While responding to a microblog on Facebook today, I came up with an revision to the opening of the Deceleration of Independence, more suited for our day and age.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Individuals have within themselves a Yearning for Freedom, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, which shall not be abridged by any other Individuals; nor any Governments, Corporations, Municipalities, nor other Associations of Collective Power.

Indeed, the Individual reserves the sole power in making decisions to forward his own Progress towards Freedom, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, and those choices must be respected by all.

We live in a day and age where many systems of bureaucracy exist whose sole purpose is to deprive Individuals of their Yearnings, to turn into Functional Slaves at the pleasure of Others.

Yet, we also live in a day and age where we have hyper-connectivity between and among Individuals to allow for many multi-scale levels of Spontaneous Association, the likes of which no old-guard Government, Corporation, or other bureaucratic system can stand against.

To that end, a call for ALL Individuals across the World at Large to recognize the lofty yet obtainable  Goals of Freedom, Liberty, and Happiness, and to put those Goals to the forefront in all doings.

Yeah, once again I have indulged Creationists in the Debate of Ages. Well, what can I say? I enjoy the fun!

This debate is taking place – so far – between myself, an ardent Atheist and one who acknowledges the fact of Evolution as is shown by the evidence, and two “Adams” — Adam Estep and Adam Marchese. I jumped into this long conversation on a survey question: “Do you believe in God?” on Facebook.

The conversation format in this particular forum does not lend itself well to lengthy debates, as it displays responses in reverse-order. I have taken the liberty to reverse the order to make for easy reading.

Also, I have taken the liberty to correct many (but perhaps not all) of spelling errors – especially my own! I also have altered the format a bit to compensate for the limitations of the Facebook forum for this sort of a debate. For instance, I use paragraph indentation to show where a responder quoted statements from another participant.

This debate is ongoing, and I may occasionally update this blog with the latest additions from time to time.

And so it begins.

Terry Drinkwater:

…Well, frankly, Adam Marchese, I wouldn’t have a problem with the idea that God allowed us to have free will, if I found it compatible with His dual omnipotence and omniscience. Freedom is a virtue all its own. My problem is that it’s logically impossible for an omnipotent omniscient being to make free-willed creations.

Adam Estep Responds:

Adam…Come now I went to public school and Secular College. I know both sides of the argument you do not. Why Do I know? Because I cared too! I considered both sides and upon close study I feel Jesus is the most plausible answer. I studied the same science that you have and I am miles ahead of you in this debate because I understand both sides you do not. Thats not very scientific of you now is it?

He did not create sin! he created the choice ie…Free will…Allowing is not the cause! He created us for fellowship not as puppets. The reason why it was [called] sin is because it was against the natural order of creation and it was GOD’s designed.

Fred Responds:

Adam E, there is no such thing as “Free Will”. It’s an illusion our brains create.

Adam Marchese Responds:

It has to be one or the other to my understanding. God either allowed the imperfections of man or doesn’t have supreme power.

When did I say he caused man’s imperfections? I stated that he allowed man’s imperfections.

I’ll give you another example. A dam builder build a dam, but not just any dam he build a dam with one critical flaw at its base. A storm rolled through the land and the dam was destroyed and the town got flooded. The townspeople (the ones that survived) blamed the dam builder for allowing a flaw to exist within the dam. He claims that he did not in fact cause the dam to fail, which is true because the storm did, but he is directly responsible for it failing.

I know I shouldn’t say this, but… “Thats not very scientific of you now is it?”… “I considered both sides and upon close study I feel Jesus is the most plausible answer.”

So a gut feeling is scientific, in someone or something that doesn’t abide by the normal laws of nature. Very scientific indeed.

Alright, enough of the boorish afterthoughts they mean nothing. We need to stop turning to the dark side. Just like the spelling and grammar thing they matter not. (Used we so you don’t think that you are the only one being boorish, though you do have more points :))

Adam Estep Responds:

Adam E, there is no such thing as “Free Will”. It’s an illusion our brains create.

Fred, If I choose to step out in front of a speeding vehicle will the pain be an illusion as well?? FRED………LOL

Hey Adam I have enjoyed Debating with you…And respect your views…Speak them Bro

Regarding the actual debate: Do you believe that God knew the outcome of his creation before he began? Do you believe God had the power to change the outcome of his creation however he wanted, by creating it differently? Those appear to be the central questions of this discussion.

Terry,
I believe he new the limitless possibilities, However as a gift to his creation he affords us privacy to make our own decisions. He has the ability to focus on any given subject and see clearly the truth of the effect rendered by the cause. This is how he can Judge Righteously and still grant you autonomy…Your thoughts??

Fred Responds:

Adam E,

Our brains create this “virtual reality” out of the actual reality. Colors we see really aren’t there. The sounds we ‘hear’ are merely our brain’s virtual representation of the patters of compression and rarefaction in the air.

Our brains also create a virtual reality of its own self. Our brains are one hell of a qualia mapper.

Our perception of consciousness and choice, the sense of a “whole self”, internal body states represented as “hunger”, “satiation”, etc., the feelings of hot and cold, and yes, even pain.

All honed by evolution to enhance our survivability in a world too complex to deal with otherwise.

Quite fascinating, really. a “Natural Matrix”, if you will.

Adam Estep Responds:

Adam E,

Our brains create this “virtual reality” out of the actual reality. Colors we see really aren’t there. The sounds we ‘hear’ are merely our brain’s virtual representation of the patters of compression and rarefaction in the air. Our brains also create a virtual reality of its own self. Our brains are one hell of a qualia mapper. Our perception of consciousness and choice, the sense of a “whole self”, internal body states represented as “hunger”

Knowledge Is delivered courtesy of our 5 senses Which are designed to interpret our Complex surroundings. Colors are there they can be seen through prismatic refraction which yields the visible spectrum and all the constituent colors. The cool thing is out of white light you can get the rainbow and out of the individual constituent color you can get white light. The fact that the color white is the absence of color and black is a [combination] of the color spectrum demonstrates that colors are in fact not an illusion…Your thoughts??

Adam Marchese Responds:

“satiation”, etc., the feelings of hot and cold, and yes, even pain.

All honed by evolution to enhance our survivability in a world too complex to deal with otherwise.

Quite fascinating, really. a “Natural Matrix”, if you will.”

The universe is far queerer than we could suppose. Great.

Above is the rest of Fred’s statement…My last comment was in the second paragraph.

Fred,

Our Brains have a filter mechanism that allows us to get rid of petty details so our five senses can take in the information of reality. Nothing in Evolution dictates the need for speciation to evolve any more than one sense and the odds of that are one in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion and you want to multiply that times 5 as an accident. There is not enough time in eternity to back that data…O’ and by the way the odds are even greater because all this must happen within the life of our sun….Can’t, Won’t, and Didn’t happen that way! Sorry there is a GOD!

