More Christo-totalitarianism: Science not welcome


Ooooh, I guess I push the buttons on these guys.

I’ve been banned from two more blogs run by smiling Christo-totalitarians, Dr. Doug Groothuis in Denver (second or third banning, I can’t recall), and another pontificator of Christography, Paul Adams in Arizona.

My sin?  I dared call their hand as they post false bloviations from the Discovery Institute’s Stephen C. Meyer in Meyer’s national anti-science campaign.  Adams claims I violated his guidelines.  Since I was polite, but sharp, I assume that they regard any dissent as “ad hominem” or discourteous.

And, since they banned me, they wiped out my posts.  No need to answer the difficult questions if they can just pretend the questions don’t exist.

They especially do not like my noting creationism and intelligent design as voodoo science, and the bizarre accounts creationists tell of the origins of evolution theory as voodoo history.  Truth hurts too much, I guess.

Creationism might be on its last legs, when otherwise Christian people are driven to totalitarian actions like this, baby camel nose that it is.   Christianity generally flourishes when it’s oppressed.  When Christianity is the basis of oppression, however, the faith falters.  There is a darker possibility:  It may be Christianity that totters with creationism gnawing at the legs and tunneling through clay feet of the Christian monolith.

You may have seen with the kerfuffle with the Kommissar of Houston, Neil Simpson, I don’t censor these Christ-claiming yahoos even when they get patently offensive.  One, their inability to muster rational arguments to defend their unholy War on Science always exposes them.  And two, there is always some hope that they might see the light, open their eyes and take their fingers out of their ears — at least there is hope on my part.

Both Groothuis and Adams are otherwise edified philosophers (which only makes their actions more amusing).  What is it about philosophers that makes them try to philosophize away the world they do not like?

On principle I am open to Groothuis or Adams trying to defend their assault on science in comments here, if they can.  This is an invitation to them to discuss their claims. I ask them to keep it clean and polite.   Since there is no rational or factual basis to their claims of intelligent design, they will have little to say.  Nor will they bother, I predict.  Creationism, including intelligent design, can only function in a fawning, unquestioning atmosphere filled with ignorance of science.

If you want some good clean fun and you can stand a little aggravation when they get all huffy about it, Dear Readers, stroll over to Groothuis’s inaptly named Constructive Curmudgeon or Adams’s In Christus, and post the facts of science that Stephen Meyer wishes to ignore. Be aware, they are likely to censor comments and ban commenters who assault them with science.  Even Christians with Ph.D.s fall victim to Ray Mummert’s disease.

These are two men who should know better.  These are two men whose faith claims should prevent them from supporting voodoo science, junk science, and the War on Education.

Vampires of fiction and cockroaches of reality are negatively phototropic.  They avoid light generally, they cannot stand sunlight, the light of day.  Oddly, creationists share that trait.

Update: Adams, whose philosophy appears to include neither manners nor good science, will not do me the courtesy of saying why he banned me despite two e-mails, but he will respond at his blog when a fellow totalitarian writes in, leaving off any evidence of what he claims is true.  Adams said today:

I spent some time crafting my guidelines and intend on holding to them, expecting everyone to do same.
They’re not optional. Perhaps I should change to “Rules.”

In my estimation, Mr. Darnell committed the ad hominem fallacy violating guideline #2 when speaking to Doug’s inability to respond, rather than addressing the content/substance of Dr. Meyer’s presentation.

How convenient that is.  Adams can claim that I posted nothing of substance against Meyers’ unscientific diatribe, and then Adams doesn’t have to answer.  As best I can figure it, when I note Meyer’s errors, Adams regards that as “ad hominem.”   If Adams were consistent, he’d take down Meyer’s piece. Meyer cannot talk without ad hominem, especially since he has no science to back his claims.  Don’t take my word for it.  Go look at Adams’ blog — warning, he’s unlikely to leave your post up if you point out any of Stephen Meyer’s many errors, or rudenesses, or ad hominem claims — and see for yourself.  If you think for a moment or two that Meyer starts making sense, keep that thought and go look at a serious review of his claims by professionals, here. Adams can’t tell you why he completely disregards Dr. Gotelli, nor will he explain why a link to Gotelli’s critique of Meyer is unacceptable on his blog.  There is no good reason other than Adams’ bigotry against science.  Gotelli, of course, is a practicing scientist in the field in which Meyer polemicizes about.

About these ads

64 Responses to More Christo-totalitarianism: Science not welcome

  1. rayjs says:

    Neil wrote: “I don’t pretend to know it, I do know it. I read it in his word, in context, which you should do as well. Even your own out-of-context quotes slipped in that the deaths were due to consequences. Among other things, God cleared out the promised land of a spectacularly evil who had 400 years to repent but did not.

    So there’s a context in which it’s okay to kill children and fetuses?

    Wow!

    So “innocent lives” are to be spared except when there’s a reason for killing them?

    So it’s okay to kill children and fetuses because other people committed sin?

    Nice “God” you’ve got there.

    No, you don’t know your God’s will at all. You make it up as you see fit. You’ve created God in the image of your own personal politics. Your God is the master abortionist and murderer of innocents but you make excuses for him even as he exhibits the traits of what you would consider to be evil in anyone else.

    Like

  2. Neil says:

    Guys, it’s been fun but I’m getting ready to move and have a lot to do. Here’s a summary then you can have the last word(s).

    I answered Ed’s question by stating that yes, a woman is a human being with rights.

    Then I asked him to answer this in return, “Does a woman have unlimited rights? Can she kill her toddler for the reasons typically given for abortions? (e.g., economic circumstances, just doesn’t want the child, pressure from boyfriend or parents, etc.).”

    He didn’t answer. He just went back into faux-martyr status about being banned from one blog out of millions (which in his world is far, far worse than crushing and dismembering innocent human beings).

    I asked if people could see distinctions between the following and got more red herrings in return:

    (1) A human being dies of natural causes — inside or outside the womb.

    (2) A human being has her skull crushed and limbs ripped off by another human being — inside or outside the womb (In case it wasn’t clear, this was done against her will).

    I also pointed out the obvious distinction between these:

    1. Completely innocent human being is crushed and dismembered without anesthetic.

    2. Human being that committed first degree murder and exhausted over 10 years of appeals dies as painlessly as possible.

    Anybody see the difference?

    I asked these very simple questions and got crickets chirping in reply:

    As transparently deficient as the parasite argument is (two humans don’t create a non-human parasite that later becomes a human), when do you propose that abortions be illegal, if ever?

    Please answer this with a yes/no: If a baby has been delivered but the umbilical cord has not been cut — i.e., that awful, awful parasite of “unknown” origin is still greedily sucking nutrients from the defenseless mother — is it OK to kill the baby?

    Breast feeding babies would also meet the definition. OK to kill them?

    I pointed out how silly Nick is for trying to play the “theocracy” card when others, including Nick, brought God up — including using bad rationalizations for abortion from Exodus (and ignoring all the other pro-life verses).

    I pointed out how Nick was lying about me not offering scientific evidence.

    I addressed the “fire dilemma” and how it fails for many reasons — http://www.str.org/site/PageServer?pagename=blog_iframe

    Here’s one flaw: It confuses perception of value with real value. Someone might save a white person instead of two black people if given the choice of one or the other. But that wouldn’t impact the real value of the black people. Same thing with the embryos.

    The question is whether we value human beings extrinsically (i.e, outsiders determine their worth) or instrinsically (i.e., we realize they all have worth regardless of size, level of development, environment, dependency, skin color, etc.

    Again, back to the science textbooks, folks. Scientificically and logically a new human being is created at conception. What else could it be? Do two humans create something non-human that becomes human? Of course not.

    I pointed out how Ed tries to waive off scientific evidence without actually refuting it. Where’s that scientific curiosity, Ed? Why not get the embryology texts and read them in context and prove me wrong?

    I pointed out how Ed was once again “mistaken” (such a short memory!) about why he got banned and how he was completely in error in saying I don’t allow opposing views on my blog. What a joke that is!

    All the non-Ed readers are welcome to come comment. Beware, though, that the atheists and evolutionists there won’t accept your foolish arguments just because you have some things in common.

    Oh, and there’s a female pro-life atheist who will annihilate your pro-abortion arguments even better than I do. She’ll eat you guys for lunch. And poor Nick won’t even be able to play the theocracy card on her, and none of you will be able to play the women’s rights card.

    Really, folks, come on over! Pick one of my pro-life posts and have at it. It’ll be fun.

    Ed, keep the links coming. I’ll be glad to pop back and expose your lies and hypocrisy once again.

    Like

  3. Neil says:

    No matter if they are guilty, those on death row are still alive and therefor have inherent value. Under what you yourself said. Or can you not abide by your own words? If not then why should the rest of us?

    Yes, they have worth, and so did their victims. They committed capital crimes and lost their right to life. No inconsistency there.

    And since you play the question begging, “abortions are legal, so you lose because that’s a reason they should be legal,” then of course you would never oppose capital punishment and would always fight oxymoronic “same sex marriage” and any other changes to the law.

    Oh really? Then you should have no problem in showing us what he said that violated the rules and what the rule he supposedly violated was.

    I have linked to the offensive comments and my warnings many, many times on the previous thread and at least twice on this one. But as usual you avoid the facts and just go to your personal attacks. I am happy to show what Ed is like and why he was banned. I’m not hiding anything. You’re just not interested in the facts.

    Lots of people with differing views comment at my site. I get lot of kudos for the free-flowing dialogue.

    Nearly your entire argument is religious in nature and sorry, this is not a theocracy.

    Nick, you are a liar, and a bad liar at that. Re-read this thread. It’s there for all to see. Who brought up religion? Some other guy.

    Who brought up the Exodus passage? You, once again. Why are you pushing your theocracy on us, Nick?

    Why don’t you protest against pro-choice churches, Nick?

    Why do you ignore these rather obvious questions and try to change the subject, Nick?

    Of course anyone claiming to be Christian should be pro-life. Even the pagans who created the Hippocratic Oath knew abortion was immoral. How much moreso should Christians know it?

    So if you are going to lie, you should try to do it when the evidence isn’t so plain for all to see.

    Besides, I’m the one pointing to scientific facts over and over. You guys are the ones with the logical fallacy-fest trying to ignore them.

    But when dealing with pagans like Ed & Co. I stick to the scientific facts. But their love for abortion blinds them to those facts.

    And I don’t see how you can say I dispute that it is scientific fact that fetuses are human beings when you haven’t proven that is a scientific fact. I keep on asking you to show where science said that. And you keep on trying to dodge that issue. Cough up Neil or apologize for your little lie.

    Sheesh, Nick. Now you are lying about lying. I gave you the link and some sample quotes. See my 8:04 comment. I did that many, many times on the previous threads. How interesting that you never read them and just trotted out one fallacy after another!

