FlaSoxxJim

Alex. First off, no offense is taken by your questioning my statements, so no worries. As for my digs at 'Family Values,' please note the quotes as I refer only to the very real use of the term as code words for the Christian Right in their ongoing attempts to separate an "Us" and a "Them." When Dan Quayle was released on the public in the second half of Papa Bush's term, he hit the motherlode of Conservative Christian voter support by saying the kinds of things that group wants to hear. I am simplifying the scenario, of course, but for someone to get all riled up about fictional single mother Murphy Brown as an example of the decay of family values, to have the Conservative Christian camp eat it up, AND to have the media pay attention to any of it was surreal. The truth was and still is that this is one of the three most important Republican voter bases (the others being the fiscal conservatives and those pushing for ever larger defense spending). Here in an election year, we are hearing Baby Bush pandering to the same group with talk of reviving the pursuit of government funded faith-based social programs, expanded pro-marriage counseling services, and the possibility of a Constitutional amendment banning gay unions. When 'family values' start to look like a Christian Conservative special agenda, I call a spade a spade. I'm sure you and I both have more personal commitment to true family values (no quotes) than any 10 Newt Gingrich's combined. With the exception of the emphasis on the guiding role of God in daily life, you very accurately depict many of the things I think are important in raising my family. For that matter, God is not a taboo subject with my kids. I'm the product of 12 years of Catholic schooling, and I simultaneously thank and blame the damn Jebbies of St. Ignatius for demanding that I question my religious beliefs and the viewpoints of the religious establishment I was born into. As I have said my 4-year old is currently enrolled in an Episcopal school, which I guess makes him the spiritual authority of the family. In terms a 6-year old and 4-year old can understand, I tell my kids that I am not an authority on God, that I think this world is a mind-blowingly amazing place, that Love will kick hate's ass 10 times out of 10, and that sometimes it's really hard to do the right things but that doesn't mean they are not the right things to strive to do. Love and Do What You Will

No, but if the Thomas in question is Aquinas, do I get any points for having to slog through "Summa Theologica" in theology class back in high school? I actually do have an interest in reading some of the so-called heretical non-gospels, but I should probably take the time to reread the accepted versions from the Fab Four again as it has been some time since I have done so. Way too many books on my persona; "to read" list.

Right around noon that day, too, if I recall correctly...

Don't go trying to get biblical literalists to actually accept facts like the age of the Earth, SS. For the literalists, the world is only, what, a little older than 10,000 years or so. Creationists will happily point to fossil strata containing different suites of organisms of evidence of divinely-ordained catastrophism – several events on the order of Noah's flood where most of the life on the planet was wiped out. The same literalists refuse to accept universal laws regarding the behavior of physical particles. The cannot accept sound scientific techniques like the use of radioisotope decay rates to date rocks and fossils, because it points to their true age as Waaaay older than a literal biblical interpretation will allow. The US Supreme Court was correct in its estimation that calling anything concocted by the Creationists a "science" is ridiculous if not obcene. For the record, a highly regarded group of Oxford geologists in 2003 published work that demonstrated that "rocks at the very top of the world's highest peak were laid down in a shallow tropical sea some 400 million years ago." That is from the geological Period known as the Ordovician, the time of the first explosion of bony fish diversity and way before the age of the dinosaurs. As 'recent' as the Jurassic, 200 mybp (million years before present), the continental land masses were still part of the supercontinent Pangea. The Himilayas are actually pretty young (though that's a relative term). The Indian subcontinent did not slam into Asia until the Eocene Epoch of the Tertiary Period, a 'mere' 58 million years ago. For reference, Dinosaurs had already been extinct for 8 million years before the Himilayas began to be thrust up. Don't tell the biblical Flat Earther's though, they don't want to know.

Actually.... Scientists found marine fossils in teh Himilayas. Creation "Scientists" try to use such discoveries as evidence of a great flood. The realization of how plate tectonics work -- that all of the land masses of the planet reside on floating cructal plates that move over time -- turned all of the purported flood evidence. The Himilayas were formed as the result of tectonic upthrust -- major continental plates colliding and rock that was originally under water (hence the marine fossils) was thrust ever higher in the air over hundreds of thousands of years until the mountain range was formed. Creation "Scientists" regularly like to use a world view that real science discarded about 150 years ago. But for these folks, there is apparently no need to throw out perfectly good theories merely because they have been demonstrated to be hoplessly wrong...

I actually do not mean that as any sort of literal sex act epithet, merely flinging mud at worthy targets. I should make an effort not to offend, though. Maybe I should just say 'morally bankrupt bastards' instead...