Fred Responds:

Adam E, You obviously don’t understand much about Evolution. Please visit http://www.talkorigins.org.

Once you’ve spent a few days on that site, come back and we can have a discussion.

Adam E, also google Chaos Theory, Stochastic Hill Climbing, Complex Adaptive Systems, Complex Dynamical Systems, Fractals, Self Organized Criticality, Artificial Life, and — well, that’s enough to keep you busy for a while.

Also Neural Darwinism: http://urlbit.us/h7b

Actually, there’s enough in those references to keep you busy for months. But one thing I do guarantee — if you do do your due diligence and understand even 1/10th of that, you’ll have to change many of your views and insights on the world around you.

Adam Estep Responds:

Fred, Sorry I do know evolution what would like to know? You got two options Fred which is really only one! Either you believe an Alien Race planted the seeds of life here to evolve, (Which begs a question) or you believe something came from nothing…Which are you?

on one hand you say a fruit fly can be observed in evolutionary mutation….and then turn right around and say it takes evolution take millions of years to occur…Both sides of the mouth.

[note that I never even spoke of the fruit fly!]

Chaos Theory- At the point of the random cause the effect is already determined…Fred please consider the plates tectonics and you will understand why it remains a theory that you cite as fact or scientific law. Par for the course. Fred I really like your intensity level of debate…Your thoughts??

Complex adaptive systems- It is just that Adaptive and Micro Evolution is a vastly different animal as opposed to Macro evolution. One might say your Neural Darwinism argument is founded here in theory as the Brain in memory formation adapts to store past events which is also a pretty strong argument against your illusions!

[Against my “illusions”? Strong argument? I don't follow his logic here.]

Fred Responds:

Adam, speciation has been observed. If you spent any time on http://talkorigins.com, you’d see that.

Thing is, I have debated Creationists for decades. And their story never changes. Many of their claims have long since been debunked, yet the use the same thing over and over again.

I see it as pointless to keep rehashing and redoing a lot of stuff just to put down the same tired out old excuses for “evidence” that Creationists always toss up, depending on the ignorance of their audiences to carry the day.

Adam, spend some REAL time going over the references, then come back to me. We are either going to debate on fresh new ground or not at all. The mere fact that you are trying to assign probabilities to biological evolution, or that you are using the term “macro evolution”, tells me right off the bat you really don’t understand Evolution, though you may think you do.

I have debated these very same issues 10 years ago and grow tired of repeating myself. But the information is out there if you really do care about the Truth.

So, go forth, young man, learn a thing or two, then come back. I’ll be around.

Because I strongly predict that if you really do give my references an honest workout, you will clearly see there is nothing to debate about.

And just because Evolution is Real does not mean you have to abandon your religion. Far from it.

Most religious people in the Western world outside of the US avoid making the mistake of trying to mix Religion and Science. They wisely keep them separate. Only Religious types in the US make that mistake for some odd reason. And yes, there are exceptions to the Rule, but that’s generally the Rule.

Adam Marchese Responds:

Fred, Sorry I do know evolution what would like to know? You got two options Fred which is really only one! Either you believe an Alien Race planted the seeds of life here to evolve, (Which begs a question) or you believe something came from nothing…Which are you?

[Adam makes this statement on the basis of his faulty understanding of probability theory with regards to how evolution works]

I would assume neither because no good scientist thinks that something came from nothing (like you). Presenting a false choice, but onwards. At what we can understand to be the start of the universe, there was an extremely hot and indefinitely small point that was for some unknown reason expanded into the many different galaxies. It is beyond human understanding at this point what the singularity was because it was before there was even a thing called 3-dimensional space.

on one hand you say a fruit fly can be observed in evolutionary mutation….and then turn right around and say it takes evolution take millions of years to occur…Both sides of the mouth.

[again, I never said one single thing about fruit flies!]

…The difference between Macro-evolution and Micro-evolution.

The difference between reality and illusion is perspective. No one has a true understanding of reality because we all view things differently. Watch this trick and see if you know exactly what he did the first time through.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tScm-eZInBE
[video about a magician doing slight-of-hand tricks with cards]

Have fun.

Fred Responds:

Adam M,

Firstly, I was speaking with Adam E, but no biggie. Same applies to you.

Secondly, what’s more incredible to believe — the universe emerged from nothing, or some uber-being created the universe — and now you have to get into the origins of this uber-being…

Which either came from nothing itself, or what itself created by an even bigger uber-being.

I would think the simpler explanation would be the more likely one — the universe came from nothing.

Beliefs are irreverent — I look at the science and try to decide what is the most likely; what makes the most sense.

Humans tend to want to pick an explanation that reflects human sentiment. Thing is, the Universe does not exist for human sentiment.

And there are some things that we simply cannot know. As scientists, we admit our ignorance, and try to come up with testable explanations in order to eliminate the ignorance.

But creating fanciful tales of uber-beings is no better than the “World rides on the back of Turtles” that used to be believed in ages past.

Better to take a VERY humble approach and:

1. Acknowledge that we simply DO NOT KNOW.

2. Reason from what we do know and understand.

3. Be mindful that humans tend to want to “find” anthropomorphic explanations.

4. Don’t jump to conclusions, but spend some time understanding the true awe and majesty of the Universe.

This is not something that can be done overnight. It takes a better part of a lifetime to acquire enough understanding to be able to see the Truth. People being as they are tend to be impatient and would rather take the “easy way out” — thus religion and myths about gods are created.

But, if you are truly into giving up childish ways, you will spend the time and effort to understand and appreciate your Universe.

Biological Evolution is all about gradualism. That’s why I mentioned “stochastic hill climbing” in the mix of things to google. Really go over my list in detail, even if you think you know it. This is not going to be settled in this single discourse here, but in much effort on your part to Know and Understand.

Adam Estep Responds:

FRED FRED??? I am using your terminology I call it adaptation you call it Macro evolution.

[Actually, that's not true. He is muddying the waters here big time.]

Learned it from the very same place you did [I doubt that!] I just don’t by it…Because you only have Guesstamations and Have a Religious Dogma in peddling speculation. When you Guys are proven wrong, and you quite frequently are, Then you cop out with well we need to revise our thoughts on the matter…

[He is upset about how the Scientific Process works – which requires us to constantly question what we think is true to greater and greater levels of scrutiny, and we do have to revise from time to time when we find out we were wrong about something. This is what Science is all about!!!]

How about offering the solution instead of generating more questions…You have been brainwashed and tempered by Psuedo Science to believe in some ones guess…You are correct fresh new ground is needed so I suggest you follow your own advice. Revisit Thermo dynamics, Entropy, and diffusion all of which you accept as law but takes the legs out from under Darwinian rhetoric!

[This is interesting here because it clearly demonstrates that he is unsettled with the uncertainty that comes with the Scientific Process. He clearly demands “absolute conclusions” that will never change or be subject to scrutiny in the future. Good luck. The one thing that is certain about the world we live in is uncertainty!]