    At least Ed tried to fake it and say they were wrong (even though he offered no evidence, and deep down he knows he’ll never find any). You lie and pretend they aren’t there.

    Have a little self-respect, Nick.

    Like

  4. Neil says:

    I guess I’m just trying to understand how you are equating a human in its earliest stages of development with a full-grown human adult. It seems clear to me that a fertilized human egg and a human adult are not one-in-the-same.

    Of course they aren’t the same. One is bigger, in a different place, at a different level of development, etc.

    But none of those reasons are valid for destroying one over the other, any more than it being more acceptable to destroy toddlers than adults.

    When someone says ____ has been murdered, we also take that to mean that ____’s life was taken against their will. I have a hard time imagining what “will” and consciousness a group of cells can have.

    You are a group of cells, just as the unborn are. That proves nothing.

    You could be killed in your sleep, pain-free. Would that not qualify as being against your will?

    Regressing to the whole “worth/value” thought-experiment, this exemplifies the fact that we ought to assign less “worth” to the unborn than to those of us outside the womb. Your words speak for themselves: when it comes to ectopic pregnancies, the life of the mother is worth more than the life of the unborn in every case. When it boils down to it, we all value developed life outside the womb more than the unborn.

    Please re-read my comment as you missed the main point: The unborn don’t survive ectopic pregnancies. They always die. So the choice is mother and baby dying or just the baby dying.

    You’ve answered it yourself. The unborn have less human “value” and/or rights than adults. Why? Because when it comes to the choice between the child or the mother, we choose the mother.

    That only works if you (deliberately?) misunderstand my point about ectopic pregnancies. To take that misunderstanding and apply it to all abortions is pretty extreme.

    In case you haven’t noticed, the people who die from the death penalty are guilty. Those who die from abortion are not.

    Given the fact that another person just this last week was cleared of a crime for which he faced the death penalty, do you still wish to make this claim?

    Did he die? No, that just means the system works.

    Do I really have to explain the difference between the following?

    1. Completely innocent human being is crushed and dismembered without anesthetic.

    2. Human being that committed first degree murder and exhausted over 10 years of appeals dies as painlessly as possible.

    Protest capital punishment all you like, but if you are anti-capital punishment and pro-legalized abortion then you are holding irreconcilable views.

    How about 10 years of appeals for the unborn?

    Like

  5. Neil says:

    What I know is that my posts didn’t contain any of the offensive material you claim. I posted citations backing the points I made and directly refuting your unscientific claims. You banned ‘em.

    Censorship.

    Ed, we’ve through this and your many lies. You violated the comment policy and after many warnings were banned. Get over it. It is all documented here for all to see — Just read the comments section of this post and search for Stalin.

    Do you ever tire of embarrassing yourself?

    No newspaper petulently refuses to explain their policy.

    My latest is here, though of course you got a specific warning in the link above — http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/comments/

    Note that you won’t print anything that you disagree with.

    Another lie. Come read my site, folks, and see all the comments from (sane) evolutionists.

    Your blog is not a newspaper.

    No kidding! It is far removed from one. Just one of millions of blogs, most of which have commenting policies. But I am under even less of an obligation to print your inanities than they are.

    Blog are more like conversations. When you see fools at work or in the neighborhood, you aren’t a totalitarian for avoiding them.

    And yet, you publish that 2+2=5 and expect people to kiss your feet for it, and you ban posts that point out your errors.

    Not at all. I am very correctable. But when people lose any shred of credibility I ignore them.

    So, rather than confront the facts of the difficulty of determining when a fetus gets rights, rather than admit that women should have rights in the matter of carrying a child, you simply dismiss the science in the area.

    You’re kidding, right? I bring up irrefutable scientific facts and you bring up red herrings. Nice try.

    Then, to compound the error, you present cherry-picked (and in my experience, grotesquely-edite) quotes from outdated science texts and claim

    Any evidence for your view? Pick one of the books and back up your facts, or be a man and retract that error.

    I think you’re antiscience because you entertain and support voodoo science, errors in science, and because you censor corrections.

    No, I censor people who violate my comment policy.

    Like

  6. Nick Kelsier says:

    Neil writes:
    And according to your (il)logic, capital punishment and just wars are legal so you can’t debate them.

    No..I never said you can’t debate them. My problem with you, Neil, isn’t that you debate abortion.

    It’s the means you use to do so. Nearly your entire argument is religious in nature and sorry, this is not a theocracy.

    And I don’t see how you can say I dispute that it is scientific fact that fetuses are human beings when you haven’t proven that is a scientific fact. I keep on asking you to show where science said that. And you keep on trying to dodge that issue. Cough up Neil or apologize for your little lie.

    Like

  7. Nick Kelsier says:

    Neil writes:
    Ed didn’t get banned for supporting evolution, he got banned for being Ed. And he knows that.

    Oh really? Then you should have no problem in showing us what he said that violated the rules and what the rule he supposedly violated was.

    Tick…Tock…Tick…Tock…

    Like

  8. Nick Kelsier says:

    Neil, you are the one that said that all life has inherent value.

    No matter if they are guilty, those on death row are still alive and therefor have inherent value. Under what you yourself said. Or can you not abide by your own words? If not then why should the rest of us?

    You can not both oppose abortion and support capital punishment. And as Mike pointed out…innocent people do die due to capital punishment.

    Like

  9. Mike says:

    In case you haven’t noticed, the people who die from the death penalty are guilty. Those who die from abortion are not.

    Given the fact that another person just this last week was cleared of a crime for which he faced the death penalty, do you still wish to make this claim?

    Like

  10. James says:

    Neil,

    I wasn’t necessarily trying to demonstrate anything; I was simply reading your posts and saw something that sparked a few questions.

    When you mentioned different interpretations of human “worth,” that got me thinking. Suppose we take the idea that we can qualitatively “appraise” different forms of life for a specific “worth” and run with it, see where it takes us. (Of course this is entirely hypothetical; I wouldn’t do this in real life and neither would you) Consider this a thought-experiment–something we would not actually implement in real life.

    So I asked you how you would “appraise” different forms of life. As best I can tell, you think all humans have equal “worth,” but all forms of life do not. Obviously, most people would agree that humans have more inherent “worth” than animals, but most people would also agree that animals at different stages of development have different “worth,” so why isn’t that the case for humans? For example, a calf has a different value than a cow–most people would agree with this statement; a calf fetches a different price than a cow. Is it then logical to claim that a fertilized human egg has the same “worth” as a mature human adult? I guess I’m just trying to understand how you are equating a human in its earliest stages of development with a full-grown human adult. It seems clear to me that a fertilized human egg and a human adult are not one-in-the-same. Yes, both have the same genetic composition. Yes, the fertilized egg will eventually become the adult. Yes, they are both forms of human life, but placed side by side, can both forms really be equated as you seem to propose?

    You often talk of how abortion is murder. This seems misleading. The murder of an adult is not the same as the murder of a fertilized egg. If abortion of a fertilized egg is murder, then hunting wild animals is murder, fishing is murder; killing of any form of life more complex or developed than that fertilized egg would have to be considered murder. Why? I don’t know about you, but I think a chimpanzee makes a much better adult human being than a few single cells. In fact, a goldfish makes a much better developed human being than a few single cells. In fact, pretty much every form of life more complex or developed than a fertilized egg is a closer approximation to a full-grown human being than a group of cells.

    Calling abortion “murder” is also misleading because of what society takes “murder” to mean in everyday life. When someone says ____ has been murdered, several details are clear. ____ was killed by someone with a malicious intent, someone who bore ill-will and enmity towards their victim. This is simply not the case in any abortion. Abortions are not done out of hate, spite, or revenge toward the unborn human, as the word “murder” most often implies. Quite the opposite: abortions are almost always done out of hopelessness, accompanied by much sadness, regret, and heartache.

    When someone says ____ has been murdered, we also take that to mean that ____’s life was taken against their will. I have a hard time imagining what “will” and consciousness a group of cells can have. Certainly cows have drastically more “will” than a fertilized egg. It looks like killing anything with more “will” than a fertilized egg is going to have to be considered murder.

    You know, I don’t blame you for calling abortion murder. If I were anti-abortion, I would be all over calling abortion murder every chance I got. When people hear the word “murder” they get angry, they get unsettled, they get defensive. Calling anything murder is an extremely effective way to generate opposition to it, but it doesn’t stop calling abortion murder from being misleading.

    One other note on murder. Where do you think the word got its meaning and connotations? I’ll give you a hint, it certainly wasn’t from abortions. When people hear the word “murder,” they mostly generate images of grown and developed people killing other grown and developed people and the feelings that accompany such images. Obviously the true meaning of murder can extend to killing any form of human life, but to use the word as you do to describe abortion in general is downright misleading because more often than not it engenders images and emotions in people that are misplaced.

    “If it is an ectopic pregnancy, for example, I don’t know of any pro-lifers who object to abortions. The doctor who advises the CareNet Pregnancy Center where I’m a board member and volunteer performs one of those almost every week, and he’s obviously quite pro-life. The unborn human being won’t live and letting her grow could kill the mother. Sad? Of course. But are abortions ethical in that case? I think so.”

    Regressing to the whole “worth/value” thought-experiment, this exemplifies the fact that we ought to assign less “worth” to the unborn than to those of us outside the womb. Your words speak for themselves: when it comes to ectopic pregnancies, the life of the mother is worth more than the life of the unborn in every case. When it boils down to it, we all value developed life outside the womb more than the unborn. So when it comes to your question:

    “Do you think toddlers have more or less human value and/or rights than adults?”

    You’ve answered it yourself. The unborn have less human “value” and/or rights than adults. Why? Because when it comes to the choice between the child or the mother, we choose the mother.

    Like

  11. Ed Darrell says:

    Ed didn’t get banned for supporting evolution, he got banned for being Ed. And he knows that.

    What I know is that my posts didn’t contain any of the offensive material you claim. I posted citations backing the points I made and directly refuting your unscientific claims. You banned ‘em.

    Censorship.

    Does Ed think all the newspapers in the U.S. are totalitarian because they don’t publish every one of his letters?

    No newspaper has a policy of retracting letters after they are published, and none has ever tried to correct or retract any letter I’ve written. No newspaper petulently refuses to explain their policy.

    I think you need to be honest about your policy, Neil, like newspapers are. Note that you won’t print anything that you disagree with. Note that you won’t tolerate dissent especially when it cites science. Note that you maintain the right to lie about science and scientists with abandon, and petulantly argue that scientists who know a lot more than you do about a topic are fools or worse because they disagree with you about the color of the sunset, or anything else irrelevant.

    Newspapers are private businesses, but most endeavor to represent a wide variety of points, even those they disagree with.

    Newspapers generally agree they have a duty to tell the truth, to make corrections when they make errors. That’s a radical departure from Neil’s blog.

    Your blog is not a newspaper.

