Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Mike Adams :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Chancellor's Dog Ate My Homework
by Mike Adams
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


I’m about to hop in my car to drive to Greensboro, North Carolina, to give a speech at UNCG. Hopefully, some of my readers can make it out to UNCG by 7:30 p.m. My speech will be in the Azalea Room in the Elliott University Center. I think that’s the same place a porn star gave a speech on safe sodomy back in 2004. I plan to give my speech on safe Russian roulette. I’m only kidding.

But before I leave for my trip to UNC-Gomorrah, I want to share my latest bit of correspondence with the administration here at UNC-Webmasters (hereafter, UNCW). It should provide some insight into this interesting question: Which is the biggest problem in our universities today, a) Administrative Intolerance, or b) Administrative Incompetence?

Chancellor (DePaolo):

I am deeply disappointed in the university's response (concerning my request for the posting of an announcement of Frank Turek’s speech on “Faith and Atheism” at UNCW). Dana did, in fact, indicate that a death in (the editor’s) family resulted in the failure to post the request I submitted on March 18th. That does not explain, however, the university's failure to recognize the request I submitted on March 12th. Nor does it explain the numerous postings between the dates of March 12th and March 24th.

If there are other factors - including but not necessarily limited to family deaths - I would like to know what those other factors were. I would also like to know how family deaths affect some postings but not others.

Mike Adams

(The Chancellor had someone else respond for her).

Chancellor DePaolo:

I received a letter from Dana this morning indicating that the editor’s office did not receive my request for posting, which was submitted on March 12th. I have re-checked my records. That message was, in fact, successfully sent at exactly 11:37 a.m. Eastern Standard Time. I think it is time to move on to another issue.

In a previous correspondence you referenced the Faculty Senate President’s decision to decline to post information about the Turek lecture on the Faculty Senate mailing list. You were correct to mention that I understood his rationale for declining to post that information; namely, that it was not “faculty senate business.” However, since that correspondence I have discovered that the following was circulated on the Faculty Senate mailing list: “Resolved, the UNCW faculty declares its support for a three-year academic celebration of the bicentennial of the birth of one of history’s greatest scientists, Charles Darwin, and the sesquicentennial of the publication of his monumental, paradigm-changing book, The Origin of Species.”

It would appear to me that the university has opened up a public forum on the issue of evolution with a “celebration” of Darwin. I plan to invite Dr. Frank Turek back to UNC-Wilmington next semester in order to offer a critique of Darwin. I will again ask the Faculty Senate leadership to circulate an announcement of the details of his lecture.

Given that we are “celebrating” Darwin, should we not be “celebrating” a diversity of perspectives on the magnitude of Darwin’s contributions. In other words, can we agree that we have opened up a public forum and that a Turek lecture can be reasonably viewed as a part of “faculty senate business”?

(Before the chancellor could respond, her assistant accidentally sent Dr. Adams an email that was intended for Dr. DePaolo).

Chancellor DePaolo:

I think the message below – sent to me by your special assistant - was actually intended for you: “It seems to me that his issue is with the faculty senate...not you...just as his issue with @uncw is with Caroline, Dana or me...not you.”

Mike Adams

My trip to UNCG comes at a really good time. It will give the university at day or so to learn how to use the email system. They can find lost emails and even learn how to send emails to one another. Then, when I get back, maybe we can talk about the numerous posting requests sent to the Women’s Resource Center on behalf of Life Line Pregnancy Center over a period of six years. I’m sure that most of those requests were innocently lost or sent to people attending funerals.

In the meantime, log on to Frank Turek’s blog (www.CrossExamined.org) to see what he thought about his trip to UNC-Web Experts (hereafter, UNCW). I’ll be back with another installment faster than you can say “safe sodomy.”

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to receive Mike Adams' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Moose
I am an adult, I'm 60 years old. I would appreciate it if you would not speak for me. I happen to agree with Mike and for your information our so called higher education is not working so well. The reason is the indoctrination versus teaching that is going on.

Quick Point
I attended a game and stayed to the end, thereby knowing the result. The next day at work I spoke of the winning and losing team and was immediately corrected by a co-worker. Unvaunted, I grabbed the morning paper to prove who won and lost only to be told not did ihave it wrong, so too, did the paper. Unfortunately, the guy was not joking.
There are those, in the face of over-whelming evidence, will stand by their convictions however, wrong they may be.
To those, who still believe in Darwin's theories, and that the world is flat, and you can negotiate with terrorists I say, "Let the close-minded be." Educate those who hunger for the Truth.

Swamp, we don't need a hs mc

Swampfox writes: Friday, March, 28, 2008 1:31 PM
"We" is back.
That's Luis folks.
___________________________________

Swamp, you are a homosexual and homosexuals are not eligible for the job of master of ceremonies who announces when we are back. When we need one, we will get a normal person. Why would we ask to be master of ceremonies a confused homosexual who claims to be virgin and celibate but defends anal 'sex' and other homosexual perversions?

As to returning to Townhall, not for long: We are busy 'visiting' school administrators reminding them that homosexuality is sterile, frustrating, unhealthy, disease spreading, provides a shorter life expectancy than normal people's, and that supporting that piece of stupidity, The Day of Silence, will not be tolerated by the tax payers. This is being done with great results, six for us clear thinking people, zero for the homosexuals. Maybe it is because Marshall Kirk, DR Scott Hitt, MD as in MEDICAL DOCTOR, died of complications of the colon and other nice things like that, are all dropping like flies.

AF Major
I can't find anything that says scientists believe Archeopteryx to be the descendent of Proarcheopteryx and Caudipteryx.

On short notice, I came up with this...
Although not found together, two famous alleged feathered dinosaurs are ‘dated’ younger than their supposed descendant, Archaeopteryx, and more likely to be flightless birds (Protarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx).

Archaeopteryx was itself 100% bird, not a transitional animal.

(A. Feduccia, Evidence from Claw Geometry Indicating Arboreal Habits of Archaeopteryx, Science 259(5096):790–793, 5 February 1993.)

(P. Christiansen and N. Bonde, Axial and Appendicular Pneumaticity in Archaeopteryx, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B. 267:2501–2505, 2000.)

AFM

I can cite converse examples
What about examples of organisms that are not found in fossil layers with their contemporaries?

Consider the Ginkgo tree, which supposedly thrived 240 million years ago, prior to the dinosaurs. (www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/fish/other.html) Yet, they are not found in layers with dinosaurs or humans, even though they exist today.

Coelacanth fossils are found in marine deposits below dinosaurs and in other marine layers that date about the same age as dinosaurs. It was once thought the coelacanth became extinct about 70 million years ago because their fossils are not found in any deposits higher than this. However, in 1938 living populations were found in the Indian Ocean. (L. Dicks, The creatures time forgot, New Scientist, 164(2209): 36–39, October 23, 1999.)

Because animals and plants aren’t buried together, it is no indication that they didn’t live together.

I know this doesn't quite answer your question (which was a good one), but still something to ponder.

AFM

AF Major
I'll grant you the point about humans and dinosaurs, but let's look at the broader point. Are there any fossils that have been found together that the theory of evolution say should be millions of years apart? Especially ones that evolution says were descended from one another. That would force a profound rethinking of biology.