Alien or something from nothing I don’t believe I got your answer? Why do I need to study these things again? I have learned them and read science journals weekly…Peer reviewed papers? How about asking a question instead of dismissing my level of education?

Just as the rest when you can’t get away from someone that can stand toe to toe with you on evolution [he calls this standing 'head to toe'? He's kidding, right?] you start dishing out insults. [he takes my challenges to his level of understanding as an 'insult'.] well I am not going to play that game with you. Offer up an answer the missing link so to speak. In scientific study you: you remember the Piltdown man don’t…the missing link jawbone of human ancestors…Added to all university text books and taught as fact…but it turned out to be a 10 year old jaw bone fragment of a swine! Fred no thanks! I think I will cleave to reason not bafoonery!

Fred the same can be said about a tv…Did it just come to pass or did someone make it? You can not know or ever explain the true origins of the universe with evolutionary thaughts [not sure what word he really wanted to type here, so I left it alone]…Yes AWE and MAJESTY but attributes of GOD…And since your science says you cannot get matter from non matter I am perplexed at your blindness to this implication…Point proven you practice faith just as I do…Forgive spelling and grammar…on a blackberry

[He is obviously trying the tactic that many frustrated theists do – trying to claim Science is a “Faith” as well.]

Fred Responds:

Adam E — Give me some references on your claim that we’ve been “proven wrong.”

Adam E — it seems to me that you are calling the Scientific Method “pseudoscience”. We Scientists always must face the facts that some new observation, more detailed, more accurate comes in, and we must revise in light of the new observations.

That’s just how science works! That’s where Humility before the Truth comes in!

Newton was proven wrong by Einstein. Yet, Newton was “right” within the accuracy of observations and measurements available to him in his time.

Newtonian physics is still used to fly space craft around the solar system because it’s “good enough” for that. However, to make the Global Positioning System work, Einstein’s General Relativity *had to* be taken into account. Why? Because of the exacting precision of all the clocks involved.

And who knows? Perhaps General Relativity one day may be “proven wrong”, but it will still be used for GPS because it’s good enough for that purpose.

Today we can sequence DNA much faster than ever before, so what we know about taxonomy will be and is being revised.

This is how Science works. We improve our accuracy over time. We make new observations. We are always trying to PROVE OURSELVES WRONG.

Also, it is clear you don’t understand thermodynamics. And yes, I check and recheck my knowledge all the time.

Do you understand about dissipative systems that are far from equilibrium?

Do you understand what happens to systems that sits on the edge of chaos and order?

Do you understand that *experiments* can be and have been constructed to TEST these theories?

Nope. I don’t think I’m the one brainwashed here. Far from it.

Adam E, you need to study them again because you missed something along the way. I am constantly revising my knowledge. New developments are always being made. New discoveries, new understanding.

I don’t think you’ve actually ever tried creating experiments to falsify the theories you now criticize. If you have, please show me. If you are right, then show me the experiments you have done to prove these things wrong.

Adam E, check out http://talkorigins.org for all your questions about “the missing link”, etc. It’s all there. LOOK IT UP.

I don’t know what your “education” is, but I go by what you say and what you claim. When you start babbling about assigning straight probabilities to what is obviously the result of a gradual stochastic hill climb, that speaks volumes to me.

If you are hiding your light, then cease to do so!

I am interested in debating you on NEW grounds, not the old tired out usual that have been debunked decades ago. Find something that is NOT on talkorigins.org or elsewhere, and then we can get started!

“And since your science says you cannot get matter from non matter I am perplexed at your blindness to this implication…”

Speaks volumes to me about your supposed level of education. Don’t take it as an insult, but as a statement of fact.

If you know anything about Quantum Physics, you know that matter appears out of nowhere and disappears into nowhere all the time. This is directly related to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

In fact, at the event horizon of a Black Hole, some of those virtual particles *fall into* the black hole and others escape. This is known as Hawking Radiation, and basically the Black Hole eventually evaporates.

Then there is superstring theory, which I have questions about myself because it has yet to make a testable prediction, but it is truly compelling. Perhaps the LHC will shed some light on it someday. Who knows?

And when I speak of the Awe and Majesty of the Universe, it has nothing to do with a “god”. In fact, it would be far less majestic if that were the case.

If you throw your “god” into that equation, then the burden of proof is on you, not me. I am simply going by what is observable, what we know of science, what mysteries still lie out there, and what it all means.

If you simply say, “god did it”, what’s the fun in that? If, on the other hand, you recognize the self-organized beauty of Nature, it is simply astounding — especially when you have an understanding as to how this self-organization can come about.

Hence, all the reference that I’ve listed. And I’m sorry — I am not convinced you have a true grasp of any of these concepts. If you did, your language would be vastly different.

On the other hand, I do have a friend who is very much a Creationist, and him and I had these conversations — the same ones, in fact — 10 years ago. I presented him with evidence then. He kinda didn’t respond to it.

But he did tell me something — that he had a *need* to believe in a god. Not exactly in those words, mind you. But it was clear from what he told me about his personal experiences.

So, Adam E, may I venture a guess that YOU have this deep-seated intrinsic “need” to believe in a deity for whatever personal reasons you have — and as a result, it clouds your reason and logic in the arena of Science.

And I am saying that there’s no need for that. It should be perfectly possible for you to “have faith in God” and also accept the Scientific Method. Science should not be seen as a “threat” to your yearning for a “god”.

Take that as you will.

Adam Estep Responds:

Fred you can stop saying I don’t understand things just because i do not concur with you.

[Actually, I say he doesn't understand things because of the language he uses, and his lack of sound logic and reason in his arguments.]

..Is it really that hard for you to swallow that there exists educated people and Scientist that do not subscribe to Evolutions Dogma??

[No, but I am still waiting for them to produce solid evidence for their claims. In fact, I've been waiting for decades.]

And by the way intrinsic values are not conclusive to your beliefs…Dissipative Equilibrium nice words

[I actually said 'dissipative systems far from equilibrium'. Again a sign he really does not understand!]

but it does not let you out from under the bus of Entropy.

[But if he understood what that meant, it would be clear that entropy is not violated. We are talking local phenomenon in an open system vs. global phenomenon in a closed system!!!]

I can tell you are a highly intelligent person and I enjoy this discourse. You know as well as I for every explanation you can coin for your Psuedo Science I can counter with valid points establishing a dissipative Equilibrium between our exchanges.

[He is not even using the words correctly. Not only that, in one instance he calls me smart and the very next sentence he calls me a fool. Go figure!]

Fred reason with me…with science why are we here as opposed to not here? How can something be made from nothing? Why are things decaying to randomness instead of order? Metal rusts etc…this Destroys the Chaos theory but then so does Diffusion! Where did human conscience com from? Why does every thing procteate its own kind? Evolution has its solid points but it is eons from fact and it is a faith practiced. Your thoughts?

