More Bad Economic News for Democrats
December 21st, 2007 at 10:09am Mark Noonan
The economy just keeps chugging along:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Consumers put aside worries about slumping home sales and soaring gasoline prices and headed to the malls in November, pushing spending up by the largest amount in 3 1/2 years.
The Commerce Department reported Friday that consumer spending surged by 1.1 percent last month, nearly triple the October gain. The gain reflected various promotional efforts by retailers such as heavy discounting and longer store hours at the start of the holiday shopping season.
The November advance was the biggest one-month jump since a 1.2 percent rise in May 2004 and was significantly above the 0.7 percent analysts had expected. Incomes were also up last month, rising by 0.4 percent, double the October increase but slightly below the advance that had been expected.
For the gloom and doomers out there - the US economy is not founded on driving cars and refinancing houses…so, even though oil prices are high and housing prices are down, the US economy isn’t going into tailspin.
Entry Filed under: Economy
112 Comments
1. Rana Quijotesca | December 21st, 2007 at 10:56 am
Current saving finances future consumption, and we have a negative savings rate…
2. LiberalMind | December 21st, 2007 at 11:36 am
Mark:
You just don’t get it do you?
Borrowing money to buy goods from Communist China so they in turn use the profits to buy U.S. assets at fire sale prices is nothing to celebrate.
Let’s see, Chrysler is “functionally” bankrupt, China is buying up Morgan Stanley and the dollar is declining.
You should read some history, Mark. Look back previous economic depressions and recessions and more often Republican policies that favor the wealthy cause them or exacerbate them.
3. NeoClown | December 21st, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Liberal Mind you just don’t get it do you?
I thought you needed to know that Mark is a “Magic Eight Ball” sitting on Dubya’s desk. Dubya will ask Mark a question and give him a shake. What ever the answer is Dubya will have printed on this blog. Most of the time the answers are nonsensical but the right-wingers haven’t seemed to notice.
4. Joe | December 21st, 2007 at 12:29 pm
I stand by the point that this economy is doing fantastic……. if you can afford to partake.
The rest can just keep maxing out the credit cards to put gas in their car and buy less for thier kids this Christmas than last Christmas.
5. AAR | December 21st, 2007 at 12:31 pm
LiberalMind,
So you are going to tell us that YOU haven’t bought and aren’t buying any Chinese made goods, or goods from any other nation?
AAR
6. SteaM | December 21st, 2007 at 12:40 pm
AAR,
Are you?
7. Retired Spook | December 21st, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Well I guess if Ricorun could make suggestions for Christmas presents unrelated to global warming in the Global Warming thread I can make a suggestion for a great (and cheap) Christmas present related to global warming in a thread on the economy. Is this great country or what?
8. LiberalMind | December 21st, 2007 at 1:00 pm
The real truth is that our planet can no longer afford to support economies based on ever increasing consumption.
In fact if we do not start conserving resources and living within the means of these limited resources, the Earth is going to be one big, dead landfill, overrun with rats, pigeons and cockroaches.
I can;t help but looking around at a place like Best Buy or even Wal-Mart and thinking in a few short years all this is going into some trash pile somewhere. Sad
The air is getting worse. the land more polluted and the oceans more acidic. The great predatory fishes are nearly gone, the land is drying up and so on.
Personally I try to minimize my consumption, recycle, conserve and help others in need.
9. Joe | December 21st, 2007 at 1:00 pm
AAR, what the hell are you talking about?
LiberalMind didn’t say they weren’t buying anything from China. That is you trying to find something to twist. Man you are one crazy individual.
Read it again, then comment.
Spook, what are you talking about? Maybe I missed something, but this is about the economy, not about buying gifts from China or buying non-global warming gifts.
10. Web Smith | December 21st, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Not wanting to get stuck with year end inventory, retailers instituted “heavy discounting and longer store hours”. While this does reduce profits and drive up expenses, it maintains cash flow, which delays the inevitable.
When other countries start dumping your currency, your economy is not doing well and is not expected to do well in the future.
The U.S. economy is based on gold rushes generated by the Federal Reserve Bank in conjunction with the Federal Government so that International Bankers can make a quick buck and then get out before the bubble pops.
11. Concerned Citizen | December 21st, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Everyone is buying and using goods from China. If you were not, you would not be typing on this website.
While it is true that the dollar is in decline internationally, this has been predicted for a few years now with the growing Chinese economy and the standardization of the Euro.
However, this economy has held and grown out of one of the worst financial disasters in many years. We have weathered rising fuel and energy cost and absorbed a housng market bubble bursting. Just this year Wall Street has set astounding records, unemployment has declined to some of the lowest levels in years, incomes averages are up and interest rates are down.
Our economy has always been cyclic. We rode a housing bubble for the last 7 years that we knew would eventually bust. The low interest rates of a successful economy encouraged more relaxed lending, sometimes too relaxed. It finally snapped back and popped the bubble, exactly what financial analysist had predicted would happen. They just did not know when.
Now we are in a housing slump. New starts will slow. Forclosures will happen. Lending will slow. In a few years it will begin to swing the other way and become a buyers market again. It has all happened before.
I just hope you people are ready for the increased energy, appliance, vehicle and food cost that this last energy bill will cause over the next few years. I cannot believe Congress passed and President Bush signed more legislation designed to screw with the free market.
12. neocon | December 21st, 2007 at 1:37 pm
You are absolutely right Concerned. Pockets of this economy are under-performing and other sectors are over-performing. Our economy is based on a complexity of sectors that are in constant state of motion from performing well to performing poorly.
The housing market has dropped precipitously, but exports have risen sharply buffering the impact. When one sector suffers, other areas of the economy usually pick up the slack. Re: the housing market; in a normal market, 98% of mortgagees have little problem paying their loan. Today, 94% of mortgagees have little problem paying their loan, so the housing crisis is not the drain on the economy that the MSM will lead you to believe.
The trade imbalance is much improved these day dues to weaker performing dollar. Those exports result in an influx of revenue and create jobs.
2008 will be the year of a housing market correction and will result in 2009 seeing values rise again and the return of a normal housing market. I believe all of this talk about the economy is so that when, and IF (hopefully not), a Democrat wins the WH, they will trump the good economy of 2009 as their own achievement.
13. Aztec | December 21st, 2007 at 2:14 pm
As usual, this commentary misrepresents the article. If you read the whole thing it’s not near this rosy.
14. PatD | December 21st, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Since ‘04 my elec bill has doubled, food prices have jumped more than 50% and $2/gal gas has become a distant memory. Several houses in my general neighborhood have been foreclosed and remain vacant. Periodically rural stretches of power cables have been pulled down, during power outages, by thieves cashing in on the price of copper. Just when will this wonderful economy trickle down to my neck of the woods ?
15. neocon | December 21st, 2007 at 2:34 pm
PatD,
I paid $2.69 for gas today. My electric bill has increased by maybe 10% in the last three years and other than dairy, I am paying pretty much the same for groceries.
You must live in a Democratically controlled state like Michigan. You might consider moving to a another neck of the woods, where prices are better and people don’t complain as much.
You can seek other employment and another geographical region to live in you know.
16. Joe | December 21st, 2007 at 2:40 pm
PatD, I’ve brought up that EXACT sentiment in a previous post (Bush Economic Boom Continues). I said the top 10% of Americans aren’t struggling but everyone else is.
The response of the others here were… so what, they were paying $3 a gallon for gas and they aren’t struggling.
