Monkeys, and Guns, and Tyranny…oh my! – Guest Post
March 10, 2009 by admncc
Here at The Constant Complainer, in addition to my own posts, readers can submit Guest Posts on topics they would like to complain about. The below-Guest Post was submitted by Neo Con Don. His complaint stems from the chimpanzee attack on a woman that occurred last week. So without further adieu, here’s Don…
I am not a fan of gov’t interference in my life. Smoking bans are bad. Seatbelt laws are bad. The Garfield Heights, OH, ban of pit bulls is bad. So clearly, I’m very concerned about the exotic pet bill after the Chimp mauled the woman in New England. She is now in the Cleveland Clinic with horrible injuries and fighting for her life.
It’s very easy after something like this happens to say that the gov’t needs to do something. Legislators wait anxiously for these types of events so they can champion the legislation and tell the story in their districts so they can be re-elected. Federal politicians will do anything they can to grab power from the states, and the states will do it to the local gov’t.
These types of situations occur when owners are negligent. One of the first questions I had when I read about this chimp attack was “why didn’t the owner shoot the animal?” Doesn’t it seem obvious that if you own a wild animal like this, that you would be prepared for it to behave this way? These animals don’t have feelings. They are not intelligent enough to determine right from wrong. When they misbehave or harm someone, they do not have an ounce of remorse. They have their own natural animal instincts of fight or flight. A person that does not have a fire extinguisher in their kitchen would be considered unintelligent, so why don’t we expect these exotic pet owners to have a tranquilizer gun or a small caliber hand gun on hand to serve as a fire extinguisher for an out of control animal? Is it fair to punish the responsible owners across the country because this woman was not responsible?
The states have laws in place already. Click here to see the “summary of state laws relating to private possession of exotic animals.” These laws likely take into account the uniqueness of the state, and the types of owners and businesses that own exotic animals. Local restrictions based on types of dwellings or jurisdictions are certainly appropriate, but a federal bill that serves as a blanket ban on exotic animal ownership is certain to harm more people than it helps.
So what are the solutions here? This particular case is basically a no-fault situation. The injured woman knew the owner and knew the animal. She knew that every time she walked into the owner’s house that she risked being attacked by the chimp. That doesn’t change the fact that the owner is still responsible for the injuries caused by her pet. If the people in the community want to get together and ban exotic animals, they should do that. If the folks in the state want to do the same thing, they should. The worst thing for any of us to do is to simply turn to the gov’t and ask them to fix it. We are having our liberties stolen from us by the federal gov’t every day, little by little. No one at the state level is reminding the federal gov’t that The Constitution is there to protect us from them and their natural desire to impose on our rights. I don’t disagree that this issue is a serious problem that must be addressed quickly, but giving the federal gov’t a blank check to fix it will only cause more problems.
On Monday night, the twin brother of the victim appeared on the O’Reilly Factor in an exclusive interview with Bill O’Reilly. Video of the interview will likely be available at foxnews.com at the time of this column’s posting. We learned that the victim has a 17 year-old daughter, and the owner did not have any type of insurance to cover her negligence. If you’re interested in learning more, please visit the Nash Trust’s web site for more information.
*** Clarification from The Constant Complainer. A trust and web site have been set up to help support Charla Nash, who was the one injured in the chimpanzee attack. That’s the link Don mentions above…
Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Don,
I agree with your entire post except one little part, which actually doesn’t have much to do with your point. I disagree about chimps not having feelings, not being intelligent enough to know right from wrong, and about feeling remorse. Chimps are highly intelligent and have the capability to do all of these things. No, not all animals have this ability, just as not all humans have the ability.
Also, I find it highly ironic how you complain about the government stealing our liberties from us little by little. That’s precisely what I say all the time and even cite how former President Bush was guilty of it. However, you never seemed to care when Bush stole your liberties, only Obama…because of your blind hatred of all things liberal.
I would like the government to keep Guantanamo Bay open just a little longer, and for them to stick your conservative butt in there. We’ll see just how much you praise it then.
Well written! I must respectfully disagree. I am a big fan of smoking bans and laws that protect the innocent bystander. Maybe I shouldn’t have to wear a seatbelt if I don’t want to, but does it protect us as a society if I do? Meaning, that if my brains are scrambled all over the road it costs the government money to clean it up. If I am in the ER for months and months, someone has to pay for it…
Great post. The monkey incident actually happened here in m home state. Crazy if you ask me and yes, I firmly believe that it should have been regulated. It’s a damned shame what the poor woman’s friend has to go through now because of this exotic animal.
I think it’s terrible that she was the victim of such an awful mauling.
I find myself torn, because I think I have to slightly agree (to an extent) with NCD on the section about how Charla knew that the chimp was there, she knew the risks, and that the owner is responsible.
It’s just like if a dog would have mauled her. The owner would need to be responsible for the damages.
I don’t think anyone except zoos and actual animal trainers should own these dangerous animals. There should be detailed and serious restrictions regarding who may be around them as well. This owner had serious mental issues and actually slept with this thing.
Mike, these are dumb animals. Maybe they have the ability to put a square peg in a square hole, but they do not have the moral attributes of right and wrong, or remorse. To think that they do is completely absurd. A 6 year-old can out think and mentally out manuver one of these animals. The only thing they have on us is brute strength.
NCD, you said, “If the folks in the state want to do the same thing, they should. The worst thing for any of us to do is to simply turn to the gov’t and ask them to fix it.” This is just ignorant. You say one thing, but mean another. Citizens can’t make laws banning the possesion of exotic animals. The citizens. folks in the state, are petitioning their Government for a ban on exotic animals. That is why the Government got involved, idiot! They are following the constition and finding solutions to/for their problems/concerns.
“We are having our liberties stolen from us by the federal gov’t every day, little by little.” This remark is just stupid. The Government is there to assist the free and orderly flow of information, people and money into and through this country…THAT’S IT! Tell me how they are stealing your liberties! You don’t leave your own house. How are they preventing you from living your life freely?