Fred straight from the front page of talkorigins…note the last few words:

I have divided this FAQ into several sections. Part 2 discusses several definitions of what a species is. Part 3 explains the context in which observations of speciation are made. Part 4 looks at the question, “How can we tell when a speciation event has occurred?” Part 5 describes a number of observed speciation events and several experiments which (in my opinion) failed to produce speciation. Part 6 is a list of references.

LOL…Fred the speciations observed were plant life…You can get the same effect from cross polinations…And you want me to take this we site as gospel??? Did you evlove reason? You so far have validated My stance! You have to do better than this. Make a solid point so I can seriously consider your Ideaologies…I welcome them…as I to revise my understanding when I see reason.

The fruit fly argument is pathetic as well and is clearly bio engineering…For all practical purposes man being intelligent Designer!

Fred Responds:

Like I said, I’ve had these discussions years ago, and don’t feel like rehashing the same old stuff. Research for yourself what Entropy means. There is local entropy and global entropy. I don’t feel like going into all the details here, but is is clear a glass to me that you don’t really understand Entropy.

You are either being Intellectually Dishonest, or, like I said, your judgment and understanding is being clouded by your internal “God just has to be true; let’s make everything fit”.

The evidence for biological evolution is simply overwhelming. The evidence for cosmological evolution is equally overwhelming. Is our knowledge perfect? No. But what we DO know is pretty darn convincing.

Dissipative systems that are far from equilibrium represent a local, or open system, where entropy appears to go in reverse. The law of entropy only applies to closed systems. The sum total of ALL the entropy in the ENTIRE universe ALWAYS increases, as far as we know. LOCAL entropy in OPEN systems is not required to follow this rule.

Dissipative systems far from equilibrium themselves are NOT governed by the differential equations of thermodynamics. Plain and simple.

Just go to http://talkorigins.org and other places and look this stuff up yourself. There is nothing new here. You are just rehashing the same tired out arguments that have been proven wrong years and decades ago.

Adam E,

I also don’t wish to get into a heavy-duty discussion of Genetics with you, simple stuff about diploid haploid issues, genetic crossovers, genotype-phenotype issues, and the like.

Your extremely naive language of “why does everything create its own kind…” is quite evident of your lack of understanding of Genetics.

It would be pointless for me to have a meaningful discussion with you about what constitutes “kind” in your extremely imprecise wording. It would be a waste of my time to get into speciation details with you, or how plants of different “kinds” have been cross-bred and evolutionarily shaped by Humans over the centuries, and a myriad other details.

As to “where does human consciousness comes from”, the very way you word that question implies you have a lack of understanding there as well.

Consciousness is an emergent process created by the brain, to put very simply. Really, consciousness is not singular, but the emergent phenomenon resulting from the interaction of many “agents” — read Marvin Minsky’s Society of Mind.

Experiments have been done all around that shows that our minds are directly linked to our brains. Without brain, there is no mind. You alter brain, you alter parts of mind. Tons of research on this; LOOK IT UP.

Adam E, to truly understand this Universe and how it works takes MUCH time and MUCH effort, and a humility before the Truth. It is all to easy to create specious questions to “poke holes” — and yet Creationists have yet to PROVIDE POSITIVE EVIDENCE to support their claims.

Very easy to poke at this, to poke at that, especially when your main audience is uninitiated. Your main audience is NOT the community of knowledgeable scientists, mathematicians, and the like. Your audience are people who have a limited understanding of science AT BEST, not beyond what they learned in High School (which is a joke, really), and have forgotten much of even that.

You will shine well with them because they don’t have the mental faculties to smell out your specious arguments. You will NOT fly with anyone who has a clue.

And my challenge to you, Adam, and to all Creationists out there, is to PRESENT YOUR DIRECT EVIDENCE to support your claims, or your hypothesis. Construe an experiment that will allow is to FALSIFY your claims.

If you claims are not falsifiable, then you claims are NOT SCIENCE. Plain and simple.

And, of course, it not science; it’s RELIGION! Duh!

Which gets back to what I’ve stated before — give up trying to mix religion and science. It does not work. Science requires and demands DIRECT EVIDENCE, REPEATABILITY, and FALSIFIABILITY. Religion require nothing more than BELIEF. The two are diametrically opposed. And that’s why you Creationists always try to poke holes in an intellectually dishonest manner. Because you know darn well your postulations are not supported by any evidence.

All the flag-waving and the fan fare to HIDE from the real STICKY POINT that lies at the heart of your claims.

Adam, in a nutshell:

In order for your Creationism to be a true Science, it must prove that your God Exists.

I don’t need to tell you that you cannot ever prove that your God exists. Let’s not even go there.

All you can do is spread FUD — Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt; with the hopes others will take your FUD as “evidence”.

Ignorance is not proof to the positive, Adam. It is faulty logic to claim that “Since A is unknown it implies B”. You can’t make a claim about B from your lack of knowledge about A.

All you can HONESTLY DO is admit the truth: that you are ignorant about A. Your admission of “I don’t know” is the most HONEST thing you can utter at this point.

This universe we live in is very complex at all scales from quantum mechanics to cosmology. And yes, we don’t know it all, but neither do you. But we scientists are at least willing to admit our ignorance on what we don’t know yet — are you willing to do the same?

Yes, Adam — I am looking for an honest admission FROM YOU and all Creationist out there that:

You simply don’t know whether or not God Exists.

Come on, Adam. Surprise me. Admit the Truth here. And your own beloved bible states that “The Truth will Set You Free”.

Because, really, I don’t think you can. Oh, you will rant and rave about how you have “personal experiences” and the like, but it won’t be anything beyond your subjective internalized view of the world.

But the reality is, you don’t have one shard of evidence that your God exists. Just admit the truth. Then we can go to the next step.

Adam Estep Responds:

Fred are you even considering what I have already said…I practice a Faith just as you do! Look at the English I have used and you can see the truth…End the end there is no proof of anything Just reason…You can’t even prove George Washington is buried in his grave with 100% degree of certainty! I have been saying this all along!

Fred Responds:

Adam E, I don’t practice a faith. I reason, as much as possible, from sound principles based on Mathematics and Science and Logic grounded in empiricism.

I am very big on empirical and observable evidence. I am extremely skeptical on anything not so well grounded.

But that’s a tactic I’ve seen often used by the theist when all else fails — to try to paint the empiricist in the same light of belief without solid foundation (what you call “faith”).

To test gravity, I can drop a rock and measure it’s rate of fall and see how well it compares with the equations that describe that fall. For astronomy, I can buy my own telescope and track the movement of the planets and see how well that jives with Kepler and Newton. And so on.

But Adam, what do you have to stand on? I can have anyone look through my telescope and come to the same conclusions that I did. I can write software that demonstrates how evolution works and have anyone run it on their computer, and there’s tons of software out there that already demonstrates this — just google for it.