A sample of their idiotic replies:
another
and…
So… PatD… forget all that stuff that you are saying, it is all a lie.
17. Joe | December 21st, 2007 at 2:43 pm
neocon,
you must be the only person in America paying the same for groceries as you were a couple of years ago. I’m going to have to call bullsh## on that one.
Good for you and that $2.69 a gallon. You are hard pressed to find gas anywhere less that $3.00 a gallon here in Mass.
18. Concerned Citizen | December 21st, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Hey, I am definitely not in the top 50% of income earners and I am doing better than I was. Our average income is up and we have been able to pay off both vehicles and save quite a bit.
My energy bill is actually down (due to some smart conservation practices on my part).
You can thank the fuel prices on market speculation and the fact that we do not harvest our own resources and have not built a refinery in over thirty years.
Food prices are increasing and will drasticly increase with the passage of this ne energy bill. Corn, a major staple and base food product, has shot up in price over the last two years as ethanol production has expanded. With the mandate of 35 billion gallons of ethanol annually within a few years, the price of corn rose 3% the day the bill was signed. You can expect grain and corn to continue to rise as more of it is absorbed into ethanol production, thus forcing food prices up in many categories.
The housing collapse was inevitable. We has such a robust housing market for the last almost ten years that we could not avoid an eventual collapse of the bubble.
As I said, our economy is cyclic and whenever it is at its best there are always areas that are struggling.
19. neocon | December 21st, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Joe,
The cost of bread, pastas, cereals, sauces, canned vegies, etc. have all remianed very constant. Dairy on the other hand is extremely high right now. You know why? Our global warming zealots and the subsequent impositions on farmers, ie: ethanol needs and methane concerns.
Remind me again which party controls Mass. And did you know your government makes more money off of the gallon of gas than the oil companies do?
20. SteaM | December 21st, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Nevermind the $2 trillion that went to war that has no end in sight.
21. neocon | December 21st, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Q: How much did World War 2 cost?
A: In today’s money, the cost to the U.S. would be over three trillion dollars (at 288 billion 1945 dollars) or about $3,189,752,033,348.
SteaM,
Would you consider our time and treasure to have been well spent in WWII?
22. neocon | December 21st, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Hey, didn’t Vanity Fair do an expose on Americas most covert spy and her Greatful Dead wannabe husband?
Journalism integrity or what?
23. Joe | December 21st, 2007 at 3:18 pm
neocon,
tell me you did NOT just compare of WWII to the cost of the Iraq debacle. What a clown.
I don’t give a rat’s ass if WWII cost 300 trillion… we were attacked and we were brought into that war.
Iraq…. well, you believe whatever you want to believe. Just remember not one of the 19 hijackers were Iraqi.
24. Diana Powe | December 21st, 2007 at 3:24 pm
neocon,
I don’t know. In World War II we were engaged on land, sea and by air against three actual nation-states, Japan, Germany and Italy, who were united by treaty. Today, we’re fighting a tactic of asymmetric warfare against zero nation-states. How much do you think we should spend on fighting a tactic? Can we declare victory when all the people who use this tactic agree to put on uniforms, form a country and fight the most militarily-powerful country in the history of the planet toe-to-toe?
Also, do you think we should make our mercaneries fill out time-sheets? Personally, I vote “yes”. It seems like what I would call…um…good government.
25. Concerned Citizen | December 21st, 2007 at 3:49 pm
People never account how much damage 9/11 did to our economy when they talk about the potential surplus the goverment would have had or how Federal tax revenues are higher under Bush’s tax cuts than they ever were under Clinton. The ignore the 11,654 emarks for over $12 billion dollars that Democratic shoved onto the last appropriations bill. The forget we are conducting a war on two fronts and have never had a reducing deficit in time of war.
How about remembering that we did not go to war with Iraq in 2003. We resumed hostilities due to MULTIPLE violations of the cease-fire agreement including continuous attack of American aircraft patroling no-fly zones.
Yeah, lets cherry pick the facts and just ignore reality.
26. Concerned Citizen | December 21st, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Joe Wilson is a lying political hack that did more to out his wife than anyone ever did.
By the way, according to United States law, you have to be an undercover agent to be exposed as one. She was a freaking CIA analyst. Not so udercover as to turn down having her face plasterd on the front of Insanity Fair mind you. Nice cover job Val.
27. Joe | December 21st, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Concerned Citizen:
I assume you mean these kinds of earmarks?
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1153ap_congress_pet_projects.html
“The Senate’s two biggest sponsors of this year’s pet spending projects are Republicans Stevens of Alaska and Thad Cochran of Mississippi, according to preliminary reviews of fiscal 2008 spending bills by Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan group. Two of the House’s three biggest claimants of earmarks also are Republicans: Bill Young of Florida and Jerry Lewis of California, the group found.”
28. Concerned Citizen | December 21st, 2007 at 4:03 pm
I never said Republicans don’t do it, but the Democrats were supposed to END IT.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-12-11-earmarks-freshmen_N.htm
All 49 of the new Democratic lawmakers sponsored or co-sponsored at least one project — known as an “earmark” — inserted into the House and Senate spending bills, the analysis found. Freshmen Democrats were the sole sponsors on projects worth $351 million, an average of $7.6 million. Republicans got approval for projects worth $65 million, or $5 million each.
29. Concerned Citizen | December 21st, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Oh and the exact number have changed since I last looked at it it was 11,145 for $15.33 billion in a Democratic controlled Congress who swore to end earmark spending.
Nice job guys.
I am as against Republicans doing it as I am Democrats.
NOTE: Funny, my verification word for this post is ‘taxes Lost’
30. neocon | December 21st, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Diana,
I think you need a reminder of the damage caused by the “tactic” you describe. Incidentally, Islamic terrorism is much more than an abstract concept as you so conveniently allude to. Remember liberals are afraid of Islam, therefore they choose to ignore the horror this “tactic” brings about.
The following is just a sampling of the chaos inflicted by the “tactic”:
November 1979: Muslim extremists (Iranian variety) seized the U.S. embassy in Iran and held 52 American hostages for 444 days, following Democrat Jimmy Carter’s masterful foreign policy granting Islamic fanaticism its first real foothold in the Middle East.
1982: Muslim extremists (mostly Hezbollah) began a nearly decade-long habit of taking Americans and Europeans hostage in Lebanon, killing William Buckley and holding Terry Anderson for 6 1/2 years.
April 1983: Muslim extremists (Islamic Jihad or possibly Hezbollah) bombed the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 16 Americans.
October 1983: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) blew up the U.S. Marine barracks at the Beirut airport, killing 241 Marines.
December 1983: Muslim extremists (al-Dawa) blew up the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, killing five and injuring 80.
September 1984: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) exploded a truck bomb at the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut, killing 24 people, including two U.S. servicemen.
December 1984: Muslim extremists (probably Hezbollah) hijacked a Kuwait Airways airplane, landed in Iran and demanded the release of the 17 members of al-Dawa who had been arrested for the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, killing two Americans before the siege was over.
June 14, 1985: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) hijacked TWA Flight 847 out of Athens, diverting it to Beirut, taking the passengers hostage in return for the release of the Kuwait 17 as well as another 700 prisoners held by Israel. When their demands were not met, the Muslims shot U.S. Navy diver Robert Dean Stethem and dumped his body on the tarmac.
October 1985: Muslim extremists (Palestine Liberation Front backed by Libya) seized an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, killing 69-year-old American Leon Klinghoffer by shooting him and then tossing his body overboard.