Fossils
Since the subject of transitional fossils keeps coming up I would like to point people to this clip of a talk by Ken Miller.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9a-lFn4hqY

Human and dinosaur fossils
I've been thinking, Mike, your criterion seems a pretty safe bet for you. Let's assume for argument's sake that dinosaurs and humans were cotemporaneous. Given this assumption, it is still very improbable that their fossils would be found together. After all, would you live where the dinosaurs are? How many times have crocodile fossils been found in the same strata as human fossils, for example?

Just sayin' is all.

AFM

P.S. The book of Job gives a great description of a dinosaur in Chapt. 40 starting with Verse 15. Those Old Testament folks knew to stay away, I can tell you!

Cheers

MikeH
Great response to my question. Thanks.

The other folks I asked this hemmed and hawed because they knew there was no way they were going to give up their belief. Either that, or they thought it was a trick question and I was ready to pounce with an enthusiastic "Aha, I got you now" followed by an in-your-face victory dance.

Unfortunately, I have no examples co-buried of hominid and dinosaur fossils for you, although I surely wish I did (I love nothing more than a victory dance).

You have an open mind. Kudos.

If I had to answer the reciprocal question for you it might be the discovery of a bottlenose water buffalo or some such transitional fossil. I guess we could both argue that the holes in the fossil record hurt our arguments.

As for the thermodynamics question, this was debated, as it happens, on the last Adams column starting with Birdman II on Monday, March, 24, 2008 10:27 PM. Other folks, such as Norman, weighed in on it too with opinions going both ways. It was quite a rational, intelligent discussion (a bit surprising given the subject matter).

AFM

AF Major
"To put it simply, what piece of evidence or data, if produced, would cause you to forego your position that the general theory of evolution is correct?"

Hominid fossils found in the same layer of strata as dinosaur fossils.

"For me, it was the laws of thermodynamics that caused me to doubt evolutionism."

How so?

"I believe in the soundness of the scientific method and that truth will eventually win out over dogma."

I couldn't agree more.



Hey Swamp,
My cable's been out as a result of flooding in my basement. I haven't been able to watch the History Channel, Military Channel or Discovery Channel for over a week! I'm Jonesin' bad.

I've been playing more Xbox than normal though, which has been kinda fun. Bought the kids a Wii last week, that's been a real hoot.

AFM

MikeH--part two
For me, it was the laws of thermodynamics that caused me to doubt evolutionism. Scientific law trumps scientific hypothesis every time. Over time I have become ever more convinced that the science behind evolutionism is inherently flawed in that the scientific method has been ignored and data altered to fit the premise. In other words, evolution is not just bad science, it's not really science at all. I reiterate, I'm only talking about the general theory, not observable natural selection leading to small variations within a species or genus.

I think that within the next 50 years or so that the "theory" of evolution will go the way of belief in a flat earth. I believe in the soundness of the scientific method and that truth will eventually win out over dogma.

Respectfully,

AFM

MikeH--part one
I respectfully disagree with your last post.

"No. This is simply incredulity. Theories do not stand or fall on whether you or anyone else believe them."

You are correct. Theories fall when there is little or no empirical data to back them up. Such is the case with evolution.

"Evolution is falsifiable...no one has been able to show that evolution is wrong."

I think you may have mis-defined falsifiable. It means that there may exist some overlooked fact, data or piece of evidence that, if uncovered, would prove that the theory was incorrect. It does not mean that so far "no one has proved it wrong."

I have used this statement in the negative as one very good argument to back up my claim that evolutionism is a belief system as opposed to science (I'm not talking natural selection here, but rather the general "theory" of evolution: i.e. molecules to man). Evolution is clearly not falsifiable to most people.

To put it simply, what piece of evidence or data, if produced, would cause you to forego your position that the general theory of evolution is correct? I have posed this question to several evolutionists and have never received a coherent answer. I am truly interested in your answer, if you have one.

If you cannot think of anything, I would challenge you to reconsider if evolution truly is a scientific endeavor.


"We" is back.
That's Luis folks.

Mike, the fossil record is not very good
MikeH writes: Friday, March, 28, 2008 10:55 AM
Luis
The fossil record is one of the best pieces of evidence for evolution. Also, I think that you should learn what "theory" means in scientific terms
___________________________________

You do not understand: Yes, the fossil record is one of the best pieces of evidence for evolution, BUT WHILE IT IS THE BEST OR ONE OF THE BEST PIECES, IT IS NOT VERY GOOD AND GOES A LONG WAY TO SHOWING THE MECHANICAL FLAWS IN DARWIN'S THEORY.

As to the meaning of the word theory, we are very well informed--it is the Darwinists who insist that the theory of evolution somehow is factual.

you know
The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. At this point, it is still full of holes. These gaps are filled with conjecture. To take evolution as fact would require an act of faith as great as believing in a creator. Pope John Paul II called evolution an interesting theory that deserves to be explored. Like him, I find it does not conflict with my belief that God created the universe. Evolution in its fullest, only explains the mechanic of how things developed. It doesn’t even begin to approach how things got started in the first place. Specifically, as in all processes, it has a fixed starting point. The over-powering question is “what came before that?” And if we were to theorize an answer, we would still be asking what came before that then.

I would not want children not to be taught evolution nor would I want evolution to be taught as fact or having all the answers. I want children to be given information and taught how to consider and evaluate for themselves. Unfortunately, that rarely happens from either side.

AF Major
"Has it occurred to you that the reason we reject evolutionism is precisely because we have studied it and found the hypothesis wanting?"

No. This is simply incredulity. Theories do not stand or fall on whether you or anyone else believe them. Like any scientific theory, evolution is falsifiable, but to this day no one has been able to show that evolution is wrong. All the while, evidence for it has been continuously growing.

I just recalled that...
"Watership Down" was written by another Adams.

Kind of ironic.

MikeR
Cool, MikeR. I had forgotten that about rabbits. Guess I need to engage "Watership Down" again.

AFM

I know this thread is old but...
I'll add my two cents anyway.

It drives me a little crazy when evolutionists claim that the folks that reject evolution as the means by which life arose and the planet was populated assume it's because they don't know enough about evolution.

Has it occurred to you that the reason we reject evolutionism is precisely because we have studied it and found the hypothesis wanting?

Please consider that.

AFM

MikeR
Thank you for that.


Luis
The fossil record is one of the best pieces of evidence for evolution. Also, I think that you should learn what "theory" means in scientific terms.

energyguy
By the way, the males do aid in the protection of the community. In many species, some of the larger males stand on their hind legs and keep watch for predators. When one is spotted, the signal the other rabbits by stamping a foot. This alarm is then taken up by the other rabbits and spread through the community giving the rabbits time to take cover in their holes.


energyguy
You claimed earlier that you were serious in your questions. If that is the truth, then you should take time to study the modern theory of evolution. You will find answers to all of the questions you’ve asked so far and it should be thought provoking enough to give you a much deeper line of questioning. As to the nature of mutation, it does not necessarily preclude reproduction nor does it rely on connecting with an exact duplicate. At the genetic level, mutations occur constantly in all of us. A cell, when replicating DNA, has the ability to examine the strand for errors (mutations) and make some minor corrections through splicing and editing. Cellular mutations are taking place in your body at this very moment. Most are insignificant and make no noticeable difference. I think it is a misunderstanding of the term mutation that has you confused. Cellular mutation is what eventually produced different colored people yet people of any color can interbreed.