But Adam, what software can I run do demonstrate your position? What set of mathematical equations do you have to describe the existence of your God? What verifiable and testable means do you have to test out your Creation “Theories”?

I don’t run on “faith”. If anything, I am very anti-faith. So don’t try to put me in the same boat with you.

Oh darn it, I can’t resist. Adam, you asked “did I evolve Reason?”

What kind of question is that? But let me deal with it, anyway.

Memetics — the science of how ideas are transmitted — is itself a system of evolution — memetic evolution.

Google Aaron Lynch and his book, Thought Contagions. Better yet, just buy the book and read it. Religion is one of the Thought Contagions he writes about — in fact, he makes the very ironic remark that the ideas Creationist put forward against Evolution were themselves the result of Memetic Evolution! Eventually it kept changing and changing it to the point you had something that would spread like wildfire. And obviously you were infected by it.

But Creationism does not seek new knowledge, which is why it hasn’t changed much in recent times. It is stuck in the form that best programs for its retransmission; indeed, were you to change it it probably would die the death it deserves!

Science, on the other hand, always seeks new knowledge, and so the findings of Science do change as we learn more and more.

<!– @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } H1 { margin-bottom: 0.08in } H1.western { font-family: “Arial”, sans-serif; font-size: 16pt } H1.cjk { font-family: “DejaVu Sans”; font-size: 16pt } H1.ctl { font-family: “DejaVu Sans”; font-size: 16pt } –>

Many years ago, a large prominent figure wrote an essay by the name, “The World as I see It.” In no way do I presume to even approach the stature of the man who wrote that — Albert Einstein.

However, we do live in a different world than Einstein’s in many respects. For starters, the geopolitical landscape is far different today than it was then. Today’s world affairs are borne on the back of what took place since Einstein’s time.

And yet, in many respects, not much have changed. We still have silly “tribal” conflicts and squabblings, and big “tribes” love to beat up on the smaller “tribes”, and the smaller “tribes” will fight back by any means possible against the bigger “tribes”.

But what about the major differences? In today’s world, we have a level of hyper-connectivity that has never existed before in the history of mankind — the Internet. We also have diversification of wealth at levels that have never existed before. We have mass travel, where anyone can travel great distances to any part of the world in just a few hours and some bucks. We also have far more people alive today than then. We also have diversified levels of education and knowledge that would’ve been the stuff of Science Fiction back in Einstein’s era. And many other wonders.

We also have the specter of ultra-powerful hyper-stable governments that are firmly entrenched and very controlling. We have military machines, weapons, and other technology that would’ve been beyond the imagination of many back then.

And for the first time in human history, humans have the power to wipe itself clean off the map at just the “push of a button”. Those, that “button” currently resides in the hands of the most powerful governments, but the danger increases as that power becomes more distributed among the lesser nations.

Alas, nuclear weapons are not the only threat to our existence. Biological threats exists as well, and as biotechnology progresses, the more possible it will become for anyone to engineer a biological threat that can wipe out large numbers of people.

On the other hand, big powerful governments and corporations are controlled by the hands of a few whose agendas and goals may not be in the best interests of the individual. Pharmaceutical companies may push governments to institute mandates for vaccines that may not be necessary or safe. Military contractors may influence governments to choose military options over diplomatic ones to keep themselves on the gravy train. Big Finance may convince governments to allow them to cowboy the economy. And so on.

Meanwhile, the “little guys” — you and I — are caught in the middle of all of this. Activities of the “Big Boys” may wipe us out individually without the Boys even knowing it, like kids horsing around in a playground trampling ants. Military conflicts sacrifice the lives of innocent men, women, and children to serve some geopolitical — or geo-corproate interest. Entire villages of the “little people” may be bombed out of existence in the efforts to “war against terrorism.”

If you are one of those villiagers, who is the true terrorist in your eyes as you watch your hut go up in flames or one of your kids fragged by an exploding bomb?

Or here in the US, you may be someone who have worked hard all of your life to have a “nest-egg” to rely on in your retirement — except the IRAs and the 401K investments were wiped out in value by downturns in the equities markets.

And it gets even better. Developing nations are creating greater and greater demands for resources that are finite both in absolute size and in the ability to exploit them for use. China and India are probably the two fastest growing in this regard, but there are others as well. Utilization of those resources also creates concomitant impacts on the environment, which is also limited in scope and its ability to adapt to human activities.

Where is all of this headed? What will be the end result?

My concerns are as follows:

1. The Forever Resource Wars — in some form or fashion, resource wars will not only continue, but grow in aggression amidst the deceptions, the propagandas, and the outright lies to “justify” the wars back at home. The allocation of intellectual and financial resources to fight the resource wars put a net drain on the global economy as a hole, not to mention destruction of wealth of the victim nations, deaths to millions of innocent lives, and a dimunition of what it means to be human.
2. Financial and Social Instabilities brought on by Dwindling Resources — as resources become increasingly scarce, prices will rise, destabilizing the financial and social picture on a global scale. More propaganda will be promulgated by the Big Governments to divert people away from the true problems to blame each other, only creating more unrest, socially and geo-politically, feeding the push for The Forever Resource Wars, and other nasties.
3. Ecological Impacts that may be Irreversible — Human activities on a global scale that results in the release of even more carbon and various pollutants into the atmosphere and the biosphere in general, which will have nonlinear and unpredictable impacts on the environment, which most likely will feed into Financial and Social Instabilities, among other things.
4. A Negative Synergism — an emergence of a global set of problems emerging from the interplay of the first 3, which in and of itself might take on an irreversible mode leading to a downward spiral of the overall well-being of humans on this planet.

Note that my above 4 concerns cannot be taken in isolation, but must all be considered. We may project  best-case scenarios and worst-case scenarios from the above, across time into the future.  Some may argue that there is no cause for concern, but it is hard to see how we should not be at least a little concerned given the issues at hand.

It is my estimation that the “Big Boys” will not appreciate the full impact of the above until it is too late — that is, until after its beyond the point of no return. And even if they did, what would they do? Would their major concern be what’s best for us individuals? Or what’s best for themselves? Would they seek to maintain status quo? Or do the right thing? What exactly would they do? That is the question of ages.

There are certain fallacies the “Big Boys” operate from. They are:

1. The Fallacy of Infinite Growth — this bedevils both the financial and resource markets. Both assume that they can continue to have “infinite growth” despite the very obvious and plain fact that resources and people are finite.
2. The Fallacy of “Might Makes Right” — just because loads of  “power” does not mean it’s a good thing to use that power against the individual. If it increases suffering somewhere, how is it ever “right”?
3. The Fallacy of the Assumption that the “Little Guy” can always be “controlled” — You can only fool individuals so many times before they catch on.

The immediate question that comes to mind is what can we do about it, as individuals? As individuals, we acquese power and control to the power elite, collectively, and those few that resist are put down by other individuals that have bought into the “power of authority”. Thus, you have police arresting people even if they’ve done no wrong, soliders kicking the doors in of innocent families even that family has done nothing wrong, etc. Ultimately, we are talking about the little guy being pitted against the little guy at the behest of the “Big Boys”.