December 1985: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed airports in Rome and Vienna, killing 20 people, including five Americans.
April 1986: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed a discotheque frequented by U.S. servicemen in West Berlin, injuring hundreds and killing two, including a U.S. soldier.
December 1988: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all 259 on board and 11 on the ground.
February 1993: Muslim extremists (al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya, possibly with involvement of friendly rival al-Qaida) set off a bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center, killing six and wounding more than 1,000.
Spring 1993: Muslim extremists (al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya, the Sudanese Islamic Front and at least one member of Hamas) plot to blow up the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the U.N. complex, and the FBI’s lower Manhattan headquarters.
November 1995: Muslim extremists (possibly Iranian “Party of God”) explode a car bomb at U.S. military headquarters in Saudi Arabia, killing five U.S. military servicemen.
June 1996: Muslim extremists (13 Saudis and a Lebanese member of Hezbollah, probably with involvement of al-Qaida) explode a truck bomb outside the Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds.
August 1998: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) explode truck bombs at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 and injuring thousands.
October 2000: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) blow up the U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole, killing 17 U.S. sailors.
Sept. 11, 2001: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) hijack commercial aircraft and fly planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania, killing nearly 3,000 Americans.
31. Diana Powe | December 21st, 2007 at 4:41 pm
neocon,
My youngest nephew, J. D. Powe, is in Haditha, Iraq right now fighting that tactic. So, tell me, when do we know when we’ve defeated the tactic? When the tactic surrenders?
REALLY! All liberals? Did they send you a list of names by certified mail with a heading that read, “We, the undersigned, are all the liberals in the United States and we are all afraid of Islam”? You have got some clout, my man! Heck, I’m doing good if I can get my member of Congress to send me some wasteful piece of advertising telling me what a great job they’re doing.
Meanwhile, back on topic…
32. Diana Powe | December 21st, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Oh, and neocon, what’s your vote on getting our mercaneries in Iraq to fill out time sheets before they bill the taxpayers? Yay or nay? I still vote yay.
33. neocon | December 21st, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Diana,
all that liberal gibberish and not one mention of “abstract chaos” scattered about the globe since 1979. And mind you, that’s just a short list.
So I guess your avoidance of the Islamic extremist issue is bourne of fear or is agenda driven. Maybe you can shed some light on that for me.
And lastly, I am curious as to how you feel about untold hundreds of thousands of people that have been killed, maimed or injured by this “tactic” around the globe. Do you feel some compassion or just nothing at all?
My nephews are in Iraq too. One is coming home in Feb.
34. Diana Powe | December 21st, 2007 at 5:02 pm
neocon,
I appreciate your nephews’ service and hope they are safely returned to their families.
I am completely opposed to the tactic of terrorism used by extremists and the motives of those who use it for whatever purpose. However, that doesn’t prove that the actions of the United States in the last six years were the most logical or effective ones available.
P.S. Jason Bourne is a character in books and movies. The word you’re looking for is born.
35. Jeremiah | December 21st, 2007 at 5:13 pm
However, that doesn’t prove that the actions of the United States in the last six years were the most logical or effective ones available.
So what would have been the most logical course of action after the deadly attacks on September 11, 2001?
What would you have done, Diana?
~ Jeremiah
36. NeoClown | December 21st, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Jesus is happy because the democrats are sad because the economy is good and the republicans are happy because the good economy makes the democrats look bad because a republican is in the white house even though the republicans say that the economy has nothing to do with who’s president because the economy is a very complicated thing and has more to do with the world than national politics but that really doesn’t matter does it? We are different -democrats and republicans, and being different is enough to start a shooting war, and a shooting war is okay because god is on the side of the republicans because god is happy that the democrats are sad because the economy is good because there is a republican in the white house and that makes the democrats look bad because the economy is good. If this isn’t the season then I don’t know what is.
Merry Christmas Everyone.
37. liberalT | December 21st, 2007 at 7:17 pm
yes yes Mark. We ALL know all of those reports of the economy faltering in various ways are just like the lies about evolution, global warming, and Iraq. Evolution - ha - it can’t explain everything from the creation of the universe to me typing this right now so it can’t be true. Global warming - its just a liberal conspiracy for all of those green peace guys making billions on recycling. Iraq - the MSM just lies about that - nobody has died in Iraq , we found WMDs, created a utopia and the whole world loves us for it.
What else was that Mark? You hear the moon is is made of cheese. Must be.
38. Mark Noonan | December 21st, 2007 at 8:19 pm
PatD,
Don’t you realise that people are stealing copper wire because the price of copper is rising? People don’t buy copper and store it in the basement - they use it to make things. They shouldn’t be stealing, but they are stealing because they are making a high price for it…it happens out here in Vegas, too…whole lines of copper wire stolen right out of the power lines in the middle of town.
39. Mark Noonan | December 21st, 2007 at 8:25 pm
LiberalT,
No, the problem with evolution is that, if there isn’t a designer, it can’t explain “irreducibly complex” biological things, nor can it explain how a common ancestor resulted in both me typing on a computer and a sperm whale swimming in the sea.
40. Jeremiah | December 21st, 2007 at 9:01 pm
There is no begining, there is no end and there is no designer.
:-
No, dude. There is a designer, His name is Jesus. He is the beginning, and He is the end, but HIS kingdom will have no end. This earth is going to perish….Indefinitely!!!!!!!!!
……..Get a clue, dude.
~ Jeremiah
41. AAR | December 21st, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Since ‘04 my elec bill has doubled, food prices have jumped more than 50% and $2/gal gas has become a distant memory.
Thank the Democrats!
Democrats and enviro-extremists have blocked drilling for the trillions of dollars worth of American oil and natural gas in Alaska, off our coasts, and in Gulf. Democrats and enviro-extremists have blocked expanding and building new refineries to produce American gasoline. America has hundreds of years in coal and oils shale — blocked! More nuclear power plants and nuclear energy — blocked!
Because of Democrats and enviro-extremists, those trillions of dollars are going to other nations… Fueling their economies… Providing them with jobs… Paying their taxes.
Because of Democrats and enviro-extremists, those trillions of dollars are increasing American imports… Worsening America’s trade deficit… Weakening the dollar and contributing to its devaluation.
Oil is priced in dollars, and as the value of the dollar falls, the price of oil in dollars goes up. As the price of oil goes up, the cost of gasoline and goods goes up even more, sending even more dollars overseas to buy the ever higher priced oil, gasoline, and goods America needs.
The dollar weakens even more, increasing the price of oil, gasoline, and goods… and the cycle repeats… over and over… spiraling ever upward!
While Democrats block access to America’s oil, gas, and energy, the Democrat solution is higher taxes and forcing Americans to stop using incandescent light bulbs, making them use higher priced compact fluorescents — containing mercury. (How about the lady who spent $2,000 to have professionals clean up a broken compact fluorescent in her house because the mercury is an environmental hazard!)
Thanks Democrats… for higher oil, gas, energy, and heating costs… and for the higher prices these contribute to all products and services!!!
AAR
42. Christian Wright | December 21st, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Thanks to Republican deregulation and Greenspan, we are looking at a Great Depression that was worse than 1929
Read the link:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18913.htm
43. liberalT | December 21st, 2007 at 11:07 pm
mark - “irreducible complexity” has been debunked over and over again. It might sound like a reasonable notion - however scientifically it has been utterly destroyed. Read the 2005 federal court case ruling. Its quite destructive to your pathetically infantile understanding of science
44. Christian Wright | December 21st, 2007 at 11:22 pm
Jesus never existed. He was just a metaphor for how good Jews were suppose to act.