Yes, these mutations had to happen literally billions and billions of times to actually make a difference.

How these mutations occurred is an even more interesting debate. A very interesting theory is based on radiation. There actually is very low level of radiation leaking from the crust of the planet. It was dug up long before the period of animal existence. This would have happened during the period of continental shifting. There are other theories as well. Again, if you are truly serious in you questions, then you should study the latesest publications on the subject.

As for the survival of rabbits, what you see is a basic balance between predator and prey. Rabbits as a whole survive through a series of camouflage, speed, and a high rate of reproductions. The predators simply cannot get them all; or under normal circumstance, cut too deeply into the rabbit birth/death ratio.



Will, you are hilarious

... I am not an "anything goes" person. I do not advocate for bestiality or sex with minors or sex with unwilling participants. Individual societies should (& do) regulate these standards. In the long thrust of history (tens of thousands of years for recorded human history), prohibitions against homosexuality are fairly recent (the past 1800-2000 years) and do not apply any longer throughout many parts of the civilized modern world.
___________________________________________

This is absolutely hilarious: "tens of thousands of years for [sic] recorded human history." That is how desperate homosexuals are to justify their perversions. Why don't they just say tens of millions of years of recorded human history and be done with it? Or even, tens of billions of years of recorded human history?

Will/will, find out how long human history has been recorded and then come back and attempt to justify ripping up another man's anus again.

As to you not being an anything goes guy/girl/it, what is there more "anything" than anal 'sex'? Meaning what is there more perverted than that?

Mike, maybe you aren't homosexual


Remember me? I’m the one who is saying in public for all to read that you are a fake, a liar, a fraud, a sham and insane. You have never once supported a single claim you ever made///EVERYTHING WE SAY IS VALID: HOMOSEXUALS ARE STERILE; HOMOSEXUALS ARE FRUSTRATED BECAUSE THEIR 'SEX' DOESN'T PRODUCE BABIES; HOMOSEXUALS HAVE A SHORTER LIFE EXPECTANCY; HOMOSEXUALS SPREAD DISEASE; HOMOSEXUALS PROSELYTIZE CHILDREN (but not in the schools where we have corrected the administrators on their attempts to support the two or three confused children who have been told it is ok to be homosexual and actually think they are homosexual in the Day of Silence: score to date, clear thinking people 6, lib/lefty administrators 0, more to come on this subject); HOMOSEXUALS WHINE CONSTANTLY FOR 'MARRIAGE,' AS IF MARRIAGE WEREN'T FOR NORMAL PEOPLE ONLY, AND OTHER SPECIAL RIGHTS; HOMOSEXUALS FLAUNT THEIR PERVERSIONS PUBLICLY.

We find it much more profitable to knock around the lib/lefty school administrators than to educate you, a homosexual or homosexualist, who doesn't care much for homosexuals one way or the other, as you said, so we might not be around much, so just go ahead bashing your head against a brick wall without us. We are also working hard in Philadelphia and Ft Lauderdale at the moment, with GREAT success. The homosexuals will have to find another place to commit their perversions than in the bathrooms at the beach.

Maybe you aren't a homosexual if you don't know that the homosexual icons are dropping like flies.

Mike, really trying too, too hard
MikeR writes: Thursday, March, 27, 2008 11:50 PM
Luis
You’re back and how fitting, you come to tell us of the glories of anal sex.///NOT AT ALL DO I COME TO TELL YOU OF THE GLORIES OF ANAL 'SEX.' YOU ALREADY KNOW THE GLORIES OF ANAL 'SEX,' OTHERWISE YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DEFEND IT SO ENERGETICALLY. RATHER, I COME TO TELL YOU HOW SCREWED UP will/Will, AND ANYONE WHO DEFENDS THE GLORIES OF ANAL SEX, IS.\\\ My my, that is your most common topic.///AND YOUR MOST COMMON TOPIC IS DEFENDING HOMOSEXUAL PERVERSIONS.\\\ You are truly quite the expert.///THE LITERATURE WHICH DISCUSSES THE SOCIAL PROBLEMS THAT HOMOSEXUALITY AND HOMOSEXUALISM PRODUCE, DISCUSS ANAL 'SEX' AS THE MAIN FACTOR IN SHORTENING THE LIFE EXPECTANCY OF HOMOSEXUALS, SO REALLY, THE LITERATURE IS QUITE THE EXPERT--WE WOULD PREFER NOT TO KNOW ABOUT THE DISGUSTING, FILTHY, DISEASE SPREADING HOMOSEXUAL PERVERSIONS AT ALL.\\\Your writing is so precise, it’s as though you’ve been sodomized regularly since childhood.///THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT SAINT ALFRED KINSEY, WITH HIS VERY METICULOUS AND VERY SCIENTIFIC STUDIES, TELL YOU TO SAY, AND IT IS VERY WEAK, AND IN FACT, INAPPLICABLE--FIND SOME OTHER WAY TO TRY TO INSULT ME.\\\

Gee, if I repeatedly list the two same people who died from drinking water can I claim that water consumption is a deadly practice?///OF COURSE YOU CANNOT--YOU ARE REALLY REACHING WITH THAT PIECE OF STUPIDITY\\\(remember when it was three or are you still claiming Johnny Mathis is dead too?)///THE HOMOSEXUAL ICONS ARE DROPPING LIKE FLIES, MATTIE FOREMAN ADMITS IT, THE STATISTICS ARE VERY CLEAR ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE ANAL 'SEX.' BY THE WAY, JOHNNY MATHIS IS DEAD, ALTHOUGH HIS DEATH CERTIFICATE WASN'T RELEASED EITHER, HE WAS NOT SEEN WITH ELVIS IN PALM SPRINGS RECENTLY, THAT WAS AN ATTEMPT AT A JOKE BY LIBERACE.\\\[continued]

Species dont mix
I have yet to hear any evolutionist explain how a mutated entity can reproduce -- how it finds the exact duplicate but opposite sex with the same mutation -- longer chromosomes -- over and over again.

This had to happen literally millions of times for evolution to be true.

Also, just how does the mutation occur? If the response is through radiation, then what is the source of the radiation? Please don't tell me pre-apes dug up and enriched uranium!

Breed like rabbits, run like rabbits, sure that is possible. But predators are very fast, and little bunnies are not. Just how did all the little rabbits survive? Please don't tell me the males protected them!

Dear Luis
Hard hitting commentary... as usual! While I am a Christian, I can personally accept natural selection as not being diametrically opposed to the Biblical view of Creation. I have always, I believe, accepted the concept that is now referred to as Intelligent Design. I don't know what Darwin's personal religious beliefs were, but it has long been apparent that the secular left has used his name to forward an anti-God agenda... whether he intended such or not. Also, I find some of the opinions expressed here in upholding deviant conduct, especially those which attempt to define it as "natural" (and in flat opposition to Darwin's tenets!) to be both hypocritical and morally nauseating.