YOU say it yourself in the following, “No one at the state level is reminding the federal gov’t that The Constitution is there to protect us from them and their natural desire to impose on our rights.” That’s because the only Government infringing upon your right to live as you wish is the “Illusionary” Government you have created in your head! It’s not real! The state Government and the people we elected to watch our self-interests don’t see it your way… They see the Government “Interference” as help, not interference!
I am all for telling people they can’t own a dangerous animal. The reason why the Government has to get involved is because they are the only ones who can enforce such a ban!
So go back to your litle Conservative world. Continue to vote for the status quo. In the status quo, I am doing well and you don’t have a pot in which to piss.
As far as shooting these animals, I am all for it! NCD, what happens when your neighbor’s pit bull rips one of your sons’ face off? You will be singing a different tune then! I say the Government needs to “INTERFERE” more in my life. Maybe, they could start by paying off my mortgage!
Hi. Christina Bledsoe sent me over. Nice site. Regarding the post I agree with Otis. These animals are “wild” for a reason. In my opinion they should only be owned by zoos or something of the like where not only do the people know how to deal with them, but they also have the tools to quickly do something if an attack should occur. I feel very bad for the person mauled, but I think to a certain degree even she needs to have some personal responsibility. Like the person said above she knew what she was potentially going up against every time she walked into her friends house.
Zig,
Your view on the purpose of gov’t, and how it works is interesting. Wrong, but interesting.
First time visitor. I don’t think people should have exotic animals for pets. And if they do, they should need to have a special license and carry a certain amount of liability insurance or something. And show proof of that ongoing. Good post.
You don’t believe in evolution do you Otis? For you to call a chimp stupid is ridiculous. What other animal can you teach sign language to? There’s less difference between them and us than you’d think, especially in yours and Don’s cases.
Mike,
They may be “intelligent” enough to “teach” them sign language, but they don’t have the moral equivilence of humans, don’t feel sorrow, and can’t determine right from wrong on a moral level. That makes them a dumb animal, stupid too, although stupid does imply a level of ignorance, and I don’t think it’s possible for a dumb animal to be ignorant. So I’ll agree and scratch stupid and go with dumb.
We know that evolution exists, but there are so many holes left unfilled that make the theory look like swiss cheese, especially when you consider Darwin’s Theory and the translation of those theories today. We’ll likely never understand it all before we destroy ourselves, but I do know one thing for certain. The difference between a monkey and a fully developed human being (except for strength) is the difference between the first night that our planet was created billions of years ago and yesterday afternoon, and it is impossible to prove otherwise. To think otherwise would be “stupid.”
I don’t think that all animals are “idiots”, but they do have their limitations. That’s why they are animals and not humans. Some animals are very smart, but it’s all on the training.
Otis,
Animal behavior scientists would disagree with you. But I already know that scientific research means nothing to a conservative so I won’t even bother. You people know it all…
I’m sure they wouldn’t disagree with me. I’d be very interested for anyone to produce a monkey that has said “I’m Sorry, will you please forgive me? My behavior was inappropriate. How can I ever make things right between us?” after they’ve violently attacked a human being. Do you realize how absurd you sound Mike? Don’t forget, just because a scientist says it, doesn’t make it right. They said the earth was flat, they said we were heading for an ice age, and then they said we’d run out of food by now because of their global warming theories. None of it has happened because none of it is true.
There is not a single living creature on this planet that comes close to the intelligence level of a 6 year old. That’s a fact, and it cannot be disputed. I don’t know where you learned you “science”, but it came from the dumbest “scientists” that have ever been born.
My husband and I took our son to the LA Zoo. We walked over to the chimp gate to check out the chimps. One of them looked at me directly in the eyes and with a look that clearly said “watch this bitch” grabbed his privates shook it and flipped me off. Then he sat there with this asshole look on his face and just stared at me as he snacked on a banana. I actually felt insulted. I think these animals are highly intelligent and I think they know exactly what they’re doing when they do it. I think they certainly have feelings, but they are selfish. They don’t care about us (humans) and when you have an intelligent animal that has great strength who doesn’t give a rats ass about you it screams danger. It may be fine when they are in a good mood, but you irritate them in any way and who knows what can happen. In this case a woman was nearly killed and is now missing most of her face. I think it is highly irresponsible for anyone not trained to deal with wild animals. You can train an animal as much as you want but it shouldn’t ever be forgotten where that animal comes from and when scared, threatened or whatever the case may be are we really to blame the animal for acting as it was born to behave?
Interesting discussion here. Time, place, and manner restrictions are the bread-and-butter of municipal law. Hence zoning laws, building codes, etc.
Personally, I don’t see how a restriction on an exotic pet in a residential neighborhood — or conditions placed upon ownership of same — is much different.
South Florida Lawyers,
It’s not much different. My point is that we must avoid allowing federal law to restrict animal ownership rights and privledges. If the states and local gov’ts want to do it, that is how it should be handled. I don’t want to see the states bullied by the federal gov’t on this issue the same way they were bullied with the seat-belt laws because it could start the ball rolling on federal bullying over state and local gun laws, heath information laws, healhcare laws, insurance laws, etc.
The house version of the Primate bill passed the house, but it did have some opposition. The same bill was stalled in the Senate during the last congress.
That’s an interesting anecdote Sugar. I would use it as an example of how dumb these animals are. That chimp’s behavior was far more unintelligent than my 5 year old nephew’s behavior. My nephew knows not to behave that way, but if he did, he would also feel shame which is another moral based emotion limited to the far more intellectual species, the human being.
I think we generally agree here. Perhaps we could say that it was intelligent behavior for a chimp. I’m not taking a swipe at L.A., but I imagine that every single school age boy grabs his package and flips off that animal when his teacher isn’t looking during a field trip. This happens at the Cincy and Columbus Zoo as well. Go to New York, and forget about it. Those chimps are rude as hell.
Maybe if we look at monkeys, perhaps they have a greater conditioning ability compared to other animals on the planet today, and that is only because humans have learned how to condition them. So maybe compared to a cat, a monkey is intelligent. But compared to a 6 year-old, the monkey is a flea on a cat from an intelligence stand point.