    Ed thinks I’m anti-science for ignoring him, but I don’t take science tips from people who can’t concede that a new human life begins at conception any more than I’d take math tips from someone who claims that 2+2=5.

    And yet, you publish that 2+2=5 and expect people to kiss your feet for it, and you ban posts that point out your errors. What your paragraph above confesses is that you refuse to listen to reason, that you won’t be swayed by facts, if you, as Czar of the 4Simpsons blog, think they should be banished to a virtual Siberia. You won’t be swayed by any fact you choose to deny.

    So, rather than confront the facts of the difficulty of determining when a fetus gets rights, rather than admit that women should have rights in the matter of carrying a child, you simply dismiss the science in the area.

    Then, to compound the error, you present cherry-picked (and in my experience, grotesquely-edite) quotes from outdated science texts and claim, petulantly as befits Czar Neil, that all else in science is wrong. 2+2=5, and nothing on God’s Earth can dissuade you from that point, and God can’t either. Those 32 deaths to people who took Gardasil are deaths from Gardasil, even the deaths that occurred in auto accidents, despite all the claims of the attending physicians that there was no connection — they are mere scientists, and what do they know compared to Czar Neil?

    Besides, it’s your blog.

    I think you’re antiscience because you entertain and support voodoo science, errors in science, and because you censor corrections. The root of modern science is finding and correcting errors. Such devotion to the facts, to the truth, is anethema at your blog, and, I fear, in your life.

    Like

  12. Neil says:

    You say that humans have inherent worth. Not disputing that but do have a question for you.

    You oppose the death penalty yes? And you oppose war? Or at least oppose unjust wars, yes?

    Because it’s been my experience, Neil, that there are very people on this planet who couldn’t, for whatever reason, justify the killing of someone even if they’re not the ones who do it.

    I support just wars. I support the death penalty.

    In case you haven’t noticed, the people who die from the death penalty are guilty. Those who die from abortion are not.

    And there are 20,000 abortions in the U.S. per week. There is one capital punishment. I’ll be glad to make both illegal.

    And according to your (il)logic, capital punishment and just wars are legal so you can’t debate them.

    And once again you ignore the scientific fact that the unborn are human beings.

    The toddler has been born and therefor in this country holds legal rights of his/her own. Does the law say that abortion is murder? No. Therefor your comparison is moot.

    Wow, it is hard to believe you are that obstinate or ignorant. You are begging the question, again. Your (il)logic would have us with slavery still being legal. And it prevents your capital punishment / just war dig above.

    Think, Nick, think!

    And if your side of the political fence keeps on saying that it wants government out of people’s lives

    More queston begging and exaggeration. Using your (il)logic, police shouldn’t protect people from murder because that is intruding on their lives.

    And you ignore the humanity of the unborn.

    Nick, children’s hour is over. Please don’t be surprised if I ignore your future comments and just talk to the adults. It is so repetitive and such a waste of time.

    Like

  13. Neil says:

    Right, so God gives instructions to kill men, women, children and infants and then he tells us not to murder?

    And you pretend you know God’s will?

    I don’t pretend to know it, I do know it. I read it in his word, in context, which you should do as well. Even your own out-of-context quotes slipped in that the deaths were due to consequences. Among other things, God cleared out the promised land of a spectacularly evil who had 400 years to repent but did not.

    And God will judge all people for eternity. You ought to get right with him now.

    Now enough religious talk or Nick will start crying again.

    If you really want to know about Jesus, come visit my place. I am not trying to inject religion on an atheist site here. I’m focusing on the scientific fact that a new human life beings at conception.

    And I’m having fun reminding people of how this all got started, when Ed throws one of his periodic tantrums and lashes out at people who banned him for violating their comment guidelines.

    In his martyr fantasy he insists that it is because he bravely defends evolution and that we just can’t handle his “truth.” Ed tries to say I’m a totalitarian / Stalin type guy for banning him for his evolution views. Anyone who reads my blog knows that lots of evolutionists comment regularly, so that is a falsehood on Ed’s part. He knows why he was banned: Multiple ad hominem attacks and breaking commenting guidelines.

    Ed didn’t get banned for supporting evolution, he got banned for being Ed. And he knows that.

    Does Ed think all the newspapers in the U.S. are totalitarian because they don’t publish every one of his letters?

    Ed thinks I’m anti-science for ignoring him, but I don’t take science tips from people who can’t concede that a new human life begins at conception any more than I’d take math tips from someone who claims that 2+2=5.

    I’m glad Ed sends traffic my way. It will help balance out the silliness they see here. And I enjoy reading about other who banned Ed. They tend to be well reasoned, informative bloggers.

    Like

  14. Nick Kelsier says:

    Neil writes:
    Does a woman have unlimited rights? Can she kill her toddler for the reasons typically given for abortions? (e.g., economic circumstances, just doesn’t want the child, pressure from boyfriend or parents, etc.).

    The toddler has been born and therefor in this country holds legal rights of his/her own. Does the law say that abortion is murder? No. Therefor your comparison is moot.

    You want to subsume the woman’s rights, Neil, to the fetus who has no rights, legally speaking. For all intents and purposes for those 9 months the woman would be property.

    And if your side of the political fence keeps on saying that it wants government out of people’s lives then is it not the slightest bit hypocritical that it is your side of the political fence forgets that supposed standard on this?

    Like

  15. Neil says:

    In reply: Lets see here. Toddlers have been born though they do indeed have less rights then adults. Ever seen a toddler with a drivers license? Blacks have the same rights as whites.

    Nick, we agree on that. But do you seriously think that when I referred to “rights” I was referring to things like voting, driver’s licenses, etc.?

    Or is it possible that I was referring to the right to live and protection from harm?

    Are you claiming that it is less of a crime to kill a toddler than an adult because the adult has more rights?

    You reference to the law is begging the question. Yes, abortions are legal today. I’m not suggesting they aren’t. I’m pointing out how they are immoral because they kill innocent human beings.

    Hence why I keep on telling you that you and your fellow “pro-lifers” keep on losing your own argument every time you bring up God, Jesus, Christianity or whatever other religious tenents. The laws of the United States don’t answer any religion.

    Right, Nick. You do keep bringing up that red herring. And I keep pointing out that I didn’t bring up God, I was addressing someone else’s claim about God.

    And I point out your hypocrisy of not criticizing pro-abortion “Christians” such as Ed, yourself, some denominations, the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, etc. when they try to claim God is ok with abortions.

    Why do you falsely claim that I bring this up when you are the one who keeps (wrongly) insisting that the Exodus passage condones abortion? Why don’t your religious restrictions apply to you?

    I stopped reading your comment after that because I can only handle so many diversions before I weary of them.

    Like

  16. Nick Kelsier says:

    Neil, define murder.

    Like

  17. Neil says:

    Do you accept that a woman is a human being with rights, Neil?

    Yes, a woman is a human being with rights.

    Now that I answered your question in a simple, straightforward manner, perhaps you can answer these in the same way.

    Does a woman have unlimited rights? Can she kill her toddler for the reasons typically given for abortions? (e.g., economic circumstances, just doesn’t want the child, pressure from boyfriend or parents, etc.).

    But if one does not accept that as fact, based on a lot of different things including the simple biology that tells us a zygote is not a human being, then that issue is not so simple.

    The key phrase is, “but if one does not accept that as fact . . .” You don’t accept these scientific facts as facts. Thanks for that concession.

    And of course you know that virtually all abortions don’t occur on zygotes anyway, and you are defending them all. The zygote argument fails on two levels.

    And again, Neil, I don’t remember you showing any scientific publication that says that what you claim is a scientific fact…is a scientific fact.

    Now if you have such a source or preferbly several just post either the name and volume number of that publication or the url for it. I really don’t feel like scrolling through your multiple and rather long rants anymore.

    I realize my original link required you to click a whole extra time to arrive here, so if you click that you can go directly to a list of quotes and mainstream embryology resources. Here are some samples:

    “Development begins with fertilization, the process by which the male gamete, the sperm, and the femal gamete, the oocyte, unite to give rise to a zygote.”

    T.W. Sadler, Langman’s Medical Embryology, 10th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006. p. 11.

    “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being.”

    Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.

    “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a ‘moment’) is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”

    Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.

    “Human embryos begin development following the fusion of definitive male and female gametes during fertilization… This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.”

    William J. Larsen, Essentials of Human Embryology. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998. pp. 1, 14.

    Like

  18. rayjs says:

    Neil wrote: “Really? You don’t think God said not to murder?”

    I’m not so sure:

    Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.“(1 Samuel 15:3)

    Right, so God gives instructions to kill men, women, children and infants and then he tells us not to murder?

    And you pretend you know God’s will?

    Also:

    Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, “Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple.” So they began by killing the seventy leaders. “Defile the Temple!” the LORD commanded. “Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!” So they went throughout the city and did as they were told.” (Ezekiel 9:5-7)

    And:

    The people of Samaria must bear the consequences of their guilt because they rebelled against their God. They will be killed by an invading army, their little ones dashed to death against the ground, their pregnant women ripped open by swords.” (Hosea 13:16)

    And:

    Suppose a man has a stubborn, rebellious son who will not obey his father or mother, even though they discipline him. In such cases, the father and mother must take the son before the leaders of the town. They must declare: ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious and refuses to obey. He is a worthless drunkard.’ Then all the men of the town must stone him to death. In this way, you will cleanse this evil from among you, and all Israel will hear about it and be afraid.“(Deuteronomy 21:18-21)

    “So go murder women and children. And have fun!” – God

    Like

  19. Nick Kelsier says:

    You say that humans have inherent worth. Not disputing that but do have a question for you.

    You oppose the death penalty yes? And you oppose war? Or at least oppose unjust wars, yes?

    Because it’s been my experience, Neil, that there are very people on this planet who couldn’t, for whatever reason, justify the killing of someone even if they’re not the ones who do it.

    Like

  20. Nick Kelsier says:

    To quote neil: I’m a little slow tonight (and perhaps most of the time) because I still don’t see what you are trying to demonstrate.

    Each human being has equal inherent worth. Not sure how you measure that in terms of points of “worthiness,” but it is a lot. Our laws generally reflect that. You can gas termites but not humans, eat plants and animals but not humans, etc. Human beings are worth one thing, plants another, animals another, etc.

    I don’t see how this influences the abortion debate, though. Do you think toddlers have more or less human value and/or rights than adults? Blacks more or less than whites? Rich more or less than poor?

    In reply: Lets see here. Toddlers have been born though they do indeed have less rights then adults. Ever seen a toddler with a drivers license? Blacks have the same rights as whites.

    But see the point you are blindingly ignoring is this one fact. According to US Law you don’t have rights if you haven’t been born yet. So legally speaking your comparisons of fetuses to toddlers and blacks and whites is irrelevent because of that fact.

    The relevent passage of the US Constitution..specifically the 14th Admendment is it’s first sentence. The one that reads “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

    Now, Neil, notice the third word there.