Luis
You’re back and how fitting, you come to tell us of the glories of anal sex. My my, that is your most common topic. You are truly quite the expert. Your writing is so precise, it’s as though you’ve been sodomized regularly since childhood.

Gee, if I repeatedly list the two same people who died from drinking water can I claim that water consumption is a deadly practice? (remember when it was three or are you still claiming Johnny Mathis is dead too?)

Remember me? I’m the one who is saying in public for all to read that you are a fake, a liar, a fraud, a sham and insane. You have never once supported a single claim you ever made.

Swamp, find out about the fossil record
Swamp, by no means does the fossil record prove Darwin's theory, that is THEORY. Actually, the gaps in the fossil record, TREMENDOUSLY weaken Darwin's theory, that is THEORY.

Swamp, you have a lot of time on...
your hands, get educated!

Swampfox writes: Thursday, March, 27, 2008 12:43 PM
Darwin
What the heck does Darwin have to with atheism?
_________________________________________

Swamp, you need a little more education, including that Darwin's theory, that is THEORY, had the purpose of eliminating the need for God, trendy stuff in those days, and these too. You would do well to find out why liberalism, femininism, homosexualism, Darwinism, materialism, secularism, humanism, Marxism, and a couple of more, make such good company.

Darwin tried a little too hard and theorized with very little to justify his theories, just as Will/will also tried a little too hard to justify looking for love up the anus of another man--ah, the glories of anal 'sex,' says will/Will. But at least you are a celibate homosexual, and virgin, too: Just too much to expect out of someone who defends anal 'sex.'

the glories of anal sex continued


You are unusually beguiled, as you many columns attest, Mike, with this non-procreative act. I don't want to be so bold as to supply psychological meaning to this endless fascination of yours, but if you're going to experiment with sodomy Mike, "safe sodomy" is the way to go.///LET ME GO FIND DOCTOR SCOTT HITT, MEDICAL DOCTOR, TO ASK HIM ABOUT SAFE SODOMY. OH? HE'S SIX FEET UNDER? WHA' HAPPENED TO HIM? HE DIED OF COMPLICATIONS TO THE COLON? OH, MY. WELL, SHOULD I ASK MARSHALL KIRK? OH? HE'S DEAD TOO? WHAT DID HE DIE OF? THE DEATH CERTIFICATE WASN'T MADE PUBLIC? WHY? WELL, WHO CAN WE ASK ABOUT SAFE SODOMY?\\\
____________________________________

Here we have Will/will, folks, trying hard to justify looking for love up the anus of another man, meaning the pen!s ripping the sphincter up like it did in the case of DOCTOR Scott Hitt, MD as in MEDICAL DOCTOR, and which eventually killed him at age 48. Who knows what perversions killed at age 45, another homosexual icon, Marshall Kirk, author of the homosexual plan to take over the United States, "After the Balls," pun intended. Oh yes, the glories of homosexual 'sex.'

The sterility of homosexuality, the frustration of the homosexual 'sex' not producing babies, the shortened life expectancy of homosexuals say it all about the legitimacy of homosexuality.

Nothing recommends homosexuality, nothing favors it.

the glories of anal sex
Will writes: Thursday, March, 27, 2008 12:51 AM
Mike,
You use the word "sodomy" like it has some kind of negative connotaion.///AND IT CERTAINLY DOES!\\\

Sodomy is not, dispassionately speaking, a morally "good" nor morally "bad" act.///FECES ON THE PEN!S IS MORALLY OK? ARE YOU SURE?\\\ Sodomy is a morally neutral///SAYS WHO? HOMOSEXUALS? THAT'S A GREAT RECOMMENDATION!\\\ act that ancient jews, concocting Genesis stories & "moral" Laws 2500 years ago in te middle east, which they attributed as coming from a skygod they also concocted, imbued with "meaning" ("sin", "abomination").

Just because vaginal penetration comes with a procreative imperative does not make it MORALLY superior or inferior to anal penetation (or oral stimulation). It's like you are playing "pin the tail on the donkey" & blindly attaching "meaning" (beyond the procreative function) to simple sexual positions.

Sodomy is not going to cause earthquakes, Michael. It will not bring a great "Flood" or famine or conjure "God's wrath (remember: God is a human construct. WE - humans - invented God, not vice-versa).///SAYS WHO? HOMOSEXUALS? THAT'S A GREAT REFERENCE!\\\ Sodomy is morally neutral act that is of no cosmic significance.///EXCEPT TO THE HOMOSEXUALS WHO GET THEIR SPHINCTERS RIPPED UP AND DIE OF 'COMPLICATIONS TO THE COLON,' LIKE DOCTOR SCOTT HITT, MEDICAL DOCTOR.\\\[continued]

energyguy
Are you really serious? Each of those species survive as a whole through high rates of reproduction. you’ve never heard the expression “ breed like rabbits”? For that matter, if rabbits are so weak, why don’t you catch and kill one with your bare hands? As I said before, you are basing all your comments on complete ignorance of the theory of evolution.

Same thing
Oh, I see. Natural selection is not survival of the fittest? Which ones get naturally selected, then? Maybe the almost-fittest? Do I have this right?

I thought you would go with a different argument, not that chickens and sheep are domesticated. Rabbits are domesticated, too.

So sheep ancestors a zillion years ago were tough, rough, and had survival abilities? What attributes did they have? Could you also explain the same for chickens?

For the students out there who may be following all this, please understand that it is impossible for genetic material (eggs, sperm) to successfully 'blend' if one had different length chromosomes. Evolutionists stumble and mumble around that one every time. Hence, my amusement.




Chickens and Sheep
Chickens and sheep are domesticated animals. As for rabbits, have you ever tried to catch a wild rabbit? Additionally, survival of the fittest is a bastardization of the theory of proposed by Darwin. His theory was a the theory of natural selection.

Sheep Rabbits and Chickens
In all seriousness, I seek the knowledge of evolutionists on this one.

As I understand the argument, survival of the fittest requires that strong members of a species survive and pass on their good genetic material to the successive generations.

Does it then follow that the weakest members must die out?

If all that is true, then could someone please explain how sheep survived the rigors of evolutionary survival of the fittest? Also, rabbits. Sure, they breed in great numbers, and they run fairly fast, but does that explain it?

How about chickens? Last time I looked, a single fox could easily wipe out an entire flock of chickens. Chickens appear to have no defenses at all!

Consenting adults, historically speaking
The great thrust of history tends to favor arranged marriages, often with child-brides. So, historically, neither adulthood nor consent were required. The defining characteristic for sexual misconduct was marital status.
I obviously do not favor either arranged marriages or child brides, but I have yet to hear a coherent argument for the "consenting adult" standard for sexual activity.

Will
Of what cosmic significance is rape or child abuse?

Correction
That last post should have been addressed to C_Minor

ken
energy guy asked a question and I answered. The answer was a bit short, but I certainly didn't end the discussion. In fact, he asked for evidence and I provided some.

MikeH @ 4:46
(MikeH writes:
"Just how did critters with all number of chromosomes "evolve" from a common ancestor?"