There are fundamental flaws in the theory of evolution, in my opinion. Just as matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed and must come from that which already exists, life only comes from life. We may know the elemental structure of an amoeba but cannot create one from those basic pieces.
Sentience seems to be another problem. A human can witness an event and analyze it not only subjectively but also objectively. We understand our perspectives but can also understand other perspectives. We do this as soon as our senses are sufficiently developed, and by the time we can speak (even in primitive grunts or squeals), we question everything accordingly. Many animals are certainly capable of expressing some form of basic emotions, but even the most intelligent of apes cannot derive anything but an instinctive or parroted reaction from any event. I think, therefore I am. Is any animal really aware of its own existence?
In the end, the origin of life and that of the universe itself share the same dilemma. There reaches a point in the timeline where no scientific explanation is possible. If it is illogical to believe in the mystical powers of a creator than it is utter nonsense to believe in the knowledge of man.
“True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing.” ~some chimp
The big problem with Darwin’s Theory is that it doesn’t discuss how life came to be in the first place. That seems like a more important question to answer than how human beings have changed over time. But I don’t believe that humans have evolved from monkeys. It takes quite a leap of faith to go that far without any proof.
A chimp can’t speak Otis. They don’t have the vocal chord capability. I thought even you’d know that. However that doesn’t mean they don’t feel compassion. To say animals don’t have feelings is the dumbest thing to come out of your mouth, and there’s quite a lot of dumb things to sift through. Have you ever seen a scared dog? How about an angry one? How about an excited one? Since a chimp is a lot smarter than a dog, you should probably assume that their feelings are even greater. Oh, and an animal with the intelligence of a 6yr old human IS A PRETTY FREAKIN SMART ANIMAL! You’re not a behavioral scientist, so I don’t expect you to know anything about the topic. Sure you could read up on it, but haha, that’s not going to happen…you’re a conservative.
Don,
I find it ironic that you don’t believe humans evolved from monkeys because it would take a “leap of faith to go that far without any proof”, yet you blindly believe in the existence of God… I’m not starting a religious belief topic here, I’m just saying that people take that blind leap of faith without proof every day. AND THERE IS PROOF OF EVOLUTION. There’s proof in how similar our DNA is to theirs.
Otis, you are right when you say that compared to a cat,a monkey is intelligent. Even though my cat can turn off my alarm clock (shocking, obviously she’s limited to what she can learn. Monkeys are more intelligent than most animals. They have the capabilities to do a lot more. But, I don’t believe they belong in the home. Cat’s and dogs are domesticated animals. Monkey’s, tigers, bears, etc. are not. If you have an exotic pet, then you should have to carry extra insurance.
Humans can snap just as easily as animals do. What triggers that?
My belief in God in not blind.
There is no proof that humans have evolved from monkeys. There are only theories, commie-wood films, and really neat animated cartoons.
To believe that everything that exists today came from a single cell organism that appeared from no where is a leap of faith. To make that same conclusion with absolutely no proof in the fossil record is a leap of blind faith that forces you to turn your back on the scientific method. So Darwin’s theory then is basically a religion that has not produced one shred of evidence since its “creation.”
So I can only conclude that Darwin’s religion is about as believable as those that believe if they die while blowing up Jewish people that they will receive 72 virgins when they get to heaven.
Similarities in DNA are circumstantial at best in proving human evolution from primates. My DNA contains genetic material that allows deviation in its composition. With a few tweaks, I could have been black, white, or asian, I could be tall or short, fat or thin. All of this is contained in my DNA.
No type of mutation, however, would turn me into a monkey. DNA may be similar in that humans and primates are of similar size and shape, we have fingers and toes and a flat, expressive countenance. It stands to reason that our DNA should share instructions for these similarities. All this proves is that there is an underlying structure to life, not that one species begat another.
It isn’t really ironic that Don uses the phrase “leap of faith” in describing evolution because he isn’t one to denounce faith. Those who would ridicule religion or spirituality as feeble and archaic while “blindly believing” in science demonstrate real irony.
You guys are getting way too deep for me. Alls I’m saying is that if you look at a monkey that grabs himself and mimicks young boys as intelligent, then I’ve got some ocean front property in Arizona I’m selling for cheap. Maybe if he could write a novel on the rocks with his poo, I’d believe he was intelligent. Otherwise, he’s learned to mimick so he can get food. There’s certainly nothing evolutionary about that.
I don’t denounce faith either Tristan. I do however believe that it is a leap of faith to…HAVE FAITH. There is no proof God exists, and there is no proof of heaven or hell…yet millions of people believe in it every day. That’s a fact. It’s blind faith because there’s no proof. There’s nothing wrong with it.
So yes Don, your belief in God is blind…unless you’ve actually met God. If so, what does he/she/it look like? You’re an idiot if you actually think you have proof to whether God exists or not. You believe he/she/it does, but contrary to your opinion, that alone does NOT make it true.
What you idiots don’t understand is that science is based on facts and theories. The two categories are easily defined and separated to keep idiots like yourselves from getting their panties in a twist. Evolution is a theory. The Earth being round is fact. The Earth being flat used to be a theory, until it was proven wrong…hence why we know it’s round. If scientists discover the missing link in the evolution theory, it will also cease to be a theory, and become fact. Closed-minded idiots like conservatives don’t like to listen to scientific facts and completely ignore scientific theories if the topic confuses them.
As for religion, you can easily call it a theory too. Why? Because there’s no proof.
And Tristan,
Don’t ever assume anything when it comes to what you think I believe in. Do not say I denounce anything because you don’t have a clue what I denounce or not. I do believe in God, why the hell else would I capitalize the pronoun.
I’m just intelligent enough to realize that my belief in God does NOT MAKE God’s existence FACT! I could be wrong, along with millions of other people. Don’t be a jackass and think that just because you believe something it’s true. I’m sure you used to believe in Santa Claus too.
The difference between the theory of evolution and intelligent design is that the theory of evolution can be proven to be nearly impossible not only because the existence of evolution is nearly impossible, but there is zero proof of its existence. In other words, the theory lacks what you referred to as “scientific facts.” The only thing it doesn’t lack is blind faith, which as we all know is un-scientific. Intelligent design, while it can’t be proven (like evolution), has never been proved wrong and cannot be proved wrong at all. At the same time, scientific evidence at least supports the possibiltiy of intelligent design.
