LGF

more options

  

Advertisement

Friday Night Science Thread

Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 7:44:16 pm PDT

Ben Stein’s contention that Darwinian evolution led directly to the Nazi Holocaust is destroyed by genetic science.

The theory of Scandinavian racial purity cherished by Hitler and the Nazis has been rubbished by new scientific research.

The study found that bodies from 2000-year-old burial sites in eastern Denmark contained “as much genetic variation in their remains as one would expect to find in individuals of the present day”.

The findings, in an analysis by the University of Copenhagen which has just been published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, explodes the Nazis’ much cherished concept of a ‘superior’ Nordic race.

Hitler used pseudo-scientific research to back up claims that northern Europeans could form a Master Race which would lead mankind, and even set up a breeding program between Germans and Norwegians to foster it.

The racist theory, which placed the Master Race at the top of mankind’s hierarchy and Jews at the bottom, played a central role in the Holocaust. But according to the new research, the “concept of a single Scandinavian genetic type, a Scandinavian race that wandered to Denmark, settled there, and otherwise lived in complete isolation from the rest of the world, is a fallacy”.

Far from being isolated and ‘genetically pure’, the study on the burial sites found that Danes mixed with peoples from across the globe.

“It becomes clear that the Danes must have been in contact with other peoples,” said scientist Linea Melchior, who analysed DNA from the Bøgebjerggard and Skovgaarde sites.

(Hat tip: Josephine.)

Advertisement

1415 comments

  • Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
  • Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
  • Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
  • Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
  • Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
  • REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.

Hide comments | Jump to bottom

1 paint-right  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:46:59pm

I'm Danish.

2 The Albatross  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:47:28pm

Far and away too tired to bother with this one. Knock yourselves out lizards... I bid you adeiu.

3 paint-right  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:47:46pm

Plus some other stuff that my people were in contact with.

4 SpartanWoman  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:47:48pm

Why am I not shocked that the nazis were wrong about that too?

'Night oh Great Lizard

5 Sharmuta  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:47:59pm

Hitler- now more wrong then ever.

6 experiencedtraveller  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:48:28pm

A man has free choice to the extent that he is rational.

-Aquinas

7 JeremyR  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:48:30pm

Will there be a test?

8 newsjunkie_ky  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:48:40pm

But hitler believed it to be true.

9 The Albatross  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:48:43pm

re: #1 paint-right

So am I. I'll read up later. Like in the morning instead of coming off of a 14 hour day.

10 Killgore Trout  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:49:24pm
(Hat tip: Killgore.)


Are you sure about that? I don't recall linking to that article but I do drink a bit. Fact check anyone?

11 George Slivers  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:49:48pm

This post has about as much reasoning supporting it as a Keith Olbermann post. Ben Stein's movie showed that the philosophical underpinnings of Darwinism were used to justify the holocost. It would be nice if you fundamentalist could stop attacking your creationist base.

12 hermeneutics  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:50:09pm

This is fun news, but old news. One of my fav, must-read blogs is "Gene Expression." Back in 2006 gnxp had an article on "Finnetics" or the genetic diversity among Finns (one of the most homogenous groups in Europe, supposedly.) Quite interesting.

Here's their summary:

Overall, this paper reinforces the idea that Finns are distinct from the peoples of Western Europe, seeing as they have little evidence of R1b, but that they share considerable continuity with other Scandinavians, as well as peoples to the East (Slavs). One issue that I think needs to be addressed is that the mental model people have in regards to the genesis of the Finns is often of a group of Siberian tribes hurtling through "Slav space" and settling amongst a bunch of Scandinavians and slowly admixing. I think it is easy for people to imagine "clumps" of populations in a larger distinct matrix, and then model the mixture of clumps resulting in the peoples we see around us. I suspect that the reality is that many of the genetic gradients are the result of more prosaic deme-to-deme mate exchange and movement over time. Large migrations might have played a role, but the introgression of M17 into Finland (if it wasn't indigenous to Finland in the first place) need not be explained by a few movements of Slavic tribes, rather, it might have been due to the long term residence of Slavs along the southern edge of the Finnish world and the inevitable bleeding over of marriage networks.

See: [Link: www.gnxp.com...]

13 nyc redneck  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:50:11pm

odd how hitler stood before huge crowds extolling the virtues of the tall blond aryan race and he was such a short little dark swarthy creep.

14 beachkatie  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:50:15pm

I'ma southern women, i don't count! :0

15 newsjunkie_ky  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:50:18pm

The headline is misleading.

16 solomonpanting  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:50:18pm

Wouldn't this article destroy Hitler's contention of a master race rather than Stein's contention of the racist theory Hitler used againt the Jews and others?

17 Noam Sayin'  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:50:40pm

Here we go.

VegasRick. Got an over/under on the number of posts?

18 DistantThunder  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:51:04pm

We have some of that light skin, blonde hair and light eyes - and it stinks. Mr. DT has had several bouts of skin cancer.

And the children often get burned if they are not religious about sunscrean.

My raven haired daughter, had ivory skin and blue eyes - not much help.

What a pain.

19 jcm  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:51:07pm

Her Hitler laid claim to the title "Aryan" for his blond fair supermen

Aryan is an English word derived from the Sanskrit "Ārya" meaning "noble" or "honorable".[1][2] The Avestan cognate is "Airya" and the Old Persian equivalent is "Ariya". It is widely held to have been used as an ethnic self-designation of the Proto-Indo-Iranians[citation needed]. Since, in the 19th century, the Indo-Iranians were the most ancient known speakers of Indo-European languages, the word Aryan was adopted to refer not only to the Indo-Iranian people, but also to Indo-European speakers as a whole

Aryan, are in fact rather swarthy.

20 Occasional Reader  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:51:26pm
Ben Stein’s contention that Darwinian evolution led directly to the Nazi Holocaust is destroyed by genetic science.

While I think that Ben Stein was way, way off base with his argument, I also have to say that your argument here, Charles, is something of a non sequitur.

Stein's claim is that Hitler & Co. believed that Darwinian science led inevitably to their program. I think Stein is wrong, but genetic findings in the year 2008 bear no relevance to the argument.

21 brainwizard73  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:51:26pm

re: #13 nyc redneck

odd how hitler stood before huge crowds extolling the virtues of the tall blond aryan race and he was such a short little dark swarthy creep.

And he wasn't even German...

...although since he spoke German, he was considered part of the "volk" and allowed into the club.

22 newsjunkie_ky  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:51:40pm

re: #16 solomonpanting

YES.

23 paint-right  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:51:47pm

I'm not getting the logic of this , however.

The Nazis were woefully wrong, but had no proof to the contrary as DNA etc hadn't been invented yet, so they wishfully hoped they were of some mythic super race.

24 DistantThunder  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:52:37pm

re: #13 nyc redneck

odd how hitler stood before huge crowds extolling the virtues of the tall blond aryan race and he was such a short little dark swarthy creep.

a particular stinky kind of swarthy...with no offense to Stinky B.

25 Charles  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:52:41pm

Sorry, Josephine. Too many windows open. Hat tip now corrected.

26 SpartanWoman  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:52:45pm

re: #21 brainwizard73

And he wasn't even German...

...although since he spoke German, he was considered part of the "volk" and allowed into the club.

Many of those he murdered spoke German too.

27 brainwizard73  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:53:02pm

My prediction:

There is more behind this thread than meets the eye.

28 Thanos  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:53:25pm

re: #10 Killgore Trout

I think I posted that this morn, not to worry, someone else probably posted it sooner. If not, then someone else would have - the reptilian blogmind knows all and sees all.

29 beachkatie  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:53:40pm

re: #18 DistantThunderOh my! :0

30 DistantThunder  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:54:04pm

re: #19 jcm

Her Hitler laid claim to the title "Aryan" for his blond fair supermen

Aryan, are in fact rather swarthy.