Random mutation and natural selection. )


Don't you see that this is a "God did it. End of discussion" response? That the universe exists isn't a matter of faith, it's a matter of observation. How it got to it's present state is a matter of faith on all sides. When it's pointed out that a mechanical universe with set rules could (theoretically) result in the results we see, we have to face the question of whether the rules "just happened", or were set. That they exist can be agreed upon, where they came from is the realm of religion (and Science is increasingly being quoted as a religion by many - it is extremely long odds that the balancing of the Nuclear Strong, Nuclear Weak, Electro-magnetism and Gravity in such a way that planets and stars can be formed, and that exchange media like oils and waters can be in liquid phases on said planets allowing life to develop).

I like to look at it as beyond my ken, and find things to laugh about instead. Remember the Divinity Exam? "Explain the universe. Cite 3 examples."

Ken
Ken: Your 2:48 pm post seems to suggest that "sodomy" is defined as "anal penetration" (with or without foreign objects), while oral sex is different, in a class by itelf ("oral sex is oral sex" you say). Can I assume that you are somehow making a case for homosexuals to practice only oral sex, bypassing anal sex altogether, thus making it "ok" & palatable for the religious types?

By the way, I never wanted to involve myself in the minutiae of what does or does not constitute sodomy. I had a bigger picture in mind: that sodomy, in and of itself, is not an intrinsically morally "good" or morally "bad" act. Those are labels that some (not all) men (not gods) slapped onto an act that has no cosmic significance & should be referred to as a morally neutral act (just as oral sex & masterbation should be kept morally neutral & not burdened with artificial concepts of sin or depravity). I am not an "anything goes" person. I do not advocate for bestiality or sex with minors or sex with unwilling participants. Individual societies should (& do) regulate these standards. In the long thrust of history (tens of thousands of years for recorded human history), prohibitions against homosexuality are fairly recent (the past 1800-2000 years) and do not apply any longer throughout many parts of the civilized modern world.



MikeH
The debate you and energyguy are having here is interesting and thoughtful. Shouldn't students be encouraged to engage in such debate? That was the point of the article.

Lets pretend Will is correct
"Sodomy is not, dispassionately speaking, a morally "good" nor morally "bad" act. Sodomy is a morally neutral act that ancient jews(sic), concocting Genesis stories & "moral" Laws 2500 years ago in te(sic) middle east, which they attributed as coming from a skygod they also concocted, imbued with "meaning" ("sin", "abomination")." - Will

If he is correct, then gay-bashing is not, dispassionately speaking, a morally good nor morally bad act. Beating homosexuals is a morally neutral act that liberals imbued with "meaning" in the 1980's.

energyguy
Scientific theories are not proven. They are validated or invalidated. In the case of natural selction being the driving force behind evolution there is plenty of evidence for its validity. Here is a recent study done that provides strong evidence for it:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/103/9/3209

To clever_of_me
Islamic fascism

Debate is closed
Debate is closed on the following issues:

evolution, global warming, homosexuality, abortion.

Never mind that these are the most contentious and important issues of our time, liberals want to declare the debate over, and themselves the victors. It is the only way they can win.

MikeH
prove it.

Disscusion is off the subject
Mike's column had nothing to do with sodomy and everything to do with the fact that an institution of higher learning is only letting you hear what they want you to hear. They believe you are not smart enough to hear both sides and come to an informed opinion. What are they afraid of? But, thanks to Will, who has an obcession with the anal orifice, the discussion immediately went off topic. Thanks Will for your opinion on everything except what the column was about. You need to go get your own column to spew your opinions instead of constantly riding Mike's coat tails.

energyguy
"Just how did critters with all number of chromosomes "evolve" from a common ancestor?"

Random mutation and natural selection.

Evolution
Ahhh...smug evolutionists again claim "you don't understand what we scientists are talking about." And smirk at each other...

Ok. In the spirit of handing out enough rope for you to hang yourself, go ahead and enlighten us.

Just how did critters with all number of chromosomes "evolve" from a common ancestor? To get the ball rolling, a pig has 38, humans have 46, and a horse has 64. Yet all have four limbs, single spine, all are mammals, etc. and etc.

You have the floor. We'll wait...laughing...

Andrews
Mockery is such a harsh word. I cannot take credit for the biblical research above, but I am able to see how the questions asked in the letter (google "dr. Laura" and "letter," and you'll find plenty of versions of it) illustrate the hypocrisy of those who selectively rely on certain passages found in the Bible to prove they know what the Creator approves of and what He doesn't.

Swampfox, your 3:23 confirms it
I screwed up. I've got to do a better job of reading the posts before I go off halfcocked. Again, I apologize!

To Clarify
At one time silk was included in the rules of shatnez, as it may be mistaken for another fabric. As silk became more common, this fear lessened and rabbinical authorities no longer included it.

Then again, still nothing about poly/cotton blends.


Galltegfa
If you want to mock the faithful, at least get it right.

Poly/cotton does not violate the biblical prohibition. As Jews still observe this "silly" rule, we actually have scholars who think about such "stupid" things. The explicit prohibition is against wool and linen, neither of which is involved in a poly/cotton blend.

In fact, to prove it applies only to those fabrics, many prayer shawls have a wool cloth with silk trim and tassels, which would be illicit under your reading of the law.

Just wanted to clear that up. Maybe you should update your mockery to at least cover the right topic.

Sorry, just get a bit annoyed by such smug posts. Wow, you found biblical laws you don't understand! Bravo! (By the way, acknowledging that slavery existed, and giving laws to regulate it doe snot mean G-d commanded us to hold slaves forever. But I guess that is a bit too subtle.)

Ooops, MY BAD!
Sorry Swampfox, I think I misread your post. After reading your other posts, I think you were being facetious. I humbly apologize for my rabid attack. Sorry!

An Oldie But A Goodie - (cont)
Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

An Oldie But A Goodie
(The following was originally for Dr. Laura, but she was unable to respond. Perhaps Dr. Adams will.)

Dear Dr. Adams:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your column, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

(cont)

To Frog
Of course my post of 2:32pm was tongue and cheek ... or was I correct? Can an agnostic be a Christian?

Swampfox at 2:32pm
Ooooh, you're so witty. How'd you come up with that one? Since I'm here in Kantuckee, part of that thar Bible belt, Ima guessin I shood jus take ma shoos off, chomp on a peece of straw whilst a chewin my tabacky and relax on the front porch. Ima gessin I'll jus leeve the heavy thinkin to smart city folk.

Putz!

To jdw
Jdw writes, "5. The universe is now as it has always been." Your statement is only faith.

Retired Geek
That’s great. You chose to be coy about your intentions and then back that up with a vapid insult. If you actually represent conservatism and I’m supposedly liberal, then there actually is a moral difference between us and it does not lay in your favor.

So let us not show any "logic dyslexia". You actually voiced no opposition to homosexuality, just sodomy which can be practiced by any heterosexual couple. You were actually just listing “Liberal Normalcy Logic” and NAMBLA happened to make the top of your list and things like judicial activism, unrestricted immigration, increased taxation and larger government didn’t come up. In fact, even though you comment in no way mentions homosexuality, all your points were sexual in nature. So if not homosexual, you were regarding the heterosexuals or those who masturbate only.