So when comparing the two theories and applying the scientific method to both, Intelligent Design far exceeds evolution as being realistic from a scientific standpoint when explaining both questions of how we came to be and why we exist the way we do today. Evolutionary theories can only answer both questions if you make unrealistic leaps of blind faith and ignore the lack of scientific evidence. I guess that’s the missing link you’re referring to…
dudes,
who cares about the theory of evolution? It has nothing to do with the original issue NCD brought up and is just a waste of time. If either of you were theological scientists, I’d care what you had to say. If you’d like to discuss the “evolution thumpers” refusal to allow the I.D. debate to even occur, that’s one thing, but neither of you can prove the other right or wrong, so quit wasting bandwidth before the gov’t starts taxing us for it. You sound like a bunch of dumb monkeys beating your chests and grabbing your crotch. Next thing you guys will be comparing the sizes of your bananas. At least you’d show more intelligence than the dumb monkeys you’re defending.
Don you’re a freaking idiot. You actually think blind faith is “Unscientific”? Have you ever heard of string theory? Just an example but they call them theories for a reason. Please do not even comment on anything of a scientific nature anymore because you’re worthless when it comes to such matters. You’ve never studied science and you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. You are only allowed to live because it’s illegal to shoot you.
Mike, I never said you denounce anything. I said Don doesn’t denounce faith. If you also don’t denounce faith, I’m not sure why you took my comment personally:
“Those who would ridicule religion or spirituality as feeble and archaic while “blindly believing” in science demonstrate real irony.”
Anyway…I agree that it isn’t possible to scientifically prove the explicit existence of any deity. However, inductive reasoning does require the existence of some entity outside of space and time, which in my opinion is proof of God (though perhaps not the picture book rendition many expect).
The Big Bang suggests that all energy and matter in our nearly-infinite Universe (nearly-so because it is expanding and thus must have some limit) originated at some compact epicenter. This compact Universe would be an object of essentially-limitless energy and mass and it would have to exist in a realm outside of our own (since it could in theory contain our dimension and our time in addition to our Universe).
We could stop here or continue pondering the limits of existence, but there is no feasible end without an ultimate creator. Something somewhere must be omnipotent, even if it is existence itself. Whatever it is, it is God. It doesn’t have to be the God of Abraham, but its existence is not logically-deniable.
I have no idea why Don is criticizing Mike for his beliefs in science. Even if it is reliant upon blind faith, so is Don’s belief in God. Don can write some nonsense about being able to prove evolution wrong…he can’t…and how intelligent design can’t be proven at all…it can’t either…but it still won’t change the logic that both require some degrees of blind faith. Mike understands this concept from what I can tell by reading the comments so far, but it appears that Don is too ignorant. If anyone wants proof of evolution, you need not look any further than amphibians.
Also, it isn’t all that absurd that we developed from a single celled organism Don. Have you not heard of mitosis? Did you not know that that’s how you were formed inside of your mother’s womb? Cells kept dividing and dividing, eventually forming more specific types of cells for organs and other body parts. Or perhaps you thought your mother reproduced asexually? Do you even know what budding is? Probably not, it’s too scientific.
Otis,
Hey…Milo and Otis…wow what a coincidence.
Tristan,
Your post was interesting, however everything is logically deniable. Here’s my point. If God, whatever it may be, was the ultimate omnipotent creator, then what created God? It’s a “What came first, the chicken or the egg” argument and cannot be answered. That’s why it’s a theory, belief, or blind faith. Whatever you want to call it. It cannot be proven or disproved, at least not while we’re living. When we die and finally have the answer, we can’t tell anyone. Actually that’s not entirely true. It’s completely feasible to believe in God, the creator, but at the same time disregard the religious beliefs such as heaven and hell. Therefore if nothing happens to you when you die, it still doesn’t mean there wasn’t a creator, or God.
Lying Linear Libby,
Clearly you haven’t studied what you refer to as “science” for a while, and you take huge stock in the lies you were told when you didn’t challenge anyone. Your ignorance or laziness is not worth my time. I presented a legitimate arguable idea, and you skipped over it and brought up string theory. Either you’re too uneducated to have seen the legitimate debate, you’re too lazy and ignorant to engage in it, or it so shows your absolute closed mindedness that you’re not mentally capable of engaging in the debate. In any case, you clearly stopped learning and likely never challenged anyone that “taught” you things.
Either way, when you’re cornered, you either change the subject to something not relevant, or call someone a name. My 7 year-old does that. Considering the fact that you think moneys are intelligent, he’s Stephen Hawking to you. You are too closed minded for anyone to want to engage in a debate with you. You once said that the “science” of the commie-wood film ‘The Day After Tommorrow’ was spot on. That makes you psychotic.
Milo,
Darwin’s theory of evolution has been disproved by history, mathematics, and DNA. The only shred of hope it has of succeeding is politically. When gov’t refuses to allow the debate to occur, it’s pretty safe to conclude that the theory is wrong, especially when gov’t teaches the theory as fact.
Mike, I agree that no one religion can disprove any other religion and that you don’t have to subscribe to any of them to believe in a creator. However, my point with the concept of an ultimate creator is that this entity must exist and cannot have a creator itself. This is completely outside of our ability to understand but what alternative is there?
Existence itself had to begin somewhere. Because this creator had to create existence, there also had to be a reason in doing so or why would it be created? If the creator is not a sentient being, then why would the creator exist? I would then argue that this creator is not the ultimate creator and down the rabbit hole we go.
In my mind this sort of induction proves an omnipotent creator that may or may not be involved in our world. It does not prove or disprove any science or religion, but in my opinion makes it illogical to believe that everything is an accident (not saying that is your view) and hence leans more toward supporting religion than supporting raw scientific answers to these questions of origination.
Milo, how are amphibians proof of evolution? By definition, the Theory of Evolution has no definitive proof or it would not be a theory. There’s no doubt that some level of evolution exists in our world (much as some level of gravity exists, as given by the Theory of Gravity), but the questions remain as to how much, when, and under what circumstances.