    Hence why I keep on telling you that you and your fellow “pro-lifers” keep on losing your own argument every time you bring up God, Jesus, Christianity or whatever other religious tenents. The laws of the United States don’t answer any religion.

    So unless you and your fellow “pro-lifers” find an argument that would actually work in a court of law..meaning you have to find a legal argument that meets the bounds of the US Constitution your position is screwed. Not that the Republican party is really all that interested in doing anything at all to abortion. Other then using it as an issue to extort as much money as possible from those who believe the Republicans gives a rats ass about fetuses.

    For 30 years we’ve had mainly Republican presidents. From 1994 to 2006 we had a Republican majority congress. And for how many last few decades we’ve had a conservative dominant US Supreme Court. And has anything even been attempted regarding making abortion illegal in this country? No. One would think you guys would start catching on after a while.

    Then there is the fact that even if Roe vs Wade was overturned it’s not like that would make abortion illegal. The only thing that would be accomplished is that the issue would be tossed right back to the states. And sure..some of them would make it illegal. Of course they’d see a massive upsurge in one of two things: 1: illegal abortions in which both the fetus and the mother dies and 2: people going to states in which abortion is still legal and having them there. Or going to Canada.

    On the subject of abortion, Neil, the proverbial djinn is out of the bottle. Someday abortion may indeed be done away with. But I wouldn’t count on it happening in anyone’s lifetime who is currently living on the planet earth if I were you. The only thing you can hope for is to do responsible things to limit the number of abortions. And that, Neil, is going to require you and yours to learn to compromise instead of spouting religious dogma at everyone and demanding that everything be exactly your way.

    Oh and by the way, Neil, the first three paragraphs of my above reply I was not speaking my personal beliefs on the subject. I was speaking from the pov of the law in those paragraphs. The rest was my opinion. So don’t get it in your little head to attack me as an abortionist or a baby killer or whatever other invective your side has a habit of blathering. I’m not. I simply recognize that there is a difference between what I personally believe…and what the law requires.

    Like

  21. Nick Kelsier says:

    And again, Neil, I don’t remember you showing any scientific publication that says that what you claim is a scientific fact…is a scientific fact.

    Now if you have such a source or preferbly several just post either the name and volume number of that publication or the url for it. I really don’t feel like scrolling through your multiple and rather long rants anymore.

    Like

  22. Ed Darrell says:

    My point is simply this: Once one accepts the scientific fact that the unborn are human beings, the moral / philosophical question is this: Under what circumstances may she be killed?

    But if one does not accept that as fact, based on a lot of different things including the simple biology that tells us a zygote is not a human being, then that issue is not so simple.

    And, if one accepts the proposition that a woman is a human being, then there is a collision of rights.

    Do you accept that a woman is a human being with rights, Neil?

    Like

  23. Neil says:

    Hi James,

    I’m a little slow tonight (and perhaps most of the time) because I still don’t see what you are trying to demonstrate.

    Each human being has equal inherent worth. Not sure how you measure that in terms of points of “worthiness,” but it is a lot. Our laws generally reflect that. You can gas termites but not humans, eat plants and animals but not humans, etc. Human beings are worth one thing, plants another, animals another, etc.

    I don’t see how this influences the abortion debate, though. Do you think toddlers have more or less human value and/or rights than adults? Blacks more or less than whites? Rich more or less than poor?

    My point is simply this: Once one accepts the scientific fact that the unborn are human beings, the moral / philosophical question is this: Under what circumstances may she be killed?

    If it is an ectopic pregnancy, for example, I don’t know of any pro-lifers who object to abortions. The doctor who advises the CareNet Pregnancy Center where I’m a board member and volunteer performs one of those almost every week, and he’s obviously quite pro-life. The unborn human being won’t live and letting her grow could kill the mother. Sad? Of course. But are abortions ethical in that case? I think so.

    But 99% of the time the reasons given for abortion (economic status, inconvenience, just don’t want a baby, romance issues, education issues, etc.) do not rise to the level that we would permit the destruction of anyone outside the womb, so why does the size, dependency, environment or location of the human being in question make a difference?

    Have a nice evening . . . I’ll check back next week if I don’t have time on Sunday.

    Like

  24. James says:

    Right, I think you’ll see why I asked here. So how do you measure/estimate that “worth?” Do you even consider it? Do you think we all necessarily have equal “worth?” If so, do we all have equal “worth” at every stage of development? Does all life have some “worth”–animals, plants, etc.?

    Like

  25. Neil says:

    Hi James,

    My opinion: Human beings have intrinsic worth, tied to the fact that they are human beings.

    So even though others don’t always properly respond to that value (racism, bigotry of all kinds, discrimination against those with disabilities, abortion, rescuing embryos or not, etc.), each human being still has worth.

    (Hope that answers your question . . . not sure what you were aiming at.)

    Like

  26. James says:

    Neil,

    “The question is whether we value human beings extrinsically (i.e, outsiders determine their worth) or instrinsically (i.e., we realize they all have worth regardless of size, level of development, environment, dependency, skin color, etc.”

    What is your opinion? How do you value a human being?

    Like

  27. Neil says:

    P.S. You originally brought up God with respect to the existence of spontaneous abortions, more often referred to as miscarriages. I pointed out that I see a rather sizable difference between a miscarriage and an abortion. My wife went through 5 miscarriages and zero abortions.

    The responses got off track with Midianites and such.

    Do you still see miscarriages and abortions as equivalent?

    Like

  28. Neil says:

    Hi RBH,

    A potential human life

    Snarky comment: Then have a potential abortion.

    Non-snarky comment: That’s not what the embryology textbooks say. It is alive. It is human.

    An embryo is a potential fetus in the sense that a fetus is a potential newborn and a newborn is a potential toddler. But they are all human beings, just at particular stages of development.

    Tell the Midianites that, particularly the pregnant women the Israelites were instructed to slaughter.

    I don’t follow how that relates to the abortion debate at all. If God wiped out a particular set of people at a particular point in time for particular reasons, that doesn’t mean it is a free for all to kill any human at any time in any location.

    It’s not yet human: it’s a parasite on its mother.

    Good timing, I just addressed that this week — http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2009/07/10/worst-pro-legalized-abortion-argument-ever-the-unborn-are-parasites/ You are welcome to go there an explain any flaws you see in my reasoning.

    To quote a friend, “While you are never responsible for keeping someone else alive, you are responsible for doing so if you created the situation in which they are dependent upon you.”

    As transparently deficient as the parasite argument is (two humans don’t create a non-human parasite that later becomes a human), when do you propose that abortions be illegal, if ever?

    Please answer this with a yes/no: If a baby has been delivered but the umbilical cord has not been cut — i.e., that awful, awful parasite of “unknown” origin is still greedily sucking nutrients from the defenseless mother — is it OK to kill the baby?

    Breast feeding babies would also meet the definition. OK to kill them?

    I’m familiar with the “fire dilemma” and it fails for many reasons — http://www.str.org/site/PageServer?pagename=blog_iframe

    Here’s one flaw: It confuses perception of value with real value. Someone might save a white person instead of two black people if given the choice of one or the other. But that wouldn’t impact the real value of the black people. Same thing with the embryos.

    I’d save my child over one, two, three or more people who aren’t my child. Perhaps I’m morally flawed for doing so, but my actions would say nothing about the real value of the other people.

    The question is whether we value human beings extrinsically (i.e, outsiders determine their worth) or instrinsically (i.e., we realize they all have worth regardless of size, level of development, environment, dependency, skin color, etc.

    Again, back to the science textbooks, folks. Scientifically and logically a new human being is created at conception. What else could it be?

    P.S. Kudos to you for the volunteer emergency work. That is a wonderful service.

    Like

  29. RBH says:

    Ugh. “dilemma” in the preceding comment.

    Like

  30. RBH says:

    Neil wrote

    Do you really want to bring God into this, or is that a red herring? Among other things, God knit us together in our mother’s womb, Jesus is the author of life (and the unborn are most definitely alive — no one would “need” an abortion otherwise), God hates shedding innocent blood (present in nearly all abortions), we should help the “least of these,” we should love our neighbor (who may be the least likely person we think is our neighbor), He “made us / formed us in the womb,” He knew us in the womb, children are a reward from him, we are sinful from conception, the life is in the blood (which is at 10 days), we should help the weak, all humans have equal value, we should do unto others (would you want someone to crush and dismember you?).

    Tell the Midianites that, particularly the pregnant women the Israelites were instructed to slaughter.

    Neil wrote

    . You see, the most important and amusing part of the thread is that the Mr. Science People deliberately and repeatedly ignore the scientific fact that a new human life begins at conception.

    Nope. A potential human life begins at conception. It’s not yet human: it’s a parasite on its mother. The key word is not “life,” it’s “human.” And a conceptus is not human. I’d like to see Neil’s answer to the moral dilamma posed in this little story:

    You are just outside a room in which there’s a room and contents fire starting to roll. Inside the room in the left-hand corner of the opposite wall there’s a one year-old child cowering and crying. On a bench in the right-hand corner of the opposite wall there is a Petri dish with five viable human pre-implantation blastocysts. You have just enough time to make your way into the room and rescue either the child or the Petri dish, but not both.

    Which would Neil rescue and why? (Lest Neil think this is a silly hypothetical exercise, let him know that I’ve run on a volunteer emergency squad for 35 years, and have made not-dissimilar moral judgments in the field doing triage at multi-victim scenes, deciding who will be treated immediately and who will have to wait for treatment. It’s easy to blather on a web board; do it in real life under extreme time pressure to learn what making tough moral decisions is really like.)

    Like

  31. Neil says:

    Neil, you’re not speaking God’s views. You have absolutely no idea what God’s views are on any subject.

    Really? You don’t think God said not to murder? Does that mean says we should murder, or that we read the whole Bible and have no idea where we should murder or not?

    You claim to know that God says abortion is OK. I pointed out why your passage is flawed and you never responded. But I’m curious as to why you think that the passage you pointed to is what God says. How does Nick decide which passages are from God and which are not? You sound like a Dalmatian Theologion to me, where you think the bible is inspired in spots and that only Nick is inspired to spot the spots.

    Like

  32. Neil says:

    If, as you allege, abortion is murder, God must be the greatest mass murderer in history.

    Apparently you can’t see the distinction between these two things:

    (1) A human being dies of natural causes — inside or outside the womb.

    (2) A human being has her skull crushed and limbs ripped off by another human being — inside or outside the womb (In case it wasn’t clear, this was done against her will).

    Most people can.

    The Bible, child, was written by humans, not God.

    It claims to speak for God 3,000 times ( http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2008/11/15/the-lord-says/ ) and that the whole thing is inspired by him, and that, among other things, 2 Peter 1:21 “For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

    If you disagree with that it is your prerogative. Just don’t be pretending to advance Christian views.

    Because if that was the case then it wouldn’t say that when a woman is struck and loses her fetus that it’s a property crime…against the husband.