Irreducibly complex is stupid. Life is simple, not complex. Animals are made from meat that eats, breathes, reproduces and expells wastes. It is that simple.
We are meat. Talking, thinking, meat; but meat all the same.
45. AAR | December 22nd, 2007 at 12:08 am
CW,
Spoken like a typical atheist Liberal.
AAR
46. Jeremiah | December 22nd, 2007 at 12:15 am
Christian Wright | December 21st, 2007 at 11:22 pm
CW,
How much is a human life worth to you?
More than that … from your stand point…
Is there even a purpose for existence?
~ Jeremiah
47. Mark Noonan | December 22nd, 2007 at 1:48 am
LiberalT,
You’re getting really rather insulting in your comments - are you sure you want to continue to participate on this blog? There are other places to go, if you find us too disagreeable.
And, also, there have been attempts at taking down irreducible complexity, but they are about the most laughable grasping at straws I’ve ever seen - the explanations revolve around the evolution of useless items which would prove useful later, or that the items were even more complex at a prior time and have now become less complex. The fundamental flaw of the non-design argument, though, is the time frame - there hasn’t been enough time for a species to change into both myself, and that aforementioned sperm whale. That is a mathematical impossibility - even supposing the non-ID argument is completely correct, it would take far longer than the earth has existed for such a thing to take place. And that, also, is for only one such example to happen…to have the millions of examples currently living would require more time than the universe has existed.
The only explanation for the existence of complex life is that it was intended that way - ie, it has a Designer.
48. Christian Wright | December 22nd, 2007 at 6:20 am
Jeremiah
I live a rich and full and rewarding life, all the more so because I am not burdened by primative superstitions.
49. phnx | December 22nd, 2007 at 7:27 am
“the Earth is going to be one big, dead landfill, overrun with rats, pigeons and cockroaches.
I can;t help but looking around at a place like Best Buy or even Wal-Mart and thinking in a few short years all this is going into some trash pile somewhere. Sad
The air is getting worse. the land more polluted and the oceans more acidic. The great predatory fishes are nearly gone, the land is drying up and so on.” Liberalmind
Wow!!! It must REALLY suck to be you. Try an industrial strength anti-depressant. Your negative vibes are causing a giant low pressure area in and around you present location. It may be contributing to global warming.
50. phnx | December 22nd, 2007 at 7:44 am
“irreducible complexity” has been debunked over and over again. It might sound like a reasonable notion - however scientifically it has been utterly destroyed. Read the 2005 federal court case ruling.” Liberal T
BBBwwwwahahahhahahahahahaha!
A court case ruling decides a scientific debate??? You’ve got to be kidding right?
51. liberalT | December 22nd, 2007 at 7:51 am
Mark - you are right about one thing. I shouldn’t be so insulting - for that I apologize. It is just that it is hard to believe that you are earnest in your arguments some times because they seem so patently ridiculous to me. Apparently you are though - for which I am both sorry and feel sorry for you…
For example:
“The fundamental flaw of the non-design argument, though, is the time frame - there hasn’t been enough time for a species to change into both myself, and that aforementioned sperm whale. That is a mathematical impossibility - even supposing the non-ID argument is completely correct”
I am not sure where you got this bit of nonsense. I know I know - your dad supposedly made such a calculation. But you have to understand the absurdity of arguing that “my dad’s says its impossible”. To show the complete craziness of this argument I will just argue that my dad says its not mathematically impossible. Apparently that is a valid argument in your mind.
Look - I am not sure about the details of this supposed mathematical impossibility. But if you even want me to take it even the slightest bit seriously you are going to have to present a detailed calculation and explain all assumptions. Its just not enough to say my dad thinks its highly improbable. I mean - you are a grown man aren’t you?
52. Rana Quijotesca | December 22nd, 2007 at 8:46 am
I don’t know how we started an ID debate in an Economics thread, but since the can has been opened…
The case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District consisted of the best proponents and opponents of Intelligent Design arguing the merits of that theory as science. In the case (which NOVA has a good documentary on), biologist Kenneth Miller (coincidentally, a devout Catholic) all but debunked irreducible complexity.
Essentially, the main example that ID proponents like to use is the bacterial flagella, saying that it can only fulfill its purpose if it contains all of its 30 or so proteins, and it would be useless with even one of those proteins missing. Miller demonstrated that a structure only containing around 2/3 of the requisite proteins works very well as a syringe. The Irreducible Complexity argument hinges that an incomplete structure is useless, when, in fact, those structures serve other purposes.
On a funnier note, the favorite metaphor of Irreducible Complexity proponents is the mouse trap, saying that, without all of the necessary parts, a mousetrap couldn’t work. Then Biologist John McDonald proceeded to remove component after component of the mouse trap, keeping it functional after every step of the way, eventually working it down to a working mousetrap that only consisted of a spring…
Irreducible Complexity and Intelligent Design are just the fundies’ attempt to dress God in a Lab Coat… Unfortunately, the coat seems to just fall limply on the ground… whoda thunk it?
53. Mark Noonan | December 22nd, 2007 at 1:38 pm
LiberalT,
You’ve been inattentive - the calculation my father made was on the possibility of life arising out of lifelessness; given the assumption of building blocks of life in a primordial soup - that result was so close to zero as makes no odds.
The math involved in such life evoling by complete random steps from that first strand of DNA is different - it is a calculation of the odds of a useful mutation happening, and then happening again and again and again and again until a single celled organism is me and a sperm whale. The more complex the life form, the more time you’re going to need - but one of the oddities of life, especially human life, is that the time frame from less to more complex gets compressed (if the time line for life as stated by the Darwinists is correct).
By all accounts there was a common ancester of humans and chimps - but the first proto-humans stated out only a couple million years ago; a blink of the eye in evolutionary time…and that common ancester resulted in a hairy animal using basic tools (chimps) and Al Gore making chimp-like gestures at global warming conferences. Its just not credible to think that this happened by purely random happenstance. And that, my young friend, is what ID is all about - not about Our Lord, but about the plain fact of the matter that what we have today could not have randomly arrived.
54. Mark Noonan | December 22nd, 2007 at 1:41 pm
CW,
Yeah, its good to be freed from primitive superstitions…like that it is ok to kill unwanted children…oh, I forgot - you’re in favor of abortion…hmmm…bit of primitiveness, that…
55. liberalT | December 22nd, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Mark - don’t talk about the calculation - show the calculation. What sort of probability are you talking about. Give us some numbers, some derivation, some idea what the numbers are suppose to mean in context. Not just more drivel mark - hard science. Because your dad said so is just not gonna cut it off the second grade playground
56. phnx | December 22nd, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Liberal T,
I am familiar with the case, as well as the ruling. However the courtroom is not were scientific arguments are won or lost, only legal arguments.
Is this concept too difficult for you to comprehend?
57. liberalT | December 22nd, 2007 at 2:18 pm
of course I am aware of that. However, if you bothered to read the report you would have found that the judge found
(1) that by any reasonable and accepted definition of science ID is not science
(2) that in fact the ID proponents were creationist and there was sufficient evidence to show that they had purgered themselves in court lying about it
As well - if you look at the scientific record Darwin’s theory has withstood 150 years of tests, scrutiny, and constent test. ID is an untestable proposition which doesn’t even explain what it contends to.