Of course we all start life as a single cell, but the issue is DNA. As a single cell, we already have the DNA that determines what we will become. The fact that we begin as a single cell doesn’t prove that the DNA of an amoeba can mutate to eventually produce the DNA of a human nor does it prove that DNA itself contains the sentience that we as a species contain. Also unproven is that DNA can be created from base elements (or that base elements can be created from nothing).
Evolution often implies or is abused to imply that religion has been scientifically disproved. I think this is why people either jump to support it or jump to argue against it, which doesn’t do much good for the science of it. In my view, both sides are probably right if you strip out the nonsense.
Tristan,
I agree with what you wrote except for calling gravity a theory. Gravity exists. They have equations for it and everything.
Don,
I imagine that breathing and typing at the same time is too difficult of a task for you. Please drop your kids off at daycare so that they have a chance, especially the 7-yr-old Stephen Hawking. He sounds intelligent and we wouldn’t want you to dumb him down. As I’ve said in the path, you’re a hypocrite. You call me names with every reply you write, even in the greeting. It’s unwarranted as well seeing as I’m not a liar, linear thinking, or a liberal. However, you are an idiot so I’m perfectly justified in calling you that.
Edit:
“Path” —> “Past”
Hey where’s Otis? I’m currently writing a movie script where me and my friend Otis go on a political adventure. It’s a goofball comedy where his conservative ways and my liberal ways get us into arguments, and laughter ensues.
I’ll call it, “The Political Adventure of Milo and Otis”.
Tristan,
The reason I brought up amphibians is because they’re the only group that can breathe in and out of water. The first amphibian was the Lungfish. Before that, animals either lived strictly in water, or strictly on land. The animals evolved. Whether or not you think humans came from monkeys is irrelevant. There’s evidence of evolution. Don doesn’t get that. He hears evolution and immediately thinks it’s stupid because humans aren’t monkeys. Then he ignores the other evidence of evolution. What I think is interesting, is what purpose does our appendix have? No doctor has been able to figure this out. It’s possible that at one time we needed it, but now we don’t. I don’t consider this point proof, just merely interesting. I could however do some searching and find some evidence of evolution. I will if I’m called out on it. My point here is that it’s stupid to dismiss evolution because you think humans couldn’t possibly have come from monkeys.
Lying Linear Libby,
I have to tell you how impressed I am with you. Throughout this entire thread, you never once quoted a commie-wood film. You’re certainly moving up from being dumb as an intelligent evolved monkey. But, you still throw out that word “science” and think that it is enough to have any impact.
I’ve been paying a scientist to read your comments, and he said there’s no doubt that you are a closed minded brain-washed product of gov’t education that was told to never question anything because the science is proven. He also said that it is unlikely you’ve read anything beyond your college “education” and suggests you ask for your money back. He must be right, he’s a scientist.
…and the 6 and 7 year olds are in school you moron. Don’t worry, I’m not sending them to public school, so they won’t grow up to be a closed minded, evolved mutated monkey like you.
Milo,
I’d be interested in you putting up some physical proof of evolution that hasn’t been logically disputed. (hint: don’t waste your time because after 150 years of searching the fossil records, there is not a single example of a line of fossils that prove Darwin’s theory.) You’d likely find more scientific information that quickly refutes the possibility of Darwin’s theory.
Don,
I highly doubt you could afford to pay a scientist to read my comments considering you don’t have a job. You should really send your kids to public school, it will teach them everything they need to know, not just what a conservative idiot wants them to know. In fact, they’d probably be better off if you gave them up for adoption. You are not a good role model and should have been castrated years ago. Have a nice day.
Mike, gravity is a theory. Theories can have equations, too. Einstein’s Relativity is much better than what Newton gave us, but we still haven’t been able to confirm it in its entirety. Obviously gravity exists, just as some manner of evolution exists. My point is that if we can’t even take gravity as a definitive law, why would we essentially do so for evolution? Gravity is as apparent as any physical anomaly could be, but good luck trying to explain and verify it.
Milo, there are many interesting properties of life, but these things support both design by evolution and design by a creator (or design by a creator using evolution…), depending on your view, so they are nothing more than interesting at this time.
Amphibians are useful in the argument for evolution, but more so for microevolution and adaption as they are not definitive proof of macroevolution. Honestly, I’m not sure anything can prove macroevolution since the idea relies on the convenience of billions of years for a sequence of beneficial accidents to take place. Like Otis, I don’t see how we could ever solve this before our time is up.
Lying Linear Libby,
I don’t have any debt except for my mortgage (which will be paid off in just less than 7 years), and some annoying student loans. We have a pretty nice sized bank account, and we make twice as much as the average american family. I could afford to hire several scientists, but your idiocy is extremely easy to chart. So, you’re a long way off in your assumptions (as usual).
My public schools suck, and we don’t qualify for vouchers. There are only a few school districts in Ohio that I would send my kids to, and ever since the libs crashed the housing market, I refuse to sell my house and move. The catholic school where I send my kids is at least a grade ahead of the good public schools in our state. They are around a grade and a half ahead of most middle schools in the state. Of course we drop some serious coin for that and do a lot of home work, but it’s better than having a bunch of lied to mind numbed closed minded robots like they would become in my public school system.
I hope all of King Barry’s promises come true for you!
Here’s an interesting read in support of the theory of evolution.
http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm
Here’s a story about elephant tusk sizes decreasing. Interesting.
http://www.enn.com/wildlife/article/29620
This one is an argument for creation supporters. It’s very interesting to me. It describes macro-evolution and micro-evolution. It is essentially an argument against macro-evolution, but admits that micro-evolution is true…however it believes that micro-evolution is covered under God’s creation plan. Give it a read.
http://toptenproofs.com/article_evolution.php
When I think of evolution, I think of natural selection. That’s why the last article was so interesting to me, even though it is told by someone who doesn’t believe in Darwin’s theory.