    Thanks for demonstrating once again that you won’t let facts get in the way of your pro-abortion, anti-God views. On the last thread I pointed you to this resource which analyzed the original language of the passage you reflexively refer to — http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1995/1523_Exodus_212225_and_Abortion/%22 .

    I gave you multiple chances to address it and you didn’t appear to have even read it. The fact that you draw a wrong conclusion from a translation error wouldn’t be a big deal. We can all make mistakes. But the fact that you are uncorrectable and have no interest in knowing what the original really said speaks volumes about your intellectual integrity.

    Oh and lastly, child, do bother to remember that the laws of the United States don’t answer to the Bible. Nor do they answer to your or anyone elses religious views. This is not a theocracy after all.

    Right. I agree. Who brought up God? Not me. I was just responding to someone who brought it up.

    Who said the Bible says its OK? You. So why are your trying to force your (erroneous) religious views on unborn human beings? Why are you advancing a theocracy?

    Why don’t you speak out against the pro-legalized abortion churches for their attempts to force their religious views on others and to establish a theocracy? Oh, it is because you agree with them and you just use the “theocracy” argument to silence those who who disagree with you. How dishonest of you.

    When is a death not a murder?

    Are we really having this conversation? Do you really not know the difference between murder and dying of natural causes?

    Here’s a hint: If another human being crushes your skull and rips off your limbs to kill you, that’s murder. Hope that helps.

    Ed, thanks for exposing some of Neil’s lies. Neil’s unwillingness to correct his falsehoods and his own rantings substantiate your statements.

    Ediacaran, are you a sock puppet of Ed? How about listing one of my alleged lies? I claim that new human lives are created at conception, and I have a host of embyology experts backing me up. Ed disagrees, and offers nothing but personal attacks to support his anti-science views.

    Please show me where I’m wrong on the origin of new human life. Explain to me how two human beings come together to create a new “thing” that is not a human being but becomes one later. I’m all ears.

    It’s not a basic scientific concept that life begins at conception, at least, not in science. It’s not what is taught in science classes.

    That’s odd, I’ve got lots of resources (plus common sense) that state otherwise. If science is on your side, how come you just offer personal attacks, red herrings and other fallacies? Where is your embryology text saying that something other than a human being is formed at conception?

    Once again: http://abort73.com/index.php?/abortion/medical_testimony

    I really can’t believe you think that conflating miscarriages and abortions is a winning debate strategy. I’m used to your poor reasoning, lies and logical fallacies, but that one surprises even me. I’m used to debating pro-abortionists who put more challenging arguments up.

    Like

  33. Nick Kelsier says:

    Neil, you’re not speaking God’s views. You have absolutely no idea what God’s views are on any subject. The Bible, child, was written by humans, not God. Don’t go deluding yourself into thinking that you in any way shape or manner speak for God. Unless you somehow get God to come down here and say what His views are you are merely spouting your own opinions.

    And please don’t go saying that according to the Bible that abortion is murder. Because if that was the case then it wouldn’t say that when a woman is struck and loses her fetus that it’s a property crime…against the husband.

    Oh and lastly, child, do bother to remember that the laws of the United States don’t answer to the Bible. Nor do they answer to your or anyone elses religious views. This is not a theocracy after all.

    So in the end analysis you can spout whatever you want but until you and the rest of you supposed “pro-lifers” come up with an argument that would actually stand up in a court of law your entire view and argument is irrelevent.

    Like

  34. Ediacaran says:

    Ed, thanks for exposing some of Neil’s lies. Neil’s unwillingness to correct his falsehoods and his own rantings substantiate your statements.

    Like

  35. Ed Darrell says:

    Neil Simpson said:

    I don’t “rant” about this, but I see you try to dismiss my views by labeling them as such.

    Not dismissing your views at all. Just noting that you’re repeating yourself, both in lengthy posts (check, I’m sure you see the duplication in the longest two posts in this thread) and in your avoiding the evidence.

    RBH noted that most abortions are spontaneous. You didn’t answer that at all other than to rant about how only you appreciate God and can understand scriptures.

    The point stands without any rebuttal at all from you: Most abortions are spontaneous. If, as you allege, abortion is murder, God must be the greatest mass murderer in history.

    And that’s your definition, Mr. Simpson, not mine. You choose to label God in that fashion, not I. You ridicule any effort to get God out of the role of mass murderer, instead trying to pass the blame to others. Where’s that Thomas Nast cartoon of the Boss Tweed ring? You’re in it.

    He brought God into it, and I explained God’s views (the one you claim to be a mass murderer).

    Richard noted the science of pregnancy, the science you ridicule. Now we know why you try to ridicule science: It interferes with your views.

    Using your (il)logic, even if there were zero spontaneous abortions you would still call God a mass murderer. After all, every person He creates eventually dies.

    End of life issues are difficult, too. Everyone dies. But death isn’t abortion. You define abortion as murder. Your definition is inaccurate, awkward, and it makes God a murderer — but your ranting has no basis otherwise.

    Now, rather than defend your unworkable definition, you try to create a new rabbit trail. End of life?

    If all deaths are murders in your definitions, Neil, does that mean we should try to prevent death? When is a life lived long enough to allow someone to die in peace?

    Of course you can’t believe that all deaths are murders. How do you distinguish? When is a death not a murder? Why is God not a mass murderer if, as you claim, all abortions are murders? Which abortions are good ones, “not murder” under your view, and which ones are bad ones? How do you distinguish? How can you keep God from being a mass murderer?

    Or, as in most rational worlds, why wouldn’t it be simpler just to note that not all abortions are murder?

    It’s your definition, Mr. Simpson. Defend it on your own. Please quit trying to claim others are irrational when they merely point out flaws in your argument.

    The dispute isn’t over scientific facts about how many spontaneous abortions there are. I don’t dispute that. You are the one opposing the basic scientific concept that a new human being is created at conception.

    Yeah, that’s your claim. You refuse to defend it when it’s rebutted, but it’s your cliam.

    It’s not a basic scientific concept that life begins at conception, at least, not in science. It’s not what is taught in science classes.

    Why won’t you deal with these important questions?

    It is about whether that justifies abortion. Your argument is philosophical (”many unborn human beings die naturally, so it is OK to kill any other unborn human beings if the mommy wants to”).

    So, in your school, any murder God authorizes is okay? Which ones does God authorize? How can anyone other than God know?

    And why should anyone else follow your lead into pretzel logic? Any set of definitions that make God the greatest mass murderer ever is probably a faulty set of definitions, at least in Christian theology.

    But, what do you care about Christianity, and difficult questions, if it prevents you from dodging all serious questions merely by calling everyone else “murderer?”

    Neil, you come so close to serious discussion sometimes, then you back away into your totalitarian sanctuary, where only Neil gets to call people murderer, where only Neil gets to say what evidence works. You can advocate the deaths of millions of women through cervical cancer, and it’s okay with you; you get to mislabel deaths as due to a cancer-preventive vaccine, and that’s not a lie in your scheme of things. You get to say false things about Rachel Carson and frustrate efforts to save live, African children from malaria so long as you get to beat up on environmentalists, and in your view that’s not murder.

    Go review your definition of “totalitarian.” Under which definition do you notqualify?

    Like

  36. Neil says:

    Ed, you should think first, then type.

    I don’t “rant” about this, but I see you try to dismiss my views by labeling them as such.

    He brought God into it, and I explained God’s views (the one you claim to be a mass murderer).

    Using your (il)logic, even if there were zero spontaneous abortions you would still call God a mass murderer. After all, every person He creates eventually dies.

    The dispute isn’t over scientific facts about how many spontaneous abortions there are. I don’t dispute that. You are the one opposing the basic scientific concept that a new human being is created at conception. It is about whether that justifies abortion. Your argument is philosophical (“many unborn human beings die naturally, so it is OK to kill any other unborn human beings if the mommy wants to”).

    Keep trying.

    Like

  37. Ed Darrell says:

    That was pretty impressive, Neil. RBH offered two quick and brief citations to a point I’ve made earlier that you prefer to rant around. You posted twice at length, and offered not an iota of analysis or rebuttal to the points of scientific fact Richard offered.

    Neil doesn’t even bother to defend against the observation, the natural outflow of Neil’s argument, that God is the greatest murderer on Earth.

    Neil’s claim of being the only exponent of mainstream science while hoping no one notices RBH’s references is a valiant attempt to fog up the facts though.

    Quod erat demonstrandum. Res ipsa loquitur.

    Like

  38. Neil says:

    While you are preparing your ad hom, red herring or other fallacies, or your philosophical arguments trying to rationalize the destruction of innocent human beings, please remember that I’m the only one here pointing to mainstream scientific sources, all of which clearly state that the unborn are human beings.

    But you knew that, didn’t you? Or did you think that two human beings joined to create something that isn’t human but becomes human later?

    And consider the irony that Mr. Science Person Ed strives so mightily to change the subject over and over and has nothing to rebut the facts with. These pro-abortionists really love their abortion rights. They’ll sacrifice science, logic, the Bible (for those claiming to be Christian) and more to hold onto their precious pro-abortion reasoning. If only they fought for the innocent with such passion. Instead, they just put out silly ad hom arguments like the one in this post. Then when they are called on them they make things up about Stalin or whatever and just keep changing the subject.

    Pathetic.

    Like

  39. Neil says:

    If that’s the case, and the human adjective is important, then God is far and away the most prolific abortionist there is, since upwards of 50% of conceptuses are spontaneously aborted, and on the order of 20% of ‘normal’ fetuses are spontaneously aborted post-implantation. If “human” life begins at conception, human-induced abortion is way down the list of things that cause fetal loss

    Do you really want to bring God into this, or is that a red herring? Among other things, God knit us together in our mother’s womb, Jesus is the author of life (and the unborn are most definitely alive — no one would “need” an abortion otherwise), God hates shedding innocent blood (present in nearly all abortions), we should help the “least of these,” we should love our neighbor (who may be the least likely person we think is our neighbor), He “made us / formed us in the womb,” He knew us in the womb, children are a reward from him, we are sinful from conception, the life is in the blood (which is at 10 days), we should help the weak, all humans have equal value, we should do unto others (would you want someone to crush and dismember you?).

    Oh, and don’t kill innocent human beings.

    That’s just for starters. Try flipping the book open and reading any part of it and you’ll find more. I’ve got chapters and verses if anyone wants them in this set of pro-life training slides — http://www.4simpsons.com/pro%20life.pps . I highly recommend reading them all, as they are address the core fallacies of pro-legalized abortion reasoning and virtually any argument you’ll hear.

    Now most people who raise the God issue are pro-legalized abortionists or just flat out pro-abortionists (they want your tax $ to be used to fund abortions, which strips away any pretensions of choice) and they couldn’t care less what God says about anything.