My son's girlfriend is named Aryan. We were a little shocked. But hse is tall and dark haired - very intelligent - birth father in prison - step-father an Emergency Room doctor.

I'm afraid to ask.......

31 jcm  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:54:23pm

re: #27 brainwizard73

My prediction:

There is more behind this thread than meets the eye.

32 Dianna  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:54:38pm

re: #11 George Slivers

Not another one!

33 Annar  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:54:48pm

re: #15 newsjunkie_ky

The headline is misleading.

I agree.

34 Charles  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:54:57pm

The point is that Darwinian evolution did not lead to the Third Reich.

A distortion of Darwinian evolution did. And it's now debunked by the same science that Ben Stein attacks.

35 stickdude  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:55:10pm

re: #16 solomonpanting

Wouldn't this article destroy Hitler's contention of a master race rather than Stein's contention of the racist theory Hitler used againt the Jews and others?


That was my first question, as I didn't even see Ben mentioned anywhere in the article.

36 DistantThunder  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:55:17pm

re: #27 brainwizard73

My prediction:

There is more behind this thread than meets the eye.

I can see it now.

37 battletop2  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:55:35pm

RE #16 Solomonpanting

You got it right. The title is a non-sequitor.

38 Thanos  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:55:40pm

re: #11 George Slivers


Is the holocost the cost of a holograph or what George?

39 Dianna  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:56:03pm

re: #12 hermeneutics

A prof of mine used to, in complete disgust, say, "There's no such thing as race. There's language groups, and that's about it."

40 researchok  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:56:21pm

The Holocaust wasn't only about science (faulty or otherwise).
The racialism was very much a culturally cultivated and crafted phenomena and that in turn served to 'fuel' National Socialism.

When it it is all said and done, the Nazi tyranny was not dependent on science, good, bad or indifferent, for it's validation.

They just wanted to make their racist ideology (and thus the validation of their 'superiority') predicated on a 'scientific' basis.

For the Nazis, Darwin and 'science' were tools to be used to further their particular political agenda, so in that sense Stein was right, even if the real science is faulty.

This is not unlike 'science' or ideologies of Al Gore, et al. They care little about the science- it's all about the ideology.

41 Ojoe  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:56:27pm

What does DNA have to do with the Holocaust?

It was a moral failing on the part of the perpetrators.

Anybody can be good or bad.

42 DistantThunder  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:56:58pm

McCain talked about tidal energy and wind energy - and I thought - boy, someone has got his ear - and everything else just bounces off.

43 brainwizard73  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:57:15pm

re: #26 SpartanWoman

Many of those he murdered spoke German too.

Right. As a descendant of German-speaking Poles (actually old Prussians on the east side of the Oder) I never could understand that point. If German culture and language makes someone German...why wouldn't that cover for some other issues that even a whack-job like Hitler had? Then again, he murdered a lot of people that stood in his way, and there were a lot of Germans that did try to resist.

Best not to think on this too much, though. Kind of grim stuff for a Friday night when I should be learning about Michelle (the Shrew)Obama's waffle recipes.

44 Charles  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:57:30pm

re: #41 Ojoe

What does DNA have to do with the Holocaust?

It was a moral failing on the part of the perpetrators.

Anybody can be good or bad.

Exactly. The science of DNA had nothing to do with the Holocaust.

45 Ojoe  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:57:52pm
46 DistantThunder  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:58:36pm

It's a good day to be alive.

These are the Golden Years.

Breathe deeply.

47 paint-right  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:58:38pm

Speaking of hoping to belong to some interesting group of people, is there anywhere a site which shows what they have figured out about ancient migrations etc etc. As in discovering genetic links between native Americans and Siberians and Incas and Egyptians and Thor Heyerdal. LOL

What does it cost to get your gene pool analyzed and find out who contributed to your mitochondrial DNA? And who would you trust to do it?

48 cookielady  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:59:10pm

G'night, Lizards.

49 Occasional Reader  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:59:12pm

YOU DID IT, YOU FINALLY DID IT! YOU BLEW IT UP! AWWW DAMN YOU! DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!

-channelling Battlestar Galactica season finale

50 jcm  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:59:17pm

re: #11 George Slivers

This post has about as much reasoning supporting it as a Keith Olbermann post. Ben Stein's movie showed that the philosophical underpinnings of Darwinism were used to justify the holocost. It would be nice if you fundamentalist could stop attacking your creationist base.

It would be more appropriate to say that Hitler used Eugenics to it's extreme to justify the actions. Eugenics is a misapplication of Darwin's theories.

51 Boogberg  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:59:24pm

What do we know about Ben Stein? Do we have the full dossier on this guy yet? Inquiring lizards want to know (this one at least).

52 BGOH  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:59:30pm

"Well, we love hockey, and not many people know where Denmark is. So, we're kind of like the Canada of Europe."

/I'M NOT YOUR BUDDY, GUY!

53 Gagdad Bob  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:59:38pm

Respectfully, to suggest that all people who believe in ID are "creationists" is as intellectually dishonest as saying that all people who believe in reductionistic and nihilistic Darwinism are necessarily nazis. Neither statement is true.

54 Beobachter  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:59:38pm

re: #40 researchok

The Holocaust wasn't only about science (faulty or otherwise).
The racialism was very much a culturally cultivated and crafted phenomena and that in turn served to 'fuel' National Socialism.

When it it is all said and done, the Nazi tyranny was not dependent on science, good, bad or indifferent, for it's validation.

They just wanted to make their racist ideology (and thus the validation of their 'superiority') predicated on a 'scientific' basis.

For the Nazis, Darwin and 'science' were tools to be used to further their particular political agenda, so in that sense Stein was right, even if the real science is faulty.

This is not unlike 'science' or ideologies of Al Gore, et al. They care little about the science- it's all about the ideology.

I like4 he connection that you are making here.

55 Thanos  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:59:38pm

re: #42 DistantThunder

McCain talked about tidal energy and wind energy - and I thought - boy, someone has got his ear - and everything else just bounces off.

If you look at his policy papers he's nuclear energy first, and oh yeah, a nod at solar, tidal, and wind.

[Link: neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com...]

56 newsjunkie_ky  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 7:59:39pm

Reaching....!

57 DistantThunder  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:00:06pm

re: #47 paint-right

Speaking of hoping to belong to some interesting group of people, is there anywhere a site which shows what they have figured out about ancient migrations etc etc. As in discovering genetic links between native Americans and Siberians and Incas and Egyptians and Thor Heyerdal. LOL

What does it cost to get your gene pool analyzed and find out who contributed to your mitochondrial DNA? And who would you trust to do it?

I think that is where they trace your MDNA - mitochondrial DNA

58 jaunte  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:00:09pm

re: #47 paint-right

I put a link in the spinoffs, but I don't know who runs the operation.

59 unrealizedviewpoint  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:00:24pm

re: #49 Occasional Reader

YOU DID IT, YOU FINALLY DID IT! YOU BLEW IT UP! AWWW DAMN YOU! DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!

-channelling Battlestar Galactica season finale

Isn't that from Planet of the Apes?

60 Charles  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:00:50pm

re: #11 George Slivers

This post has about as much reasoning supporting it as a Keith Olbermann post. Ben Stein's movie showed that the philosophical underpinnings of Darwinism were used to justify the holocost. It would be nice if you fundamentalist could stop attacking your creationist base.

No, Ben Stein's movie showed nothing of the sort. It showed an ideologue perverting the Holocaust to promote a dishonest agenda.

62 hermeneutics  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:01:09pm

re: #49 Occasional Reader

YOU DID IT, YOU FINALLY DID IT! YOU BLEW IT UP! AWWW DAMN YOU! DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!

-channelling Battlestar Galactica season finale

I'm laughing at this, but don't know why -- what does this mean?

63 jcm  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:01:11pm

re: #41 Ojoe

What does DNA have to do with the Holocaust?

It was a moral failing on the part of the perpetrators.

Anybody can be good or bad.