Anyway, the fact that the Earth is so freaking different than it was millions of years ago is proof enough for me that evolution exists. If no species ever changed for the purpose of survival, than there’d either be no life left on Earth or we’d still all be bacteria. Think about it. Why doesn’t Earth have exactly the same set of lifeforms that it had when dinosaurs were alive? Is it not possible that dinosaurs evolved into today’s reptiles and birds?
Duhhh, that just makes too much sense.
Don,
If you’re so well off money-wise, and only have seven years left on your current mortgage, why not purchase a second home at an extremely low price that you can sell later once the market recovers? That would be a great investment.
I’d personally rather you save your money and get that castration done…but the damage has already been done to your current kids unfortunately.
My wife and I don’t borrow money anymore so we’re not buying another house unless we can pay cash for it. Right now, parting with the cash is not a good investment considering the state of the economy.
We’re also preparing for a 5 to 7 year economic depression, so buying any new property is now is not a good idea.
I submitted a comment with three examples of evolution. One was very interesting to me because it explained the difference between micro and macro evolution. When I cite examples of evolution, I almost always use examples from the micro-evolution area. I actually didn’t know there were two categories. Look it up. For example, micro-evolution is more or less natural selection and evolving to survive. Macro-evolution is more or less monkeys evolving to humans. You can disagree with macro-evolution all you’d like, but you’re an extreme idiot if you disagree with micro-evolution. That’s what I’ve been trying to say to Don for a little bit now. That you can still believe in evolution even if you don’t think humans came from monkeys.
Anyway, I don’t know what happened to my original post.
Hold on a second there Milo…We’re talking about Darwin’s theory. He wrote “The Origin of Species”, not the “adaptation of species.”
Microevolution is a very provable idea because it makes far greater sense than Darwin’s theory, and can’t be disproved mathematically, unlike Darwin’s theory. Microevolution does not require Darwinism to exist to even hold water because microevolution isn’t evolution at all, it is simple adaptation over time. Evolution has never been proved, ever…yet it’s taught as Darwinian religious dogma.
Both theories however, invite the I.D. theory since they don’t address the most important question of all. “How did life begin?”
Don,
What the hell do you call adaptation over time? Could another name for that be…(Queue drum roll)…evolving?
If you believe that micro-evolution takes place then there is no argument here between anyone here and the topic can die. Read what I said above to Tristan:
Quote: “Tristan,
The reason I brought up amphibians is because they’re the only group that can breathe in and out of water. The first amphibian was the Lungfish. Before that, animals either lived strictly in water, or strictly on land. The animals evolved. Whether or not you think humans came from monkeys is irrelevant. There’s evidence of evolution. Don doesn’t get that. He hears evolution and immediately thinks it’s stupid because humans aren’t monkeys. Then he ignores the other evidence of evolution. What I think is interesting, is what purpose does our appendix have? No doctor has been able to figure this out. It’s possible that at one time we needed it, but now we don’t. I don’t consider this point proof, just merely interesting. I could however do some searching and find some evidence of evolution. I will if I’m called out on it. My point here is that it’s stupid to dismiss evolution because you think humans couldn’t possibly have come from monkeys.”
Since you’re now conceding that some form of evolution exists, the argument is over. Thanks for playing.
Oh, and also to mention that right after I posted the above quoted comment to Tristan, Don shot back at me to provide the so-called proof of evolution.
Milo,
If you’re one of those people that thinks it’s okay to simply re-define words, I guess YOU would call adaptation evolving, but I wouldn’t, and neither would Darwin. I have not conceded that any form of evolution exists, Darwinists have created and redefined words to support his crack-pot theory that is just below the likelihood of Scientology.
“Evolution” starts with a single cell (no one knows its origin), and that cell must have the following unlikely things happen to it:
1. Random mutation of desirable attributes
2. A process called “natural selection” that weeds out the less fit species, and because of 1 and 2,
3. The creation of a new species.
so…if there’s no new species, there’s no evolution. Throw any modifier in front of the word you want, but it’s not evolution and not darwin’s theory.
There is no proof of a single example of that happening in 150 years of the fossil record, and it is mathematically impossible for us to get from a world of single celled organisms to where we are today. Then throw in the Cambrian problem, and Scientology looks more logical compared to Darwinism.
In adaptation, there is no new created species, and therefore no evolution, like the elephant in the article above.
Those articles are interesting, but in no way prove evolution. If the data is correct, the Elephant has adapted (not evolved), the third one is a political article designed to re-define he term, and the first one begs the reader to assume that evolution is true so it can prove evolution is true…??? That’s your idea of science? Where’s the physical proof? Drum roll…..NO WHERE…!!! It doesn’t exist.
Now that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t keep looking for proof. It’s worth the time and money to keep searching. But, it is offensive of how dishonest and decietful the “scientific” community is. They would do better to allow for the debate since the scientific data supports I.D. and does not support Darwinism. There is an answer somewhere out there, but the “scientific” community is far too closed minded to do the research.
Where’s the physical proof that God exists Don? Drum Roll….NO WHERE…!! There is no proof. But you believe in God. Don’t you see how hypocritical your argument is? It defies your own logic. YOU ARE THE CLOSE-MINDED ONE.
No, I do not wish to redefine words. Why redefine a word when you can expand the definitions realm to cover new areas. Want an example? The definition of “Camera” used to be a device that could capture still-photos. However, now the definition has expanded to include movie cameras, digital cameras, disposable cameras, and so on. The definition didn’t change, it expanded, adapted, or…evolved to keep up with current technology. We’ve had this argument before with the definition of marriage. For some reason you don’t think the definition can be expanded to include homosexuals. I guess it’s extremely important to you what some dead guy (Webster) initially defined a word to mean. Now who’s close-minded.
In closing,
You use the word “Adapt”, and I believe in this context it means the same as “Evolve”. You’re a hypocrite because you don’t see the relation between believing in evolution and believing in God. Neither can be proved right or wrong, fact or fiction, truth or BS.
IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT, PROVE TO ME GOD EXISTS!
(I had to capitalize that so you’d read it. Normally you ignore such requests because you’re an ignorant ass.)
Where’s Otis…
Anyone else notice I always seem to post so quickly after Mike posts…hmmmmmmm.
