response 108 of 209:

Aug 3 20:13 UTC 2003

Re #100:  Regardless of what the mainstream is this week, the
Constitution prohibits the majority imposing its will on matters
religious without repealing the First Amendment.  (You may recall
that the Constitution is specifically designed to prevent transient
passions from changing the law of the land [aka mob rule].)

I also seem to recall that the "mainstream" view as propounded by
the radical right is built on half-truths and a number of outright
lies.  My sympathies for their agenda are diminished accordingly,
and I expect that the jurists who take their duty of impartiality
seriously feel likewise.  Right-wing ideologues are another matter.

response 110 of 209:

Aug 3 23:52 UTC 2003

Yup, I think that young people and less educated people generally know
less than old people and more educated people.  Such a snob I am.

The "golly, that's a shock" part is specifically about your strange
notion that these statistics are any big surprise to anyone.  The
specific numbers vary, and the interpretation is difficult, but everyone
knows there are lots of people on both sides of the issue.  If, like
you, I was interested in painted a oversimplified image that tended to
favor my side, I'd have quoted just the first of the paragraphs above.

response 114 of 209:

Aug 5 03:46 UTC 2003

There's a certain tendancy, when people argue passionately to support a
position, to throw in any argument that seems to support their cause, in the
vague hope that someone out there somewhere will be convinced by that one,
even if it's stupid.  So in any passionate argument, you tend to get lots of
stupid arguments for or against being floated.  Their existance should not
be taken as evidence that good arguments don't actually exist.

response 116 of 209:

Aug 5 22:05 UTC 2003

Re #114:  Except this isn't random people, Jan.  These are the major
organizations behind the cause, so far as I can tell.  The only thing
they accomplish with these things is to discredit themselves in the
eyes of anyone who cares about truth.

What really gets me is that most of the organizations opposed to
abortion have an explicit Christian affiliation, yet they do not
show any concern about these lies.  Which denominations teach that
it's okay to lie about people who differ?  Or are these people
hypocrites even by the teachings they claim to follow?  (I lean
toward the latter explanation.)

response 118 of 209:

Aug 6 00:30 UTC 2003

I have not faith in the idea of an atom.  How are you going to prove they
exist.

response 120 of 209:

Aug 6 15:05 UTC 2003

118:  The nature of matter is a theory, albeit an extremely well-supported
one.  I am thus far stisfied with it because it has proved consistent with
all situations.  If an alternate theory came forth which equally well 
explained all observed phenomena, then I would consider that as well.
I have no interest in going through all the reasons that I find the 
atomic theory acceptable, because I don't have any respect for your opinion
and trying to convince you of these things is not worth my time.

response 122 of 209:

Aug 6 16:30 UTC 2003

Re 118:  The computer monitor you're using to read this response is a good
demonstration of electrons.  Or perhaps elf magic!  

Seriously, there's a *lot* of science in the background all around you. 
Things like computers, plastics, food additives, medicines, etcs. were mostly
created by researchers & scientists.  This stuff is quite thoroughly used in
many fields of study.  If you mean to debunk it, you've got some serious work
ahead of you.

response 124 of 209:

Aug 6 22:04 UTC 2003

I don't mind if people have faith.  I mind if theyput a gun in my mouth and
force me to follow the rules of their faith.

response 126 of 209:

Aug 6 22:56 UTC 2003

Heh, I have a friend whose family has a cottage up in Greenville. 

response 128 of 209:

Aug 6 23:18 UTC 2003

See 124.  People can believe pretty much whatever they want, cry out for
help to whomever they want, and as long as they're not bothering me I could
care less.  To a certain extent, even if they are bothering me I'll ignore
them anyway.  However, I am trained as a scientist and when people 
misinterpret data on purpose it rubs me the wrong way.  When they start
citing made-up statistics without bothering to check veracity for the
purpose of inflicting their arbitrary values and morals on my uterus,
all of which is justified because of their "faith", then I have a problem
with that.  

response 130 of 209:

Aug 6 23:37 UTC 2003

Re #118:  There is ample evidence to prove the existence of atoms, and
just off the top of my head I'll recount how science arrived at that
conclusion and held to it.  (The Greeks initiated the concept, but
did not have the scientific method to actually test theories.)

In the nineteenth century, researchers noted that substances could
either be made from, or broken down to, consistent ratios of other
substances.  This supported (but did not prove) the theory that
substances were made of discrete and identical atoms which could
be combined in different ways.  Nothing in chemistry ever gave reason
to challenge this idea, once some kinks were worked out.

In the 20th century, researchers found an odd phenomenon called
radioactivity.  One researcher working with alpha particles found
that most of them went through a gold foil with small deflections
in their paths, but occasionally one would bounce almost straight
back at the source.  This was described with words something like
"it was like firing a cannon ball at a piece of tissue paper and
having it bounce back and hit you."  From this it was concluded
that atoms not only existed, but their positive charge was concentrated
in a very small (and heavy) region.

Since then we've done huge amounts of resarch work, all of which
confirms the existence of atoms as previously understood and none
of which seriously questions it (experimental error aside).  The
new knowledge fiddles at the edges; none of it shakes the center.

And, Bruce, you *should* have known this, because it's been at the
core of introductory science texts since before you and I went to
school.  It is simple, it is clear, it is unequivocal.  If you have
not even bothered to acquaint yourself with the evidence which led
to the conclusion that atoms exist as science understands them, you
have no legitimate right to an opposing opinion on the subject.

Yet when asked to mind your own business on ANOTHER subject where
you appear equally ignorant, you say "nope, I cannot.  Anynore than
I could stand by and watch a 12 year old raped and murdered in a
parking lot..." with the implication that you'd feel entitled to use
deadly force to enforce your unexamined dogma on other people.

Need you wonder why I think you're a threat to liberty and tolerance?