intelligent Design" contradicts the existence of God - it merely leaves the "name" field blank. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 10:15, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
:Huh? Isn't Intelligent Design was the belief that God laid down some microbes or something on Earth, and after nudging them towards evolution by natural selection, sort of disappeared from the picture (in a [[Deism|Deistic]] sort of way.... At least, what was explained to me was that Intelligent Design only needs to be used to explain irreducably complex processes, and uses evolution to fill in the rest.... [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 12:34, 12 November 2007 (EST)

they can't contradict. intelligent design is a way of making creationism seem like science anyway, so it would be rather nonsensical if they did.
(Rowan)

Catwatcher has some good points but I think that his/her first premise is incorrect in as much as, God would not lead to an infinite regress of events because time itself was created along with matter at the same moment. God, the being, existed before creation outside of what we know as time. It is NOT like He exists forever, because our knowledge through physics of this dimension we know as "time," is limited to what we can study. God is way beyond anything we can study, except with the tools He wanted us to study Him, namely the bible. God entered into time when he created it. Time is actually probably something that is irrelevant to God, except in the sense of our relation to it because he says the first shall be last and the last shall be first. That implies that He only sees time as a human relevancy. In other words, apart from His creation, time is meaningless and pointless to Him.

I believe the study of intelligent design is an avenue to reach a scientific audience with Gods plan. I am VERY scientific, and I needed some science to point me in the right direction before I was saved. It may be more important/relevant to a strict scientific community because it IS a scientific theory that has LOTS of evidence behind it. And really, all other theories far short. The most popular, evolution, for instance is not something we can study be the scientific method; But, I.D. is something we can witness all day long every single day. Complex, information loaded "things" are over-loading our senses all the time.

-matt

National Organization for Women

2008-06-14T23:11:14Z

InHisname:

The '''National Organization for Women''' (NOW) is a [[liberal]] [[feminist]] organization in the [[United States of America|United States]]. NOW was founded in 1966. Its stated purpose -- not necessarily its actual goal -- is to ''take action to bring [[women]] into full participation in [[society]] — sharing [[equal rights]], responsibilities and opportunities with [[men]], while living free from [[discrimination]].''<ref>[http://www.now.org/about.html About NOW: We Want It All]</ref>

"NOW lobbies for [[feminist]] [[legislation]], organizes protest rallies, initiates [[lawsuit]]s, and always backs [[Democratic Party]] [[candidate]]s and proposals. The NOW agenda supports all [[abortion]] rights including [[Partial birth abortion|partial- birth abortion]], [[gay]] and [[Lesbianism|lesbian]] [[Homosexual rights advocacy|rights]], worldwide [[legalization]] of [[prostitution]], and unrestricted access to [[pornography]] in [[library|libraries]]." "According to the guide, 'NOW revels in attacking [[Christianity]] and [[traditional values]], [[conservative]] ideas and men,' with [[Rush Limbaugh]], [[Jerry Falwell]] and [[Promise Keepers]] their favorite targets." <ref>[http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2002/nov02/02-11-13.shtml Why The Democrats Are The Way They Are], [[Phyllis Schlafly]], [[Eagle Forum|EagleForum.org]], November 13, 2002</ref> It should be noted that NOW is a known member of the Lesbian Conspiracy.

==NOW's Top Six Priority Issues==

NOW's priority issues are as follows:<ref>[http://www.now.org/about.html About NOW: We Want It All]</ref>

#Advancing Reproductive Freedom - NOW supports access to abortion and birth control
#Promoting Diversity & Ending Racism
#Stopping Violence Against Women - NOW supports I-VAWA (International Violence Against Women Act, S. 2279).
#Winning Lesbian Rights - NOW supports rights for Lesbians and [[same-sex marriage|equal marriage]]
#Achieving Constitutional Equality - NOW supports the [[Women's Equality Amendment]]
#Ensuring Economic Justice

== NOW Opposes Shared Parenting After Divorce ==

NOW has been described as "the largest organized group fighting shared parenting legislation," along with divorce attorneys. "Using these scare tactics, NOW has blocked shared parenting bills in several states [in 2006], including New York and Michigan."<ref>http://www.glennsacks.com/enewsletters/enews_8_1_06.htm</ref>

==NOW and the MSM==
"[[Tammy Bruce]] also noted how, as a NOW chapter president, any agenda she wanted was easily advanced by major newspapers. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/12092 Former NOW Chapter President Exposes Left's Media Agenda], Justin McCarthy, [[NewsBusters]], April 17, 2007</ref>

[[Tamron Hall]] from [[MSNBC]] participated in Events for NOW. <ref>[http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2007/08/28/msnbcs-tamron-hall-ive-participated-events-now MSNBC's Tamron Hall: I've Participated in Events for NOW], Mark Finkelstein, [[NewsBusters]], August 28, 2007</ref>

==I-VAWA==
I-VAWA (International Violence Against Women Act, [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.02279: S. 2279]). I-VAWA would create a new Office of Women's Global Initiatives that would control all foreign domestic-violence programs and funds in the Departments of State, Justice, Labor, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security. <ref>[http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2007/nov07/07-11-28.html Feminist Abuse of Domestic Violence Laws], [[Phyllis Schlafly]], [[Eagle Forum|EagleForum.org]], November 28, 2007</ref>