Where’s Otis?
Has anyone seen him? Don?
sorry, I was out on a business trip and just got home. Sorry Mike/Milo/Tristan/NCD. I’m not intereested in debating evolution. Most of you guys are far too stupid (obviously) for me to get into that debate with you. If you’d like to discuss something that either of you actually have a shred of knowledge about, I’m in. But evolution is not it. going to sleep now. i have lots to do in the morning.
sorry, almost forgot. evolution can be/has been proved wrong already but god never has. you two should try reading a little, but i’m not getting in to it. We have a freaking dictator taking over our republic, and you dick weeds are talking about a 30 year old debate. Morons. If you believe in education then support public school. If you don’t support private school. end of story. Now go eat a banana you stupid monkeys.
That was extremely racist there Otis.
Yes I agree with Milo. Very racist.
Lying Linear Libby,
You are the most closed minded person I’ve ever encountered… There is not one single shred of proof of Darwin’s theory, and there is proof against it. There is evidence of Intelligent Design, and even the head preist of the Darwin religion admits the possibility of I.D. to explain the huge gaps of logic evolution has. But, Darwin is taught as perfect fact in public schools and I.D. may not be discussed regardless of the evidence and likelihood. For some reason, you have blind faith in science until actual science is brought into the picture. Then you side with the kooks with an agenda.
What proof is there of intelligent design? Your complete lack of intelligence is a clear cut example of evidence refuting intelligent design.
You’re the typical moron who turns to religion anytime he can’t explain something. “Duhhhh, I don’t know what the heck that there means, but God sure does work in mysterious ways..Uh huh, golly gee.”
“Drrrr, I don’t know why my kids look like the mail man, but God must’ve wanted that to be that way.”
“I don’t know why the bible mentions nothing about dinosaurs, but I thinks its cuz God wanted to test our faith.”
“Even though the bible says nothing about homosexuals, I don’t think God would like it so I’m gonna bash their heads with baseball bats and if that won’t knock ’em straight, I’m gonna make sure they can’t marry one another. Get R DONE”
perhpas you’d like to explain “racist”? I too think you’re stupid Mike, but that comment is way over the line of stupidity.
I think Tristan and I have it right on. I.D. is a logical conclusion, Darwin was a bogus theory, and we’ll likely never know the truth until we’re dead. What we do know is that Mike is flat out closed minded and stupid and hateful. I have a date tonight with a very lucky lady!
Otis,
You’re just upset because you’re actually an alter-ego and not the real thing. Oops.
Tristan isn’t close minded at all about intelligent design or micro-evolution. He admits why he believes in intelligent design but also admits that it can’t physically be proven. I agree with that. Don/Otis is the only person who actually can’t grasp this. You are the close minded one.
Outed…
What are you taking about Lying Linear Libby? You’re an idiot…and far too stupid for me to waste my time with you.
For those of you that don’t speak “stupid”, Mike has a habit of redefining words and putting things you’ve never said into your comments. It’s part of his “education.” So you need to play the role of kindergarten teacher to correct him…slowly.
**Warning: If a public school teacher or a University Professor told you this, they would be fired immediately.
There are too things that specifically disprove evolution and do not disprove I.D.
1. There’s no physical proof in the fossil record of evolution at all. Darwin himself admitted this was a problem, but was certain history would prove him right. It has not.
2. The Cambrian explosion. Suddenly, where there once were only small vegetation organisms and sponges, advanced species on both land and water miraculously appear…and then suddenly disappear again as if some nearly planet wide catastrophy has occurred.
But the Darwin “scientists” say we must forget about the possibiltiy of I.D. even though there’s no evidence against it and tremendous Cambrian evidence supporting the idea.
Darwinists are closed minded hacks who’s sole purpose is not to prove Darwin’s theory right (because it can’t be proven right, and has been mathemeaticlly proven impossible), but to refute the existence of God. That is their true agenda. A real scientist would look at every possibilty as being viable, Darwinists do not. They are extremely hypocritical…but that’s because Darwinism is a religion, and not just a scientific theory. It was the religion of the Nazi Party and the motive behind Hitler’s evil doings. It was also the premise for Margaret Sanger when she founded planned parenthood.
The best way to tell that you’re being lied to is when they say that a “scientific consensus has been reached and the debate is over.” That translates to ‘we have no proof, but in order for our agenda to move forward and to continue to receive research money, we need to assume this is true. So you need to believe us because the science is there!’
That’s what they refer to as “science.” Tom Cruise is more scientific than the Darwinists. At least his theory can’t be proven impossible.
Mike, the best thing to do with NCD is to ask him his sources… He just makes up half the BS he spews and expects the rest of the people on the blog to accept it.
Evolution is science. Creationism is fable!
NCD’s ideas are creationism.
And what’s up with this statement, “The best way to tell that you’re being lied to is when they say that a “scientific consensus has been reached and the debate is over.” That translates to ‘we have no proof, but in order for our agenda to move forward and to continue to receive research money, we need to assume this is true.” Your interpretations are your own. Where did you learn how to read? Where did you learn how to think? You need to get out of your house and into the world! News falsh, NCD, the world doesn’t operate how you think.
The amount you pay “to allow (research to) move forward and (scientists) to continue to receive research money,” isn’t as much as you think. You are a poor, trashy, stay at home father. Because you ar elazy and have taken yourself out of society, your opinions (and only your opinions) don’t matter!
One can’t disprove “Intelligent Design,” beacause disproving it like disproving Santa Claus. Can you prove to me that 3 little bears don’t live in the forrest in 3 little houses? I can sit here and tell you I have a can fly. You don’t know me. You have to assume it’s true, right? You have to have faith that I can fly!
Fact is, no one knows whether God exists. We can’t prove he exists. Just like we can’t prove he doesn’t exist. People believe on faith that he exists. Others do not have the faith to believe he exists.
You’re dead on about whether we can prove the existance of God. But I’m not talking about God, I’m talking about Intelligent Design. Taht’s something that even the high preist of Darwinism has accidentally admitted is very possible. The relgion of Darwin has been mathematically disproven, and has never proven. That’s a double whammy! Seems better than a concensus. Yet we still keep lying to our children and telling them that Darwinism is fact.