Then of course, you offer support of NAMBLA as a liberal attribute. Well I have never seen even the slightest support for NAMBLA offered by anyone at TH, there must be no liberals commenting here.

Offering idiotic statements as support for a belief is just playing to the lowest common denominator. Of course you are free to do that, but you are kidding yourself if you think they contain insight.



To Retired Geek
There is a limit to the human mind to understand all of God's creation.

Retired Geek
5. The universe is now as it has always been.

For #2 to be true, #5 would have to be true.

#5 is demonstrably false, just as is #1: cogito, ergo sum.

Ken ........wrong
Here is the definition of sodomy: Sodomy (IPA: /'s?d?mi/) is a term used today predominantly in law (derived from traditional Christian usage) to describe an act of 'unnatural' sexual intercourse normally understood as referring to both oral sex and anal intercourse, as well as beastiality. [1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy

By the way the Catholic Church still teaches that masturbation is a sin.



RetiredRevenooer
Actually, most states still have laws against sodomy, they are just no longer enforceable, the way many states still retain anti-abortion laws on the books that were not enforceable after Roe v Wade.

For that matter Maryland still had a miscegenation statute on the book until recently. (I think it was removed recently, but I don't have a Md Code handy to tell you for certain. I know it was on the books in 1990.)

The laws don't actually go away just because of supreme court ruling. They just stop being enforced.

Which will be interesting if Roe is ever overturned, as some states revoked their laws but others did not. So, in some states, the minute Roe is overturned, abortion becomes illegal, in others, nothing changes.

MikeR, now you know how conservatives
feel.

"I love that one. Just put NAMBLA next to the word homosexuality and we get Homosexuality = NAMBLA."

Just as when you put the word Republican next to the word conservative and we get conservative = Republican.


Will ...
Sodomy, regardless of how you might want it defined, is anal penetration, which can be done many different ways, and using various penetrating objects. I gotta say right up front I think masturbation is called masturbation. Oral sex is usually called oral sex if it involves an act of penetrating a mouth with a penile member. Now if you should choose to effect the disgusting practice of inserting your tongue into your male buddies anal orifice, well, that may be sodomy. I personally call it sick and disgusting. If I have offended the sensibilities of any other TH comment contributors I do apologize.

I cannot bear to see these preverted individuals try to end run the language by obfuscating the meaning sodomy by mxing it with the practice of something like masturbation. I could see where the Homosexual activists would stand in front of a room full of impressionable 10 and 11 year old boys and announce that masturbation is actually the same as homosexual sodomy. That is just an ugly thought. There are some of thos kids that would know this is untrue, but some of those kids would be confused and would be fodder for the likes of Will to malform them into practicing homosexuals. Now, even if this only were a temporary behavior deviation for these kids, we must stand against it.

energyguy et al
I was raised as a humanist, my lineage included 3 generations of humanistic nonsense.

Included in my personal friends are one of the inventors of the electron microscope (he is a past president of those who study using that instrument) another friend is one of the scientists who opened the first box of moon rocks for examination.

I have asked them and other highly intelligent people the following question no one has answered the question yet:

1. the material universe does not exist.
2. the material universe is eternal.
3. the material universe appeared spontaneusly from nothing.
4. the material universe was created by intelligence.
-------------------------------------------------
Come up with number 5 that does not include any of the 4.
-------------------------------------------------
The 4 points I have outlined are philosophic by definition and none cannot be proven scientifically.
All should be taught in a philosophy class - none are science.

The question that came in my mind when studying physics as a youngster was:

Where did the first energy come from?

Any answer to that question is "faith based" and unproveable.

When I was 31 my "faith" was placed in God. If anyone wants to place their "faith" in one of the other 3 have at it - just don't tell me it can be proven.

The origin of energy and matter can only be guessed at.

Evolution was never intended to explain "original origin" and never will.


To Retired Geek
Liberal Normalcy Logic? Conservatives of Adams' kind still think that the earth is flat and the Earth is the center of the Universe.

MikeR
Apparently you not only suffer the malady of "logic dyslexia" you can't read either.
-------------------------------------------------
I wrote:
"Liberal Normalcy Logic
NAMBLA enhances a childs well being."

Where is the word homosexual in that statement?

MikeR, take a deep breath put on your tin foil hat, cover all of that with a paper bag and lay down on the floor. Hold a flashlight up to one ear and what I wrote up to the other ear and voila!

I have helped many liberals with this technique - who said conservatives aren't compassionate!!




Fossil record
How about the fossil record. I guess that we are just supposed to ignore it?

Energyguy
Evolution doesn’t say anything of the sort. It is such ignorance of the theory that makes for amusement.

jdw
Good take. I think that God enabled natural selection to strengthen his creations and to enable them to survive in a changing world. The two are not mutually exclusive.
The Bible may even support evolution, but I'll tick off about 3/4 of TH, and get struck by lightning for saying that God may look more like a monkey than modern man, so I won't.

To energyguy
I didn't know that if you though that Darwin's theory might be correct, you weren't a Christian.

Evolution
I just love to hear evolutionists try to argue their points.

The superior being gets his DNA improved (somehow, perhaps by radiation? or accident?) and maybe even gets the chromosomes lengthened. Cool trick!

Then, this superior being must find and mate successfully with one of his opposite sex, who also has the same extra-long chromosomes.

And the evolutionists defend this to the death, with a straight face. No faith required. No consideration of the impossibly high odds that this happened even once. Forget about millions upon millions of times.

How amusing...

jdw
I like your comment and I agree. I have a great deal of respect for the theory of evolution, but it is in no way incompatible with my belief so a God created universe.

folks
FROG is right. This is not about homosexuality. There is something behind what Mike is saying. I am always dubious of his stories, but I believe that he may have a case here. The administration, quite possibly, could be attempting to censor Mike.

Retired Geek
I love that one. Just put NAMBLA next to the word homosexuality and we get Homosexuality = NAMBLA. Someone always writes it and someone else always buys it. Here’s an equivalent one, rocks and cheese. Now we get, don’t eat cheese because it’s full of rocks.

Darwin
What the heck does Darwin have to with atheism?

rivenburgh - Darwin did not
invent natural selection.

God did.

Darwin merely reported on it.

As Gallileo asserted "Nevertheless, it moves". God created the universe according to His specs, to His purpose, which probably revolves around man as much as NASA's space program revolves around a colony of ants in Africa. Or, maybe more accurately, as much as the space program revolves around a cockpit gauge.

Nothing Darwin wrote contradicts the possibility of a created universe. In fact, IIRC from my early days, he was actually a God-believing religious man, himself.

Even if evolution is not true, we are apes, deal with it. Just as, whether you like it or not, Republicans are classified as a political party, man is classified as an "ape". We didn't come from apes any more than a Ford comes from a Chevy. Denying evolution can't change that fact, unless you want to engage in Humpty-Dumpty-isms like the liberals do. However He did the cooking, God used most of the same ingredients and methods to create Man and gorilla and chimpanzee. Splitting hairs about "micro" and "macro" evolution doesn't cut it either. The neanderthals were different from the homo-sapiens. There is evidence that homo-sapiens came out of Africa into Europe, and displaced the neanderthals who don't resemble modern Europeans any more than they resemble modern Africans. Given all this, one has to ask, "where the heck did all these white people come from?"