But the Big Boys would not have any power or dominance unless there’s acquiescence. It’s just that plain and simple.

More on this later.

If I was angry before, you have no idea how much now.

Just looked at today’s issue of the Boston Herald (28-July-2009). This paper seems like a rag, but it did a good story on the Gates affair, including publishing the transcripts of the 911 call.

As the aid told Londo in Babylon 5 before Londo went on a rage and broke everything in his room after he found out he’d been “played like a fiddle”, The Details are Everything.

After reading the transcripts myself, it is clear that:

1. Crowley lied about being told that “it was 2 Black men with backpacks”. The 911 tapes revealed that he was told that there were 2 men, race unknown, maybe one was a “Hispanic”, and there were suitcases. Not backpacks, but suitcases!
2. Whalen, the woman who made the 911 call, was asked about the “race” of the 2 men, but said she did not know.
3. Crowley report back to HQ that he had the ID of “Henry Louis Gates”, which presumably would have his address on it!
4. Crowley claim that Gates screamed and became “belligerent”, but there was no evidence of this in the tapes. Just soft-spoken voices.
5. Whalen has come forward and openly contradicted Sgt. Crowley’s claim of “2 Black men”. She wants to clear her name in this highly charged affair.

What conclusions can we draw from this?

It is clear that Sgt. Crowley is a big fat liar, as are many police. As they were in my case similar to the Gates Incident 10 years ago. Whalen had no motivaion to lie. She was just accurately reporting what she saw, and not one whit more.

Crowley obviously knew that Gates lived at that home when he arrested him. Crowley obviously knew about the suitcases, as he was told that by the dispatcher. Crowley had every reason to believe and know that Gates just got back from a trip.

The facts, to a reasonable person, would lead that person to conclude that Gates was not a criminal, but simply got locked out of his house has he claimed. The reasonable person would see no need to put this distinguished professor in handcuffs.

But we are talking police here, so toss all reason and logic out of the window. Crowley obviously wanted to assert his “authority” over this professor who had done no wrong, and had already proven his identity and the fact that that was his house. Besides, a robber would not want to hang about for long and most likely would have been gone by the time the cops arrived.”I don’t care what “good record” Crowley had before this incident. He indeed did “act stupidly” as the President proclaimed, as did the Nashua Police Anthony Pivero and Eric Nordengren did in my P. Uno case 10 years ago.

Was Crowley’s “stupid actions” motived by race? Or just a general power trip cops typically like weilding on everyone? Who knows? Does it matter, really?

I therefore make a general call to all who have been wronged by rogue cops to take action. Do  NOT let these rogue cops get away with trampling our rights. Do not let these rogue cops get away with their power trips at our expense. Sue them. Go to the media. Video them and immediately upload the videos to youtube. TAKE EVERY LEGAL ACTION you can to put these rogue cops back in their place!

They like saying that “Freedom is Never Free”. Well, let’s get to the freedom first.

911 and Dispacher Audio can be heard here. But here’s the transcripts of the exerpts as published in The Boston Hearld.

I really don’t like Obama, as many of his policies has serious problems that will plunge this country into further debt, and he has failed to end the war and close Guantanamo Bay as he promised.

However, when he said that the Cambridge Police acted “stupidly” in arresting the Harvard Professor in his own home, he was spot on.
mach zehnder modulator
Obama on the Gates Case

I myself have been through similar experiences with police a number of times in my life. And you know, all the tired old excuses grow old after a while. The police always claim to be “doing their job”. They were always “responding to something”. And all the other excuses they pour out.

But where do we brown-skinned people ever get to be treated equally in this damned country? Why are we always the ones singled out in matters such as these? And more importantly, WHEN IT IT GOING TO STOP?

Today, I am avowed to SUE both the police and the 911ers whenever I am harassed by them when I’ve done nothing wrong. My mere existence is not suspicion of bad activity. My mere presence in a place is NOT A CRIME! Sorry, but not all of us have pale skin, nor should we be made to feel inferior or a threat to society just because we don’t. We all have various shades of brown, and what’s wrong with having brown skin anyway?

I am proud of my brown skin, and wouldn’t change it for the world. Actually, I really don’t make much ado about dermal chromatics. I don’t see the point. Why so many stupid humans think it should be an issue. I don’t get it.

I like all people on this planet — all cultures, all ethnicities, all countries. I don’t consider any one person more or less worthwhile just because of their country of origin or their chosen culture, etc.

And I certainly don’t see dermal chromatics having anything to do with the worth of an individual, either!

And so I still scratch my head, trying to understand why this issue of dermal chromatics continues to be an issue in our country.

Sorry, but a man’s home is his castle. Everyone should respect that — including the Police. You don’t go kicking doors in and arresting homeowners out of their own homes just for being there, or just for their dermal chromatics.

Nor do you harass people in public because of their dermal chromatics either, as I have been more times than I can count.

And Police MUST stop abusing their power on everyone, as I’ve witness them giving lots of people a hard time, and not always due to dermal chromatics, either.

Being innocent must stand for something in our country. But currently, it does not. We the People of America live in a country that really considers you guilty until proven innocent.

If a cop ever comes into my home again to arrest me when I’ve done nothing wrong, then that cop can expect an end to his career, as I will stop AT NOTHING until said cop is fired. I will sue him, the whole police force, go public, start protests, and much, much more.

We the Individuals of America must reassert our Personal Sovereignty. We have a right to bear arms, we have a right to privacy, we have a right not to be falsely accused, we have a right to not have our children snatched away when we’ve done nothing wrong. We have a right to not have the government in our wallets, in our bedrooms, tearing up marriages, making men look bad just for being men.

We the Individuals must stand together to Fight the Oppressors. We must take any and all means possible to do so. We must not knuckle under to harassment and oppression. We must not allow rogue neighbors to get away with fingering us to the cops. We must not allow rogue cops to get away with harassing innocents. We must not allow child-snatching social workers from taking our kids away from us.

WE MUST STAND FIRM.

Back in 2000, I used to be a day trader full-time. Everyday I would watch the markets and attempt to capitalize on short term price movements. In order to “predict” those price movements, I would look at lots of data and news every day, and even wrote some software to analyze some of that time-series data to give me a kind of “forecast” for the trading day.

We all know about “price discovery”, being “overbought”, “oversold”, “retracements” and the like. A difference is assumed between the “investor” and the “trader”, even to the point of absolutionist morality. It is seen as a “good thing” by the general public to be an “investor”, and a “bad thing” to be a “trader”. There’s lots of misconceptions about the equities market, and a lot of those misconceptions are intentional by those who stand to gain from the general ignorance and folklore on the part of the public.

Ah yes. But if we didn’t have the “traders” in the market short-term, there would not be enough liquidity for the long-term “investors”. They need each other, it would seem.