Precisely, DNA was not know till Watson, Crick and Franklin. Although genetics was know.

64 Bacchus's daddy  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:01:16pm

We needed a study for this? Unbelievable.

65 DistantThunder  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:01:31pm

re: #55 Thanos

If you look at his policy papers he's nuclear energy first, and oh yeah, a nod at solar, tidal, and wind.

[Link: neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com...]

Problem: it takes like 5 years to build a power plant IF the enviro-nuts will allow it.

66 Muadib  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:01:40pm

re: #27 brainwizard73

My prediction:

There is more behind this thread than meets the eye.

There is more to everything than meets the eye...

67 Occasional Reader  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:02:07pm

re: #62 hermeneutics

I'm laughing at this, but don't know why -- what does this mean?

It would be a plot spoiler for me to say, for now.

68 jcm  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:02:20pm

re: #49 Occasional Reader

YOU DID IT, YOU FINALLY DID IT! YOU BLEW IT UP! AWWW DAMN YOU! DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!

-channelling Battlestar Galactica season finale

No spoilers...
Just start Season 1.
;-P

69 brainwizard73  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:02:22pm

re: #11 George Slivers

This post has about as much reasoning supporting it as a Keith Olbermann post. Ben Stein's movie showed that the philosophical underpinnings of Darwinism were used to justify the holocost. It would be nice if you fundamentalist could stop attacking your creationist base.

[in my best Columbo manner]

Maybe you can...uh, explain something to me:

Explain to me exactly where the attack on the "creationist base" was...I'm not seeing it.

70 Killgore Trout  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:02:31pm

re: #11 George Slivers

It would be nice if you fundamentalist could stop attacking your creationist base.


I have no Creationist base.

71 esch  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:02:33pm

That's cause us scandahoovians are horny bastards. The last 4 generations of my family all had their first child at 16-17. Yes they were all married at the time.

72 Thanos  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:03:32pm

I think there's been a flagging campaign over at youtube -- some of the "why do people laugh at creationists" vids have been taken down.

73 battletop2  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:03:46pm

re #34 Charles

I am a creationist/intelligent design guy. Science is not bad. Individuals (like algore) who use it erroneously to promote their political agenda, are shameful. Until someone can explain what caused the "big bang" without using (as Stephen Hawking did) an imaginary number (square root of -1) I shall keep an open mind, while rooting for God.

74 Psaturn  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:04:17pm

re: #34 Charles

The point is that Darwinian evolution did not lead to the Third Reich.

A distortion of Darwinian evolution did. And it's now debunked by the same science that Ben Stein attacks.

Thanks for your explanation Charles...I was wondering about that.

And about Ben Stein, I do not think he attacked science but rather the politics behind science.

And your statement of DISTORTION of Darwinian evolution led to Third Reich is a very significant statement.

I know that Charles Darwin was not into Eugenics and master race but his cousin and his son, that bore his last name Darwin, did promulgate Eugenics and was leader of the Eugenics Society.

75 hermeneutics  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:04:29pm

re: #71 esch

That's cause us scandahoovians are horny bastards. The last 4 generations of my family all had their first child at 16-17. Yes they were all married at the time.

Hmmm, I'm Scandinavian and am not a "horny bastard." I had my kids in my early twenties AFTER college and marriage. As did my mother ... grandparents ... great-grandparents ... etc.

I think you are an outlier.

76 Occasional Reader  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:04:30pm

re: #44 Charles

Exactly. The science of DNA had nothing to do with the Holocaust.

I will admit that I did not see the movie. But based on what I've read about it, Stein was not arguing that the science of DNA, per se, led to the Holocaust. (Which would be quite a stupid argument, since DNA wasn't discovered until 1959.)

77 Karridine  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:04:34pm

re: #62 hermeneutics

Yeah, Hermy, I'm laughing because it closely follows the dialogue in the animated movie 'Madagascar' when the lion curses his friend, "Darn you, darn you all to heck!"

A limp-wristed curse, sanitized for politically correct reasons...

78 brainwizard73  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:04:42pm

re: #52 BGOH

"Well, we love hockey, and not many people know where Denmark is. So, we're kind of like the Canada of Europe."

/I'M NOT YOUR BUDDY, GUY!

Will you give us military bases in Canada for 20,000 Bennigan's coupons?

/I'm not your guy, friend!

79 jcm  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:04:57pm

re: #70 Killgore Trout

I have no Creationist base.

All your Creationist base are belong to us!
HAHAHA!

80 Phileosophos  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:05:16pm

Um, I hate to burst your bubble, folks, but the fact that the Nazis happened to be wrong about their genetic beliefs in no way invalidates Ben Stein's claim. His point isn't that the Nazis were right about their views, only that they had them because of a Darwinist reading of the world (i.e., as a purely naturalistic, survival-of-the-fittest adaptive mechanism). Had Darwin's view not come along, it is dubious at best that the Nazis would have been clever enough to come up with such a eugenics program on their own.

As Richard Dawkins put it, Darwin finally made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. That is, prior to Darwin, it simply wasn't possible to believe in a world without God. But thanks to Darwin, and borrowing from Dostoevsky, in a world without God all things are permitted. It doesn't matter that the Nazis understanding of Darwinian genetics was false; what matters is that it was a justifying/driving force behind the Holocaust.

81 Killgore Trout  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:05:31pm

re: #53 Gagdad Bob

Respectfully, to suggest that all people who believe in ID are "creationists" is as intellectually dishonest as saying that all people who believe in reductionistic and nihilistic Darwinism are necessarily nazis. Neither statement is true.

I'll agree with you under certain conditions. Creationism as a matter of faith I have no problem with. Faith is faith. However, creationism and ID are not science. I'm not disputing your faith, only your science.
/Turtles, all the way down

82 Yankee Division Son  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:05:46pm

OT

Just plain funny

83 stickdude  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:05:52pm

re: #60 Charles

No, Ben Stein's movie showed nothing of the sort. It showed an ideologue perverting the Holocaust to promote a dishonest agenda.

So a distorted belief in evolution played no part whatsoever in the Holocaust? What about the eugenics movement of the early 20th century? Did that have nothing to do with evolution, either?

84 brainwizard73  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:06:03pm

re: #66 Muadib

There is more to everything than meets the eye...

Thanks for pointing out the inanity of my comment.

[sheepish look]

Greetings Professor Falken. How about a nice game of chess?

85 Killgore Trout  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:06:17pm

re: #79 jcm

Ha!

86 Sharmuta  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:06:48pm

re: #73 battletop2

Science is not bad. Individuals (like algore) who use it erroneously to promote their political agenda, are shameful.

And what of people like the discovery institute? Are they shameful too?

87 Psaturn  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:06:57pm

re: #70 Killgore Trout

I have no Creationist base.

I think he referring to Charle's base...that there were quite a few Creationists...seeing that many of the supporters of Israel as well as patriotic Americans and supporter of US military and "conservative" values are usually theists of the Jewish and Christian varieties...

88 esch  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:07:05pm

re: #75 hermeneutics

No doubt. We're strange in other ways as well. I think it comes from our Finn roots.

89 BGOH  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:07:12pm

re: #78 brainwizard73

I'M NOT YOUR FWEIND, BUDDAY!

/Can I turn this into a drinking thread. I want a drinking thread. OH! OH! And a boobie thread!

90 DistantThunder  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:07:13pm

It was a Holocaust waiting for an excuse which the Nazi THOUGHT they found in Darwinism. And they didn't care if they were wrong.

91 kevinmumaw  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:07:19pm

re: #13 nyc redneck

odd how hitler stood before huge crowds extolling the virtues of the tall blond aryan race and he was such a short little dark swarthy creep.

I've wondered about that for years.

92 brainwizard73  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:07:45pm

Gotta check out for a few...

Stay frosty, y'all.

93 wolfie  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:07:45pm

re: #70 Killgore Trout

I have no Creationist base.