    Now about spontaneous abortions: Do I really have to explain to you that there is a difference between (1) and (2) below? (To state the obvious, this logic applies whether the human being is in the womb or outside it.)

    (1) A human being dies of natural causes.

    (2) A human being has her skull crushed and limbs ripped off by another human being (In case it wasn’t clear, this was done against her will).

    You don’t need a Bible to see the difference.

    And, of course, even if “human-induced abortion is way down the list of things that cause fetal loss” that still doesn’t prove that they are morally acceptable or that is isn’t a scientific fact that the unborn are human beings.

    Think about it: Using that reasoning, for any disease that wasn’t the #1 killer of humans outside the womb you could dismiss it by saying, “______ is way down the list of things that cause death.” It might be true, but so what?

    Like

  40. Ed Darrell says:

    Thanks for the citations, RBH.

    And that is Biblical, too, in response to Neil’s unflinching drive to change the topic away from those where he’s simply wrong as he knows, to one where he hopes no one else knows the science. The appropriate scripture may be Psalms 50.9:

    I shall take no bull from your house . . .

    Like

  41. RBH says:

    Neil wrote

    2. You see, the most important and amusing part of the thread is that the Mr. Science People deliberately and repeatedly ignore the scientific fact that a new human life begins at conception.

    If that’s the case, and the human adjective is important, then God is far and away the most prolific abortionist there is, since upwards of 50% of conceptuses are spontaneously aborted, and on the order of 20% of ‘normal’ fetuses are spontaneously aborted post-implantation. If “human” life begins at conception, human-induced abortion is way down the list of things that cause fetal loss.

    Like

  42. Neil says:

    That’s Proverbs 26:11 for you Bible fans — Proverbs 26:11 Like a dog that returns to his vomit is a fool who repeats his folly.

    Like

  43. Neil says:

    That’s just an example of how well my system works. If you read my previous comment, you need to go no further than item 1 to rebut Ed’s transparently silly argument.

    Dog ==> vomit.

    Like

  44. Ed Darrell says:

    Oh, Ed, links are such an inconvenient thing, aren’t they? Let’s see, you lie about the Stalin thing AGAIN and I nail you on it, so what do you do? Apologize? Of course not. You change the subject! Too funny.

    Let’s be clear here, Neil: You think Darwin was wrong, and you’d prefer to get Darwin out of the schools, right?

    That was Stalin’s view, too.

    You haven’t uncensored any of my posts. That was Stalin’s view, also.

    Where is the comparison in error?

    Like

  45. Neil says:

    Guys, you are repeating yourselves like last time. Whatever you right, just look below and you’ll find your answer.

    This recap really comes in handy. It is from a previous post of Ed’s but it is more of the same from Ed. Some people never learn. Too bad for him he can’t delete this without looking like an even bigger hypocrite than he already is. I don’t even read Ed’s posts; I just copy and paste this one-size-fits-all rebuttal to a pro-abortion / anti-science “Christian.”

    I typically make it a practice to ignore it when Ed links to my site. But it has been a while since he (the first person banned from commenting at my site) had linked. I discovered that Ed had been lying about me multiple times and continued to do so in this thread.

    1. I don’t throw the word “liar” around lightly. People can be mistaken, and that isn’t lying. But when one is corrected, when one clearly knows better and when one deliberately repeats untruths then we have a name for that person: Liar.

    The pattern repeats: Ed uses a ridiculous logical fallacy, Neil calls him on it, Ed lies and said Neil did it, Ed fails to apologize, Ed uses the fallacy again. I addressed Ed’s use of a guilt by association fallacy regarding Joseph Stalin multiple times on my blog. I also confronted him about it on other blogs. And he used it reflexively on his blog. So the origin couldn’t be more clear. Just read the comments section of this post and search for Stalin. And as a dog returns to his vomit, so Ed returns to his embarrassing use of a logical fallacy.

    But then I came back to this site and found that he had accused me of bringing it up!

    I objected to Simpson’s off-the-wall claim trying to link Darwin to Stalin in an exchange some time ago.

    It’s a reference to last year’s discussions with Simpson, in which he inaccurately tried to link Stalin to Darwin’s sins.

    I couldn’t care less what Ed thinks of me, but I was surprised to see him lying to thoroughly and repeatedly. I figured a public service announcement was in order.

    Ed also breaks his own rule a lot:

    “Darrell’s Corollary of Godwin’s Law is that if posters in an internet discussion know to avoid the mention of Hitler to avoid their opponents’ invoking Godwin’s law, they’ll compare the actions to Stalin instead.” — http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/09/12/castro-joins-the-911-conspiracy-cluster/

    2. You see, the most important and amusing part of the thread is that the Mr. Science People deliberately and repeatedly ignore the scientific fact that a new human life begins at conception. They aren’t using intellectual honesty to follow the truth where it leads. They come to science with their biases and twist the data to conform to them. Propping up their pro-abortion views puts them at odds with scientific facts but they work hard to rationalize them away. They use (bad) philosophical arguments and not scientific ones.

    If he was really pro-science he’d be pro-life. Embryology textbooks are clear about when life begins, but he chooses to rationalize that away to support the legalized crushing and dismemberment of 3,000+ human beings per day. It is so ironic that he cranks out posts about “dangerous, anti-science bigoted ignorance” when his views on abortion fit that title perfectly.

    Nothing is more dangerous to the unborn than abortion. If you get out of the womb alive you are very lucky. Abortion constitutes 99% of all murders.

    3. Nick repeatedly tried the Pro-lifers don’t care about kids after they are born canard. I demonstrated multiple times that one can protest immoral acts without taking ownership of them. If the government decided to jail or kill all homeless people, Nick could protest that without having to let them all live with him.

    I also pointed out how even though pro-lifers don’t have to adopt all the kids to protest the evils of abortion, we do all sorts of things to help with our own time and money.

    4. Ed and Nick have lived in Liberal Land too long. The concept of personal responsibility is foreign to them. They continually argue that I am “forcing” these women to have babies. But they have already created new life. I’m just interested in protecting that new life. But they reflexively latch on to the prejudice that to be pro-life is to want to control women. Tell that to all the female pro-lifers.

    5. They continually abandon scientific arguments and use faulty “if legal, then moral” reasoning. Yes, abortions are legal. But while slavery used to be legal, it was always immoral.

    6. They ignore the scientific fact that these aren’t hypothetical human beings or potential human beings. They already exist on planet earth. They are at the proper stage of development for their age.

    7. They both exercise anti-religious bigotry and prejudices to dismiss my views. I pointed out that while I am a Christian, I save biblical arguments for those who claim to be Christians. The pro-life case is so powerful that you don’t even need the Bible to demonstrate it. And of course, there is nothing illogical about using my religious views to inform my political views. No one seems to protest when I use my religious views to oppose stealing, perjury and murder. Oh, and there is also that First Amendment thingy.

    They missed the irony, of course, that they also used religious arguments to justify their positions. Nick used a bad exegesis of Exodus to rationalize abortion. Not only did he cherry-pick a mistranslation to make his point, but he ignored the legions of pro-life verses, starting with “don’t murder.” But my main point is by his own reasoning Nick is forcing his pro-abortion religious views on innocent unborn children. What hypocrisy!

    In addition, he just repeated his claim that Exodus supports abortion but never defended it with facts. He didn’t even attempt to refute the scholarship in the link that I provided, which went back to the original language and demonstrated how some poor translations led to pro-abortionists misusing the passage.

    8. And of course they trotted out the “anti-women” ad hominem attack. They had no response to my questions about why they support gender selection abortions, virtually all of which destroy innocent female human beings. They ignore the reality of post abortion trauma and the chauvinism of abortion, which puts the burden on the woman to use it as a form of birth control. I also pointed out how the pro-life position is actually pro-women. Many women are pushed into abortions by men who won’t take responsibility for their actions.

    I reject the reasoning that says women must have the ability to kill their unborn children to prove their worth and to fit into society, the workplace and politics.

    9. Nick tried to act like I was hypocritical for not wanting to finance the care of unwanted children, but he didn’t realize that he was pointing fingers back at himself. In his “kindness” he unwittingly concedes that he would prefer that unborn human beings be destroyed rather than inconvenience him.

    10. Ed objected to a link I posted with images of abortion. But if abortion is a moral good and doesn’t kill an innocent human being then what could be wrong with showing images of it? And why is Ed so concerned about the innocence of these alleged children who read his blog? He fully supported the “rights” of their mothers to have them crushed and dismembered before they were born, and now he wants to profess his concern that viewing images of this allegedly moral procedure will harm them?

    11. They tried the angle multiple times that I don’t use evidence, but I’m the one who used evidence throughout: Evidence that Ed is a unrepentant liar, evidence that the book of Exodus does not support abortion and evidence that a new human life is formed at conception. They were the ones with the fact-free fallacy-fest.

    12. Ed claimed that I want to poison Africa. Sure, Ed. I pointed out that I’ve been on mission trips there three times, have donated tens of thousands of dollars to various causes there and have had a World Vision Sponsor child there for ten years. I don’t say that out of pride, just to point out how ridiculous it is for him to say I want to poison Africa. I’m still waiting to hear just how much Ed has contributed to Africa in terms of his own time and money.

    13. Ed added these new lies:

    The point is that you advocate creationism to be taught to innocent children in schools.

    Nick parroted Ed’s lie that I push for creationism to be taught in public schools and he made all sorts of vicious accusations in doing so. I challenged them to find any evidence of that in the nearly 1,000 posts I’ve done on my blog. They found none. I am on record for saying that I don’t want non-Christians or theologically Liberal Christians (but I repeat myself?) to teach the Bible in public schools. They would probably teach that all religions lead to God, Jesus is not God, there is no Hell, the Bible can’t be relied upon, God is pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage, etc.

    Was Nick lying? I don’t think so. I think he was using bad discernment in trusting Ed without evidence and was prideful in failing to apologize for his outburst.

    14. Nick claimed that since it would be ineffective to make abortion illegal because it wouldn’t eliminate all abortions. That reasoning would mean we’d get rid of all laws, because despite the risks people still steal, rape, murder, etc. So his argument is faulty because it proves too much.

    15. Ed claimed I was bigoted for disagreeing with Rachel Carson because she was unmarried. The only problems with that are a) I didn’t know she was unmarried, b) it wouldn’t have mattered even if I had known and c) using that “reasoning” you could never disagree with a woman or any minority without Ed calling you a bigot.

    16. Ed tried the miscarriage canard by implying that abortion must not be wrong if miscarriages happen so frequently. It is hard to believe I have to explain this, but killing an infant by chopping him up is a “little” different than if the infant succumbed to SIDS. In the same way, the unborn are scientifically proven to be human beings. Death via abortion is wildly different than a miscarriage.

    17. Nick tried the “better dead than poor” line. I wonder why it took him so long. It is as fallacious as ever. The “your pro-life policies will result in more poor” line ignores the fact that Nick’s pro-abortion policies will result in more dead.

