Skip to main content

quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
A R,
There is a controversy over crosses along the highway representing killed law officers in Utah.

An atheist org is suing saying it violates church and state. The group who put up the crosses call them secular and just represent a death.

Now, of course, the cross is a symbol of Christianity but it is also used to mark graves of people of different faiths or no faith.

So is the beef justified or would they still object if they also put up the Star of David, A Crescent Moon, a Buddha figure, etc....?


Thanks for your patience (and your question) b50m. I look forward to answering them though I may not be able to answer the questions every day. I check in as often as I can given real-life constraints.

I would like to see a link to the story you're referring to in order to know more specifics.

Bottom line though, religious symbols (Cross, Star of David, Crescent Moon, Dharma Wheel, etc.) on taxpayer-owned land is a violation of SOCAS. I don't know if that applies in this instance. I would suggest that a tombstone represents a death much better than a cross and without the religious connotations. But without reading more of the particulars from each side of the story it hard comment properly.
A ruling came down.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010...es-unconstitutional/

Appeals court says Utah's memorial highway crosses are unconstitutional
Published August 18, 2010
| Associated Press

SALT LAKE CITY –  The 14 crosses erected along Utah roads to commemorate fallen state Highway Patrol troopers convey a state preference for Christianity and are a violation of the U.S. Constitution, a federal appeals court said Wednesday.

The ruling reverses a 2007 decision by a federal district judge that said the crosses communicate a secular message about deaths and were not a public endorsement of religion. It's the latest in a recent rash of mixed-bag rulings on the public use of crosses.

A three-judge panel from Denver's 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in its 38-page ruling that a "reasonable observer" would conclude that the state and the Utah Highway Patrol were endorsing Christianity with the cross memorials.

"This may lead the reasonable observer to fear that Christians are likely to receive preferential treatment from the UHP," the justices wrote.

The 12-foot high white crosses with 6-foot horizontal crossbars are affixed with the patrol's beehive logo and a biography of the deceased trooper.

First erected in 1998, monuments were paid for with private funds and erected only with the permission of the troopers' families. Nearly all of the 14 crosses are on public land.
For the record, I have nobody on "ignore". I don't believe in using a software crutch to do for me what I can and should do mentally. If I'm repeatedly not answering your questions, you may safely infer that your posts are not worthwhile, sorry. To garner a response, consider using "the golden rule" when formulating honest questions in good faith. If you don't know what that looks like, read the questions and people that are getting answered.

If you're confused about what this thread is all about, please go back to the originating post to find out. I'll give the best and most honest answers that comes to mind. You'll also notice that I don't ask questions in response. This thread is a one-way street as far as I'm involved.
quote:
Originally posted by Sofa King:
quote:
Originally posted by GSman:
quote:
Originally posted by GSman:
quote:
Originally posted by GSman:
Does random mutation involve free will on the part of coded clusters or are there certain ‘favorite’ genes that do not allow us to fly?


No one wants to tackle my question? Ummm?



I’m shocked to say the least. I thought ‘ask the atheist’ would be appropriate to find the answer.


This question has nothing to do with atheism but everything to do with science so I'll take a stab.

This is an incoherent question. However, if I squint my eyes to force it to make some sense, it becomes a simple logical fallacy asked out of ignorance.

The question of "free will" is a philosophical one, not a scientific one. I do not know if free will exists or not. I could argue for and against it with equal conviction.

"Favorite genes"? I don't know what that means. All genes, as far as we know, are equal in the eyes of he Creator. All are subject to random mutation from a stray nugget of uranium, gamma rays, environmental (chemical) factors and so on . Those mutations present themselves in three different ways: Those that are beneficial, those that are harmful (and the vast majority or mutation are harmful) and those that have a neutral effect.

The bad mutations do not propagate through a species since the individuals generally do not reach maturity or are otherwise unable to reproduce.

The neutral (junk) mutations have no effect so we end up with long strands of genetic code that seemingly serve no purpose.

Then there is the rare mutation that has a positive benefit (or at least no negative benefit) such as the ability to metabolize milk from another species - a singular positive survival trait that spontaneously cropped up about 10,000 years ago. Those that do not have this random mutation are called "lactose intolerant." Those mutations are passed on to the next generation and so on.

Eventually, those kinds of infinitesimally small, random beneficial mutations and environmental conditions eventually allowed us highly evolved apes to develop machinery that spectacularly allowed us to overcome the forces of lift, thrust, weight, and drag and eventually allowed us to conquer the moon.

True story.


Sofa’ thanks for making a stab.
Your first evaluation of my question is certainly what I expected.

You claim the question was incoherent. It may be incoherent to you but it is a question based on science, I understand the question very well.

You said it was ask out of ignorance. This is a true statement .I would guess the reason you made this true statement was not due to your knowledge based on the remaining content of your post.

I’ll give jank credit for saying ‘ask a biologist’ I just assumed the forum was full of them from the statements claiming , it would seem, first hand knowledge on any subject.