Damned straight ! That's a fern base!

94 Psaturn  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:07:54pm

re: #81 Killgore Trout

I think ID can be science.

95 itellu3times  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:08:04pm

re: #47 paint-right

Speaking of hoping to belong to some interesting group of people, is there anywhere a site which shows what they have figured out about ancient migrations etc etc. As in discovering genetic links between native Americans and Siberians and Incas and Egyptians and Thor Heyerdal. LOL

What does it cost to get your gene pool analyzed and find out who contributed to your mitochondrial DNA? And who would you trust to do it?

I don't know a single source for this, but it's an interesting question, I hope somebody is centralizing it. Probably have to research hundreds of academic articles from biology, geography, anthropology, who knows what departments.

As to getting your genome mapped, I think that's still about $100k, they're working on getting that down to $10k then $1k until it becomes standard to do at birth, but just not quite yet. And maybe the art and science of detailed genome mapping isn't *quite* there yet either, but ssssh, that's a secret. Anyway, a lot of specific mutations can at least be searched for already with I dunno what accuracy, assume something north of 80%, I wonder.

(I did a little genetic combinatoric math for my molecular biologist brother a few years ago, maybe things have improved since but I was sort of appalled at how it was being done back then)

Practice of medicine is going to change tremendously over the next few decades, genetic profile will match you to the proper drugs.

As to what it says about your origins, more often than not you probably don't want to ask! Especially don't ask on Father's Day weekend, or what happened in Vegas may not stay there.

96 Dianna  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:08:15pm

re: #74 Psaturn

Neither one was a scientist, and they were used, flattered and abused because of their familial connection.

97 Dianna  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:08:55pm

re: #83 stickdude

Um...have you been drinking?

98 jaunte  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:08:57pm

re: #80 Phileosophos

Had Darwin's view not come along, it is dubious at best that the Nazis would have been clever enough to come up with such a eugenics program on their own.

On the contrary, they might have just used Martin Luther's words as an excuse:

"I wish and I ask that our rulers who have Jewish subjects exercise a sharp mercy toward these wretched people, as suggested above, to see whether this might not help (though it is doubtful). They must act like a good physician who, when gangrene has set in, proceeds without mercy to cut, saw, and burn flesh, veins, bone, and marrow. Such a procedure must also be followed in this instance. Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them, as Moses did in the wilderness, slaying three thousand lest the whole people perish. They surely do not know what they are doing; moreover, as people possessed, they do not wish to know it, hear it, or learn it. There it would be wrong to be merciful and confirm them in their conduct. If this does not help we must drive them out like mad dogs, so that we do not become partakers of their abominable blasphemy and all their other vices and thus merit God's wrath and be damned with them. I have done my duty. Now let everyone see to his. I am exonerated."
99 paint-right  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:09:15pm

re: #58 jaunte

I put a link in the spinoffs, but I don't know who runs the operation.

Got it, thanks. maybe i could check at my nearby university to lend my genes for free. I'll report back if i find anything interesting or scandalous.

/ I used to hope I was part native American

100 DistantThunder  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:09:27pm

Has anyone here ever been hypnotized or know how to self-hypnotize? My daughter said she barked like a dog once at her senior party. Everyone told her about it and she had no memory of it.

101 Cognito  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:09:39pm

I think science is the study of what we can see, on this side of the mortal curtain. I think religion is the study of everything beyond. And I think that both start to look a bit silly when they try to intrude on the other.

102 laZardo  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:09:56pm

Our genetic process since we first emerged from the sea has pretty much been defined and is very much inarguable. What happened long before then - before our current universe was created, knock yerselves out. (:

/that's all I got to say about that.

103 kevinmumaw  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:10:02pm

re: #89 BGOH

I'M NOT YOUR FWEIND, BUDDAY!

/Can I turn this into a drinking thread. I want a drinking thread. OH! OH! And a boobie thread!

OK...I had a glass of Merlot a few hours ago. I'm out of gin or I would be drinking Tanqueray and tonic. So I settled for Grey Goose and Perrier. It's not bad.

104 lawhawk  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:10:12pm

re: #91 kevinmumaw

Cognitive dissonance.

That and since he wrote the rules, they didn't apply to him. Just to everyone else.

105 MandyManners  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:10:48pm

re: #89 BGOH

I'M NOT YOUR FWEIND, BUDDAY!

/Can I turn this into a drinking thread. I want a drinking thread. OH! OH! And a boobie thread!

You big boob! It's time to drink! Just don't get knocked down. Or, get knocked down. You'll get up. Just like ME.

106 DistantThunder  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:11:30pm

re: #101 Cognito

I think science is the study of what we can see, on this side of the mortal curtain. I think religion is the study of everything beyond. And I think that both start to look a bit silly when they try to intrude on the other.

Can we see neutrinos? or do we just know they are there? That's science.

107 Killgore Trout  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:11:43pm

re: #80 Phileosophos

Um, I hate to burst your bubble, folks, but the fact that the Nazis happened to be wrong about their genetic beliefs in no way invalidates Ben Stein's claim.

Dude, Darwin's writings were banned in Nazi Germany.

6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel).


They burned his books and evolution was not taught in Nazi schools. It's a historical fact. Get over it.

108 ploome hineni[deleted]  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:11:58pm
109 Dianna  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:11:59pm

re: #94 Psaturn

Then tell me, how would it be disproved? How is it falsifiable?

110 Muadib  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:12:39pm

re: #84 brainwizard73

Thanks for pointing out the inanity of my comment.

[sheepish look]

Greetings Professor Falken. How about a nice game of chess?

There was nothing inane about your comment. I liked it. How about a game of tick-tack-toe to see who wins the ID vs Evolution debate.

111 Bacchus's daddy  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:12:51pm

re: #11 George Slivers

This post has about as much reasoning supporting it as a Keith Olbermann post. Ben Stein's movie showed that the philosophical underpinnings of Darwinism were used to justify the holocost. It would be nice if you fundamentalist could stop attacking your creationist base.

I despise fundamentalists of all stripes, and will argue all day with any creationists; fundamentalist= Darwinist? really? Darwin's ideas may have very indirectly fueled Hitler's lunacy, but less than those of Nietzsche (no Nazi), and especially Spengler- who very unwittingly, I believe, provided some fuel for Hitler's deplorable philosophy. Hitler created an unholy blend of the ideas of many intellectuals, most of whom would have deplored his end result.

112 Killgore Trout  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:12:55pm

re: #94 Psaturn

I think ID can be science.


Then you're goofy.

113 Charles  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:12:56pm

Stein told The New York Times last year that, were it up to him, he would call the movie, “From Darwin to Hitler.”

114 ploome hineni[deleted]  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:12:59pm
115 Occasional Reader  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:13:04pm

re: #106 DistantThunder

Can we see neutrinos? or do we just know they are there? That's science.

"Seeing" them isn't the point. We can't see air, either. But yes, neutrinos have left physical evidence of their existence.

116 Cognito  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:13:11pm

re: #106 DistantThunder

Can we see neutrinos? or do we just know they are there? That's science.

If you take 'see' that literally, then so be it.

117 DistantThunder  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:13:14pm

re: #106 DistantThunder

Can we see neutrinos? or do we just know they are there? That's science.

more than 50 trillion solar electron neutrinos pass through the human body every second[- wikipedia

118 kevinmumaw  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:13:14pm

re: #89 BGOH

I'M NOT YOUR FWEIND, BUDDAY!

/Can I turn this into a drinking thread. I want a drinking thread. OH! OH! And a boobie thread!

Oh, and no boobies for me. Wife is in Oregon for my sister-in-law's graduation from U of O. Here's a nice little drinking related tuney tune from the Housemartins though.

119 Dianna  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:13:28pm

re: #100 DistantThunder

It's not hard, but I generally recommend against it.