If evolution were not possible, neither would be animal husbandry.

Like geology, the evolutionary process is a study of time and pressure.

bob, and here's the thing ...
if evolution occurred as some believe it did, over millions and millions of years, there should be TONS of transitional fossils. The truth is, nearly 100% of the time, mutations have a negative impact and the mutant of the species dies out unable to procreate to pass on the mutated gene. There is some truth to the concept of natural selection, just not the way they perceive it to be.

bob - yeah it's terrible
That he didn't know everything. How shameful for a scientist to merely write up his observations.

Darwin
Did not know what DNA was. That might seem a trivial point, but it goes to the heart of his ignorance.

Oh, and rivenburg ...
armpit? That's a new one to me. I would think the stubble would be rather raspy, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

Rivenberg
Is it, "whacking Darwin" to point out that he was blatantly racist and sexist. He made it quite clear that afrocentric peoples are lower on the evolutionary scale than whites. He also believed women to be inferior from an evolutionary standpoint.

As for evolution, certainly I believe in evolution...to a degree. But I have yet to see the smoking gun that proves "species jump". That is, a species of animal evolving into an entirely different species.

Dog breeding is essentially, forced evolution. And nobody would argue that the variances of dogs we have-evolved-look radically different; anyone who has seen a bull mastif next to a toy poodle can relate to that. But we have never been able to breed dogs into cats. (I say cats tongue in cheek.) I mean after centuries of mankind forcibly mutating different animal breeds like pets and livestock, how is it we have never been able to change the genome into something entirely different? You say we need millions of years to do that? OK. When we find a true transitional species in the fosil record, I might be convinced.

It appears rivenburg has confused
macroevolution and microevolution. When you can prove scientifically that one species evolved into another (macroevolution), come see me. Until then, I will continue to consider it hogwash.

Will is
...always first chronologically to comment, but last in relevance.

Will, because of
your life style, do you now or will you in the future have to wear adult diapers?

Evolution
If we all evolved from one single-celled oprganism, why are there still bugs and worms and stuff? Do they not want to evolve anymore into higher beings? Or can they just stop evolving? Did the first worm just decide, "hey, this worm gig is good. I get to squiggle around in dirt and stuff all day, and help those higher evolved thingies catch fish. I don't want to be a mouse."

will
does your entire world revolve around uranus?

I Believe in DNA, Rivenburg

...but not evolution, because cancerous changes in DNA are DEvolution, and in keeping with the laws of physics regarding entropy.

With DNA being a digital code, against which the odds of random occurrence are astronomical, I'll stick with the logical explanation of creation.

Oh, and since science deals with things observed, who called Darwin a scientist or his work unquestionable?? Even Darwin himself questioned his own work and its moral consequences for mankind.

Thank you for your challenge on courage, since evolution is the only "acceptable" explanation on most campuses -- so isn't it really Mike and his kind who are courageous enough to differ from their peers?

Mike
Keep poking those college liberal where it hurts.Isn't it a shame that the intelligence of these adminisration officials have the brains of a gnat.

Less than usual
Sorry Mike, but this article was or is not up to your usual standard. IMO, a bit too erratic. But Keep up the good work.


The Problem
Mike, are you tenured at UNC? Your naiveity knows no bounds. Please look to those who are experts in their field. Will you please stick to your subject of criminology? please?!?

If you genuinely wanted to promote a DIALOGUE between aetheism and theism, discuss with other faculty the possibility of inviting Dinesh to debate Dawkins or Hitchens.

The problem with our universities is not administrative intolerance or incompetence. The problem is intellectual prejudice and disregard for honest, rational inquiry and curiosity. The bias begins in PRE-KINDERGARTEN where environmentalism, relativism, socialism, humanism and communism are taught.

Mike ENGAGE your opposition. Jesus called it loving your enemy. Pray for Holy Spirit guidance and discernment. Forget your petty grievances and seek God's wisdom. He is a magnificent strategist. He does everything the right way.

Shalom

Whacking Darwin
Is not going to win too many NEW friends, just the same old & I DO mean old BS.

As much as I appreceate Mike Adams cultural honesty crusade in the nasty liberal academic world, once the attacks on Darwin begin, I bail.

Lay persons will probably NEVER understand that functionly all biology uses the precepts of evolution and natural selection (don't be confused between the two, Darwin did NOT invent evolution, he invented natural selection) and fuctionality is the ONLY arbitor of reality there is. Everything else is hot air & BS & lies.

If you believe that DNA is where the human bodies designs are stored, and you believe that damaged DNA causes cancer, you believe in evolution, you simply dont have the courage to think it through and believe differently from your peers.


As for the sodomy debate here, officialy sodomy has been defined as any sex not strictly involving two sets of reproductive organs, one male, one female, both human.

ANY use of human sexual organs besides for procreating is considered (by the church if no-one else)to be sodomy.
Under the strict Catholic church guidlines, even masterbation is considered sodomy. Using the armpit for sex is considered sodomy. No joke.

mikescott
Yes.

moose
Is the UNCW adminitration really in a position to lecture anyone on maturity?

Emails
Back to the subject at hand (That's just a figure of speech, Will).

Many of the posters who don't like Dr. Adams have already dismissed the column, and are using the forum to publish their feelings on a wide variety of topics.

The article once again shows the hypocrisy that university administrations show in their support of "free speech."

Will and MellorSJ2, what do you say about that topic?

Will, Congratulations!
You've done it again!

You don't realize how much pleasure you bring to us ignorant Townhall conservatives.

You also are responsible for Dr. Adams's columns being the most popular on the entire site.

Keep up the good work!

Red Head Good Blog
Here is one for you.

Obama stated that government has failed the people.

Obama solution = increase the size of government.

Using Obama logic:

Crime is rampant in America, increase the number of criminals.


Will ...
Have you lost what little common sense you may have once had. I cannot attest your real past, I can only hope there was a time when you were able to realize biologically correct from biologically incorrect. There is not a shred of possibility that anal sex is anything but preversion, and certainly it is anatomically incorrect. It serves no real creative (and I mean species survival creative ... not religion related) purpose. It is at best preverted, and at worst medically abhorrent as it is the cause of so many medically related problems. To bring it all down to Will's level of understanding, stuffing your beanpole in the wrong hole absolutely leads to disease and infection. And it is not species correct anatomically.

Now, the real aim of Dr. Adams column was something to do with the odd way the UNCW leadership fails to manage email, guest lecturing matters, and the like. Will, would you care to comment on that?

some cheese with your whine, mike?
I'm not trying to speak for the Chancellor but rumor has it that the administration views mike as a petulant child with his frequent "that's not fair!" tantrums that adults eventually ignore.

Retired Geek
For more on liberal dyslexic logic, you may be interested in my articles on liberal logic:
http://redhead.blogtownhall.com/2008/02/20/liberal_logic_.t html

In the meantime, I think it's safe to say:
Will's got a crush!!