But the real question what is really going on needs to be understood and answered to truly understand the equities market.

Firstly, one must understand the basic fundamentals of the equities market. It is a zero-sum game. Exchanges occurs between one trader and another; between one investor and another. The goal of anyone in the equities market — investor or trader — is to find a “greater fool” than oneself to buy the stock at a higher price than one’s “strike price”.

That is to say, that every dollar you make in the equities market came at the expense of someone else, and every dollar you loose in the equities market  goes in somebody’s pocket.

This is a very tough concept for some to accept, because if you listen to all the spin about the equities market, you are lead to believe that the wealth one could supposedly make happens by “magic”. It does not. It happens at the expense of other players in the market.

That reality is played out — rather painfully — by the market “crashes” such as the one we are having now,  where so many loose their “investment”. They are paying for the profit of others before them. Plain and simple. And the sad reality of this is that prices will not rise again until the greatest fools of all jump out of the market in sheer panic and terror.

Indeed, it is a requirement for this to happen. Prices must fall. The giveback must occur. The Faustian bargain must be paid in full. This is the mathematical reality of a zero-sum game.

After you understand and appreciate the inanity of this, consider it even more insane that many are encouraged to put their retirement investments in the equities market.

Why does this happen? Simple. Because the supply of fools are finite, and to carry the market higher so for the Big Players to make a profit, they must suck in legions of smaller fools who don’t know any better.

The party works for a while. The more fools you suck in, the higher the prices are driven. Until, of course, you hit a wall and are unable to suck in anymore fools. Then the prices fall mercilessly, and many see their hard-earned life’s wealth washed away into the pockets of others.

The media calls this a “loss”. It should really be called a “transfer”, because that’s exactly what it is — a transfer of wealth.

They are encouraged to “stay in so they can catch the next uptick”. The sad irony is, of course, that if they would all stay in as they are recommended to by the financial planners, the market would never rise again. It only rises when many jump out of the market, giving up their holdings at prices below their strike, to smarter fools that will simply lie in wait for the whole “Ponzi Scheme” to repeat itself.

Now, with that notion in our minds, we are now in a stronger position to understand the true psychodymanics of the equities market.

I have struggled for some time now to conceive of a good model for the stock market. My latest one goes like this: On a given day, a given stock trades in a limited range of prices, at a certain volume. That volume and price range represents new ownership of that stock at a range of strike prices for that day. Since it is not known who owns what, I turn the issue on its head, and consider each individual stock as its own owner.

Crazy, you say? Maybe. But why not? If one person bought 10,000 shares of XYZ, would not the psychology be more or less the same as though 10 people bought 1000 shares each of XYZ? Or a hundred people purchased 100 shares each?

You are starting to see the picture here. Of course, in actuality, the specific goals of 100 people will probably all be different from each other — some may be doing this in a retirement account; others may be day traders. Some may be a mutual funds management. But that’s the whole idea. If I consider each individual stock as its own owner, then I can assign “flocking behavior” to groups of XYZ that all behave the same way. it allows me to reduce the problem of ownership to its bare elements. If 10,000 shares of XYZ all behave the same way, does it really matter if it had one owner or 10,000 with the same mindset? No, it does not.

When a share is traded, it looses is past owner and has a new owner at a new strike price. So now you have two components to deal with — the strike price and the goal of each share of stock.

When a the market is trading above the strike price of a owned stock, that owner is said to be “happy”. If the market price is trading below the strike, that owner is said to be “sad”.  We can then assign some probability of “ownership flipping” to that stock based on its own goals of greed and fear and the expectation of price evolution.

We can generally state that the probability of ownership flipping increases as the market price moves away from the strike price. But the probability curve is not symmetric for “happy” stocks and “sad” stocks. The probability increases faster for “sad” stocks than it does for “happy” stocks. Also, the details of the dynamics of how the price moves away from the strike is important. Fast moves will increase the probability of a flip faster than slow moves.  Price moves in certain patterns may shift the probability faster than other patterns. External factors such as news will also have an effect on that probability of a flip. Then there are automatic trading systems and the like. The picture becomes rather complex.

Add to that the fact that a flip influences others to flip. One single flip could trigger an avalanche of flips. This is self-organized criticality speaking here.

Now, it is clear that we, for the most part, have no ready access to the ownership space and distribution of the market capitalization of an equity at any given point in time. However, we do have a print of past history of stock price ranges and volumes for fixed intervals (minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years).

So, for any given time period p, where volume v of stock activity occurred, we know that at most v shares of stock are owned over the price range of p. We also know that at least min(t) shares are owned, t being the number of shares traded of a single tick over p. But this amount is so small in comparison that we can safely assume that w — the number of shares flipped during p — will be much larger than min(t) — that is, v >= w >> min(t).

For simplicity, we will simply ignore, for the moment, the possibility of shares flipping multiple times during p, as would be the case with day traders. We will also ignore shorting, but will treat it later.

So, given p₁, p₂, …, p_n, we have D₁, D_{лаптоп2}, …, D_n, where D_i = D(p_i), price distribution for period p_i. Of course, D shall be confined to the price range of the associated period. We also have ξ, the complete set of stock ownership for a given equity, where D_i is a subset that is dynamic on i.

Author’s note:

When I wrote this, I was particularly angry and blowing off a lot of steam at what I perceived to be a callous lot of believers, at a particularly sensitive time.  I don’t particularly feel this way most of the time, though I still remain annoyed at the callous self-exalted dogmatic attitudes that I do see in some believers.

So even this is a bit darker than normal — even for me. Don’t take it the wrong way, despite the strong language. But do take it to heart — especially if you are a believer — that some of us are tired of having beliefs we disagree with being constantly pushed in our faces!

I find that, as an Atheist in a Christian country such as the US, I am constantly bombarded by Christian messages, practices, and annoyances. Everything from the “In God We Trust” on every coin and dollar, to the “Do you swear… so help you God” swear-in in the courts.

In court, it is particularly annoying, since I am forced to reveal something of my religious orientation, or lack of the same, when I have to tell the court that I do not swear to “God”.

It’s the Religious Litmus Test that has become pervasive in our society, and it stinks. Especially in a court of law that is supposed to be blind to such things.

Well, I’ve grown up over the years and recognize that all the promises of an “equal” system of government they told us back in civics class is all a wash. You are judged by what Fantasy Sky Daddy you believe in, and you are considered “bad” if you don’t have any such fanciful notions.

Though, things are starting to change a bit. More and more people are declaring themselves as “non-religious” or Atheist around the country. This is a Good Thing.

Now, we must eliminate the institutionalization of the Christian god — and any god for that matter  – from our public offices, our courts, our politics, and everything else that is supposed to be “for the people”. I know. Fat chance of that.

But what I want to talk about here is, how does one, as a non-believer, as an Atheist, live among Christians, many who believe you will go to “hell” if you don’t believe in their brand of religion?