    So according to Nick, it would be good to kill poor children.

    18. Ed tried the “keep government out of bedrooms” fallacy, which ignores that the government shouldn’t care where murders are committed. You can’t kill a toddler in your bedroom. And of course, if he really held that view he’d oppose Planned Parenthood funding and involvement in schools, as well as any government involvement with Gardasil.

    19. Ed repeatedly used the viability argument, concluding that abortion was acceptable because the unborn weren’t viable. That fails on many levels. Lots of people outside the womb aren’t viable without care (e.g., infants) but we don’t let people chop them up. And many human beings who are aborted are viable. The viability argument is philosophical, not scientific. The science is clear: Abortion kills an innocent human being.

    Also, that argument implies that Ed is firmly against partial birth abortions (aka infanticide), which, if true, he has never bothered to mention.

    20. Nick’s claim that my policies would create more foster children also contradicted his claim that making abortion illegal wouldn’t reduce abortions.

    —–

    I’ve probably missed some things, but that will give you a flavor for their tactics and “reasoning.”

    Summary: Normally I follow Proverbs 26:2 and ignore things like Ed’s petty personal attack above, but I decided that he needed a little lesson here. Plus, it was fun to demonstrate how anti-science he really was. And if he is such an unrepentant liar and his biases keep him from understanding “2+2” concepts such as how a new human life begins at conception, why should I trust him on topics like evolution, DDT or Gardasil?

    Abortion is the greatest moral issue of our time. Over 3,000 innocent human beings will be destroyed today in the name of “choice.” It is a scientific fact that these are human beings. It is a shame that so many in the pro-science crowd deny that truth.

    Like

  46. Neil says:

    Neil, since you keep on claiming that it’s scientific fact that the unborn are human beings you can surely cite the scientific journal or other scientific publication that says that, yes?

    Just a slew of embryology textbooks, as if that had anything to do with it.

    http://abort73.com/index.php?/abortion/medical_testimony

    Oh, wait, it has everything to do with it. Hard to believe you science guys didn’t know that.

    And your attacks on Ed’s Christianity is really only a showing of how far you fall from grace on that score. Or did you somehow not learn that it is God alone who judges on that score? Should read the Bible more..after all..it’s Jesus who says that.

    You should read more carefully. I didn’t claim he wasn’t (only God knows the heart). I pointed out that people seem to be surprised by it. He’s keep it a good secret.

    If you think you can enlighten me on what the Bible says, come on my blog. I’ve read all of it many times but keep reading it daily to learn more. I’m very teachable if people have sincere truths to share.

    I do know that is says not to murder. Lots of pro-legalized abortion Christians skip that part.

    Like

  47. Nick Kelsier says:

    Neil, since you keep on claiming that it’s scientific fact that the unborn are human beings you can surely cite the scientific journal or other scientific publication that says that, yes?

    And your attacks on Ed’s Christianity is really only a showing of how far you fall from grace on that score. Or did you somehow not learn that it is God alone who judges on that score? Should read the Bible more..after all..it’s Jesus who says that.

    Like

  48. Neil says:

    Oh, Ed, links are such an inconvenient thing, aren’t they? Let’s see, you lie about the Stalin thing AGAIN and I nail you on it, so what do you do? Apologize? Of course not. You change the subject! Too funny.

    Yes, Ed is quite smitten with Rachel Carson. Ed claimed I was bigoted for disagreeing with Rachel Carson because she was unmarried. The only problems with that are a) I didn’t know she was unmarried, b) it wouldn’t have mattered even if I had known and c) using that “reasoning” you could never disagree with a woman or any minority without Ed calling you a bigot.

    “Why in the world do you continue to defend this falsehood?”

    I know why I ignore requests from crackpots.

    Why do you deny the scientific fact that the unborn are human beings?

    Side note: Ed claims to be Christian, but does a fabulous job of hiding it. I’ve seen other bloggers claim genuine surprise when they find out he isn’t an atheist. Hmmmmm.

    Like

  49. Ed Darrell says:

    And re. Gardasil, as I pointed out to you many times, I don’t take science tips from people who refuse to concede that scientific fact that a new human being is created at conception — http://abort73.com/index.php?/abortion/medical_testimony . As the saying goes, even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then. You might be right about a scientific topic, but who would bet on that?

    All you need to do to fix the error is read the studies, Neil. Your slander of the CDC and the NIH is contemptible, and it shows that you will stop at nothing to defend your falsehoods.

    The simple fact is that Gardasil has been implicated in zero deaths in more than 23 million applications. Your claim otherwise is a cowardly lie that, if believed by anyone, may cause a few cancer deaths. Your unholy campaign in favor of cancer is baffling, but indicative.

    Why in the world do you continue to defend this falsehood?

    Like

  50. Ed Darrell says:

    Oh, how could I forget this one?

    Here’s the post where Neil blundered after Rachel Carson and DDT, repeating every falsehood possible. Dear Reader, you will not see my response there, because Mr. Simpson was so enraged by the facts and their contradicting his claims that he deleted my posts just before the bulging veins on his forehead burst and he passed out.

    (Eyeingtenure gamely got a little, humorous rebuttal in — over the head of Simpson.)

    Well, yeah, I’m imagining the bulging veins. But Dear Reader, that’s much less fiction than Simpson’s post on DDT and Rachel Carson.

    You could check some of the rebuttal material Simpson deleted here: “I get e-mail from DDT cranks.”

    Like

  51. NYC Educator says:

    I’d just like to add that I’ve been banned in China too. A Chinese teacher with whom I work goes there each summer–two years ago she was able to read it, but last year it became unavailable.

    I admire your persistence in visiting these blogs and getting banned there too.

    Like

  52. Neil says:

    And re. Gardasil, as I pointed out to you many times, I don’t take science tips from people who refuse to concede that scientific fact that a new human being is created at conception — http://abort73.com/index.php?/abortion/medical_testimony . As the saying goes, even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then. You might be right about a scientific topic, but who would bet on that?

    Like

  53. Neil says:

    And here you are, posting freely here, while anyone who defends Darwin is banned at your site.

    Ha! I have LOTS of people defending evolution at my site. LOTS. Come by and read — you are welcome to do that. Coincidentally, 8 of the last 10 comments (other than mine) were from an evolutionist. Wrong again, Ed.

    The commenters at my place just aren’t ridiculous, fallacious cranks like you, so they get to post all they like.

    So I’m totalitarian for blocking your inanities? I assume that you consider every single newspaper in the U.S.A to be totalitarian as well (I’ve noticed that they don’t print every letter to the editor and that they have comment policies as well). Be sure to write them and tell them how much like Stalin they are.

    And like a dog returns to his vomit, you return to your Stalin fallacies. Only you returned to some other dog’s vomit and are trying to change the facts about your original Stalin fallacy.

    You didn’t claim I was like Stalin for editing comments (that would have been stupid enough). You claimed I was like Stalin because he critiqued Darwinism and I critique Darwinism. Here’s one of several of the silly things you said: “If one chooses not to read the information Stalin tried to destroy, doesn’t one run the risk of advancing Stalin’s agenda?”

    Facts are so inconvient for you, aren’t they? And you have such a tough time keeping them straight.

    Like

  54. Ed Darrell says:

    No, Neil, your posting a response on my blog isn’t totalitarianism. Your censoring my posts on your blog is totalitarianism, however.

    Get a dictionary, and read it sometime, will you?

    While you’re at it, look up “ad hominem” and take special note that such an argument is not, per se, a fallacy. Noting that your censoring is similar to Joseph Stalin’s isn’t ad hominem, it’s an analogy. I’m talking about your actions, not you. One would hope that when one’s bad behaviors are compared to Joe Stalin’s one might rethink the behaviors. Have you ever had a moment of reflection in your life?

    Here’s your definition — as God is our witness, you couldn’t have read it:

    Totalitarian: adjective 1. of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life.
    2. exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocratic.
    –noun 3. an adherent of totalitarianism.

    And here you are, posting freely here, while anyone who defends Darwin is banned at your site. Neil, see definition #1, will you?

    You’ve still got that falsehood up about 32 deaths from Gardasil. (Here’s the real, accurate story.) You still censor. I admit your position on evolution is fuzzy enough to get you elected as one of the anti-science members of the Texas State Board of Education, but that doesn’t get you out of the difficulty that you’re just wrong about evolution, what it says, what it means, how it’s taught.

    Did you notice how long your (thrice-repeated now) post is? Does your dictionary give a defintion of “raving?”

    I hope you can find Groothuis and Adams, Neil. You guys deserve each other — and maybe it’ll keep the three of you from fouling up our churches.

    Like

  55. Neil says:

    Ed, maybe you can get a dictionary sometime. Posting a response to your pointless ad hominem attacks does not qualify as “totalitarian” or even “raving.” I’m just giving them a little history of the real Ed that is behind your tantrums.

    Totalitarian: adjective 1. of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life.
    2. exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocratic.
    –noun 3. an adherent of totalitarianism.

    And you had about 99 chances to respond to any of my fact and reasoned based arguments the last time around. You sure take a long time to get warmed up. You missed your opportunity.

    Like

  56. Ed Darrell says:

    Thanks for example, Neil. You missed the point completely.

    You’ll notice your post is unedited, uncensored, and there in all it’s bullying, ignorant glory.

    Some day I’ll get around to answering it point by point — if it takes me a hundred years, it will be before you eschew your totalitarian ravings.

    And, by the way, you throw the word “liar” around way too much, and generally in the wrong places. You’ve never corrected that lie you told about 32 women dying from Gardasil.

    Will you now?

    Like

  57. Neil says:

    This recap really comes in handy. It is from a previous post of Ed’s but it is more of the same from Ed. Some people never learn. Too bad for him he can’t delete this without looking like an even bigger hypocrite than he already is. I don’t even read Ed’s posts; I just copy and paste this one-size-fits-all rebuttal to a pro-abortion / anti-science “Christian.”

    I typically make it a practice to ignore it when Ed links to my site. But it has been a while since he (the first person banned from commenting at my site) had linked. I discovered that Ed had been lying about me multiple times and continued to do so in this thread.

    1. I don’t throw the word “liar” around lightly. People can be mistaken, and that isn’t lying. But when one is corrected, when one clearly knows better and when one deliberately repeats untruths then we have a name for that person: Liar.

    The pattern repeats: Ed uses a ridiculous logical fallacy, Neil calls him on it, Ed lies and said Neil did it, Ed fails to apologize, Ed uses the fallacy again. I addressed Ed’s use of a guilt by association fallacy regarding Joseph Stalin multiple times on my blog. I also confronted him about it on other blogs. And he used it reflexively on his blog. So the origin couldn’t be more clear. Just read the comments section of this post and search for Stalin. And as a dog returns to his vomit, so Ed returns to his embarrassing use of a logical fallacy.

    But then I came back to this site and found that he had accused me of bringing it up!