HUH?
Have we all lost our collective minds?Is it funny
to add the word,"Gomorrah" to a university's name? Can any energy be put into working together
for the good of the whole country? Okay,some are
holier than others,some are immoral,some are stupid,some are just plain self involved jerks...this is news? Finger pointing 101 must be
a new Master's program!!! Now,we know lots of folks are not okay...surprise! Any chance we might work together(that is key!!!)and make this
the country it used to be? The luxury of finger
pointing and name calling is something we cannot
afford any longer...we do have a bit of serious
business to take care of...do we care enough?

Okay, let's not let Will the Aams ...
stalker derail the subject at hand. Will, as proposed by a poster the other day, must sit at his computer on Monday and Wednesday nights, logged into TownHall clicking the refresh button, just waiting for Adams columns to appear. He is a one trick pony that devolves virtually any topic, and I do mean ANY topic, into a discussion of his favorite activity: homosexuality. DUDE GET A REAL LIFE!!

The topic it hand is NOT homosexuality. Adams is discussing the hypocrisy that is rampant on today's university campus. If you're viewpoint digresses one iota from the standard liberal view, you stand a snowballs chance in hell (yes, I believe it's real!) of being able to express it in a public forum. The continued denial (by way of ignoring) Adams requests are proof of that.

Will, PLEASE find an appropriate way to deal with your anger and loneliness. You're not doing yourself or your family/friends any good with your obsesssions.

Morals and the Law
Our nation, to include DC, has no laws against sodomy -- thanks to the SCOTUS in Lawrence vs Texas. Sodomy in all its disgusting and perverse forms in no longer illegal...it has been stricken from all federal, state, and city codes.

Sodomy is "merely" immoral, perverse, disgusting, etc in our society as a whole; by a margin of roughly 3 or 4 to 1. So "one man's pleasure.." should read "One man's pleasure is three or four other person's perversion".

Essentially all pre-Lawrence sodomy laws did not include adult man/woman consensual relationships in any case. [See Black's Law Dictionary.]

Morals and the Law
Our nation, to include DC, has no laws against sodomy -- thanks to the SCOTUS in Lawrence vs Texas. Sodomy in all its disgusting and perverse forms in no longer illegal...it has been stricken from all federal, state, and city codes.

Sodomy is "merely" immoral, perverse, disgusting, etc in our society as a whole; by a margin of roughly 3 or 4 to 1. So "one man's pleasure.." should read "One man's pleasure is three or four other person's perversion".

Essentially all pre-Lawrence sodomy laws did not include adult man/woman consensual relationships in any case. [See Black's Law Dictionary.]

"I have an explantion for everything"
I am always amused by the totally unsupported assertions by atheists and their explanation of the origin of everything. In this case, we have Will attributing the assignment of morality to sodomy to Jews in 500 BC. I’m sure people like this believe themselves critical thinkers, but can you imagine a more ethnocentric explanation for something than this? The mind boggles!

There was a particularly interesting series of posts from a retired philosophy professor who asked the question: What is the moral basis for saying murder is wrong? The confusion and totally unsupported assertions about the basis for fundamental morality were funny to watch.

Jaybird
"Sodomy is not morally neutral. To the confused person above who seems to have lost his moral bearings: sodomy has always had negative connotations. It is an unnatural act and a perversion of nature, condemned as sinful and disgusting by all major religions throughout time. Anyone who feels a compulsion to engage in sodomy is mentally aberrant and abnormal, and in need of psychiatric help. Attempts in these degenerate times to make this perverted act legitimate or to call it a "lifestyle" cannot change these facts."


I don't know about where you live, but in the District of Columbia, sodomy includes oral sex, whether it's gay or straight. So, since oral sex seems to be so popular, does that mean most people are mentally aberrant and abnormal perverts?

One man's pleasure is another one's perversion.

Thank you,Will...
...for your explanation and insight into the history of sodomy.Can't wait for your post on sheep.

Your problem
Mike:

On March 12, the rest of us here in North Carolina were on Eastern Daylight Time. Remember it's "Spring Forward."

skywalker81
And to think I forgot jaybird. What a sweetie he is!

Yeah. Right. Spend eternity with people like that!

skywalker81
Every word you say is true.

Now, to answer your question: "If on the other hand, I am correct, then I spend eternity in heaven with my Saviour and you spend eternity in Hell for having denied the Father.
Being logical, which belief has the greatest benefit and least possible consequences of being wrong?"

The latter. No way would I do _anything_ that would leave me in the presence of jdw, scott, talent (he wishes!) scout, aurorawatcher, solo610 etc etc etc. For eternity, no less!

You seem OK though. But surely you've heard of Pascal's Wager.

Sodomy is not morally neutral
To the confused person above who seems to have lost his moral bearings: sodomy has always had negative connotations. It is an unnatural act and a perversion of nature, condemned as sinful and disgusting by all major religions throughout time. Anyone who feels a compulsion to engage in sodomy is mentally aberrant and abnormal, and in need of psychiatric help. Attempts in these degenerate times to make this perverted act legitimate or to call it a "lifestyle" cannot change these facts.

Man created God?
Ok, so Will, you are one of those really educated people that due to your superior intellect have become too smart to believe in God or any other "religious deity" that man needs to make himself feel better about not being in control of everything around him. And I suppose I am one of the weak minded minions that needs a supernatural being to help me make it through life.
If you are correct and there is no God, no Jesus and no eternal life in Heaven, then life just ends for all of us. But I have lost nothing by getting joy from believing in an afterlife while I was on Earth (and obviously you have lost nothing because it ended like you thought it would).
If on the other hand, I am correct, then I spend eternity in heaven with my Saviour and you spend eternity in Hell for having denied the Father.
Being logical, which belief has the greatest benefit and least possible consequences of being wrong?

natural selected
Its obvious to me where the problem is, Mike: they don't loose posts or memos about Darwin becaue they want all the lectures on random selection they can get. The irony is funny if not pitiful. They could set up a committee to study the problem, maybe each and every one of them(problems). They can all get together in six months and compare notes. Maybe they can then randomly pinpoint the diagnosis and create a prognosis. Just a random thought. As a finale they can create a committee to study why they need the committees.

i am lost

like, umm, what was the email that Mike got that he shouldn't have got and how is it relevant????

Mike,
You use the word "sodomy" like it has some kind of negative connotaion.

Sodomy is not, dispassionately speaking, a morally "good" nor morally "bad" act. Sodomy is a morally neutral act that ancient jews, concocting Genesis stories & "moral" Laws 2500 years ago in te middle east, which they attributed as coming from a skygod they also concocted, imbued with "meaning" ("sin", "abomination").

Just because vaginal penetration comes with a procreative imperative does not make it MORALLY superior or inferior to anal penetation (or oral stimulation). It's like you are playing "pin the tail on the donkey" & blindly attaching "meaning" (beyond the procreative function) to simple sexual positions.

Sodomy is not going to cause earthquakes, Michael. It will not bring a great "Flood" or famine or conjure "God's wrath (remember: God is a human construct. WE - humans - invented God, not vice-versa). Sodomy is morally neutral act that is of no cosmic significance.

You are unusually beguiled, as you many columns attest, Mike, with this non-procreative act. I don't want to be so bold as to supply psychological meaning to this endless fascination of yours, but if you're going to experiment with sodomy Mike, "safe sodomy" is the way to go.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.