For being a Atheist, I have been called “In League with The Prince of Darkness” and other dark things by some Christians. I really don’t need that type of abuse, so I no longer attempt to associate with them. I am told that I should “tolerate” Christians, but I will NOT tolerate anyone who thinks I am dammed for not believing in their Sky Daddy.  And why should I, really?

Life it too short to waste time with fools.

Another touchy subject is the death of a family member, especially when your own family is Christian. I’ve experienced this twice — my father and my younger brother. Both died within two years of each other.

My Father died first, and at his very Christian funeral, the eulogy presented my father as something other than what I experienced with him growing up. They presented him as though he was some sort of devout saint. That’s now what I remember of him. He was just a man, meant well, but was full of faults. There were issues between him and I that were never resolved; I felt as though I should’ve spent more time with him after I left home.But the real issue is that there was a big chasm between him and I.  And I felt guilty because of it, but it was not my fault really.

My brother died in a horrible truck accident 2 years later, and was burned beyond recognition. It was a closed-casket funeral. There, the same problem, only worse. They presented my brother as though he was the “right-hand of God”, yet he too was just my brother, with good intent but having faults of his own. Him and I disagreed on a lot of things, and actually had a falling out during our father’s funeral, which lead to us not talking to each other for a year. We were just about to begin resolving those issues and started talking to each other when — surprise! — he was dead.

If I didn’t feel bad enough about this, one of my family members DURING MY BROTHER’S FUNERAL, a devout Christian, tried to “convert” me, using my brother’s death.

WHAT THE FUCK!!!!!! GODDAMN ALL YOU CHRISTIANS! YOU COULDN’T WAIT UNTIL I WAS OVER THE GRIEVING PROCESS BEFORE YOU DO SOMETHING SO LOW AS TO USE MY OWN BROTHER’S HORRIBLE DEATH TO “CONVERT” ME? MAY ALL YOU CHRISTIANS BURN IN YOUR OWN SELF-CREATED HELLS.

That’s the way I feel about it, and that’s that. You Christians out there have no tact, no gall; you all think your way is the ONLY WAY, and the rest of us is “hell-bound” in your myopic “holier than thou” eyes. You are the most intolerant, rancorous bunch, and your history finds you out as all the pogroms, the inquisitions, the tortures, the wars, the blood spilt as you throughout all history put down those who disagreed with you.

And damn it, you bloody Christians are still at it. Just yesterday I saw a big nasty billboard that said something like “Jesus — the ONLY way to God”.  That dogma opened up all the raw wounds for me and ruined what would have been  a great day for me.

Not to mention that you Christians want to oppress Gays and Lesbians in our country by constantly fighting their right to marry each other. Miscegenation religious style.  Fuck you all.

The concept of “live and let live” is lost on you. The fact that there are many religions in the world, many beliefs, many cultures and ways of life is also lost on you. What crass arrogance to think that the thousands of religions in the world are all “wrong” because yours is “obviously right.”

FUCK ALL YOU CHRISTIANS OUT THERE!

Now, that’s not to say that all Christians are “created equal”. However, if you call yourself a Christian, you are identifying yourself with the entire baggage that that label carries. Islam is not much better, BTW, but it has yet to become a personal thorn in my side.

Do I have my own thoughts? You betcha. Am I perfect? Not in the least. I do make mistakes. I falter. But you know what? I recognize the right of the Individual to be an Individual, and to determine his own course.  You want to be Christian? Fine. Hindu? No problem with that. Islamic? Whatever floats your boat.

But when you start beating others up about not living your way, not taking on your lifestyles, and not believing in your sky daddies, that’s where I draw the line. You become the oppressor at that point, and as everyone who knows me well, I am vehemently anti-oppression.

Some have called me “anti-government” and ‘anti’ other things, but the real issue is that I am anti-oppression. Any individual, agency, group, association, or government that routinely deals out oppression in any form for any unjustified reason I will stand firmly against.

Don’t like it? Don’t oppress.

I’ve said enough. Back to my so-called life…

You know, against my better judgment, I voted for Obama. Why? Because Palin scared the crap out of me. And yet, I don’t consider our political system as functional with regards to individual rights and concerns. Nonetheless, I did have hope that Obama would be a better choice than McCain, that perhaps Obama might actually represent the seeds for real change.

And now I see that I may have been right — but regret it.

This is a direct quote of Obama taken from the NPR Site:

“Now is the time for a strong international response, and North Korea must know that the path to security and respect will never come through threats and illegal weapons,” Obama said to applause. “All nations must come together to build a stronger, global regime … we must stand shoulder to shoulder to pressure the North Koreans to change course.”

What? Did I hear that right? “Global Regime?” In other words, a One World Government?

WTF? (Even Better: Obama’s New World Order)

Now, many of my more conspiracy-oriented friends had been warning me about this, but I tend to be a reserved skeptic, looking at possibilities, but also looking for evidence.

Well, if I didn’t hear this from the man’s mouth itself, I probably would not have believed it.

And folks, this is how it always begins. It always begins with the “big bogyman”,  and the very next thing you always see is government rushing in with “the solution”, which is almost always to grow more government.

But this is a major enchilada here. If I am reading the words of our new fearless leader correctly, he wants to scare the world into accepting a new “Global Regime” that will then issue dicta to various nations they disagree with, and subsequently may also kick that nation’s butt.

But as we all know, once something of that magnitude becomes established, it will go far beyond that. A One World Government would be a Bad Thing, something extremely anti-freedom. We already saw this with the much-vaunted European Union; now it’s going global?

Now, my friends, it turns out that Obama is not the first to be touting a New World Order. George Bush Senior as well! [See YouTube Video]

WTF!!!!

OK, what’s going on here? Obama sounding like Bush Senior? Did I miss something here? Well, there you have it. Solid Evidence that some thing’s afoot. Call me a conspiracy nut if you like, but from the very lips of both Bush and Obama you hear the same message.

>мебели сливенonline casino net and over and over and over again, I keep hearing Obama being referred to as the “44th President, 1st African-American|Black”, as though that’s going to make all the difference.

Well, I don’t care one rat’s bottom about the so-called “race” — and besides, Obama has mixed heritage anyway, which constantly is ignored. All I care about is how he’s going to do his job. Nothing else bloody matters.

However, Obama has major challenges to face, and I am not at all confident if he will be able to meet them. The great hope many have in him may be too strong, and there may be lots of disappointment to go around before long.

Meanwhile, the entired linked web that is our global economy spirals downwards with no stop in sight. “All the King’s horses and all the King’s men” won’t be able to do much to stop it for reasons I have outlined elsewhere. How very sad.

So in due time Obama may turn out to become the world’s “Great Black Disapointment”.  Kinda sad, really. Sad that the world still focuses on race. Sad that so many don’t see the problems for what they really are. Sad that few can think beyond their own nose. Oh well, what’s a species to do?