Stop fooling around - if you are a creationist then fine. But ID is just a joke
58. Mark Noonan | December 22nd, 2007 at 2:38 pm
LiberalT,
Actually, Darwin’s theory hasn’t ever really been put to the test - mostly because there is no test you can make to prove or disprove it. One of the more interesting aspects of this long running debate is that back in the “Scopes Trial”, Darrow pled guilty for Scopes rather than have Darwinism cross examined in a court of law. Darrow knew full well just how many holes there are in evolutionary theory, and having them exposed would have wrecked the whole purpose of the Scopes trial.
As for your court case - which seems to have settled the matter for you - since when do judges decide what is science? Set aside for a moment that you liked the result of the case - do you really want judges deciding what is valid science?
And, of course, what most amuses us is the palpable fear we see emanating from your side of the debate - you are deathly afraid of a Designer. I wonder why that is so?
59. Diana Powe | December 22nd, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Jeremiah,
Answering your question is a bit “above my pay grade” as they say, but I would essay the following:
1) Do what was done and initiate the PENTTBOM investigation to learn the identities of the conspirators.
2) Do what was done and begin negotiations with the government of Afghanistan for the hand-over of Osama bin-Laden (OBL) for trial either in the United States or the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands, with the clear message that failure to do so would result in military action to capture or kill him.
3) Simultaneously, once it was known that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals, apply all diplomatic pressure to the Saudi Arabian government to participate in any necessary military action to capture OBL and others in Afghanistan. Part of this would have been a secret agreement to pull our forces from Saudi Arabia, as was done in 2003, immediately after OBL and his key associates were killed or in custody.
4) Assuming, as happened, that no agreement could be reached with the Afghan government, invade that country with an international coalition of air and ground forces with the stated purpose of going after OBL. I’m afraid that our initial reliance on aerial bombardment only demonstrated our aversion to casualties and our cynicism by allowing the Northern Alliance to take the brunt of the casualties in the initial fight. Our determination to do what was necessary to get OBL should have been crystal-clear.
5) Continue to press our efforts in Afghanistan to capture or kill OBL and associates until the mission was complete.
6) Not squander our efforts in pursuing OBL by invading Iraq. However, make certain that Saddam Hussein understood that any effort on his part to interfere with our operations in Afghanistan would blow back on him militarily.
7) Utilize the international goodwill we received from being attacked on 09/11/01 to create a truly international organization to jointly work on pursuing non-state actors who might use terrorist tactics against any nation in the world including Muslim nations.
Mark, et al,
It’s interesting that the primary witness for irreducible complexity in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Professor Michael Behe, accepts that organisms have evolved over billions of years. His view is that an intelligent designer had to set up certain conditions and/or intervene along the way to make it happen which, again in his view, refutes neo-Darwinism, but not evolution. However, in his testimony, he did make statements that badly undermine the credibility of the Intelligent Design movement which helped lead to the judge’s decision:
And conceded that his definition of a theory broad enough to take in Intelligent Design would also take in astrology:
The trouble with all attempts to prove mathematically that evolution is impossible, such as citing entropy, is that the Earth is not a closed system but is constantly infused with energy from the Sun.
60. Ricorun | December 22nd, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Mark: do you really want judges deciding what is valid science?
No offense but… better them than you. But if not them (or you), then who?
And personally, I have no problem with the concept of a Designer. I do, however, have problems with the “theory” of Intelligent Design. For one, it is entirely based on the notion that absence of evidence is in fact evidence of absence. And worse, that the absence of evidence must somehow be interpreted in only one way, even though there is no evidence of that either. As AAR has pointed out many times, even IF you posit an intelligent designer, that designer doesn’t have to be God. You can simply assume that the designer is the spagetti monster, or some other extraterrestrial intermediary. In which case, the argument starts all over again.
The second problem with Intelligent Design is that it offers no predictions. And that all by itself makes it superfluous.
The third problem is more epistemological in nature: if you believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing God, doesn’t the notion that He has to come down every once in a while to tweak His own creation a bit to keep it on track? To me that cheapens religion at least as much as it does science.
Anyway, I wish everyone and theirs a wonderful Christmas.
61. liberalT | December 22nd, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Mark -
(1) Most importantly you refuse to actually show the calculation of the probability. Which indicates that I am correct that you are just making this up. It seems improbable to you so therefore you are making the assumption that it is. Well - thats not how science works - prove it.
(2) Evolution has passed over 150 years of tests.
Start
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01
here for example. Go read a biology book.
(3) I am not saying that the judge can rule anything about the scientific validity of the case. I pointed you to the case rulling because it goes into depth with many references showing exactly why ID isn’t a science but a sham. Go read the report and the references
(4) I am not afraid of a designer. There is just no evidence that there is a designer. Scientific evidence that is. Not Mark’s dad says it so head up your ass evidence that you like…
62. Ricorun | December 22nd, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Sorry, I didn’t finish a sentence at the end there. It should have read, “if you believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing God, doesn’t the notion that He has to come down every once in a while to tweak His own creation a bit to keep it on track compromise that same belief?
63. Christian Wright | December 22nd, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Noonan:
I am not in favor of abortion, but I do not beleive I nor the government have the right to dictate what another person can or cannot do with their own body.
64. Mark Noonan | December 22nd, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Liberal,
I’ve read them - and the theory of evolution, absent a designer, is absurdly unworkable…which understanding you’d come to if you’d try independent thought rather than just passively accepting whatever anyone wishes to spoon-feed into your brain.
65. Mark Noonan | December 22nd, 2007 at 3:56 pm
CW,
Yes, you do - you believe in a thousand instances that the government, and individuals, must be empowered to tell you what you may do with your body.
Think about it.
66. liberalT | December 22nd, 2007 at 4:06 pm
so that is your response Mark.
(1) you will not show me said calculation in which you show that evolution is mathematically impossible - you just think it is because your Dad says so
(2) you refuse to refute any of the information contained in the links sent - fossil evidence, homologies, along with the various rebuttals of the ID points of “irreducible complexity”. You will just state that it is “stupid”
(3) you refuse to argue on a scientific basis and give any facts, analytic reasoning, or anything else for that matter and just say that it is “unworkable” (apparently only because you assert that it is)
Well at least you are honest when you have been so badly beaten, so utterly destroyed, that you just stick to calling things stupid and relying on your dad to make your arguments for you. I feel sorry for you Mark Noonan - it must be sad being so utterly devoid of thought , reason, or basic knowledge that you have to resort to refusing to respond and just calling things stupid. Sad indeed
67. Mark Noonan | December 22nd, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Ricorun,
Does Darwinism offer predictions? If it does, then that is news to me…I’d like to know what I’m supposed to evolve into.
Anyways…
We have intellect for a purpose - to figure things out. We know a lot about biology down to the smallest elements of life…we are to use this knowledge to try and arrive at the truth of things, regardless of what the truth is. Remember, if there is unguided evolution, then life arose out of lifelessness and then by accident developed over the eons into species as diverse as algae, alligators, albatross and Al Gore. This doesn’t in the least strike you as odd? Doesn’t make you stop for a moment and go, “hmmm”?