Yes, pretty much. The Patriot Act is the modern equivalent of the Alien and Sedition Act and was crafted with just as nefarious a set of goals in mind and then dressed up as a move in the interests of American security.

I cared passionately, but was not the least bit surprised. Cocksuckers, every last one of 'em.

Thanks for adding your input, Vince. It is, as always, very informative. I think confessional Item 7 is an outstanding example of what it should be to strive to live as a christian. My youngest child is in pre-K at an Episcopal school because it is the single best place for him locally to get a head-start on his education. While his teachers are very loving and nurturing toward him and his classmates, this parish and most of the others in central Florida are currently aligning themselves on (I feel) the wrong side of the current liberal vs coonservative Episcopal debate. I am a classroom dad that volunteers to work with the kids 2 days each month. But I made some people in the parish (I am not a member, obviously) wary early in the year when I alone raised objections to the suggestiosn that all teachers, classroom volunteers, etc., make some kind of public affirmation of their commitment to 'family values' (the biggoted variety) before they were allowed in contact with the children. Frankly, too many of these lip-service christians continue to disguise their prejudices and phobias as concern for 'family values.' Your words are refreshing, and a reminder of the inclusive, loving community the Church (and hopefully the individual church) is supposed to be about.

Don't sweat it, that's just Brando's nature...

A better thing to do is to never give any sort of consideration to another dude's balls for even a fraction of a second.

The differences between us and the other high-intellect mammals are differences of magnitude and not type. Dolphins and other toothed whales are incredably intelligent, well beyond instinct. The learn, they communicate, they hunt cooperatively, and they have dynamic social structure. They have sex for pleasure and commit acts of deviant sexual behavior like homosexuality and gang rape. Sex for any reason other than innate reproductive imperitave is accepted by ethologists (animal behavioralists) and human sociologists as a sign of intelligence. Chimpanzees and Gorillas are equally impressive in their intelligence. Border collies and service dogs hold down steady jobs better than most humans. Heck, sea otters can use tools. You are giving high-intellect mammals short shrift if you chalk it all up to hardwired instinct.

Not a "mickey take" at all, Soxy, I think it's right on. Swift's readers got deep into "Modest Proposal" nodding in affirmation until the arguments became so absurd and they realized they were the but of the joke. Similarly, the well-heeled members of modern society will have no problem with science pursuing ways to allow their lives to be extended and damn the social cost. It's no coincidence that nancy Reagan has softened her stance on stem cell research, having been informed that stem cell research may hold promise for... tada... Alzheimers sufferers. Bill Mahr noted this in "If you Drive Alone, You Drive with Bin Ladin," and half-jokingly said we should wish that all the arch conservatives should get glaucoma and their kids should be gay, and then we'll see how their stance on medical marijuana or gay rights changes in the changing light of enlightened self interest.

Not to get into hairy social issues, but the aging Boomers are poised to test your assertion. They will be retired and so will not be contributing to the system in tangibel ways, nor will they be of reproductive age. They will possibly wipe out social security and Medicare and will continue to drain those resources for decades because we have gotten good at prolonging life. Again, the social issues are way more complex than I set forth here, and I truly do value the older generations, but all the public health experts (including my father who is the former Deputy Director of public health for Chicago - and an agng Boomer himself) say the aging Boomers is something we are just not prepared for. So, say we can cure most cancers - it could happen in our lifetimes (My institution is in preclinical trials of some marine active compounds that make Taxol look like Pez as far as their efficacy against some very tough cancers). Does that mean we should? Yes, much human suffering will be allieviated. But cloning for the sake of organ harvest or pursuing stem cell research, etc., will also allieviate much suffering (I'm very pro stem-cell research btw). Should we not do these things too? If we cure cancers and raise the average American lifespan to 100 years, we then have an even bigger, older, longer lived social crisis, as health care costs to fight the other diseases and keep worn out bodies going skyrockets. Human vessels were designed to wear out and, yes to succumb to dread diseases as well. But evolution has succeeded in moving most of these life-threatening illnesses into our senescent years after we have made our reproductive contributions to future generations. That is all you can ask selection to do, and by artificially increasing life expectancy we only open new cans of worms in terms of the other illnesses scheduled to erupt in these hitherto rarely experienced advanced years. As with most things, our scientific and medical knowledge and ability to bend the rules far outpaces our ability to deal with the ethical questions tied to the issues. There will be more than 8.5 billion people on Earth by 2025. If more and more of these are living longer, requiring food, housing, medical care etc., the human suffering we see now in the world will pale compared to what we bring on ourselves in teh future. We do not, as you say "create and control our own resources." Not by a long shot. We are entirely dependent on teh living resources of the planet for the air we breathe and teh food we eat. We don't break the rules of ecology either, we merely stretch a highly elastic system to bear maximum. But, all elastic systems eventually have to snap back or they fail. Neither scenario is appealing.

You are measuring success in terms of human superficial importances. Crocadilians are wildly successful - they have existed since the Age of the dinosaurs and survived the K-T impact event that did them in. In biological terms, $80 billion is nnot successful. Nor is curing cancer if it results in an aged human population that lives well past its reporductive usefulness and is a net drain on the finite resources required by the population.

Yes, yes, absolutely yes! Surviving long enough to leave the most progeny is what it is all about in teh living world.

I'm going to nitpick Soxy, because you are not a lazy thinker and you will take it in teh spirit in which it is intended. "Bugs", Order Hemiptera, are one small group within the insects. it is actually beetles (Order Coleoptera) that are the hands-down winners of the diversity battle. About 75% of all Arthropods are insects, and more than 75% of those are beetles. There are a couple hundred-thousand distinct species known, and we have yet to find them all. The obvious question, at least to evolutionary biologust JBS Haldane, was, why so many beetles. When asked about what he knew of God later in his career, he pondered for a moment and then said matter-of-factly that He seemed to have "an inordinate fondness for beetles."

Not singling you out, as this is a common misunderstanding. Humans did not come from monkeys. Rather, hominids, other modern apes, and modern monkeys are all descended from a common primate of proto-primate ancester. And your response again belies the homo-centricism we all lean toward. 14+ billion years of the universe existing. 6+ Billion years of Earth existing 3.5-4.2 billion years of life existing on Earth, and we are "above the other animals" because we have been around a few hundred thousand years and can hold the rest of the planet's inhabitants as captives? The only meaningful measure of the success of a species is the length of time it persists on the planets. The average species persists for about 5 million years before the line either disappears or grades into a recognizably different morphotype. We have more than 4 million years to go before we can even be considered of average success as a species. Of course, if success is measured by how many species you can displace with your environment-altering lifestyles, we are indeed king of the hill.

God may indeed be real. Your faith tells you God is real. My refusal to accept articles of faith tells me there is a very real possibility God is a human contrivance. It's the difference between a person of faith and not, and it is the beginning and end of all religious arguments between one who in the end that can fall back on faith and one who cannot.

That's a tired argument. Richard Dawkins' "The Blind watchmaker" is a good book for seeing these flawed arguments for what they are. The environment is a filter that sorts out fit and unfit phenotypes (physical expressions of inheritable genetic makeups), and it is such a good filter that it ends up leaving you with marvelously adapted organisms that 'couldn't possibly be the result of chance.' The thing is, no evolutionist ever claimed the end pruducts of the history of evolution were due to random chance (actually it is the exact opposite). Spontaneous mutations are the random part, and the fact that the environment changes over time is variable though not tryuly random. But the filtering effect of the environment is ANYTHING BUT RANDOM, in that the more fit variants survive while the less fit variants die out. Add in the fact that much of evolution is a gradual accumulation of small changes, rather than all being huge macromutational events, and you see that noone has ever argued for the tornado to build the airplane from teh scrap heap anymore than that roomful of monkeys is going to pound out the works of Shakespear given enough time.

Yes. As previously stated I lean personally toward atheism, but I also enjoy, see the social need (and pitfalls) of religion, and I'll aggressively defend the right of any and all to practice (or not practice) the faith of their choosing so long as it doesn't impede the rights of others to do the same.

I get your point, although intelligence and adaptedness are not one in the same. The great vanity and arrogance of humanity is belied in our placing Man as the end-all of organic evolution as if we were always the plan. Dinosaurs were the supreme inhabitants of the planet for 166 million years, while we (all hominids, not just Homo sapiens) have been around for about a million years. In the oft-cited 24-hour day analogy of life on earth, we showed up at 11:59:59, with one second left on the clock. About 20 years ago, scientists tried to get people away from talking about evolutionary "trees" because they necessarily implied something (humans) had to be at the pinnacle of evolution. They instead argued that evolutionary libnes should be seen as spokes radiating out from a central axis representing the presumed common ancestor. Basically any line (spoke) that persisted all the way to the present time was considered equally successful as far as meeting the challenges for continued existence on the changing planet. That means people, cockroaches, jellyfish, tc., were all equally successful if the name of the game was to NOT GO EXTINCT. Unfortunately, the change never caught on and even though were just smart, hairless apes with cable tv and high speed Internet access, lots of people still want to believe we operate somewhere above the animal plane.

LOL! We're all the praying type at the blackjack table I believe.

You have that exactly right, I applaud you.