==Women's Equality Amendment==
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) introduced the Women's Equality Amendment in 2007. Leaders from NOW, Feminist Majority, the National Council of Women's Organizations and other feminist groups united with members of Congress to launch the joint resolutions.
Other members of Congress taking the lead on the new Women's Equality Amendment include: Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas), Rep. Hilda Solis (D-Calif.) and Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.). <ref>[http://www.now.org/issues/constitution/070612amendment.html New Push for Women's Constitutional Equality], June 12, 2007</ref>

==NOW vs Walmart==
NOW has always been a leader in the fight against Wal-Mart and tells shoppers "that every dime spent at Wal-Mart hurts a woman somewhere in this world." <ref>[http://www.now.org/issues/wfw/walmart_bigboxday_main.html Emergency Contraception Action at Wal-Mart]</ref>

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External; Links==
*http://www.now.org/ Official Website

[[Category:Liberal Organizations]]

National Organization for Women

2008-06-14T23:10:52Z

InHisname:

The '''National Organization for Women''' (NOW) is a [[liberal]] [[feminist]] organization in the [[United States of America|United States]]. NOW was founded in 1966. Its stated purpose -- not necessarily its actual goal -- is to ''take action to bring [[women]] into full participation in [[society]] — sharing [[equal rights]], responsibilities and opportunities with [[men]], while living free from [[discrimination]].''<ref>[http://www.now.org/about.html About NOW: We Want It All]</ref>

"NOW lobbies for [[feminist]] [[legislation]], organizes protest rallies, initiates [[lawsuit]]s, and always backs [[Democratic Party]] [[candidate]]s and proposals. The NOW agenda supports all [[abortion]] rights including [[Partial birth abortion|partial- birth abortion]], [[gay]] and [[Lesbianism|lesbian]] [[Homosexual rights advocacy|rights]], worldwide [[legalization]] of [[prostitution]], and unrestricted access to [[pornography]] in [[library|libraries]]." "According to the guide, 'NOW revels in attacking [[Christianity]] and [[traditional values]], [[conservative]] ideas and men,' with [[Rush Limbaugh]], [[Jerry Falwell]] and [[Promise Keepers]] their favorite targets." <ref>[http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2002/nov02/02-11-13.shtml Why The Democrats Are The Way They Are], [[Phyllis Schlafly]], [[Eagle Forum|EagleForum.org]], November 13, 2002</ref> It should be noted that NOW is part of the lesbian conspiracy.

==NOW's Top Six Priority Issues==

NOW's priority issues are as follows:<ref>[http://www.now.org/about.html About NOW: We Want It All]</ref>

#Advancing Reproductive Freedom - NOW supports access to abortion and birth control
#Promoting Diversity & Ending Racism
#Stopping Violence Against Women - NOW supports I-VAWA (International Violence Against Women Act, S. 2279).
#Winning Lesbian Rights - NOW supports rights for Lesbians and [[same-sex marriage|equal marriage]]
#Achieving Constitutional Equality - NOW supports the [[Women's Equality Amendment]]
#Ensuring Economic Justice

== NOW Opposes Shared Parenting After Divorce ==

NOW has been described as "the largest organized group fighting shared parenting legislation," along with divorce attorneys. "Using these scare tactics, NOW has blocked shared parenting bills in several states [in 2006], including New York and Michigan."<ref>http://www.glennsacks.com/enewsletters/enews_8_1_06.htm</ref>

==NOW and the MSM==
"[[Tammy Bruce]] also noted how, as a NOW chapter president, any agenda she wanted was easily advanced by major newspapers. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/12092 Former NOW Chapter President Exposes Left's Media Agenda], Justin McCarthy, [[NewsBusters]], April 17, 2007</ref>

[[Tamron Hall]] from [[MSNBC]] participated in Events for NOW. <ref>[http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2007/08/28/msnbcs-tamron-hall-ive-participated-events-now MSNBC's Tamron Hall: I've Participated in Events for NOW], Mark Finkelstein, [[NewsBusters]], August 28, 2007</ref>

==I-VAWA==
I-VAWA (International Violence Against Women Act, [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.02279: S. 2279]). I-VAWA would create a new Office of Women's Global Initiatives that would control all foreign domestic-violence programs and funds in the Departments of State, Justice, Labor, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security. <ref>[http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2007/nov07/07-11-28.html Feminist Abuse of Domestic Violence Laws], [[Phyllis Schlafly]], [[Eagle Forum|EagleForum.org]], November 28, 2007</ref>

==Women's Equality Amendment==
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) introduced the Women's Equality Amendment in 2007. Leaders from NOW, Feminist Majority, the National Council of Women's Organizations and other feminist groups united with members of Congress to launch the joint resolutions.
Other members of Congress taking the lead on the new Women's Equality Amendment include: Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas), Rep. Hilda Solis (D-Calif.) and Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.). <ref>[http://www.now.org/issues/constitution/070612amendment.html New Push for Women's Constitutional Equality], June 12, 2007</ref>

==NOW vs Walmart==
NOW has always been a leader in the fight against Wal-Mart and tells shoppers "that every dime spent at Wal-Mart hurts a woman somewhere in this world." <ref>[http://www.now.org/issues/wfw/walmart_bigboxday_main.html Emergency Contraception Action at Wal-Mart]</ref>

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External; Links==
*http://www.now.org/ Official Website

[[Category:Liberal Organizations]]

Talk:Selman v. Cobb County School District

2008-06-14T23:07:04Z

InHisname:

I hope that others will come to accept the fact that I'm gay. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:12, 13 April 2007 (EDT)