Everyone should keep in mind the social millieu in which Darwin worked - it was mid-Victorian Britain, the time when people felt there was un-interrupted progress and that we were on the verge of explaining everything. Darwin, in keeping with this mindset, wanted to exclude God from the equation (God being impossible to reconcile with Victorian ideals about the malleability of mankind), and so he went in search of data which allowed him to do so…and given the very limited nature of biological knowledge in mid-19th century Europe, he did very well - but we’ve learned a lot since then; not least that the notion of unending progres in human affairs is plain and simple stupid.
Illuminated by the horrid light of the 20th century, we should at least come to understand that there isn’t neccessarily a natural progress in things - that intelligent agency can completely flip things around so that what was expected fails to happen, and the unexpected comes roaring in from out of nowhere.
The variety of life on earth is what should be least expected by anyone viewing the initial data dispassionately - it is highly unlikely that any life would ever arise, let alone the massive complexity of life on the earth today. As we have found out, the really unexpected is the product of intelligence acting upon nature…and this should, at the minimum, allow everyone to accept the possibility of a Designer who made things to be as they are, and who has a plan for them.
68. Mark Noonan | December 22nd, 2007 at 4:48 pm
LiberalT,
I’ll let you know the first time I perceive any thought in one of your posts…your rather rude, but also as cantankerous as an old man who says “we’ve always done it this way, and by gum, we always will”…which is surprising, given your youth.
Think - it doesn’t hurt.
69. phnx | December 22nd, 2007 at 5:21 pm
“if you bothered to read the report you would have found that the judge found…” Liberl T
Apparently the difference between scientific inquiry and litigation is too difficult for you to comprehend. But then your name explains that intellectual deficiency.
70. liberalT | December 22nd, 2007 at 6:10 pm
phnx - I have read both report and many papers and indeed taken several classes on evolution. I understand the difference which I have tried to point out over and over again. My point was - and I made it several times - is that there are many REFERENCES in the report. Further my point about the judge was that he found the ID people were lying on the stand.
But keep at it…
Mark - again - you are not responding to any of the points I made. Go up and read them again. If I am rude it is because i do not suffer stupidity very well. When you are ready to address the many points listed above which you continue to ignore let me know. you simply cannot say - thats stupid - and refuse to answer. I will pay you to go to a community college to get a basic education in science. It will be good for your soul..
71. phnx | December 22nd, 2007 at 6:30 pm
“Further my point about the judge was that he found the ID people were lying on the stand”
This my friend is a LEGAL opinion, not a scientific one. It adds NOTHING to the scientific argument.
I expect nothing different from you as you are one of the Algoreans who believes that GW is settled science as well.
72. Jeremiah | December 22nd, 2007 at 6:42 pm
However, make certain that Saddam Hussein understood that any effort on his part to interfere with our operations in Afghanistan would blow back on him militarily
Diana,
So, in other words, by your standard of thinking …. it was a bad thing that we caught Saddam Hussein, and stopped the torture and barbaric persecution that he was inflicting upon thousands every single day.
Do I read you?
~ Jeremiah
73. liberalT | December 22nd, 2007 at 6:49 pm
phnx - agreed it is not a scientific argument. I never claimed it was a scientific argument. My point was that the there is significant evidence that the people who came up with ID do not believe that it is a science and rather it is their compromise on how to get creationism into schools. That my friend is a serious blow to the supposed scientific basis of ID and why I brought it up.
Speaking of scientific arguments phnx - lets have your scientific argument ..
74. Diana Powe | December 22nd, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Mark,
You’re not doing your credibility any favors by sitting up on your high horse and issuing edicts about what is and is not ipso facto “absurdly unworkable” or to be “least expected” in the realm of biology. Unless you’re willing to do something other than say, in effect, “I don’t believe it even if a lot of actual scientists do and I’m right!” then you’re just demonstrating that you have an opinion. An opinion is certainly expected in the realm of politics - you hold an opinion of President Bush that is not held by many of your fellow citizens - but even Prof. Behe is willing to acknowledge the limits of his explanations. You just seem to get angry and want to tell anyone who disagrees with your opinion that they’re idiots. Is Prof. Behe, who is an advocate of Intelligent Design, an idiot because he accepts that organisms on Earth evolved to their present state over billions of years albeit, in his opinion absent any actual data, that the process was set into motion and/or intervened with by an unknown Designer? A lot of ID fans would say he was, because they don’t even believe the Earth is billions of years old.
75. Jeremiah | December 22nd, 2007 at 7:10 pm
LiberalT,
If Creationism/ID - (God) doesn’t belong in science, then neither does Darwinism, or any of the others.
What do the Darwinists have to back up their claims? Absolutely ZERO!!
Almost all the archaeological findings by scientists known today, are backed by the biblical accounts.
What do you usually associate with when you hear the words, Sedimentary Rock layers?
Hint: It’s not millions and millions of years of evolution, It was the Great Flood, when all the life forms on earth were eradicated by the wrath of God because of man’s sin against God.
Without God, we would have no purpose, No meaning. We would not be here right now.
I get so tired of hearing this evolutionary garbage from you leftists.
There will come a day when this debate will be laid to rest, and on that day, the Almighty Judge will give you the answer.
~ Jeremiah
76. phnx | December 22nd, 2007 at 8:37 pm
LiberalT
The basis of Darwin’s theory of evolution is that the similarities between organisms suggest that all known species are descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) through a process of gradual divergence, However there is no satisfactory explanation of how this occurs. (Please provide one if you can), Darwin’s idea of the force of selection does not do it. And yet the theory is now accepted fact even though it can not be proven. And btw, predictive theory is also just that…theory that can’t be proven.
Darwin’s answer to the all-important question of how this happened — random mutation and natural selection — has been accepted largely as a matter of faith, not on the basis of actual proof.
Through genetics, has it even become possible to seek direct evidence. As a result, for the first time in history Darwin’s theory can be rigorously evaluated. Although random mutation and natural selection can explain marginal changes in evolutionary history, they actually explain very little of the basic machinery of life.
The critics of Behe’s theory admit that it is a testable theory, and therefore in order to prove it wrong the critics must prove that there are NO irreduceably complex systems. Do this, then get back to me.
Finally, Darwin’s theory does nothing to explain the origin of life…how something can evolve from nothing. Any ideas?
77. Diana Powe | December 22nd, 2007 at 8:54 pm
And Jeremiah demonstrates my case. Intelligent Design, contrary to its scientific pose, is nothing more than the disguised camel’s nose of Christian Biblical Literalism trying to get into the tent of public education which is exactly why a President George W. Bush-appointed judge, the Hon. John E. Jones, III, found for the plaintiffs in ruling that the action of the Dover Area School District violated the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment with their actions.
Contrary to what is repeatedly and wrongly asserted, Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection and it’s intellectual descendants are the subject of continual scientific debate and challenge, however, all of that is against the background of an acceptance that organisms evolved over billions of years by biologists.
phnx,
Darwin didn’t address the question because he wasn’t trying to. He offered an explanation for the mechanism of the evolutionary change of organisms which he called “natural selection”. This mechanism is still researched and challenged today.
In addition, your question assumes that a sterile Earth awash with the chemical building blocks of life and being bathed in energy is equivalent to “nothing”. No one expected to find life in the crushing cold and blackness at the bottom of the oceans, but, as we now know, given a source of energy in the form of a geothermal vent, life is quite abundant, thank you.
Personally, I think God is big enough that he could have gotten us here any way that He chose to get it done and is probably more amused than anything else by all the arguments being made “on His behalf”.