120 Sharmuta  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:13:42pm

re: #83 stickdude

So a distorted belief in evolution played no part whatsoever in the Holocaust? What about the eugenics movement of the early 20th century? Did that have nothing to do with evolution, either?

Actually- isn't eugenics the opposite of evolution? Eugenics is man forcing it's will in population control and not allowing nature to take it's course.

121 Gagdad Bob  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:13:53pm

81 Kilgore:

It's very simple, really. I do not use ID to try to prove the existence of God. Rather, since God cannot not exist, then intelligent design "cannot not be." In short, there is a metaphysical reason that the universe is absolutely intelligible to man's transcendent intelligence because the cosmic subject and object are rooted in the same source and reflect one another.

122 itellu3times  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:14:05pm

re: #98 jaunte

Ugly as that all is, of course it's correct, anti-semitism had long roots in German and European history, so it wasn't all that much of a reach for Hitler, and not all the much of a shock to the general population.

It didn't come out of the blue or leave people gasping, there was no particular need for some fancy rationalization. Anyway, scientistic (fake science) explanations abounded in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and are hardly rare today and I suppose never will be.

123 MandyManners  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:14:13pm
124 ploome hineni[deleted]  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:14:31pm
125 esch  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:14:42pm

re: #101 Cognito

I think science is the study of what we can see, on this side of the mortal curtain. I think religion is the study of everything beyond. And I think that both start to look a bit silly when they try to intrude on the other.

The problem is a lot of human experience does not lend itself to empirical proof, yet is 'real' nevertheless. Take religious experiences. Not provable, but entirely real. Brain chemistry or supernatural?

126 Thanos  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:14:53pm

re: #80 Phileosophos

Which claim? The one where he says "Science Kills people?"

127 Sarge1984  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:14:53pm

re: #103 kevinmumaw

re: #105 MandyManners

Woo-=hoo!

It's FNDT time, kids!

128 BGOH  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:14:57pm

re: #103 kevinmumaw

Sounds good to me!

re: #105 MandyManners

You ain't 'a eva gonna keep me down!

129 paint-right  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:14:59pm

re: #95 itellu3times

I actually have a sort of checkered past not of my own making which led to my appearance on planet earth and so more surprises would be interesting and fun, not a problem of any sort. Bring it on!

130 MandyManners  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:15:08pm

re: #113 Charles

Stein told The New York Times last year that, were it up to him, he would call the movie, “From Darwin to Hitler.”


THIS IS NOT THE BEN *I* KNEW.

131 Occasional Reader  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:15:18pm

re: #112 Killgore Trout

Then you're goofy.

Oh, it could be. In theory. If we found evidence that life on Earth was, say, "seeded" by some extraterrestrial intelligence.

But I do agree that the evidence does not point in that direction.

ID *need not* be camouflage for religion. But it generally is.

132 jcm  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:15:26pm

re: #101 Cognito

I think science is the study of what we can see, on this side of the mortal curtain. I think religion is the study of everything beyond. And I think that both start to look a bit silly when they try to intrude on the other.

I've said the same thing, in various ways myself.

133 Killgore Trout  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:15:41pm

re: #121 Gagdad Bob

I do not use ID to try to prove the existence of God


Nor do I try to use evolution to prove there is no god. I think we are in agreement.

134 newsjunkie_ky  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:15:51pm

re: #91 kevinmumaw
He wanted to be their creator and therefore their god.
When you believe in nothing you will fall for anything.

135 itellu3times  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:16:05pm

re: #129 paint-right

I actually have a sort of checkered past not of my own making which led to my appearance on planet earth and so more surprises would be interesting and fun, not a problem of any sort. Bring it on!

Ever read Kurt Vonnegut's Sirens of Titan?

136 swamprat  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:16:08pm

If the theory(or fact) of evolution never existed, or was considered in any way,

137 Ojoe  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:16:13pm

re: #55 Thanos

Ultimately the amount of energy that the sun dumps on the earth swamps all other available sources.
The Sun Today

Specifically:
SOHO Extreme Ultraviolet Imaging Telescope (EIT) full-field He II 304 Å image from NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, 2008/6/14 at 02:07:52

It's in the "future" because that's 'zulu' time

138 Occasional Reader  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:16:25pm

re: #117 DistantThunder

more than 50 trillion solar electron neutrinos pass through the human body every second[- wikipedia

GET 'EM OFF ME! GET EM OFF!

139 wolfie  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:16:37pm

re: #111 Bacchus's daddy

I despise fundamentalists of all stripes, and will argue all day with any creationists; fundamentalist= Darwinist? really? Darwin's ideas may have very indirectly fueled Hitler's lunacy, but less than those of Nietzsche (no Nazi), and especially Spengler- who very unwittingly, I believe, provided some fuel for Hitler's deplorable philosophy. Hitler created an unholy blend of the ideas of many intellectuals, most of whom would have deplored his end result.

Spot on.

140 Dianna  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:16:40pm

re: #120 Sharmuta

It's more along the lines of animal husbandry, but even on a drinking thread on LGF on a Friday night, I don't particularly want to go there.

141 gotha  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:16:40pm

Aren't we missing the point here. Does it really matter whether the science was valid on which Hitler based his decisions? Right or wrong, he was merely following the logical Darwinian conclusion. He was following the tautology that only the strongest survive.

142 Killgore Trout  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:17:03pm

re: #131 Occasional Reader

ID *need not* be camouflage for religion. But it generally is.


Agreed, I like 2001. HAL rules.

143 itellu3times  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:17:11pm

re: #123 MandyManners

Natural or surgical/scientific?

You ask the most interesting questions!

144 Dianna  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:17:37pm

re: #121 Gagdad Bob

Theologically speaking, humans - and human reason - is not transcendent.

145 jaunte  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:17:40pm

re: #138 Occasional Reader

The scientologist will be with you shortly...

146 esch  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:17:44pm

re: #123 MandyManners

Natural or surgical/scientific?

Bra-vo!

147 Ojoe  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:17:46pm

re: #63 jcm

In fact some of the rules of genetics were discovered by a Christian monk.

148 really grumpy big dog johnson  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:17:49pm

I've been saying around here for what seems like a long time that our newfound understanding of the human genome has utterly destroyed the concept of race as anthing other than a societal construct used as a leverage point to proclaim supremacy of certain peoples and societies over others.

When you see people using the race card, laugh your ass off, because they are the inheritor flag bearers of the fascist racist attitudes of the past.

Scientifically speaking, race is all hoohaw about nothing, zero, nada.

Obama is neither white nor black. Nor is John McCain. We are all humans and we vary in many and fantastic ways.

But race is not supportable by any modern knowledge. I hope that some people aren't personally offended by the truth.

149 Occasional Reader  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:17:53pm

re: #123 MandyManners

Natural or surgical/scientific?

The correct answer: WHO THE &*#*! CARES?!

150 Gagdad Bob  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:18:09pm

If reductionistic Darwinists are correct that human beings are of no intrinsic worth and there can be no absolute truth -- let alone values -- then why are murder or rape wrong?

151 DistantThunder  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:18:13pm

The problem is that something may exist that we do not yet have proof to "see." The postulate for nueutrinos was written in 1930, but had not yet been proven. But it would seem neutrinos have always existed even before man's conscious recognition of their existence.

152 jcm  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:18:32pm

re: #123 MandyManners

Natural or surgical/scientific?

There's the engineer aspect of suspension, holding a mass up against gravity. The the surgical enhancements which are possible, but without closer examination impossible to determine. Scientific, in both a biological and physiological and anatomical sense. And you left out the artistic....

153 Thanos  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:18:37pm

re: #137 Ojoe

Ultimately the amount of energy that the sun dumps on the earth swamps all other available sources.
The Sun Today

Specifically:
SOHO Extreme Ultraviolet Imaging Telescope (EIT) full-field He II 304 Å image from NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, 2008/6/14 at 02:07:52


It's in the "future" because that's 'zulu' time


But on the other hand you would have to pave the entire southwest of the US with solar cells to get the energy burned in cars in 2006. Solar power is one of the oldest forms of energy, if it were scalable to the high energy use we need by reasonable means, we'd a dunnit by now.

