News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

Hi Russ T

In an above post, an evolutionist admonishes someone to believe in God if it makes them feel "good".
ad•mon•ish (?d-m?n'?sh) Pronunciation Key tr.v. ad•mon•ished, ad•mon•ish•ing, ad•mon•ish•es

1. To reprove gently but earnestly.
2. To counsel (another) against something to be avoided; caution.
3. To remind of something forgotten or disregarded, as an obligation or a responsibility.

Am I admonishing someone for their belief when I say they should have the freedom to hold it? Interesting perspective!

There is no irony here because evolution (all definitions) is nothing more than an emotional appeal to a religion, therefore, it should not be surprising that a evolutionist would justify a belief-system based on emotion alone.

I’ve heard this, “yours is just as much a belief system as ours” line before. It’s a very old approach, to tar with the same brush as if that makes it true. It doesn’t, obviously, but many people still don’t seem to be aware of that.

This value system is contrary to science, logic and reason.
Certainly the straw men that Russ T and CTD keep presenting here are but what about the real thing, what about the modern theory of evolution, what about the modern science of cosmology etc etc is anyone here up for a discussion of that? Russ T? CTD? Anyone?

As for suggesting that it is a value system that too is an interesting claim. How does one gain ‘values’ from the observation that evolution occurs? Should we live our lives as the snails do, or the fish or the weeds in our path’s, what method do you use to pull values out of observing the natural world? Out of realizing that ‘fitter’ organisms surivive and breed more often that ‘less fit’ ones, that this differential survival shapes the future generations of each and every species on earth.

A belief in anything should be based on evidence, just as my belief in the accuracy of the Bible is based on years of study and analysis.
Study and analysis quite possibly but evidence, I’d like to see that.

It is better to hurt someone's feeling with the truth than to encourage them into fantasy for the sake of comfort. The former is a process of love. The latter is seduction.
That’s where this post seems to go off the rails. What has this to do with anything that was said Russ T by me or anyone else? I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment though. There must always be room for human compassion, you don’t need to hit people in the face with it. I’m all for using kid gloves as the situation requires but the truth is, IMHO, worth the pain and for anyone capable of withstanding the pain I highly recommend it. If you are standing by the grave of a recently deceased loved one it’s not the time to face my worm food arguments but they are the truth according to all good evidence we have and a truth that we would do well to face up to I would suggest. IMHO the truth is more important that comfort because once we have faced the truth we can find ways to live in this world that are even more real, meaningful and fulfilling than the comforting ideas we may have held earlier in our lives.

Sure, your reasoning sounds good on its face, especially when associated with freedom, but does it sound so good when the freedom empowers one class of people to spray another with poison in order to kill them for the purpose of quickening the evolutionary process?

(See "Chemtrails" and search for the justification used by Rockefeller for the reduction of global population by 90% (to 500 million).)

Ironically, millions of evolutionists sit in the gun-sights of their own most notorious mascot.

I’ll not get into the many fallacies behind the chemtrails idea, they are by far too numerous to mention here, though it is an interesting study in the paranoia that can so easily be engendered in a gullible audience IMHO. I’ll not get into the size of the particles, their glide ratio’s, the speed of the wind’s at 30 000 feet etc, that you could not, even if you wanted to, hit a selected state much less a given city with such small particles from such an altitude or that such chemical concoctions could be released far more cheaply, easily and accurately, without detection from the ground. Aeroplanes are a very inefficient, expensive and inaccurate way of delivering anything from such an altitude. There’s a very good reason why crop duster pilots get killed so often in their work. To accurately deliver fine particles, droplets or gases to a given area you need to be flying at tree top level. Dangerous work indeed. My hat’s off to these guy’s, my own skills are not up to that sort of flying.

In reason

Russell