78. Ricorun | December 22nd, 2007 at 9:35 pm
phnx: Finally, Darwin’s theory does nothing to explain the origin of life…how something can evolve from nothing. Any ideas?
How about the Spaghetti Monster? Lol!
I kid, but seriously… if you can’t wrap your head around the possibility that life somehow evolved out of some kind of primordial ooze, what makes you think it wasn’t planted here on earth by some kind of intermediary? As AAR pointed out on a previous post, there is now concrete evidence that an intelligent indermediary — namely, humans — can, in fact, interfere with the “natural” order of things.
Maybe there are other intermediaries, maybe there isn’t. But in either case, it seems to me that people are confusing questions relating to the “how” of creation and everything in it with questions relating to “why”. Those that emphasize the “how” try to extrapolate the physical mechanisms into the “why”, ultimately coming up empty. It can’t be otherwise, because if you believe that all there is to existence is physical, by definition there can be nothing else. By the same token, those that emphasize the “why” try to extrapolate epistemological mechanisms into the “how”. That is also likely to be disappointing, if not downright embarrassing. Certainly there are many past examples where it has been. Perhaps this is the perfect time of the year to ask: how many times do you have to do that before you realize they’re two completely different questions? Maybe I’m wrong (I always assume that possibility), but considering how things are shaping up I’m fairly well convinced that science can never be used to either justify or negate faith (although I’m inclined to think it CAN illuminate it — science is a beautiful thing), and religion can never be used to justify or negate science (although I’m inclined to believe that it CAN illuminate it — faith is a beautiful thing). Their beauty just exist on different planes.
In the words of Jesus (John 18:36), “My kingdom is not of this earth.”
Merry Christmas.
79. phnx | December 22nd, 2007 at 9:35 pm
“your question assumes…” Diane,
No Diane, my question assumes nothing. You brought up the biochemicals which, despite man’s best attempt to replicate the begining of life, have resulted in zip.
BTW: Where did those biochemicals come from? Any ideas?
80. phnx | December 22nd, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Rico,
I agree the how and the why are two different questions.
Regardless of what belief one has on these two subjects, that belief system requires a measure of faith because, neither can be proven.
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
81. Jeremiah | December 22nd, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Personally, I think God is big enough that he could have gotten us here any way that He chose to get it done and is probably more amused than anything else by all the arguments being made “on His behalf”.
He’s not amused, I can assure you, Diana. If anything, He’s having a good chuckle at the Atheists who proclaim that He is some “super-fictitious non-sense”.
I would certainly hate to bear the burden of weight of complacency that the Atheists carry around.
As the Bible states, ‘It is a fearful thing, to fall into the hands of the Living God.’
He’s not only laughing, He’s angry. Read Job 38 some time.
That was something about me though, when I was a school going boy, I didn’t hold back…
Whenever the teacher would give us an assignment and required us to give a speech about the particular lesson or story that we were on, I always mentioned God and gave Him the credit.
When I was in the fifth grade, the teacher gave us an assignment on studying the metamorphosis of insect life, it was in the spring time, when the south breeze comes north and unlocks all the streams and lakes from the freezing grips of winter and we could start going out in T-shirts (My favorite time of the year).
Anyway, I would go out in the daytime after school and search for flowers with butterflies and bees, and capture them with a net, and then go out in the evening when the sun went down and found me some moths under a dusk to dawn light … and when I was done, I had all kinds of bugs, beetles, grasshoppers, baby crickets, honeybees, bumblebees, Yellow jackets, Bald-faced Hornets,Tiger Swallowtail butterflies, Luna Moth, Cecropia Moth (Giant Moths)–You name it, I just about had it.
I also found me an acorn left over from the winter and put it on top of the soil in a pot, grew a sprout and showed the class how oak trees are made.
Anyways, by the time I had all my assignment completed, and before I was headed off to school with it…
Dad told me one thing before I went to school that day (He knew I was going to be giving a speech), He told me, “remember to give God the credit, and be a witness for the Lord, if anyone says anything to you, then you come to me and I’ll go talk to the school principle.” Well, I went in to class, set down, and several gave their speeches, and finally came time for me to give my speech, so I stepped up to the podium (Even though I don’t like to give speeches, kinda shy in that area) and proceeded, and at the end, I said:
I want to give God the thanks, the Creator of all these things.”
And that’s all it takes, because someone out there, is having a rough time in life, because they don’t know Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.
The ONLY security we have in life is through Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who gave His all, that you and I might live for eternity, if we would only repent and be made whole!
God bless!!
~ Jeremiah
82. Diana Powe | December 22nd, 2007 at 10:12 pm
phnx,
The elements of everything you see around you were made in the process of the production of energy through nuclear fusion in other stars in our galaxy and were distributed through the process of stars shedding a good portion of their mass in the process of going nova. That process is going on today and there are many excellent images of it courtesy of the Hubble Space Telescope. In fact, scientists are on the verge of creating totally artificial forms of life which presents some important questions of the potential hazard to indigenous life here on Earth.
Check it out:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/16/AR2007121601900.html?hpid=sec-health
83. Ricorun | December 22nd, 2007 at 11:00 pm
Borrowing from Diana’s article: In a big step toward that goal, Venter has now built the first fully artificial chromosome, a strand of DNA many times longer than anything made by others and laden with all the genetic components a microbe needs to get by.
Details of the process are under wraps until the work is published, probably early next year. But Venter has already shown that he can insert a “natural” chromosome into a cell and bring it to life. If a synthetic chromosome works the same way, as expected, the first living cells with fully artificial genomes could be growing in dishes by the end of 2008.
The Venter in question is the same guy that significantly helped to stimulate completion of the Humam Genome Project well ahead of schedule and below budget. The same technologies developed to elucidate the human genome are now employed to elucidate the genomes of many other species at an accelerating rate, along with elucidating the roles of regulatory and (erstwhile presumed to be redundant) regions in the DNA sequence. Now Venter has turned his attention to developing synthetic organisms for a variety of uses. Anyone want to bet against him?
The human genome project is the latest in a long list of federally funded major research projects that nay-sayers claimed would never pan out economically. Others include the internet, silicon wafers (and integrated circuits), transistors, digital computers, radar… all kinds of things. That’s not to say that any of them wouldn’t have happened without federal investment. But they sure as heck wouldn’t have happened as rapidly. As always, who crosses the finish line first gets to reap the spoils. And somehow cost-effective alternative fuels aren’t beyond our capability? Give me a break.
84. phnx | December 22nd, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Diana,
Surely you are not claiming that the Hubel photos are showing the formation of life are you?
Re: the manipulation of DNA, we shall see what if anything is created. I agree there is significant danger in this type of work.
85. liberalT | December 22nd, 2007 at 11:19 pm
look - first of all natural selection does do this. Read a book in biology. Read any of the articles and websites i have given you again and again. You just don’t want to believe it - and you don’t understand how to make a scientific argument. Saying something like “it just doesn’t work” is not a scientific argument. Go read the articles, journals, and books that i have cited time and time again.
Then we can talk.
and for christ sake - because darwin’s theory of evolution doesn’t explain the origin of life doesn’t mean it doesn’t explain the origin of the species. It also doesn’t explain why you never went to college but we can hardly fault him for that..
86. Jeremiah | December 22nd, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Ecclesiastes 1:1-11
Meaningless! Meaningless!
says the Teacher.
Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless.
What does man gain from all his labor at which he toils under the sun?
Generations come and generations go, but the earth remains forever.