Yes sofa ‘The most important product of knowledge is ignorance.’ [David Gross, professor of physics]

Just as I suspected , and consistent, your answers are based ON AUTHORITY [of which you cannot recall] not on any first hand knowledge so don’t pretend to talk down to me buddy to look good in the eyes of the cackling murder of crows that have me on ignore.

The ones that have me on ignore have run their course any way as far as being credible advocates in any discipline. Just a mixture of jabberwocky.

Eric Landers , professor of evolutionary biology uses the term ‘free to’ too many times when discussing the human genome and the 21 thousand ‘favorite genes’ [out of millions] that seem to have remained consistent for millions of years.

Why do we not fly?

You say “all genes are equal in the eyes of the Creator” apparently this is not the case.
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
quote:
Eric Landers

Since you already have an expert to look up, why ask the question in a forum?

I don't have you on 'ignore', I can use my own senses to know when you post 'crap' and when you don't.

You own posts give validity to this being crap. You already knew the answer.


No b50 I do not know the answer and Eric Landers did not address the question. I just thought a question posed without a direct answer would be nice for discussion. I had no other intent.

True to form you are being protective of some underlying agenda that has nothing to do with the pursuit of knowledge.

More than likely it’s the inability to be male. Penis envy if you may. For millions of years females have managed without one. If you are insecure say so. Whatever your answer might be ; the case will more than likely turn out: you are the only one concerned about it.
quote:
Originally posted by A. Robustus:
For the record, I have nobody on "ignore". I don't believe in using a software crutch to do for me what I can and should do mentally. If I'm repeatedly not answering your questions, you may safely infer that your posts are not worthwhile, sorry. To garner a response, consider using "the golden rule" when formulating honest questions in good faith. If you don't know what that looks like, read the questions and people that are getting answered.

If you're confused about what this thread is all about, please go back to the originating post to find out. I'll give the best and most honest answers that comes to mind. You'll also notice that I don't ask questions in response. This thread is a one-way street as far as I'm involved.


I’m not trying to be ugly to you robustus. My questions are legitimate. I realize your commission based on prejudice has one of two reasons. I will not suggest the third.

1. Your prejudice has no conscience.

2. As I often state the answers to my questions lie somewhere beyond the point you are capable.

By all means don’t feel obligated to remain here unarmed. I don’t see a single credible post on this thread.

Make me a liar.

PS. Don’t include these squawking female crows in the bibliography.

The squawking males are of no consequence due to the fact they are always pontificating under the influence of alcohol or drugs. [potheads]
I’ll pose this easy question to Robustus.

Is there any evidence that man will evolve into some disease free animal?

Maybe evolution is truly random and adaptation is coincidental.

Maybe traits are determined by free will in the case of some sequence bits while other important sequences are not determined by free will.

I have seen this video bj. why did the bird deserve wings and not humans. why do only 5 percent of genes seem important to evolution. example: marsupial to mammals 90 millian years.

Only one percent code protein.

Why all this evolutionary conservation. one might be led to believe we had a purpose. <scoff>



;
In your own words , what is the mechanism of evolution billy j?

And you will not be forgiven Adot. answer all or any part of the question.

Billy don't try and influence him to not answer.

I can assure you billy j; I am more knowledgeable ABOUT the Genome Project than yourself.

Be careful or I will address you directly with some questions. We will see your language on the subject.
Last edited by GSman
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
Why only complain now?

"First erected in 1998"

Seems it didn't bother anyone for 12 years.


Twelve years seems like a reasonable time, since getting atheists organized is most often compared to herding cats Smiler But just because no one may have previously filed a suit doesn't mean no one was bothered.
GSman,
- Your disdainful demeanor toward the members here is not encouraging of someone who wishes constructive or even civilized conversation. I don't choose to encourage or dwell on such a base level. Try your games with someone else.
- Sofa King has already accurately addressed that your questions have nothing to do with atheism or atheists.
- Being an expert on the subject of evolution and genetics, you should already understand how the questions that you've been posing are, at best, silly.
Of course it has nothing to do with atheism Adot.
I was sincerely trying to evoke scientific discussion.
I assumed ask the atheist was indication you were educated in all disciplines especially biology. Am I wrong.

Don’t talk down to me big boy. I know more than you.

Lets just address the questions I have asked without your becoming defensive due to being inadequate in dealing with the hazards of being an atheist.

I don’t mind your being an atheist. I’m just trying to learn. And I promise I wont raise a hand to save you or get you to attend the religious assemblage as I.

Lighten up. Bj has obviously told you us Suthun folk are unsavory.

Your commission here may prove to be ill advised.

I am you friend Adot; not your enemy cool it.
quote:
Originally posted by A. Robustus:
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
Why only complain now?

"First erected in 1998"

Seems it didn't bother anyone for 12 years.


Twelve years seems like a reasonable time, since getting atheists organized is most often compared to herding cats Smiler But just because no one may have previously filed a suit doesn't mean no one was bothered.


True, Good point. Herding cats? Wow, I don't think God himself could do that one! Smiler

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×