    I objected to Simpson’s off-the-wall claim trying to link Darwin to Stalin in an exchange some time ago.

    It’s a reference to last year’s discussions with Simpson, in which he inaccurately tried to link Stalin to Darwin’s sins.

    I couldn’t care less what Ed thinks of me, but I was surprised to see him lying to thoroughly and repeatedly. I figured a public service announcement was in order.

    Ed also breaks his own rule a lot:

    “Darrell’s Corollary of Godwin’s Law is that if posters in an internet discussion know to avoid the mention of Hitler to avoid their opponents’ invoking Godwin’s law, they’ll compare the actions to Stalin instead.” — http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/09/12/castro-joins-the-911-conspiracy-cluster/

    2. You see, the most important and amusing part of the thread is that the Mr. Science People deliberately and repeatedly ignore the scientific fact that a new human life begins at conception. They aren’t using intellectual honesty to follow the truth where it leads. They come to science with their biases and twist the data to conform to them. Propping up their pro-abortion views puts them at odds with scientific facts but they work hard to rationalize them away. They use (bad) philosophical arguments and not scientific ones.

    If he was really pro-science he’d be pro-life. Embryology textbooks are clear about when life begins, but he chooses to rationalize that away to support the legalized crushing and dismemberment of 3,000+ human beings per day. It is so ironic that he cranks out posts about “dangerous, anti-science bigoted ignorance” when his views on abortion fit that title perfectly.

    Nothing is more dangerous to the unborn than abortion. If you get out of the womb alive you are very lucky. Abortion constitutes 99% of all murders.

    3. Nick repeatedly tried the Pro-lifers don’t care about kids after they are born canard. I demonstrated multiple times that one can protest immoral acts without taking ownership of them. If the government decided to jail or kill all homeless people, Nick could protest that without having to let them all live with him.

    I also pointed out how even though pro-lifers don’t have to adopt all the kids to protest the evils of abortion, we do all sorts of things to help with our own time and money.

    4. Ed and Nick have lived in Liberal Land too long. The concept of personal responsibility is foreign to them. They continually argue that I am “forcing” these women to have babies. But they have already created new life. I’m just interested in protecting that new life. But they reflexively latch on to the prejudice that to be pro-life is to want to control women. Tell that to all the female pro-lifers.

    5. They continually abandon scientific arguments and use faulty “if legal, then moral” reasoning. Yes, abortions are legal. But while slavery used to be legal, it was always immoral.

    6. They ignore the scientific fact that these aren’t hypothetical human beings or potential human beings. They already exist on planet earth. They are at the proper stage of development for their age.

    7. They both exercise anti-religious bigotry and prejudices to dismiss my views. I pointed out that while I am a Christian, I save biblical arguments for those who claim to be Christians. The pro-life case is so powerful that you don’t even need the Bible to demonstrate it. And of course, there is nothing illogical about using my religious views to inform my political views. No one seems to protest when I use my religious views to oppose stealing, perjury and murder. Oh, and there is also that First Amendment thingy.

    They missed the irony, of course, that they also used religious arguments to justify their positions. Nick used a bad exegesis of Exodus to rationalize abortion. Not only did he cherry-pick a mistranslation to make his point, but he ignored the legions of pro-life verses, starting with “don’t murder.” But my main point is by his own reasoning Nick is forcing his pro-abortion religious views on innocent unborn children. What hypocrisy!

    In addition, he just repeated his claim that Exodus supports abortion but never defended it with facts. He didn’t even attempt to refute the scholarship in the link that I provided, which went back to the original language and demonstrated how some poor translations led to pro-abortionists misusing the passage.

    8. And of course they trotted out the “anti-women” ad hominem attack. They had no response to my questions about why they support gender selection abortions, virtually all of which destroy innocent female human beings. They ignore the reality of post abortion trauma and the chauvinism of abortion, which puts the burden on the woman to use it as a form of birth control. I also pointed out how the pro-life position is actually pro-women. Many women are pushed into abortions by men who won’t take responsibility for their actions.

    I reject the reasoning that says women must have the ability to kill their unborn children to prove their worth and to fit into society, the workplace and politics.

    9. Nick tried to act like I was hypocritical for not wanting to finance the care of unwanted children, but he didn’t realize that he was pointing fingers back at himself. In his “kindness” he unwittingly concedes that he would prefer that unborn human beings be destroyed rather than inconvenience him.

    10. Ed objected to a link I posted with images of abortion. But if abortion is a moral good and doesn’t kill an innocent human being then what could be wrong with showing images of it? And why is Ed so concerned about the innocence of these alleged children who read his blog? He fully supported the “rights” of their mothers to have them crushed and dismembered before they were born, and now he wants to profess his concern that viewing images of this allegedly moral procedure will harm them?

    11. They tried the angle multiple times that I don’t use evidence, but I’m the one who used evidence throughout: Evidence that Ed is a unrepentant liar, evidence that the book of Exodus does not support abortion and evidence that a new human life is formed at conception. They were the ones with the fact-free fallacy-fest.

    12. Ed claimed that I want to poison Africa. Sure, Ed. I pointed out that I’ve been on mission trips there three times, have donated tens of thousands of dollars to various causes there and have had a World Vision Sponsor child there for ten years. I don’t say that out of pride, just to point out how ridiculous it is for him to say I want to poison Africa. I’m still waiting to hear just how much Ed has contributed to Africa in terms of his own time and money.

    13. Ed added these new lies:

    The point is that you advocate creationism to be taught to innocent children in schools.

    Nick parroted Ed’s lie that I push for creationism to be taught in public schools and he made all sorts of vicious accusations in doing so. I challenged them to find any evidence of that in the nearly 1,000 posts I’ve done on my blog. They found none. I am on record for saying that I don’t want non-Christians or theologically Liberal Christians (but I repeat myself?) to teach the Bible in public schools. They would probably teach that all religions lead to God, Jesus is not God, there is no Hell, the Bible can’t be relied upon, God is pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage, etc.

    Was Nick lying? I don’t think so. I think he was using bad discernment in trusting Ed without evidence and was prideful in failing to apologize for his outburst.

    14. Nick claimed that since it would be ineffective to make abortion illegal because it wouldn’t eliminate all abortions. That reasoning would mean we’d get rid of all laws, because despite the risks people still steal, rape, murder, etc. So his argument is faulty because it proves too much.

    15. Ed claimed I was bigoted for disagreeing with Rachel Carson because she was unmarried. The only problems with that are a) I didn’t know she was unmarried, b) it wouldn’t have mattered even if I had known and c) using that “reasoning” you could never disagree with a woman or any minority without Ed calling you a bigot.

    16. Ed tried the miscarriage canard by implying that abortion must not be wrong if miscarriages happen so frequently. It is hard to believe I have to explain this, but killing an infant by chopping him up is a “little” different than if the infant succumbed to SIDS. In the same way, the unborn are scientifically proven to be human beings. Death via abortion is wildly different than a miscarriage.

    17. Nick tried the “better dead than poor” line. I wonder why it took him so long. It is as fallacious as ever. The “your pro-life policies will result in more poor” line ignores the fact that Nick’s pro-abortion policies will result in more dead.

    So according to Nick, it would be good to kill poor children.

    18. Ed tried the “keep government out of bedrooms” fallacy, which ignores that the government shouldn’t care where murders are committed. You can’t kill a toddler in your bedroom. And of course, if he really held that view he’d oppose Planned Parenthood funding and involvement in schools, as well as any government involvement with Gardasil.

    19. Ed repeatedly used the viability argument, concluding that abortion was acceptable because the unborn weren’t viable. That fails on many levels. Lots of people outside the womb aren’t viable without care (e.g., infants) but we don’t let people chop them up. And many human beings who are aborted are viable. The viability argument is philosophical, not scientific. The science is clear: Abortion kills an innocent human being.

    Also, that argument implies that Ed is firmly against partial birth abortions (aka infanticide), which, if true, he has never bothered to mention.

    20. Nick’s claim that my policies would create more foster children also contradicted his claim that making abortion illegal wouldn’t reduce abortions.

    —–

    I’ve probably missed some things, but that will give you a flavor for their tactics and “reasoning.”

    Summary: Normally I follow Proverbs 26:2 and ignore things like Ed’s petty personal attack above, but I decided that he needed a little lesson here. Plus, it was fun to demonstrate how anti-science he really was. And if he is such an unrepentant liar and his biases keep him from understanding “2+2” concepts such as how a new human life begins at conception, why should I trust him on topics like evolution, DDT or Gardasil?

    Abortion is the greatest moral issue of our time. Over 3,000 innocent human beings will be destroyed today in the name of “choice.” It is a scientific fact that these are human beings. It is a shame that so many in the pro-science crowd deny that truth.

    Like

  58. Ed Darrell says:

    Barbara, this also sullies my reputation. To this point I’ve been banned only by the best: China, Turkey, Iran, and a few idiot school districts.

    You gotta wonder why these guys want to hang with China, Turkey and Iran.

    Like

  59. barbara says:

    Banning posts! Perhaps these folks should move to Iran — they would fit some government post nicely — like Director of Iranian communications shouting “shut the internet down.”_ Barbara

    Like

  60. Ed Darrell says:

    Any debate at Groothuis’s blog tends to get derailed when he cuts out the comments of any dissenters from his views. If Groothuis concedes that we have an old Earth, it’s the only concession he makes, and only grudgingly. His seminary is famous for literal interpreting of scripture.

    My complaint on the totalitarian score is there absolute intolerance of dissent, not related to the creationism-to-science continuum.

    Like

  61. Bryan says:

    Ed, from my brief reading of Dr. Gruithuis’ blog, I see his is an IDer and supportive of, impliclity if not explicitly, an old Earth. If I’m correct, he’s not a biblical literalist (unless he wishes to invoke the day-is-a-thousand years clause). Personally, I would save the Christo-totalitarian tag for the YECers a/k/a the biblical literalists. I’m not sure how I’d tag the IDers Christo-wise.

    Engaging these guys is tricky and I give you credit for trying. In the long run, I think it’s more entertaining to pit the IDers against the YECers and watch the fireworks. I say let YECers have at them first. A YECer calls it as he’s sees it (or reads it). An IDer is “on the one hand…on the other hand.”

    I didn’t spend much time on Dr. Gruithuis’ blog, but I didn’t see any debate between Creationists and IDers, only IDers and Modern Synthesizers. I wonder why? You’d think a Ph.D. at a seminary who isn’t a biblical literalist would draw the attention (and wrath or at least the pity) of the YECers.

    Like

  62. Ed Darrell says:

    Busy we all know. The “leave a reply” box is here any time you have a moment.

    Like

  63. Paul Adams says:

    Of course the other possibility is that I’ve been extremely busy with things other than my blog and simply have not had time to respond. O’ to grace how great a debtor!!

    Like

Play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,215 other followers

%d bloggers like this: