I wish those guys would come out of retirement......

Really?

ANOTHER thread?

I don't get it.

Welcome home C & F. You've been sorely missed.

It's a nice enough cartoon.

Cox and Forkum we miss you !

But FOX is reporting we just got a big fish in Iraq...

The leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq (Al-Masri) has been arrested.

Funny how the leaders of Al Qaeda are in no hurry to martyr themselves, but everyone else is cannon fodder !

Allahu Akbar B*TCHES !

One civil war a day is enough for me.

And if either C or F are lurking, I have two of your books, signed.

THANK YOU!

A group of scientists approached God with the instructions
that He was no longer needed in the process of human
creation since they had recently uncovered His secret code
to life. God graciously accepted their proposal, but requested
that they demonstrate to Him their new found technology.
Then, just as the lead scientist bent down to pick up some
dirt, God said, "Oh, no! Get your own dirt!"

My 6 year old daughter wants to know what I'm looking at.
"A web site called 'Little Green Footballs'"
"Why do they call it 'Little Green Footballs'?"
"Its a secret. They guy who started it isn't telling".
A short while later.
"I know why they call it that".
"Why?"
"Because" pointing at the screen "it's a little green football".

re: #3 MandyManners

I don't get it.

me'thinks it's supposed to mean that some SCIENCE is trying to bridge the gap that is inherent in Darwinism bu inferring that BOTH (ID and Darwinism) may be right (and working together)

Then again,,, I'm old enough to remeber when CARTOONS were 'possed to be FUNNY ,,,,, ,thats why we called them ,, well,, the FUNNIES !

Registration open. Come on out and say something. Doesn't have to be earthshakin' a simple little 'hello world' would be nice.

re: #7 Ben Hur

One civil war a day is enough for me.

What makes you think this thread will be civil?

re: #10 Gavriel

My 6 year old daughter wants to know what I'm looking at.
"A web site called 'Little Green Footballs'"
"Why do they call it 'Little Green Footballs'?"
"Its a secret. They guy who started it isn't telling".
A short while later.
"I know why they call it that".
"Why?"
"Because" pointing at the screen "it's a little green football".

Aren't little girls cute when they do that? I miss my cute little daughter. Granted, she's 20 now and in the army...but she's still my cute little daughter.

/sigh

re: #10 Gavriel
You can't argue with that!

OT----When are Cox and Fokrum going to come out of retirement, and get back to work? We need good cartoonists like them.

(Red Planet is a pretty good site for conservative cartoons.)

I thought Barack Obama was the Creator.

Mandy it is a riff on Michelangelos Sistine Chapel fresco Creation of Man only using ID and science.

re: #16 TalkinKamel

OT----When are Cox and Fokrum going to come out of retirement, and get back to work? We need good cartoonists like them.

(Red Planet is a pretty good site for conservative cartoons.)

Yeah, but Cox and Forkum have a certain 'bite' to their cartoons. :-)

re: #17 bluegrassredstate

I thought Barack Obama was the Creator.

No, silly! He's the Messiah®

re: #20 Gang of One

No, silly! He's the Messiah%uFFFD

False messiahs are a dime a dozen.

re: #3 MandyManners

I don't get it.

Have another cuppa a qwawfee

It is one C7F's 'toons I have saved in my folder.

They should do one on the theory of spontaneous degeneration....

That cartoon is bogus. Engineers use mechanical pencils, not Dixon Ticonderogas.

re: #23 A Kiwi Infidel

It is one C7F's 'toons I have saved in my folder.

Bugger, C&F's not C7F, DOH, PIMF

re: #3 MandyManners

I don't get it.

It's a transformer that turns into a building?

re: #10 Gavriel

"Because" pointing at the screen "it's a little green football".

re: #15 UFO TOFU

You can't argue with that!

Well Charles?
Is that the reason?

re: #25 bosforus

That cartoon is bogus. Engineers use mechanical pencils, not Dixon Ticonderogas.

And not plastic, either, might contribute to global warming

re: #21 Nevergiveup

False messiahs are a dime a dozen.

And have you noticed the inferior quality of them lately?

The point is that people supporting "ID" are trying to paint religion as Science.

There's really no reason using the name intelligent design, it's a cover name for Creationism.

re: #27 Nevergiveup

It's a transformer that turns into a building?

I once turned into a dead end street ,,, does that count ?

re: #28 Gavriel

Well Charles?
Is that the reason?

I always thought it was because Charles is a bookie in real life?

re: #3 MandyManners

Me either.

re: #30 Gang of One

And have you noticed the inferior quality of them lately?

Yeah they don't make em like they used to.

re: #35 Davida

Me either.

me threether

re: #36 Nevergiveup

Yeah they don't make em like they used to.

True dat, true dat.

Hi C&F! We miss you guys.

"Oh, BTW my answer to Christians trying to teach the bible crap as science is to offer them a dose of Lao Tsu...good stuff. Old but very relevant" did this quote come from LGF or Kos. it's hard to tell at times

Addendum to own #18 I like it. The painter wants the scientist to touch (acknowledge) the hand of God in creation. Are the scientific tool wielding children holding him back? Afraid? Can't tell.

[Link: www.drugs.com...]

LITTLE
GREEN
FOOTBALLS,
R

Michaelangelo.
Sistine Chapel.
Do you realize that when the Wahabis take over it will be painted over?

Ironically the picture works equally well with "Darwinism" on the back of the painter's shirt..

re: #42 Render

[Link: www.drugs.com...]

LITTLE
GREEN
FOOTBALLS,
R

Sometimes those might help.

re: #25 bosforus

That cartoon is bogus. Engineers use mechanical pencils, not Dixon Ticonderogas.

That cartoon is bogus. God is not an adult. S/he is a fifth-grader whose science fair project is "Making a Universe Out of Household Chemicals."

re: #29 A Kiwi Infidel

And not plastic, either, might contribute to global warming

I actually like to burn my plastic mechanical pencils once they run out of the graphite they were purchased with. Sometimes I won't take them out of the wrapper and I'll just leave 20 burning packs out in the open.

re: #6 ruexperienced

Cox and Forkum we miss you !

But FOX is reporting we just got a big fish in Iraq...

The leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq (Al-Masri) has been arrested.

Funny how the leaders of Al Qaeda are in no hurry to martyr themselves, but everyone else is cannon fodder !

Allahu Akbar B*TCHES !

The leaders know that Allah's kingdom is of this world; only the rubes buy into the martyrdom scam.

re: #43 wolfie

Michaelangelo.
Sistine Chapel.
Do you realize that when the Wahabis take over it will be painted over?

Painted over? It will be blown into a zillion pieces.

Or, is the blob some kind of scientific homunculus created by God already containing knowledge of science? Nah, too weird.

Listen I get so tired of telling all of you.

IT'S TURTLES ALL THE WAY DOWN!

re: #48 Annar

The leaders know that Allah's kingdom is of this world; only the rubes buy into the martyrdom scam.

Just like any other Death Cult.

Like the one that killed themselves so that they could join with the aliens in a ship behind a comet.

Except that this death cult requires that everyone else die too.

Has all the signs of a cult:

sexual rules that don't apply equally to all, requirement of seperation from society, etc.

re: #20 Gang of One

No, silly! He's the Messiah®

He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy!

re: #46 stuiec

God is ... a fifth-grader whose science fair project is "Making a Universe Out of Household Chemicals."

Best answer yet.

re: #51 JCM

Listen I get so tired of telling all of you.

IT'S TURTLES ALL THE WAY DOWN!

No, at some point, one non-living protein rubbed up against another non-living protein and made whoopie.

The painting proves the painter.

Obama is the one we have been waiting for. He has been hidden from us.

re: #49 JCM

Painted over? It will be blown into a zillion pieces.

Taliban style?
I'm trying to be optimistic, hoping they will only desecrate and ruin it, as they did with St. Sophia. But you're probably right. We have explosives now. Makes it too easy to just blow it away.

It's good to see a C&F cartoon again.

On today's episode of:

I know you are
what what am I ?

Ta Da!

If I weren't a basically positive sort, and not interested so much in mere ideological one-upmanship (because I have more uplifting things luring my attention), I'd be tempted to write a counter book/theory to ID, using all natural examples, but title it Malevolent Design.

From syphillitic blindness in children to progeria, this "intelligence" sure has a funny way of showing its "design".

But I'll leave that broadside for a Hitchens or Dawkins, who seem to relish churning out and wallowing in bile more than I.

In essence, our deities appear to be our anodynes.

"If lions or oxen had hands, and could paint, their gods would look leonine or ox-like." -Xenophanes, circa 550 B.C.

LOL

BUT what am I

Some LGFer suggested that creation of some biomass in a test tube under controlled laboratory conditions could someday "vindicate" those who reject Intelligent Design.

Sorry, I don't see that. Scientists are intelligent, no? And such a result would have been by design, no? So it would support ID, no?

/ Alternatively the scientist(s) involved could be blithering idiots, or blindly following some deliberately random and incoherent sequence of instructions.

I believe in evolution.

I believe in God.

Therefore I believe in intelligent design.

I do not believe in any literal (Biblical or otherwise) interpretation of creation.

Therefore I am not a creationist.

It is perfectly legitimate to say that intelligent design does not belong in a science classroom...And I would agree.

But it is utterly dishonest to say that intelligent design is nothing more than creationism with a new name.

re: #64 Ringo the Gringo

I believe in evolution.

I believe in God.

Therefore I believe in intelligent design.

I do not believe in any literal (Biblical or otherwise) interpretation of creation.

Therefore I am not a creationist.

It is perfectly legitimate to say that intelligent design does not belong in a science classroom...And I would agree.

But it is utterly dishonest to say that intelligent design is nothing more than creationism with a new name.

agree

To all you decriers of intelligent design:
1. Get your own dirt (With no apologies to JCM)
2. If Evolution is true, who started the first stuff to begin with?
3. It doesn't matter what you believe because Messiah Barry will be the judge.
4. If you don't like that, stuff it up your Socialist noses and suffocate!

Peace or pieces, you choice!

Ps: My powder is dry, pieces loaded and locked, ready to rumble.

Ringo

the lies are thick on both sides

this ain't about science

this about control

Could it be that we are nothing more than the results of a time capsule shot into space. Clones of some faraway creatures on a distant planet?

re: #67 BabbaZee

Ringo

the lies are thick on both sides

this ain't about science

this about control

I agree.

re: #68 faraway

Could it be that we are nothing more than the results of a time capsule shot into space. Clones of some faraway creatures on a distant planet?

who made the faraway creatures and the distant planet?

But babba, umm... I'm a scientist. Don't question me. Umm...

re: #58 wolfie

Taliban style?
I'm trying to be optimistic, hoping they will only desecrate and ruin it, as they did with St. Sophia. But you're probably right. We have explosives now. Makes it too easy to just blow it away.

Assisi was destroyed in an earthquake, a literal pile of rubble. Stone by stone they've put it back together.

I can easily imagine folks sorting though the rubble and piece by piece putting it back together.

Because that is what we do, what WE ARE. We build!

re: #71 faraway

But babba, umm... I'm a scientist. Don't question me. Umm...

LOL
I dare to flout science!
ULULULULULULULU!

I gotta go

Here
the Shakespearean insultomatic always helps on these threads

re: #57 faraway

Obama is the one we have been waiting for. He has been hidden from us.

wait, did he come out of a well?

uh oh

I thought that topic was banned at LGF, Charles! I've been restraining myself for years or something. Jeez!

re: #68 faraway

Could it be that we are nothing more than the results of a time capsule shot into space. Clones of some faraway creatures on a distant planet?

It is equally possible that the universe as we know it is a tiny speck floating on a puddle of piss on a kids flutterboard in a swimming pool at a Howard Johnson Motel.

re: #74 paint-right

wait, did he come out of a well?

uh oh

Yes, President Obama (spit) will appear in his Imam garb when he meets with DinnerJacket.

re: #67 BabbaZee

Ringo

the lies are thick on both sides

this ain't about science

this about control

BINGO!

re: #61 profitsbeard

If I weren't a basically positive sort, and not interested so much in mere ideological one-upmanship (because I have more uplifting things luring my attention), I'd be tempted to write a counter book/theory to ID, using all natural examples, but title it Malevolent Design.

From syphillitic blindness in children to progeria, this "intelligence" sure has a funny way of showing its "design".

The monotheistic god even seems to favor epileptics for his revelation, two important examples being Saul of Tarsus and Muhammad ibn Abdullah. So his design failures are across the board.

re: #74 paint-right

wait, did he come out of a well?

uh oh

Yesterday I was reading the DNC blog. One of the people there posted a comment that they would rather have the mahdi come out of the well, than have Jesus return to earth. The reason being, 'at least the mahdi is supposed to bring peace and unity'. Whereas Jesus will bring the final judgment.

She was making this statement in the context of the rumor that Obama may be the mahdi. Uff da.

re: #79 Annar

The monotheistic god even seems to favor epileptics for his revelation, two important examples being Saul of Tarsus and Muhammad ibn Abdullah. So his design failures are across the board.

As a person who occasionally has seizures, I am bothered by this statement. I have never considered myself a design failure.

I suppose arrogance could be considered a design failure though.

That would make Obama 1140 years old if he's the hidden Imam. Hey, he's older than McCain!

re: #83 faraway

That would make Obama 1140 years old if he's the hidden Imam. Hey, he's older than McCain!

AGEISM ! !

re: #79 Annar

The monotheistic god even seems to favor epileptics for his revelation, two important examples being Saul of Tarsus and Muhammad ibn Abdullah. So his design failures are across the board.

I asked you a question yesterday
maybe you did not see it

Are you an Odinist?

BBL to see the answer

re: #64 Ringo the Gringo

I believe in evolution.

I believe in God.

Therefore I believe in intelligent design.

I do not believe in any literal (Biblical or otherwise) interpretation of creation.

Therefore I am not a creationist.

It is perfectly legitimate to say that intelligent design does not belong in a science classroom...And I would agree.

But it is utterly dishonest to say that intelligent design is nothing more than creationism with a new name.

Mr. Gringo, that is a well-reasoned, concise, persuasive and honest argument.
It therefore has very little relevance to the discussion.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

re: #81 mama winger

No disrespect intended neither for you nor some of my own relatives with similar conditions.

Sunnis believe this about the 12th Imam:
He would belong to the House of Muhammad and would be in the line of Imam Hussein. His name would be Muhammad and his family name would be Abul Qasim, his father's name would be ‘Abdu’llah, and he would appear in Mecca. He would protect the Muslims from destruction and would restore the religion to its original position

Let's see:
1. Iran nukes Israel
2. Hussein Obama meets Muslim leaders in Mecca.
3. Obama agrees to no retaliation

Proof.

Intelligent design: catering to people with no intellectual honesty since a long time ago.

I believe in evolution.

I believe in God.

Therefore I believe in intelligent design.

I do not believe in any literal (Biblical or otherwise) interpretation of creation.

Therefore I am not a creationist.

It is perfectly legitimate to say that intelligent design does not belong in a science classroom...And I would agree.

But it is utterly dishonest to say that intelligent design is nothing more than creationism with a new name.

Agreed. As I often tell Liberals, an argument that depends on this kind of intellectual dishonesty isn't much of an argument.

re: #27 Nevergiveup

It's a transformer that turns into a building?

Big!

re: #86 sparrowlake

You know what?...You're right.

Adios amigos.

re: #3 MandyManners

I don't get it.

Yeah, I love C & F, but what are they saying beyond ID = creationism? God should not be portrayed in modern terms? Progress is the sole realm of science, while religion need not progress past the renaissance? ID is destroying the quaint picture people have of God and replacing it with one who must use scientific tools? ID is a poor replacement for old-fashioned religion...?

I'm a bit confused. I think it's just a clever hook to say "Bad creationists!"

re: #31 LanceKates

The point is that people supporting "ID" are trying to paint religion as Science.

Oh, yeah, that makes sense.

But it is utterly dishonest to say that intelligent design is nothing more than creationism with a new name.

Well, you can say that God is behind creation and sustains it, but you really aren't saying anything more than that. Natural processes are what they are. So Intelligent Design as an academic subject would merely be to state at the beginning of the class that God made the universe, and perhaps repeat it again at the end. Awfully thin gruel to make a meal of and give such an impressive title as "Intelligent Design."

re: #85 BabbaZee

Credo in nullum deo.

But if one had to choose a religion Odin and his gang would be just as good as any other choice and his faithful warriors did help the British isles by enlarging the gene pool.

Odinu Akhbar!
/humor

re: #89 FunkMachine

Intelligent design: catering to people with no intellectual honesty since a long time ago.

You need to clean out the utter stupidity and sheer arrogance filters in your asshole funkin' machine.

re: #96 Annar

Just checking, thanks

Annar is part of Odinist mythology.

I like to know the POV of the poster whenever I can
it helps to understand the posts better

re: #92 Ringo the Gringo

You know what?...You're right.

Adios amigos.

Yes he is

Later Lizardia

re: #61 profitsbeard

Don't forget the ichneumon wasp.

OT but amazing!:

Physical evidence of a chariot wheel found in the Red Sea prompts new look at the Holy Torah.

( ^{take that Ben Hur})

re: #64 Ringo the Gringo

I believe in evolution.

I believe in God.

Therefore I believe in intelligent design.

I do not believe in any literal (Biblical or otherwise) interpretation of creation.

Therefore I am not a creationist.

It is perfectly legitimate to say that intelligent design does not belong in a science classroom...And I would agree.

But it is utterly dishonest to say that intelligent design is nothing more than creationism with a new name.

Intelligent Design as in that other form of Creationism, that's what we're talking about here. The two are virtually interchangeable, and this has indeed been done. For example: Creationism is judged non-science, the proponents retreat, wait, rewrite the bill to replace all instances of "Creationism" with "Intelligent Design", and in the process, the fools even make spelling mistakes, etc, that the original did not have. Intelligent Design is a very clever way to try to sneak Creationism through the back door, and unfortunately, it has succeeded in a few places. People like Ben Stein prove this by putting forth the exact same stupid, ignorant, bang-your-head-against-the-wall bullcrap that you can hear coming from Creationists. Well, he really did make a fool of them so maybe it's not appropriate to mention him, but it goes to show that they're the same.

Moving over to a more general issue here - God could have made evolution, but if you're a bible thumper, that's not possible because you take the bible literally. Hey speaking of which, if you take the bible literally, you have to gather all non-Christians, and slay them. That would make Jesus happy; he commanded it in Luke 19:27

So if you believe the bible means what it says in Genesis and elsewhere, it's time to start killing. And if you apply the same to the old testament, you're in for some strange stuff aside from the evil in it. For example: For the women, when you menstruate, you have to sacrifice 2 turtles or two pigeons on the eitghth day of your period.

Yep, that makes no sense, but then again, a lot of stuff in the bible, old and new, doesn't.

re: #88 faraway

Sunnis believe this about the 12th Imam:
He would belong to the House of Muhammad and would be in the line of Imam Hussein. His name would be Muhammad and his family name would be Abul Qasim, his father's name would be ‘Abdu’llah, and he would appear in Mecca. He would protect the Muslims from destruction and would restore the religion to its original position

Let's see:
1. Iran nukes Israel
2. Hussein Obama meets Muslim leaders in Mecca.
3. Obama agrees to no retaliation

Proof.

The 12th imam idea is associated with the Shi'a and there have been claimants to the title the one best known in the west is Baha'u'llah the founder of the Baha'i faith. The Shi'a do not accept his claim and Baha'is are continuously persecuted in Iran. So if BHO is going to make a claim he better get his C.V. in order or have Farrakhan provide some of his Nation of Islam protection like he does for Rev. Wright.

re: #27 Nevergiveup

Big?

re: #91 debutaunt

re: #104 Slumbering Behemoth

Neva mind, ya beat me to it. :hrmph:

re: #96 Annar

Credo in nullum deo.

But if one had to choose a religion Odin and his gang would be just as good as any other choice and his faithful warriors did help the British isles by enlarging the gene pool.

Odinu Akhbar!
/humor

You mean Credo in nullum deum.
If you are going to use Latin, try getting the elementary grammar right.
Otherwise, you look silly.

re: #97 BabbaZee

You need to clean out the utter stupidity and sheer arrogance filters in your asshole funkin' machine.

I've cleaned them out, but found that those filters had no dirt on them so I put them back in (to save on filters).

I think this will prove you wrong. End of.

re: #105 Slumbering Behemoth
New avatar? I almost didn't recognize you.

re: #102 Nemesis6

The only Bible I'd like to thump is the one I use to thump your ignorant head.

I do think ID and Creationism is two separate thinking.

ID does not say WHO but postulates that there is an apparent intervention in the origins of life as we know it.

Creationism specifically states WHO did...

Science: Right about the % as Religion.

re: #93 nikis-knight

Yeah, I love C & F, but what are they saying beyond ID = creationism? God should not be portrayed in modern terms? Progress is the sole realm of science, while religion need not progress past the renaissance? ID is destroying the quaint picture people have of God and replacing it with one who must use scientific tools? ID is a poor replacement for old-fashioned religion...?

I'm a bit confused. I think it's just a clever hook to say "Bad creationists!"

I agree. And it makes one question the purpose of such a thread here.

Equating intelligent design with creationism is just as intellectually dishonest as equating Darwinism with Nazism.

While intelligent design is required for creationism, it is not sufficient.

It's sad to see people responding in Stalinist fashion to a philosophical choice. Is the universe purposeful or is it driven by blind forces?

Even worse is the display of ignorance re: "the scientific method." History proves beyond a reasonable doubt that there is not a single scientific method. The "hypothesis-experiment-observation-analysis" scheme taught by our schools reduces the scientist to a mere laboratory technician. It cannot even begin to explain the accomplishments of brilliant scientists such as James Clerk Maxwell and Albert Einstein.

Wow, there's alot of people into "intelligent design" (lol) here.

re: #68 faraway

Could it be that we are nothing more than the results of a time capsule shot into space. Clones of some faraway creatures on a distant planet?

Does that mean we're all Cylons?

/snicker

Looked at the cartoon again. I was wrong. The scientist is supposed to be God in the picture. Boy, did I have it backward.

re: #116 snowcrash

Yup, it is just, another, crack at creationists and Intelligent Designists.

re: #114 FunkMachine

Wow, there's alot of people into "intelligent design" (lol) here.

/not to mention "militant atheism"

I suppose my last comment ought to be deleted.

re: #118 Killian Bundy

Militant? Does that word make me the same as a Hamas terrorist in the eyes of the MSM?

re: #119 Ringo the Gringo

I don't think so.

But then, I'm thin skinned

re: #117 LanceKates

Yup, it is just, another, crack at creationists and Intelligent Designists.

You have the perfect right to start your own blog and promote creationism at it all you like. You don't have the right to dictate what appears at LGF, and I do not support creationism or the political strategy known as "intelligent design."

re: #61 profitsbeard

Malevolent Design? Are you trying to steal my schtick?

/I made you all to be my food!
//BWAHAHAHA!

re: #61 profitsbeard

"If lions or oxen had hands, and could paint, their gods would look leonine or ox-like." -Xenophanes, circa 550 B.C.

The animals in Ancient Egypt were quite advanced, I guess.

re: #107 FunkMachine

I've cleaned them out, but found that those filters had no dirt on them so I put them back in (to save on filters).

I think this will prove you wrong. End of.

ah
I see

the TA DA theory strikes again

Brilliant!

Listen shit head

Even if I agreed with your POV
I would still have made the same post to you

Intelligent design: catering to people with no intellectual honesty since a long time ago.

You just called untold thousands of people here

liars

based on nothing but your own arrogance, and your disagreement with a particular POV.

Are you 12?

Scientific!

Arrogance precludes common decency.

And LanceKates

STOP WITH THE WHINESE PLEASE

#121 LanceKates 5/08/08 4:03:18 pm reply quote report 0

re: #119 Ringo the Gringo

I don't think so.

But then, I'm thin skinned

It just does not fucking help at all.

Kill each other without me

this is fucking LUDICROUS

/gone till the AM

Countdown to whining...

ok, this thread is no longer civil. :D

re: #102 Nemesis6

Intelligent Design as in that other form of Creationism, that's what we're talking about here. The two are virtually interchangeable, and this has indeed been done.

That is a bald lie. I'm tired of being gracious that people are mixing them up out of innocent ignorance. ID is not a form of Creation, it is a form of evolution. It is a process theory, derived DIRECTLY off Evolution theory.

Intelligent Design is in opposition to Creation. They are not synonynms, ID is a process requiring millions of years, just like evolution, Creation was a one-time event. THe costuming of ID as Creation is just that, a facade, ID presupposes a God incapable of a one time massive Creation event. ID fundamentally is in opposition to Creation, they cannot be yoked together. A house divided against itself cannot stand.

You are free to despise or adore the statement that God created the heavens and the Earth in 6 days and rested the seventh. No problem, that's your choice.

You are free to despise or adore the ID theory of a spontaneous start, and then slow evolution guided by God. No problem, that's your choice.

You are free to despise or adore the Evolution Theory of spontaneous start and a development process through time. No problem, that's your choice.

State falsely that ID and Creation are one in the same. NO! That negative is not an opinion. That false claim falls apart on the strict comparisons of the conflicting tenants of the two.

re: #120 FunkMachine

Militant? Does that word make me the same as a Hamas terrorist in the eyes of the MSM?

Um, sure.

/you can be a terrorist if that's what you want

re: #122 Charles

You have the perfect right to start your own blog and promote creationism at it all you like. You don't have the right to dictate what appears at LGF, and I do not support creationism or the political strategy known as "intelligent design."

No, and no one has suggested that you do.

However, there have been many threads as of late poking fun at it.

Is pointing that out offensive?

re: #108 snowcrash

New avatar? I almost didn't recognize you.

Yeah, I thought I'd put that one up for a while. I'll likely go back to the other one, or rotate in another celebrity "bird" pic that I have. LeePro says I have a finger fetish.

Please don't look at me with that big stick in your hands.

re: #126 Charles

Countdown to whining...

don't be thin skinned?

I think we can have a civil discussion and respect differing points of view. Our existence on this planet is on some level a Great Mystery. We're free to choose what satisfies our philosophical needs. Personally, I prefer Lao Tzu. Just because people reject the traditional view of God as the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, seated on his golden throne like an oriental potentate, doesn't mean they by default subscribe to nihilism or Stalinism. I seriously disagree with atheists who think religion is the cause of all the world's problems. The cause, in my opinion, is human nature which is half beast and half angel. And if God made humans it is ultimately His fault.

re: #134 Phocid

Lao Tzu.

We make the jar, but it is the emptiness we use. Good stuff.

re: #106 wolfie

You mean Credo in nullum deum.
If you are going to use Latin, try getting the elementary grammar right.
Otherwise, you look silly.

High school Latin was a long time ago and you are right if your model is that of the Nicene creed. However the alternative Credo in unum (nullum) Deo is also possible and has been used, for example, by Bach in his Mass in B-minor (and also by Haydn). If you want to claim some kind of victory take it, I'm not interested in arguing linguistics.

Equating ID with creationism is the same tactic Al Gore uses when he claims the science on AGW is "settled"; it is done in an attempt to shut off the conversation and exclude competing ideas. Creationism, as a rule, is equated with a literal interpretation of the six days in Genesis, and a young earth (6000 years or so). Every proponent of ID I have heard or read believes the science is correct - the earth is old, and micro evolution is a fact. Evolution as an explanation for the origins of life , however, is a THEORY. ID is a THEORY. The "I" in ID could be "The Force", or it could be God. The theory doesn't say. I would suggest that everyone go to Wikipedia and read their excellent section on Philosophy of Science.

re: #125 BabbaZee

Poor.

There are two reasons why people thing that some dude in the sky makes life how it is;

1: thats how dumb they are.
2: they know damn well that evolution is real but they refuse to accept it because it would confilct with their religious beliefs, hence they are intellectually dishonest.

It doesn't matter to me what someone believes in as long as they are peaceful, but the problem comes when proponents of "intelligent design"(lol) teach their children that meme, as teaching a child "intelligent design"(lol) is a form of child abuse.

I like the cartoon! Take that all scientific overlords.

re: #3 MandyManners

I don't get it.

It's showing that ID is simply religion re-titled with a fresh coat of paint as 'science'.

re: #138 FunkMachine

Poor.

There are two reasons why people thing that some dude in the sky makes life how it is;

1: thats how dumb they are.
2: they know damn well that evolution is real but they refuse to accept it because it would confilct with their religious beliefs, hence they are intellectually dishonest.

It doesn't matter to me what someone believes in as long as they are peaceful, but the problem comes when proponents of "intelligent design"(lol) teach their children that meme, as teaching a child "intelligent design"(lol) is a form of child abuse.

Ahhhh.... gotcha. well, I'm glad you explained that to me. Be sure to send me your email address so that I can run every decision I make past you.

Here's why I'm puzzled by the hostility to ID at LGF and other otherwise conservative sites:

Michael Behe spoke at my university a while ago. He spoke for about an hour about his work on the blood clotting mechanism, among other things, and responded to various criticisms. Then there was one hour of question/answer. The audience, consisting largely of faculty and grad students, didn't argue with his conclusions, they vilified him and called him names. I guarantee you that the people doing this are precisely the same "progressive" folk who regularly vilify conservatives and call them names.

Why would we consider these people "moonbats" in the latter case, and "great thinkers" in the former?

I suspect that most people who equate ID with creationism are ignorant (often willfully) of both.

My impression of ID is that it has at least two components. One is a critique of what has been called "macro evolution". This is not strictly science, in the sense that it does not propose a hypothesis, but it is certainly deserving of a respectful response.

Another component of ID has the potential to be a science, if it is not one already. It asks the perfectly valid question, "Can we distinguish between things which are designed and things which are not, and if so, how?" It is possible that this question belongs in the sphere of information science, but I don't know.

As Philip Johnson has pointed out, the science of evolution is thoroughly tainted with metaphysical assumptions. The accusations that ID is tainted with religion are an example of the pot and the kettle.

re: #137 amateurangler

Evolution as an explanation for the origins of life , however, is a THEORY. ID is a THEORY.

Please google the scientific method and read what you find. The "it's just a theory" argument does not hold water. ID is not a scientific theory. Update your talking points.

re: #122 Charles

You have the perfect right to start your own blog and promote creationism at it all you like. You don't have the right to dictate what appears at LGF, and I do not support creationism or the political strategy known as "intelligent design."

I absolutely don't believe in or support creationism.

By at least one definition, I am an atheist.

But I think some aspects of life suggest forethought.

It's not a "political strategy"--it's a difference of opinion.

Please google the scientific method and read what you find. The "it's just a theory" argument does not hold water. ID is not a scientific theory. Update your talking points.

Killgore Trout

Exactly

re: #138 FunkMachine

Poor.

There are two reasons why people thing that some dude in the sky makes life how it is;

1: thats how dumb they are.
2: they know damn well that evolution is real but they refuse to accept it because it would confilct with their religious beliefs, hence they are intellectually dishonest.

It doesn't matter to me what someone believes in as long as they are peaceful, but the problem comes when proponents of "intelligent design"(lol) teach their children that meme, as teaching a child "intelligent design"(lol) is a form of child abuse.

This kind of post is really not cool. If you can't discuss without insulting everybody of faith, your account isn't going to last long.

re: #145 Yashmak

We've almost eradicated that talking point here. I find it troubling that the ID proponents arm their flock with such bad talking points. ID supporters should be angry about this.

re: #20 Gang of One

As I've said before, he is the biblical "deceiver"

re: #141 LanceKates

Ahhhh.... gotcha. well, I'm glad you explained that to me. Be sure to send me your email address so that I can run every decision I make past you.

I thought I was talking to babbazee, but anyway....

...no need to inform me before you make a decision. Just do the world a favour and don't tell your children (if you have any) that some dude in the sky made things how they are, because one day they will have access to independent information and will realise that you are lying or are just plain stupid. I wouldn't want your children to respect someone like me more than they respect their own parent. Of course, if you are not going to teach your children "intelligent design"(rofl) then disregard the above, and enhance your calm :)

re: #138 FunkMachine

Poor.

There are two reasons why people thing that some dude in the sky makes life how it is;

1: thats how dumb they are.
2: they know damn well that evolution is real but they refuse to accept it because it would confilct with their religious beliefs, hence they are intellectually dishonest.

It doesn't matter to me what someone believes in as long as they are peaceful, but the problem comes when proponents of "intelligent design"(lol) teach their children that meme, as teaching a child "intelligent design"(lol) is a form of child abuse.

I think you just succeeded in making an argument for unintelligent design.

i'm curious. what is gained by this continuous discussion?

is anyone really gaining anything from it? and if so, what?

re: #149 FunkMachine

I thought I was talking to babbazee, but anyway....

...no need to inform me before you make a decision. Just do the world a favour and don't tell your children (if you have any) that some dude in the sky made things how they are, because one day they will have access to independent information and will realise that you are lying or are just plain stupid. I wouldn't want your children to respect someone like me more than they respect their own parent. Of course, if you are not going to teach your children "intelligent design"(rofl) then disregard the above, and enhance your calm :)

Once again, thank you. Please do post your email address so I can be sure to get more pearls of wisdom from you.

You are, clearly, the high point of all human wisdom.

In fact, let me just stop and write down everything you say, that way I can go around for the rest of my life remembering it.

Oh wait.... no... I already believe in God, and you aren't He.

So was the origin of the name Little Green Footballs a deliberate act of design or the natural outcome of an organic selection process?

Inquiring minds want to know. (Personally the only little green footballs I know of in nature are the kind my kids produce from their noses an flick at each other in an attempt to gross their siblings out.)

/wondering if a hatchling can get banned for questions like this?

re: #151 Kirly

A lot of us like to discuss science and culture. It's a very important topic and the outcome is going to effect our survival as a culture. The future belongs to those who show up.

Has anybody observed that lizards are green? May little green footballs are lizard eggs?

re: #154 Killgore Trout

A lot of us like to discuss science and culture. It's a very important topic and the outcome is going to effect our survival as a culture. The future belongs to those who show up.

So an important topic of science and culture is a cartoon poking run at creationists and fans of Intelligent Design.

I was reading the Jewish journal BorHaTorah and I was really amazed !
Here is an example :

RABBI PROFESSOR MOSHE TENDLER

So few people believe in G-d because they think that they themselves are!

I grew up in research biology, where any hint of a personal bias is of concern. You read a meter, it's almost 2. If it's two, you have a successful experiment. If it's 1.9, you don't, but it looks almost like 2. This is scientific fraud, and there has been an avalanche of fraudulent papers published in the very best peer-reviewed journals, like Science, Nature, New England Journal of Medicine. These have been perpetrated by people who did not purposefully decide to produce a fraud. They were working on a project. It looked good. Then suddenly one or two experiments came in that questioned the results. They came off the curve. They really weren't done that well, so they were left out. In the course of time, a fraudulent paper results.

Our issue now is that the theory of evolution has the respect of the scientific community. It's the best explanation that they have that excludes G-d from the picture. G-d wasn't introduced into the picture because their parents didn't introduce G-d into the picture. So they now have to work from a secular perspective. Every time you show me a gap, you have to come up with an idea how to bridge that gap. In the course of time, you end up with a fraudulent theory. It's not that the evolutionists start off intending to tell a lie. They tell little lies in order to keep the story going. That seems to be what's happened with the theory of evolution. It could very well be that you can bridge those gaps, as was suggested here, by bringing G-d into the picture. Anything you don't know is because you haven’t studied yet how G-d made it happen. Evolutionists have very little going for them on the mechanism of evolution. A Divine mechanism could be introduced to explain this, but they're not trained to do that. It comes from early training at home and at school, at synagogue and at church, to be able to think and to introduce G-d in your thoughts. But when you leave G-d out of your thoughts, then indeed what you ask is begging the question. Indeed, you end up with a fraudulent theory, not because they are liars, but because they are committed to what they think is the truth, and without filling in the gaps there is information that doesn't exist.

poking fun, not poking run.

re: #154 Killgore Trout

A lot of us like to discuss science and culture. It's a very important topic and the outcome is going to effect our survival as a culture. The future belongs to those who show up.

well, i'm here. i'm a scientist.

re: #155 witness

Of course this begs the question: which came first, the lizard or the football?

I don't understand how so many intelligent people can so mangle the arguments concerning ID and creationism?
ID was first discussed by scientist who believe in evolution.
Micro biologic and DNA research had painted evolution into a corner. Id was proposed so as to give them (the scientist) some space to more solidify evolutionary theory.

re: #156 LanceKates

So an important topic of science and culture is a cartoon poking run at creationists and fans of Intelligent Design.

yes.

re: #162 Killgore Trout

yes.

well, as long as we have that settled.

Amazing how radical your faith is.

re: #137 amateurangler

Equating ID with creationism is the same tactic Al Gore uses when he claims the science on AGW is "settled"; it is done in an attempt to shut off the conversation and exclude competing ideas. Creationism, as a rule, is equated with a literal interpretation of the six days in Genesis, and a young earth (6000 years or so). Every proponent of ID I have heard or read believes the science is correct - the earth is old, and micro evolution is a fact. Evolution as an explanation for the origins of life , however, is a THEORY. ID is a THEORY. The "I" in ID could be "The Force", or it could be God. The theory doesn't say. I would suggest that everyone go to Wikipedia and read their excellent section on Philosophy of Science.

Intelligent design is at best a rather hair brained attempt to prove the existence of god and that alone is sufficient to have it classified as religion or philosophy for the feeble minded. It is NOT a scientific theory.

re: #146 Charles

This kind of post is really not cool. If you can't discuss without insulting everybody of faith, your account isn't going to last long.

I didn't realise that this site specifically catered to "people of faith"(lolipops); I thought it was more to do with bringing people together who shared the anti-jihad mindset. And I am one anti-jihad-mindsetted-mofo.

Well do with my account what you will. I suppose that those of faith will click on ads for the $$$ a fair amount more than those who are lucky enough not to have to have faith, since over time this site has tended to cater more for those people who count themselves as Christian or Jewish rather than rationalist, one of whose faiths I was "christened" into many years ago but no longer find myself a part of.

It would be a shame that even if we traded insults (which is always amusing), we couldn't unite in our common goal of avoiding the status of the dhimma, over time.

re: #162 Killgore Trout

yes.

how is that important?

re: #159 Kirly

Really? What's your field?

re: #160 witness

At first, IIRC, the reference of those on LGF was to Lizardoids, as Charles was the "lizard king".

Thus, although I have no clue what the Little Green Footballs title means to convey or reference to, I think the whole lizard thing was a fluke.

re: #97 BabbaZee

You need to clean out the utter stupidity and sheer arrogance filters in your asshole funkin' machine.

Glad to see you're feeling spunky today. ;)

I think I'll take your advice and take a break on this one. Made enough friends for a few days.

Cheers

re: #165 FunkMachine

So, your beef is with christianity and so you think that this is a good place to trash christians for the sake of fighting jihad.

Nice.

re: #167 Killgore Trout

sorry. i'm not looking for any additional ridiculing today. thanks anyway.

re: #163 LanceKates

Amazing how radical your faith is.

That's exactly what the cartoon is commenting on.

re: #61 profitsbeard

"If lions or oxen had hands, and could paint, their gods would look leonine or ox-like." -Xenophanes, circa 550 B.C.

This quote annoys me (not a knock on you, profitsbeard, just the quote)

Aside from the fact that there are quite a few dieties/supernatural entities that are neither human nor humanoid. Also, its hard to represent a formless entity on canvas. Symbols make larger concepts easier to understand. There's a whole lot more going on than just the anthropomorphizing of natural concepts into "gods." Pictoral representations serve as teaching tools and give the individual something that is easier to identify with. Would the Creation of Man pack the same punch if you replaced Human-God with Formless-Gaseous-Cloud-God? Unlikely.

Also, God has glasses with tape on them. Someone with better photoshop skills than I had better make a high-quality 'shop of Nerd-God for me....Well....*taps foot*

re: #151 Kirly

I am getting something out of it. I really like to watch and occasionally comment on LGF. However sometimes I find much of the religious overtones a bit scary. This debate convinces me that one can be socially conservative, very worried about religious fundamentalism in all forms, yet also scientifically atheistic.

re: #171 Kirly

Is it a goofy field that people would make fun of?

re: #150 Ringo the Gringo

*clap clap clap*

re: #172 Killgore Trout

That's exactly what the cartoon is commenting on.

Wow.

Note, this is how to teach properly to Jewish students in a Yeshivah from BorHaTorah, asked by a high school teacher and Rabbi Professor Moshe Tendler:

RABBI PROFESSOR MOSHE TENDLER

We need a long range plan for teaching teachers how to teach. We don't have good yeshivah high school educational faculties today that have the tools necessary to teach Torah in the age of science. They don't teach halakhah correctly, because they aren't familiar enough with the scientific, medical, technological background. You can't teach hilkhos niddah, hilkhos Shabbos, hilkhos kashrus without the background. A fundamental flaw has developed in Torah education as a result of the rapid advance of science and technology. In order to produce competent Torah teachers, the amount of time necessary to attain proficiency in Torah studies is such that it precludes (except in unusual cases) any real background and education in science and technology. Can we close this gap with a heroic effort to teach the teachers? Most likely we could, but not in the current climate. In the current climate the modern Jewish schools would rather develop a schizophrenic student who has his tsitsits out in the morning, and his faith left out in the afternoon.

High School Teacher

Is this psychologically damaging to do this to the students?

RABBI PROFESSOR MOSHE TENDLER

Very damaging.

This shows that it is NOT an exclusively Christian problem in educating the children using evolutionism...(note I used the word evolutionism as opposed to theory of evolution).

There is a conflict between atheistic evolutionist teaching and religious teaching...

re: #156 LanceKates

So an important topic of science and culture is a cartoon poking run at creationists and fans of Intelligent Design.

I see the cartoon differently LK. I see it as pompous, elitist being shunned by unimpressed mankind.

re: #175 Killgore Trout

Is it a goofy field that people would make fun of?

you probably would.

re: #174 Big Steve

I find it socially fascinating that people of such diverse beliefs can come together for a common cause.

re: #151 Kirly

i'm curious. what is gained by this continuous discussion?

is anyone really gaining anything from it? and if so, what?

I volunteered to moderate a religious discussion site for a few years and found some value in civil discussions (civil being the key) that some of my own biases and misconceptions were debunked and I was faced with having to own up to not knowing as much as I thought I knew.

My faith remained, but in a more informed and thoughtful form.

I am wary of those who claim to know the final, complete, unerring truth of anything; even in my own faith (perhaps especially in my own faith). A scientist who knows it all fails to remember that theory requires proof and a religionist who knows it all fails to remember that our mind is not God's mind. Both neglect the fact that their grasp on anything is by nature finite and having the whole answer is out of mortal reach.

re: #174 Big Steve

I am getting something out of it. I really like to watch and occasionally comment on LGF. However sometimes I find much of the religious overtones a bit scary. This debate convinces me that one can be socially conservative, very worried about religious fundamentalism in all forms, yet also scientifically atheistic.

sounds like you fit right in!

I believe in God.

I don't believe in organized religion.

I talk to God every day.

I don't need anybody else to transfer the call for me.

I don't blame God for my mistakes and failures.

I don't credit God when I do well.

===

I stand alone, on my own in a world full of hatred for who I am.

I am not overcome and I never will be.

I have much to do with this life and a very short time to do it in.

What I leave behind is who I am and ever will be.

FAITH
LOYALTY
HONOR,
R

re: #177 LanceKates

The cartoon was explained upthread, you shouldn't find that surprising.

re: #165 FunkMachine

LGF doesn't specifically cater to people of faith, and it doesn't specifically NOT cater to people of faith either. The point is that people who act like loose cannons spewing insults at everyone aren't going to be welcome for long.

My once concern about ID is that it posits a designer at its core either as the first push to evolution or as a nanny occasionally cleaning things up. But once you make the leap to a designer, there is nothing that stops the regression.....so who designed the designer and onward.

Upthread you see that Behe was allowed to speak, here you see where a scientist is not allowed to speak:
[Link: www2.tbo.com...]

For all the cries of persecution I don't see any. I do see some stalking horses as bills are offered up across the country based on " academic freedom" as part of the Wedge document strategy.

re: #184 Render

I believe in God.

I don't believe in organized religion.

I talk to God every day.

I don't need anybody else to transfer the call for me.

I don't blame God for my mistakes and failures.

I don't credit God when I do well.

===

I stand alone, on my own in a world full of hatred for who I am.

I am not overcome and I never will be.

I have much to do with this life and a very short time to do it in.

What I leave behind is who I am and ever will be.

FAITH
LOYALTY
HONOR,
R

You're not alone. God is with you, your good woman is with you, and I'd be honored to be counted with you as well.

re: #160 witness

Of course this begs the question: which came first, the lizard or the football?

Depends on wherter or not you're an evolutionist or a creationist, I guess.

Speaking of messed-up genetics...Science restates the obvious.

re: #180 Kirly

Now the curiosity is killing me. Would I consider it science? C'mon, give me some hints.

re: #165 FunkMachine

[snip]
It would be a shame that even if we traded insults (which is always amusing), we couldn't unite in our common goal of avoiding the status of the dhimma, over time.

That goal is indeed paramount. If we fail in that, not much else matters.

re: #185 Killgore Trout

The cartoon was explained upthread, you shouldn't find that surprising.

I don't find the cartoon suprising, or its presence here, I'm afraid.

And your arrogant belittling attitude SURE isn't suprising.

re: #184 Render

I believe in God.

I don't believe in organized religion.

I talk to God every day.

I don't need anybody else to transfer the call for me.

I don't blame God for my mistakes and failures.

I don't credit God when I do well.

===

I stand alone, on my own in a world full of hatred for who I am.

I am not overcome and I never will be.

I have much to do with this life and a very short time to do it in.

What I leave behind is who I am and ever will be.

FAITH
LOYALTY
HONOR,
R

you are a fine man Render.

From the decision "Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District" by Federal Judge Jones (a G. W. Bush appointee who self-describes his faith as strongly Christian):

The goal of the Intelligent Design ("ID") Movement is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID. To conclude and reiterate, we express no opinion on the ultimate veracity of ID as a supernatural explanation. However, we commend to the attention of those who are inclined to superficially consider ID to be a true “scientific” alternative to evolution without a true understanding of the concept the foregoing detailed analysis. It is our view that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science.

Religion should not even play in this discourse, ID is simply not science.

If you really want to be informed about this, read the decision: [Link: www.pamd.uscourts.gov...]

re: #181 witness

I find it socially fascinating that people of such diverse beliefs can come together for a common cause.

"Misery acquaints a man with strange bedfellows. I will here shroud till the dregs of the storm be past."

The Tempest (Act 2;Scene ii) -William Shakespeare

re: #190 NoSpam

Ah, but can it chew gum and walk at the same time?

re: #194 Kirly

you are a fine man Render.

Except when he gets to playin' that COD4.

/then he's a witch with a SAW

The scientist looks like Colonel Sanders. Might have to go get some KFC! Check it out. He really does.

Kirly tell them or I will tell them.

re: #197 DaddyG

Is that English for misery loves company?

One of my favorite past posters at LGF was a proud Pagan.

Always figured LGF a place where people discussed the issues with respect, often disagreed, usually agreed, and overall just wanted to stand together as proud Americans, proud Westerners, and overall defeat Islamism.

/but that is just me.

re: #199 Killian Bundy

Except when he gets to playin' that COD4.

/then he's a witch with a SAW

yes, so i've heard! :-)

re: #196 song_and_dance_man

Paul also was bold and risked being stoned to death for not backing down when told to shut up.

I understand your feeling and thank you for your concern.

I have been quiet for quite some time.

re: #203 WrathofG-d

/but that is just me.

Me too.

re: #202 witness

Ha!

The modern translation could be "I'd rather share my shelter with the guy who pickets my school/church/blog than the one who tries to blow it up and me with it."

re: #201 FoolsMate

Kirly tell them or I will tell them.

I'm sure you noticed, as you said you were going to check, that I listed those books.

You said you would apologize for calling me a liar when I did so.

I notice you did not.

Maybe a silly question, but where are people learning certain theories and terms? The "micro and macro" words describing evolution is prevalent. Seems to be a talking point. This is not "I believe in God" this is the co-opting of science. That's what I don't like. I did not learn to differentiate evolution into discrete parts to fit my spiritual beliefs.

re: #203 WrathofG-d

One of my favorite past posters at LGF was a proud Pagan.

Always figured LGF a place where people discussed the issues with respect, often disagreed, usually agreed, and overall just wanted to stand together as proud Americans, proud Westerners, and overall defeat Islamism.

/but that is just me.

Good point. I have experienced, not uniquely, that people who consider themselves liberal, have difficulty understanding conservatives and thus dump us in the drawer of being stupid. Yet, I find the debate on LGF often much more literate, well reasoned, and intelligent, than the debate on KOS.

re: #200 Independent Voter123

The scientist looks like Colonel Sanders. Might have to go get some KFC! Check it out. He really does.

"I say, there must be something wrong with his medulla oblongata!"

*tackle*

re: #208 LanceKates

I'm sure you noticed, as you said you were going to check, that I listed those books.

You said you would apologize for calling me a liar when I did so.

I notice you did not.

I hadn't noticed it yet. I'll check tonight and see about finding a copy of the books this weekend.

re: #211 Big Steve

Unless the topic is creationists, ann coulter, McCarthy, The Pope...

re: #207 DaddyG

Except if they're lawyers ;-)

re: #209 song_and_dance_man

I always learn new words on these threads.

Also Lance, I said I would apologize if I found your claims of bias to be reasonable, not that I would apologize for you listing the books.

re: #203 WrathofG-d

One of my favorite past posters at LGF was a proud Pagan.

Always figured LGF a place where people discussed the issues with respect, often disagreed, usually agreed, and overall just wanted to stand together as proud Americans, proud Westerners, and overall defeat Islamism.

/but that is just me.

Me too!

re: #211 Big Steve

Kos (and its ilk) is essentially a study in applied Godwin's law.

re: #215 witness

Except if they're lawyers ;-)

The bard had that covered too!

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers". - (Henry VI: Act 4, Scene II).

Coldplay - Clocks

Live - Overcome

UNTIL
THE
END,
R

re: #157 Psaturn

a hug to the Rabbi

re: #220 song_and_dance_man

I only point out that there have been multiple threads as of late that do not sem to serve a purpose other than poking fun at those who believe in creationism or intelligent design.

If that is so upsetting, then what happens happens.

Hey......and no kidding, I just pulled a straight flush on my Blackberry Texas Holdem game. I don't think I have ever seen one much less pulled it myself. And just my luck all the opponents folded!

re: #221 DaddyG

I mean no harm to anyone, but at the rate we're going, he would have taken out our whole country.

re: #64 Ringo the Gringo

Thank you!

re: #220 song_and_dance_man

Truth is however, as much as I disagree with the "science" argument, even if Charles was "provoking" people with his evolution opinion (i don't think he is) that is his prerogative. It is HIS site, and thus it can be a SCIENCE, anti-ID site, if that is how he wants to run it.

I personally think people should be able to show him why they think he is wrong, politely of course, but even if he doesn't want to let you do that....again...its his prerogative. Its not up to me.

LGF is a Charles' baby....he can run it how ever he wants. No matter what you think of his opinions or how he treats you. In the end you might not like LGF or Charles....but its his site to run however he'd like.

^{/hope I made this argument better this time, then I did last time when I got myself banned.}

re: #188 Thanos

Upthread you see that Behe was allowed to speak

Not really. He was invited by the students in one of the dorms to speak to them. The event was small, and held in the cafeteria of the dorm.

He was not invited to speak in an official forum - this would never happen.

I heard that one of the faculty in bio sci was planning to have a seminar on ID, mostly for the purpose of refuting it, but he dropped the idea in the face of the ensuing outrage.

re: #195 tonysdca

From the decision "Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District" by Federal Judge Jones (a G. W. Bush appointee who self-describes his faith as strongly Christian):

The goal of the Intelligent Design ("ID") Movement is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID. To conclude and reiterate, we express no opinion on the ultimate veracity of ID as a supernatural explanation. However, we commend to the attention of those who are inclined to superficially consider ID to be a true “scientific” alternative to evolution without a true understanding of the concept the foregoing detailed analysis. It is our view that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science.

Religion should not even play in this discourse, ID is simply not science.

If you really want to be informed about this, read the decision: [Link: www.pamd.uscourts.gov...]

Courts can barely handle most patent disputes. They are certainly not qualified to determine what is and isn't science.

More important, they shouldn't be. It's not a question of law.

My main reason for supporting ID is I am alarmed by the Stalinist mentality that dominates American science. It's the same mentality that makes many leading scientists believe that they are also experts on foreign and domestic policy.

For the record, I oppose forcing schools to teach ID. What they should do, if they are reasonable, is point out that evolution is the best theory we have but (like any theory) has weaknesses and is incomplete, and that some people favor a controversial concept known as "intelligent design" in place of or in addition to the Darwinian principle of natural selection.

If educators really want to teach kids to think critically, they should ask them to argue for the side in this debate that they consider wrong or at least more improbable.

What separates great scientists from mere technicians is their ability to question prevailing ideas.

re: #231 Abu Boo Boo

Judges determine Science in a way as qualified as Hollywood Actors determine foreign policy.

C and F: The New Creationism

The REALLY creative people add a G7 to that.

re: #230 curdie

Upthread you see that Behe was allowed to speak

Not really. He was invited by the students in one of the dorms to speak to them. The event was small, and held in the cafeteria of the dorm.

He was not invited to speak in an official forum - this would never happen.

I heard that one of the faculty in bio sci was planning to have a seminar on ID, mostly for the purpose of refuting it, but he dropped the idea in the face of the ensuing outrage.

I think it depends on the venue. I saw a cspan recording of a Behe lecture (before I knew who Behe was) and I was watching it for a while before I realized he was talking about ID. Then I kept watching it because I was intrigued by the idea that a pro-ID college professor actually EXISTS. When they got to the questions, there were a couple jabs but people seemed to be fair and just speak their peace, then give him time to answer.

Of course, that could have just been because they were being taped by cspan, but the invasive Shrieking Moonbats (Loudarseus Moonbatticus) usually don't care if they're on camera or not. Not everybody on the evolution side is a disrespectful jerk. Most of us are quite normal.

There are losers on either side of the fence.

re: #230 curdie

Upthread you see that Behe was allowed to speak

Not really. He was invited by the students in one of the dorms to speak to them. The event was small, and held in the cafeteria of the dorm.

He was not invited to speak in an official forum - this would never happen.

I heard that one of the faculty in bio sci was planning to have a seminar on ID, mostly for the purpose of refuting it, but he dropped the idea in the face of the ensuing outrage.

Regardless, he was allowed to speak. The Scientist was not.

Somehow I get the sense that there's a new thought on creationism - one that is spooky - linked to theocracy? I haven't read all the links that Charles has provided. Should probably do that.

My concept of ID has nothing to do with theocracy.

re: #225 LanceKates

I only point out that there have been multiple threads as of late that do not sem to serve a purpose other than poking fun at those who believe in creationism or intelligent design.

If that is so upsetting, then what happens happens.

You don't have to read them.

/if a tree falls in the forest . . .

re: #232 LanceKates

Judges determine Science in a way as qualified as Hollywood Actors determine foreign policy.

Should we leave it to the clergy? Many here don't seem to accept the scientists as arbiters with respect to what is science.

re: #106 wolfie

quidem! id dixisti!

re: #239 Annar

Should we leave it to the clergy? Many here don't seem to accept the scientists as arbiters with respect to what is science.

Yeah...well, the global warming 'science' hoax has kind of put a damper on their profession these days.

For those interested in a fun time, here's a link to podcast of an American Enterprise Institute panel discussion on the subject Is Darwinism Good for Conservatism.

Enjoy.

re: #242 curdie

For those interested in a fun time, here's a link to podcast of an American Enterprise Institute panel discussion on the subject Is Darwinism Good for Conservatism.

Enjoy.

Linky not worky.

And for someone who has been registered since 2005 with half of your 6 posts lately, I impress. lol!

Cox & Forkum: We miss you guys! You did great cartoons.

Westboro Baptist Fails to Post Bonds

re: #79 Annar

The monotheistic god even seems to favor epileptics for his revelation, two important examples being Saul of Tarsus and Muhammad ibn Abdullah. So his design failures are across the board.

Those aren't bugs, those are features! Really.

Some brief thoughts here -- I recall reading one of S. Pinker's books (I am not going to look up the quote). Pinker reminds me of a sociobiologist (that is, all things can be "explained" by using the principles of Darwinian evolution -- that, of course, includes morality, art, music -- it's all "explainable" in biological terms...I am not a fan of sociobiology...I think it's severely limited.) Anyway, Pinker in (what sounded to me as arrogant) one of his chapters on morality dismissed a creator G-d with some quip about how even 12 year boys would not be taken-in by any claim that there's a Jolly Old Man in the Sky sitting on a throne.

Then, I happened to come across a text (explaining some of the writings of Maimonides), and the "Man-in-the-Sky" business was discussed -- and the conclusion? That those who suggest this are, in fact, akin to pagans who do not understand the Judeo conception of Divinity. In other words, those who run about suggesting "man-in-the-sky" equals G-d are advertising their primitive, if not atheistic/pagan conception. (They are biblical illiterates). It is a defective view -- the image is merely a metaphor or an aid to understanding (nothing else).

re: #243 rightymouse

It works off and on. Go figure.

Go to http://www.aei.org/events/contentID.20060816174359 870/default.asp. Click "Political/Social", and search (in page) for "Darwin".

I think it's now safe to reveal that I was the guy who recorded Hinchey.

re: #248 curdie

It works off and on. Go figure.

Go to http://www.aei.org/events/contentID.2006 0816174359870/default.asp. Click "Political/Social", and search (in page) for "Darwin".

I think it's now safe to reveal that I was the guy who recorded Hinchey.

Maurice Hinchey?

re: #245 Thanos

Westboro Baptist Fails to Post Bonds

Would it be too unrealistic to hope that Mr. Snyder can take these scum sucking bottom feeders for everything they've got?

Most likely. The Phelps clan (PBUT) have quite a few lawyers in their diseased ranks.

/a guy can hope, though

LGF is a Charles' baby....he can run it how ever he wants. No matter what you think of his opinions or how he treats you. In the end you might not like LGF or Charles....but its his site to run however he'd like.

Of course!

But does anyone see the analogy here? anyone?

LOL

It's curious how rumors start.
The conventional wisdom is that ID is an attempt by Christians to insert religion into the schools.
But Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box states Behe's presuppositions - first and formost that he is an evolutionist. He stated that Evolution Theory was not keeping up with the discoveries in the field of cell protein mechanisms. His proof was the irreducible complexity problem observed by scientists, and indeed it is a problem and has not been debunked. Attacked, yes, debunked, no. Behe's position was stated very clearly: he was sending a call to fellow Evolutionists to address this problem. The Theory as it stood doesn't adequately account for the reality of irreducible complexity.
Behe wasn't calling for abandoning Evolution Theory, but fine tuning it. Evidently, he currently favors something along the continuum between Evolution Theory and something like Intelligent Design (ID). He has shown no signs of accepting the young Earth, 6 day Creation explanation, obviously considering it to be impossible.

So, ID is an attempt by Evolutionists to address complexities that appear to be beyond the capacity of random forces to achieve - explain via their world-view formed by Evolution how this might have come about. I have not yet seen an Evolutionist desire to embrace the 6 day Creation in any way. It's too radical and attracts scary abuse. There is a slight warming to the concept of God, that is an Intelligent Designer, obviously, but totally within the framework of Evolution.

Read the book. It's very clear. 6 Day young Earth Creation is not part of this mix, and was not intended to be.

Heh...Night At the Creation Museum.

re: #252 wanumba

The Theory as it stood doesn't adequately account for the reality of irreducible complexity.

That's another talking point you guys need to give up. It's very easily debunked. Look into it.

spot on, as usual

re: #254 Killgore Trout

That's another talking point you guys need to give up. It's very easily debunked. Look into it.

I did. It hasn't been debunked. There have been some attempts, but they talk past the problem. It is a genuine problem, but Behe expects Evolutionists to solve it. Hardly a religious conversion there.

No quibble I see with the point that ID is a modification of some Evolutionists, not of people who believe in Creation.

re: #252 wanumba

It's curious how rumors start.
The conventional wisdom is that ID is an attempt by Christians to insert religion into the schools.
But Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box states Behe's presuppositions - first and formost that he is an evolutionist. He stated that Evolution Theory was not keeping up with the discoveries in the field of cell protein mechanisms. His proof was the irreducible complexity problem observed by scientists, and indeed it is a problem and has not been debunked. Attacked, yes, debunked, no. Behe's position was stated very clearly: he was sending a call to fellow Evolutionists to address this problem. The Theory as it stood doesn't adequately account for the reality of irreducible complexity.
Behe wasn't calling for abandoning Evolution Theory, but fine tuning it. Evidently, he currently favors something along the continuum between Evolution Theory and something like Intelligent Design (ID). He has shown no signs of accepting the young Earth, 6 day Creation explanation, obviously considering it to be impossible.

So, ID is an attempt by Evolutionists to address complexities that appear to be beyond the capacity of random forces to achieve - explain via their world-view formed by Evolution how this might have come about. I have not yet seen an Evolutionist desire to embrace the 6 day Creation in any way. It's too radical and attracts scary abuse. There is a slight warming to the concept of God, that is an Intelligent Designer, obviously, but totally within the framework of Evolution.

Read the book. It's very clear. 6 Day young Earth Creation is not part of this mix, and was not intended to be.

Biblical linguists even argue about the 6 day creation in Genesis.

First off, the Bible, as we know it, is comprised of ancient texts decided by man to be inspired by God. Other texts found not included are generally known as the "Apocrypha".

My Dad is a Biblical scholar and PhD linguist.

re: #256 wanumba

It hasn't been debunked.

Just because people still use the argument doesn't mean it hasn't been debunked. I think that's one of the main sticking points in the debate; ID supporters keep using debunked talking points and already discredited ideas and refuse to give them up. Sticking to a discredited hypothesis is bad science. It's not going to become good science by repetition.

Does anyone recall that FarSide cartoon of G-d in the lab as a young boy -- it's his 25th(?) failed attempt to create the universe...(some say this is the 26th attempt).

also, came across this quote from Wikipedia..."Abraham Isaac Kook, first Chief Rabbi of the Jewish community in then Palestine, held that atheists were not actually denying God: rather, they were denying one of man's many images of God. Since any man-made image of God can be considered an idol, Kook held that, in practice, one could consider atheists as helping true religion burn away false images of god, thus in the end serving the purpose of true monotheism."

so, there you are, KT.

The moon's recession and age.

This is a good article for all you people in 'science' land.

re: #258 Killgore Trout

Just because people still use the argument doesn't mean it hasn't been debunked. I think that's one of the main sticking points in the debate; ID supporters keep using debunked talking points and already discredited ideas and refuse to give them up. Sticking to a discredited hypothesis is bad science. It's not going to become good science by repetition.

And refusing to consider ID as a possible hypothesis for our world creation may not be a good filter for analysis either.