The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.
The wind blows to the south and turns to the north;
round and round it goes, ever returning in its course.
All streams flow into the sea,
yet the sea is never full.
To the place the streams come from, there they return again.
All things are wearisome, more than one can say. The eye never has enough seeing, nor the ear its fill of hearing.
What has been will be again, what has been done, will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
Is there anything of which one can say, “Look! This is something new?
It was here already, long ago; it was here before out time.
There is no remembrance of men of old, and even those who are yet to come will not be remembered by those who follow.
~ Jeremiah
87. liberalT | December 22nd, 2007 at 11:22 pm
finally a word about “theories” . You say the word as if it was a bad thing. Of course its a a theory. Everything in science is a theory. F = ma is a theory - newtonian theory. A scientific theory is a hypothesis which explains a natural phenomenon which is supported by a series of demonstrable facts that makes testable predictions. Its always a theory in science. Please please please go take a community college course on basic science. If not for me then for yourself so don’t looks so ridiculously inbred trailer trash here..
88. Diana Powe | December 22nd, 2007 at 11:29 pm
liberalT,
I’m with you, but I would add that it is important to be clear that Charles Darwin’s famous theory was that of Natural Selection. He took evolution as a given and attempted to explain how evolution took place.
89. phnx | December 22nd, 2007 at 11:32 pm
liberal T
Resorting to ad hominem attacks when you fail to answer my questions doesn’t strengthen any of your arguments.
90. liberalT | December 23rd, 2007 at 12:03 am
which questions? Look - the overwhelming scientific evidence supports evolution. Go read a biology book. If you really want I can post it yet again here for you. Is that what you seriously want me to do - give you a high school biology lesson. You obviously need one
91. Jeremiah | December 23rd, 2007 at 12:03 am
This pretty much debunks that Space infusion thingy
~ Jeremiah
92. Ricorun | December 23rd, 2007 at 12:04 am
Spook, I didn’t see your “Christmas present” post earlier. That’s funny!
93. Jeremiah | December 23rd, 2007 at 12:11 am
And here’s a good one for you, LiberalT…
Human genome questions laid to rest
~ Jeremiah
94. phnx | December 23rd, 2007 at 10:20 am
Liberal T,
Thanks for the lesson in elementry school biology. Natural selection has been shown to work within species, but not the creation of new species.
As for your insults, it may surprise you to know that I am working to optimize the percentage of oil by weight in certain algae species so that these species may be used in the production of algae oil for biodiesel and other applications. We have a geneticist on our team who would diagree with your elementary understanding of evolution.
BTW: We are doing this, not because we buy into your global warming hype. We see an opportunity to make money and resuce our country’s independence on foreign sources of oil.
95. Rana Quijotesca | December 23rd, 2007 at 10:54 am
phnx-
Did you know that oil was actually made of algae in the first place? It’s a fun thing to think about.
Mark-
Who is to say that we can’t have arrived here “randomly” (Natural Selection isn’t random, but I’ll assume it for the sake of argument)? Is it mathematically impossible, or is just improbable?
What ID seems to say is, “Things happening this certain way is very improbably, so we’ll just say some being (not God, just some being with the basic skill set of creating universes) must’ve done it.” It’s not a theory that’s based on evidence, it’s a theory that is based on a fundamentally unfalsifiable claim… That’s not science; it’s BS.
96. liberalT | December 23rd, 2007 at 11:57 am
phnx
(1) what do you mean by the “creation of new species” how do you distinguish this precisely between “within species”? What evidence do you have for this view?
(2) Of course i am intentionally keeping the discussion simple. Mark’s head would explode if we tried to be more precise and scientific - after all he argues that his Dad made a calculation and found evolution to be impossible (or so highly improbable that it is impossible). But refuses to produce the details or assumptions of said calculation. When dealing with simpletons its best to keep it simple
(3)of course there are things that are not complete about the theory of evolution. Just as there are things that are not complete about any scientific theory. Even for something as simple as F= ma - is not so simple or completely correct. But that doesn’t make it “wrong” it makes it science - a constantly EVOLVING field where we rethink our ideas every time we get new evidence.
97. Mark Noonan | December 23rd, 2007 at 12:20 pm
LiberalT,
ROFL - the Darwinists spend their time trying to explain away contrary evidence…though I guess to you this is “rethink our ideas every time we get new evidence”. Your faith is touching - too bad it isn’t directed towards its proper object.
98. Diana Powe | December 23rd, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Mark,
Stick to politics, which is where this post began. Having a bunch of non-scientists, including you, basically repeat “liar, liar, pants on fire” endlessly at each other is really unedifying. If someone wants to erroneously believe the Earth is 6,000 years old then there is simply no evidence of any type that can be presented to them to change their mind. Their mind is closed and locked. My personal recommendation - move on.
99. liberalT | December 23rd, 2007 at 12:51 pm
explain away? Mark I seriously suggest that you take some courses in basic science in particular biology. You clearly do not understand what scientists do. Just go take a look and stop repeating the non-sense they have indoctrinated you with. The whole point in science is to constantly look for things we don’t understand and for new explanations for them. It is only people like you who have decided a priori that “its too complicated”, “its mathematically impossible”, or that “it doesn’t work out” who are explaining away facts.
Seriously - what was the most advanced science course you took. Something in high school I suppose? Please Please Please - go and educate yourself - you are already mocked across the internet for your pathetically close minded views on the nature of science. Do your self, your family, and us a favor and stop the bleeding…
100. global oil refining &&hellip | January 12th, 2008 at 3:49 am
global oil refining & petroleum
Man i just love your blog, keep the cool posts comin..
101. Dover School Board&hellip | February 5th, 2008 at 5:42 am
10 Things To Do Before Choosing A Boarding School For A Troubled Teen
1) Ask about their success rates. A quality program should have a systematic way of measuring success and should be able to provide information to interested parents about that success.
102. Jack&hellip | February 21st, 2008 at 10:10 am
Jack
Truer word have never been uttered, indeed. Your point is sound and excellent. Thanks for sharing.
103. Eric&hellip | February 29th, 2008 at 7:17 am
Eric
Cool post. 100% great content everytime. Thanks for sharing.
104. Kim&hellip | March 2nd, 2008 at 5:32 am
Kim
…This forces the call center to be in the hot seat every month…
105. Fuel Saving Oils&hellip | March 5th, 2008 at 4:15 am
Fuel Saving Oils
I have to say, that I could not agree with you in 100%, but it’s just my opinion, which could be wrong.
106. College Financial Aid Cal&hellip | March 6th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
College Financial Aid Calculation
I have to say, that I could not agree with you in 100%, but it’s just my opinion, which could be wrong.
107. surplus rifles&hellip | April 2nd, 2008 at 12:26 pm
surplus rifles
Hi-Can I link a few comments
108. Alaska Cash Loan Quick Cr&hellip | April 7th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Alaska Cash Loan Quick Credit
I have to say, that I could not agree with you in 100%, but it’s just my opinion, which could be wrong.
109. cheap flight vienna&hellip | April 22nd, 2008 at 10:54 am
cheap flight vienna
110. Eric&hellip | April 27th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Eric
Thanks for the info. By the way, I am a big fan of your site. Keep up the great work.
111. Jessie&hellip | May 4th, 2008 at 7:59 am
Jessie
Thanks for the info. By the way, I am a big fan of your site. Keep up the great work.
112. making biodiesel&hellip | July 8th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
making biodiesel