Facts are stubborn things Ziggy. And LOTS of tax dollars go to fund these ultra religious public university darwin witch hunts. They refer to it as “science.” It is really assumed religion by some seriously closed minded morons.
Don,
Why do you care what Darwin says about intelligent design? You think he’s an idiot anyway. You can’t prove/disprove evolution and you can’t prove/disprove intelligent design. I don’t understand why you can’t grasp that. You are the dumbest jackass I know of. Usually a jackass will have some sort of smart wit or brute strength to back up his arsenal of hate, but you’ve just got a loaded barrel of BS. You never listed one reason for the proof of intelligent design. All you did was list reasons that you “Think” disprove evolution, however they don’t disprove anything. In fact, your reasons actually prove something. They prove you’re an idiot and are only alive because murder is illegal. Most states couldn’t even execute you because of your mental challenges.
I feel sorry for your wife and kids.
You really need some help Mike… I’ll pray for you. But you’re too confused to address again. I hope you get some help.
Well I won’t pray for you. You’re not worth the time. I just feel sorry for your family. I’ll pray for them, because they’re the victims here. You should change your jackass ways before they grow to hate you too.
Don/Otis,
You are a miserable human being. I’m tired of constantly arguing with you. It’s annoying, irritating, and hateful. You’ve brought me down to your level and I’m ending that now. Your political agenda has become trite and embarrassing. I will not engage in any more discussions, arguments, or debates with you. Life is too short to spend another minute listening to you. You can type what you’d like in reply to this, but it doesn’t matter because I’ll never read it.
What are you talking about Mike?
What the L3 is talking about is he thinks you and I are the same person. He finally comes up with an original thought, and it’s not true.
The other thing that’s happened here is very exciting. The middle school tantrum he threw is a good thing. When libs are backed into the corner with facts they become uncontrollable. When they run out of information told to them by their teachers, the only thing they can do is resort to calling people names, taking their ball and going home.
Eventually, after this happens over and over again, they begin their 12 step program to leave the cruel world of liberalism for the world of truth and opportunity in conservatism. It’s a difficult transformation for someone that has relied soley on the word of their teachers and gov’t.
Zig, inductive reasoning suggests that God does exist. The last step still requires faith, but every area of science requires faith. We have faith that the Earth has a layer of magma under its crust. We’ve observed volcanic and seismic activity that support this idea but can’t observe the system directly. Similar observations of our Universe and exercises in philosophy present a strong inductive argument for the existence of God.
Don, I haven’t heard of the Cambrian Explosion. It sounds like an interesting subject, I’ll have to read about it.
Here’s a contradiction I observe in our illogical political system that seems relevant: Conservatives generally shun Darwinism but apply survival-of-the-fittest to our society. Liberals generally embrace Darwinism but shun the application of survival-of-the-fittest. One group believes humans are fundamentally-different than the animals but suffering is “just life”. The other believes humans are just animals themselves but that the weakest should be coddled and that the laws of nature are cruel. Similar vacancies in logic exist in other hot topics like abortion and capital punishment.
As Don mentioned, Hitler was an excellent Darwinian–the next logical step after determining that apes evolved into humans is to classify subgroups of humans in the order of evolutionary development. I’ve never met a follower of Darwin that would make that jump, however.
Tristan,
If you google the cambrian explosion, you’ll get a lot of info.
Here’s a short paper on it.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=119
The most difficult task is getting these people pinned down to a definition of evolution. It has changed over the past 50 years or so to the point where people are using elephants growing shorter tusks as proof of evolution.
I studied this a few years ago when I took some biology and political science classes at a local university. What I discovered with my readings was that there seems to be a rabid political movement to keep darwin’s evolution at the forefront of discussion for political purposes. They use “Micro-evoluion” as a way to make the idea more plausable and to systematically and slowly re-define the original flawed theory…but it allows these “scientists” to de-sensitize normal people that believe in God to say that God doesn’t belong in the classroom even though 2/3 of our population believes in God. It’s as if there have been little baby steps of brain washing going on to the point where people accept certain things from certain people as absolute fact while ignoring the man behind the curtain. I often wonder what a public high school philosophy class is like…if they’re even allowed to have them…
Very interesting. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that this sort of information isn’t seen very often. No need to mess up a good theory. It is comforting to know that at least Darwin admitted the implications of it, if many today do not.
I can’t imagine philosophy in a public high school. I’d guess public administrators would not feel that it has a place. I know teachers of some “advanced” classes certainly encouraged free thinking to a degree, but for the most part you are expected to be spoon fed lessons approved by the school board and not interrupt with any opposing views.
One instance I will not forget is a manipulation I received at the ripe age of 14 in a social studies class. I expressed dissent over the concept of affirmative action and the teacher twisted this to imply, publicly, that opposing affirmative action would mean I do not care about or have the desire to help anyone. My young, impressionable mind had to stop to consider this, and when combined with both peer pressure and an underlying tendency to respect authority, the issue overwhelmed me and my dissent was easily quelled. To this day I attribute that event to be a major reason why I am not easily-convinced to change my views and why I question authority restlessly. I believe that these are good traits and that thus my experience as a teenager was ultimately a positive influence, but those with less mental confidence may not have made it out so positively-changed.
That being said, I believe private schools also have their own agendas, so I couldn’t say if one is superior to the other. It is still the responsibility of the parent to teach the child to prevent the bias inherent in education from being continued needlessly.
I see that the family of the victim is now suing for $50M.
It’s interesting that you bring up affirmative action. That is a perfect example of how cruel liberalism is. It also creates racism among all races. Of course that’s not their intent, but that is the undeniable result.
Here’s a great article about how it has affected African-American students in top tier law achools.
http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2008/09/03/academic_mismatch_i
The only thing conservatives need to be cautious about is being accused of racism. Conservatism is color blind and gender blind. We see potential. We recognize that everyone is on a different playing field when it comes to talent and ability…but everyone is on the same playing field when it comes to effort and personal responsibility.