154 Psaturn  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:18:45pm

re: #96 Dianna

Neither one was a scientist, and they were used, flattered and abused because of their familial connection.

Dianna, I checked Charles Darwin's educational background, and it sounds to me it was more theological than a scientific one!

From Wikipedia:


n 1827, his father, unhappy at his younger son’s lack of progress, shrewdly enrolled him in a Bachelor of Arts course at Christ’s College, Cambridge to qualify as a clergyman, expecting him to get a good income as an Anglican parson.[16] However, Darwin preferred riding and shooting to studying.[17] Along with his cousin William Darwin Fox, he became engrossed in the craze at the time for the competitive collecting of beetles.[18] Fox introduced him to the Reverend John Stevens Henslow, professor of botany, for expert advice on beetles. Darwin subsequently joined Henslow’s natural history course and became his favourite pupil, known to the dons as “the man who walks with Henslow”.[19][20] When exams drew near, Darwin focused on his studies and received private instruction from Henslow. Darwin was particularly enthusiastic about the writings of William Paley, including the argument for divine design in nature.[21] It has been argued that Darwin’s enthusiasm for Paley’s religious adaptationism paradoxically played a role even later, when Darwin formulated his theory of natural selection.[22] In his finals in January 1831, he performed well in theology and, having scraped through in classics, mathematics and physics, came tenth out of a pass list of 178.[23]

Residential requirements kept Darwin at Cambridge until June. Following Henslow’s example and advice, he was in no rush to take Holy Orders. Inspired by Alexander von Humboldt’s Personal Narrative, he planned to visit Tenerife with some classmates after graduation to study natural history in the tropics. To prepare himself, Darwin joined the geology course of the Reverend Adam Sedgwick and, in the summer, went with him to assist in mapping strata in Wales.[24] After a fortnight with student friends at Barmouth, he returned home to find a letter from Henslow recommending Darwin as a suitable (if unfinished) naturalist for the unpaid position of gentleman’s companion to Robert FitzRoy, the captain of HMS Beagle, which was to leave in four weeks on an expedition to chart the coastline of South America. His father objected to the planned two-year voyage, regarding it as a waste of time, but was persuaded by his brother-in-law, Josiah Wedgwood, to agree to his son’s participation.[25]

155 itellu3times  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:19:13pm

re: #149 Occasional Reader

The correct answer: WHO THE &*#*! CARES?!

I care! I want this researched in great depth no matter how long it takes.

156 Killgore Trout  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:19:17pm

re: #141 gotha

Right or wrong, he was merely following the logical Darwinian conclusion.


No. If Hitler really believed the Jews were controlling the word because of their innate superiority then he would have allowed it to happen.

157 MandyManners  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:19:22pm

re: #94 Psaturn

I think ID can be science.

I send The Kid to an incredibly expensive, private, Christain school.

He learns the Word in chapel. He learns science in class.

If for one minute that school were to teach ID, there would be a mass exodus, with me leading the way.

158 Boogberg  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:19:22pm

re: #114 ploome hineni

google has tons of infor on him and his illustrious family

Thanks Ploome. In the mean time, Sweet. God. Damned. Fucking. Hippies.

Get a haircut, Charles. :D

159 Dianna  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:19:30pm

re: #125 esch

The problem is a lot of human experience does not lend itself to empirical proof, yet is 'real' nevertheless. Take religious experiences. Not provable, but entirely real. Brain chemistry or supernatural?

No-one's affair but the person who experiences it. And I will never denigrate anyone's experience of grace.

160 zmdavid  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:20:53pm

re: #120 Sharmuta

Actually- isn't eugenics the opposite of evolution? Eugenics is man forcing it's will in population control and not allowing nature to take it's course.

I think eugenics is what happens if you believe in evolution, realize you got the short end of the stick and try to change it.

161 Gagdad Bob  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:20:58pm

144 Dianna

Humans are not transcendent? Please explain. That makes no sense whatsoever. Your statement itself is a self-refuting example of transcendence.

162 Killgore Trout  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:21:03pm

re: #150 Gagdad Bob

If reductionistic Darwinists are correct that human beings are of no intrinsic worth and there can be no absolute truth -- let alone values -- then why are murder or rape wrong?


Because if you fuck me and kill me I'll be really pissed off.
Newsflash: You don't corner the market on moral superiority.

163 solomonpanting  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:21:14pm

#102 laZardo

Our genetic process since we first emerged from the sea has pretty much been defined and is very much inarguable.

Really?

Well, once I was a stone, many years ago
Into a pool was thrown, many years ago
Time went by and the pool ran dry
Excavated was I, and tempered and beat in the fiery heat
By the hand of a man, whose name was Dan, Dan the blacksmith

Well once I was a daisy, many years ago
In pastures green and lazy, many years ago
But I was et by a goat who fell in a moat
And forgetting to float he sunk like a lead and stayed until dead
And was relieved to find just how kind it all was

Well once I was a bullfrog, had to struggle for survival
And once I was a carp and lived in waters on the meadow
And once I was a mynah bird, quoting verses from the Bible
I said "pretty boy, pretty boy, Saint Luke!"

Then I was born a human baby, many years ago
I remember I was born unto a lady, many years ago
All our hopes were piled on the back of a child
Who turned out to be wild, sent the devil a prayer
And caused the parson to swear so I took my leave
To lie and thieve, my way to jail

Well, I've been a tinker, tailor, soldier, sailor
Known good times and disaster
But now I've found a teacher and the teacher has a master
And the master is perfection, so he'll help us get there faster
Don't need no proof, 'cause it's the truth, and I'll drink to that!

Evolution
Ronnie Lane

164 Neo Con since 9-11  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:21:15pm

OT Earthquake thread up at HuffPo and they forgot to close comments. A $20 says it gets as nasty as the tornado thread did yesterday before they deleted them all. This time I need to remember to take screen shots.

165 jcm  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:21:17pm

re: #147 Ojoe

In fact some of the rules of genetics were discovered by a Christian monk.

Mendel, the basic rules of genetics. The concept of alleles is still very much in use. He was the first to really quantify genetic properties, his work was discovered until the 1920 and '30's.

166 Occasional Reader  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:21:23pm

re: #142 Killgore Trout

Agreed, I like 2001. HAL rules.

Well, there they weren't seeding Earth with life, they were just making monkeys smarter.

Me, I'd have programmed HAL with either a tougher-sounding male voice ("I'm not gonna open the pod bay doors, Dave. You got a problem with that?" No, no, whatever you say, HAL! Heh heh) or a sexier-sounding female voice ("Oooh, I just can't open the pod bay doors, Mister Pwesident.... aren't I naughty?" Oh, I can't stay mad at you...).

167 swamprat  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:21:45pm

again, but shorter. *itler would have been an ass, with or without evolution. The various excuses for his rampage do not matter.

168 BGOH  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:22:01pm

Ultimately, this whole debate boils down to this:

169 Dianna  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:22:28pm

re: #150 Gagdad Bob

Take that strawman down and pack it away.

170 MandyManners  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:22:33pm

AAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH HH.

171 Max Darkside  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:22:44pm

Why do I have visions of thousands of Greenshirt youths goose-stepping past Heir Al Gore, marching off to defeat global warming?

172 esch  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:23:09pm

re: #159 Dianna

It's no one else's affair unless and until they try to use it to 'prove' falsity of others. I would never denigrate someone's religious experiences or convictions, but have had many, many people do exactly that to me.

173 Thanos  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:23:14pm

re: #141 gotha

Aren't we missing the point here. Does it really matter whether the science was valid on which Hitler based his decisions? Right or wrong, he was merely following the logical Darwinian conclusion. He was following the tautology that only the strongest survive.

Bull and shit.

You don't seem to understand Darwin very well. It's not the strongest who always survives, it's the ones best adapted to current environment.

You are equating pop pseudo-science social Darwinism with science.

174 Occasional Reader  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:23:25pm

re: #155 itellu3times

I care! I want this researched in great depth no matter how long it takes.

I'm your man. Anything for science, that's what I always say.

175 paint-right  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:23:43pm

re: #135 itellu3times

Ever read Kurt Vonnegut's Sirens of Titan?

No, but it sounds interesting, By "checkered past' I did not mean to imply that I was dropped off by an alien space ship or in any way 'seeded' by extraterrestrials.

/ though that would explain a lot

176 Josephine  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:23:55pm

re: #25 Charles

Sorry, Josephine. Too many windows open. Hat tip now corrected.

LOL, I was too busy blabbing on the other thread to notice. Thank you for the hat tip, Charles!

Killgore was confused with a Christian. And on a science thread, no less. Heh.

; )

177 really grumpy big dog johnson  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:24:08pm

It's unbelievable that otherwise thinking people completely gloss over and ignore the truth that I've just spoken.

I'm flabbergasted.

Is truth that scary?

178 Gagdad Bob  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:24:08pm

Kilgore:

That is my point. You won't like it, but under no circumstances can you say that it is objectively wrong. Be honest. Have the courage of your absence of convictions.

179 Dianna  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:24:11pm

re: #161 Gagdad Bob

Oh, dear.


transcendent
One entry found.
transcendent
Main Entry:
tran·scen·dent Listen to the pronunciation of transcendent
Pronunciation:
-dənt
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Middle English, from Latin transcendent-, transcendens, present participle of transcendere
Date:
15th century

1 a: exceeding usual limits : surpassing b: extending or lying beyond the limits of ordinary experience cin Kantian philosophy : being beyond the limits of all possible experience and knowledge2: being beyond comprehension3: transcending the universe or material existence — compare immanent 24: universally applicable or significant

180 Psaturn  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:24:19pm

re: #109 Dianna

Then tell me, how would it be disproved? How is it falsifiable?

The same way that MACRO evolution cannot be disproved or falsifiable....

Remember that the main thing about the Theory of Evolution is the idea of COMMON DESCENT...that we all came from a single living ancestor from way back in primordial time.

Creationism as stated in the Book of Genesis says that G-d created each KIND of living things on different days, with man being created on the sixth day.

I was chatting with a chaplain from Loma Linda University (they have a great medical school and they are very CREATIONIST) and we were talking about the possibility of hominids existing prior to Adam. We agreed that Genesis would not negate the existence of hominids prior to creation of Adam.

181 Reno911  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:24:23pm

I'm forming a new religion.

It's called "Guns and Guitars".

Our God(s) are (in no particular order) Leo Fender, Les Paul, and Gerald Bull.

We believe in ID and Evolution. No arguing here.

Send me a buck and I will swear you in.

182 newsjunkie_ky  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:24:25pm

re: #141 gotha

Aren't we missing the point here. Does it really matter whether the science was valid on which Hitler based his decisions? Right or wrong, he was merely following the logical Darwinian conclusion. He was following the tautology that only the strongest survive.


And he began first by killing the disabled.

183 Bacchus's daddy  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:24:41pm

re: #124 ploome hineni

Hitler was a Jewhater who looked for any theory to support his feelings

and why would anyone want to argue with a creationist?

just back away slowly, and go shopping

I maybe phrased that too strongly. I certainly respect creationists, if they are not of the fundamentalist (trying to impose theirviews/ religion on you) stripe. I don't believe what they believe, and maybe engaging in friendly argument with them, come to think of it, would be counterproductive. Irreconcilable differences between intellectual allies (on most fronts), if you will.

184 experiencedtraveller  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:24:57pm

re: #141 gotha

He was following the tautology that only the strongest survive.

Yes. And Hitler personally was an uneducated man.

185 nyc redneck  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:25:04pm

his perverse hatred of the jews and other undesirables ended up being his own undoing.
that bomb in the suitcase put under his table at a meeting left him weak, physically disabled and w/ extreme hearing loss .
his own high level officials had tried to assassinate him.
he was spending too much money and energy trying to kill those in the camps rather than fight the actual war.
he went insane from his obsession.

186 Dianna  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:25:48pm

re: #154 Psaturn

Neither his nephew nor his son in law were scientists, however.

I have read Darwin, and I've read a lot about Darwin. I'm frankly tired of people laying at his feet things he never did, said, believed or supported.

187 esch  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:26:05pm

re: #181 Reno911

I'm forming a new religion.

It's called "Guns and Guitars".

Our God(s) are (in no particular order) Leo Fender, Les Paul, and Gerald Bull.

We believe in ID and Evolution. No arguing here.

Send me a buck and I will swear you in.

No PRS? HERESY!

188 Josephine  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:26:05pm

re: #13 nyc redneck

odd how hitler stood before huge crowds extolling the virtues of the tall blond aryan race and he was such a short little dark swarthy creep.

When I saw the photo attached to the article, I thought, "What an ugly little man".

/Don't ask a lunatic to make sense.

189 Killgore Trout  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:26:31pm

re: #176 Josephine

Heh.

190 Ojoe  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:26:39pm

re: #113 Charles

You might make the case that a facile misinterpretation of Darwin led to the Nazis.

But the misinterpretation was a moral failure.

The moral failure led,

Darwin was not responsible, his work was just a convenient starting point for a predisposition that was an evil predisposition.

Funny but this is a spiritual explanation in a way, the very thing (a spiritual explanation) that the creationists are so insistent upon.

191 BGOH  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:26:44pm

I think we can all agree on this:

192 Occasional Reader  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:26:48pm

re: #180 Psaturn


We agreed that Genesis would not negate the existence of hominids prior to creation of Adam.

You mean, like from 3:30 - 6:30 p.m. on the fifth day?

193 MandyManners  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:27:24pm

Something I found here a while back.

The Religion of the Nazis.

194 Psaturn  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:27:57pm

re: #157 MandyManners

I send The Kid to an incredibly expensive, private, Christain school.

He learns the Word in chapel. He learns science in class.

If for one minute that school were to teach ID, there would be a mass exodus, with me leading the way.

I am sorry you feel that way.

I have a degree in Biology and Physiological Optics...and I see nothing wrong using ID in science. In fact, the more you know about the intricacies of natural living physiology and biochemistry, the more one see "design" and "purposefully design" rather than random or non purpose event.

195 newsjunkie_ky  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:28:11pm

re: #157 MandyManners

I send The Kid to an incredibly expensive, private, Christain school.

He learns the Word in chapel. He learns science in class.

If for one minute that school were to teach ID, there would be a mass exodus, with me leading the way.


Do they teach in science class that we evolved from mud?

196 mich-again  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:28:31pm

Gotha posted..

Does it really matter whether the science was valid on which Hitler based his decisions? Right or wrong, he was merely following the logical Darwinian conclusion.

I have no idea what that means.

197 Dianna  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:28:50pm

re: #177 really grumpy big dog johnson

Not to me. I'm just getting so royally po'ed that I'm thinking about packing it in.

198 Reno911  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:28:55pm

re: #187 esch

Ok..Paul Reed is in. I forgot about the Mira.

199 Bacchus's daddy  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:29:07pm

re: #141 gotha

Aren't we missing the point here. Does it really matter whether the science was valid on which Hitler based his decisions? Right or wrong, he was merely following the logical Darwinian conclusion. He was following the tautology that only the strongest survive.

Overriding any "intellectual" theorizing about the weak and the strong, I believe, was Hitler's fervent desire to see Jews NOT survive.

200 MandyManners  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:29:16pm

re: #171 Max Darkside

Why do I have visions of thousands of Greenshirt youths goose-stepping past Heir Al Gore, marching off to defeat global warming?

Because you pay attention?

You tell me, please.

201 mich-again  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:29:17pm

re: #195 newsjunkie_ky

Do they teach in science class that we evolved from mud?

BWAHAHA!

202 Gagdad Bob  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:29:29pm

Dianna: truth, by definition is transcendent (as are beauty and morality). Animals do not, and cannot, know any of these transcendent categories. To be a man is to transcend animality.

203 Max Darkside  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:29:37pm
Creationism as stated in the Book of Genesis says that G-d created each KIND of living things on different days, with man being created on the sixth day.

Ahh... but it does not say specifically how, and the guiding hand could well have created a universe by which he initiated the evolutionary process and thereby created all that followed. Genesis generally follows evolution, close enough for a guy pounding papayrus (sp?) in the day.

Creationism and Evolution are not so much at odds. Just some people try to make them opposites.

/former Benedictine Seminarian from here:
[Link: www.mountangelabbey.org...]

204 Ojoe  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:30:26pm

re: #153 Thanos

Actually at the top of the atmosphere the sun puts about 2 hp per square yard onto the earth; at the surface it is less due to absorption by the atmosphere, but the percent of land required to power up any reasonable energy use is quite small.

Think how many lights you would have to turn on to light your back yard at midnight so it looked like noon, and you will get some idea of the energy that is there for the harvesting.

205 MikeySDCA  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:30:37pm

Sorry, Charles, but the fact that what the Nazis believed was bs does not change the fact that they believed it and acted on it.

Ben Stein is of course an idiot, but a stopped clock is right twice a day. Social Darwinism was very big in that period, and led to many horrific things, not least in this country. The Germans went the furthest, and I offer no excuses for the inexcusable, but context should be remembered.

206 Max Darkside  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:30:43pm

re: #200 MandyManners

Because you pay attention?

You tell me, please.


(Mushrooms make me see things)

207 esch  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:31:14pm

re: #198 Reno911

What about amps? I want to be Apostle Boogie.

208 Ojoe  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:31:22pm

re: #181 Reno911

Mine is called

Bombs and Bagpipes

/kidding

209 gman  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:31:30pm

re: #95 itellu3times

I don't know a single source for this, but it's an interesting question, I hope somebody is centralizing it. Probably have to research hundreds of academic articles from biology, geography, anthropology, who knows what departments.

As to getting your genome mapped, I think that's still about $100k, they're working on getting that down to $10k then $1k until it becomes standard to do at birth, but just not quite yet. And maybe the art and science of detailed genome mapping isn't *quite* there yet either, but ssssh, that's a secret. Anyway, a lot of specific mutations can at least be searched for already with I dunno what accuracy, assume something north of 80%, I wonder.

(I did a little genetic combinatoric math for my molecular biologist brother a few years ago, maybe things have improved since but I was sort of appalled at how it was being done back then)

Practice of medicine is going to change tremendously over the next few decades, genetic profile will match you to the proper drugs.

As to what it says about your origins, more often than not you probably don't want to ask! Especially don't ask on Father's Day weekend, or what happened in Vegas may not stay there.

National Geographic and IBM have teamed up on a Genographic project. You can purchase a kit and find out more about your ancestors.

Here is the link

210 mich-again  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:31:54pm

re: #202 Gagdad Bob

Animals do not, and cannot, know any of these transcendent categories.

How can you be so sure? Maybe the dog is thinking the same thing you are?

211 really grumpy big dog johnson  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:32:10pm

Those who choose not to abandon race as a concept are as ill-informed as those who proclaim "intelligent design" as undeniable truth, or those that thoughtlessly assume that that creation and evolution cannot coexist in logical harmony.

Now I'm gonna get pushy.

Since I'm dealing with thousands of years of human presumption and societal dogma here, maybe I should just shout.

RACE DOES NOT EXIST.

212 Thanos  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:32:11pm

"Nietzschean Christians" are beginning to annoy me. It does make me happy that there are organized religions however since without their provenance of morals many seemingly would be murdering, raping, pillaging thugs because there aren't any morals otherwise according to them and only the strong survive.


/I'm an aetheist who takes pens from work back to the office if I find them in my shirt pocket at home. Get a clue.

213 Dianna  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:32:13pm

re: #180 Psaturn

Not true; there are, however, biologists on this site who can - and will - set you straight on how falsifiable evolution is.

As for Loma Linda, it's 7th Day Adventist. I grew up in Redlands.

214 Boogberg  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:32:28pm

re: #191 BGOH

I think we can all agree on this:

[Link: www.youtube.com...]

That was some funny shit! :D

215 MandyManners  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:32:42pm

re: #194 Psaturn

I am sorry you feel that way.

I have a degree in Biology and Physiological Optics...and I see nothing wrong using ID in science. In fact, the more you know about the intricacies of natural living physiology and biochemistry, the more one see "design" and "purposefully design" rather than random or non purpose event.

I want The Kid to have the best advantage when it comes time for him to apply for colleges.

This will only happen if he is fully versed in Dwarnian THEORY.

Now, don't you dare tell me that I'm wrong in how I raise The Kid.

Oh. Shit. I'm sorry. You wouldn't do that. You're a gentleman.

*smoochies*

216 esch  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:32:44pm

re: #210 mich-again

Mmmmm...bacon...

Yep I think you're right there.

217 Max Darkside  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:32:45pm

re: #210 mich-again

How can you be so sure? Maybe the dog is thinking the same thing you are?

(especially on Friday nights... Baaawoooooo!)

218 nyc redneck  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:33:29pm

re: #211 really grumpy big dog johnson

Those who choose not to abandon race as a concept are as ill-informed as those who proclaim "intelligent design" as undeniable truth, or those that thoughtlessly assume that that creation and evolution cannot coexist in logical harmony.

Now I'm gonna get pushy.

Since I'm dealing with thousands of years of human presumption and societal dogma here, maybe I should just shout.

RACE DOES NOT EXIST.

maybe rev wright heard you.

219 really grumpy big dog johnson  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:33:51pm

re: #203 Max Darkside

Ahh... but it does not say specifically how, and the guiding hand could well have created a universe by which he initiated the evolutionary process and thereby created all that followed. Genesis generally follows evolution, close enough for a guy pounding papayrus (sp?) in the day.

Creationism and Evolution are not so much at odds. Just some people try to make them opposites.

/former Benedictine Seminarian from here:
[Link: www.mountangelabbey.org...]

A book, written by the hand of superstitious and ignorant man. They were actually on the right track, therefore, they cannot be assumed to be wrong.

220 Josephine  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:33:53pm

re: #70 Killgore Trout

I have no Creationist base.

All your Creationist base are belong to us.

221 Psaturn  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:34:01pm

re: #186 Dianna

Neither his nephew nor his son in law were scientists, however.

I have read Darwin, and I've read a lot about Darwin. I'm frankly tired of people laying at his feet things he never did, said, believed or supported.

Dianna, why do you insist that his cousin was NOT a scientist? What is your definition of "scientist"?

I got more information about this cousin and this is what I found:

Sir Francis Galton F.R.S. (16 February 1822 – 17 January 1911), half-cousin of Charles Darwin, was an English Victorian polymath, anthropologist, eugenicist, tropical explorer, geographer, inventor, meteorologist, proto-geneticist, psychometrician, and statistician. He was knighted in 1909.

Galton had a prolific intellect, and produced over 340 papers and books throughout his lifetime. He also created the statistical concept of correlation and widely promoted regression toward the mean. He was the first to apply statistical methods to the study of human differences and inheritance of intelligence, and introduced the use of questionnaires and surveys for collecting data on human communities, which he needed for genealogical and biographical works and for his anthropometric studies. He was a pioneer in eugenics, coining the very term itself and the phrase "nature versus nurture". As an investigator of the human mind, he founded psychometrics (the science of measuring mental faculties) and differential psychology. He devised a method for classifying fingerprints that proved useful in forensic science. As the initiator of scientific meteorology, he devised the first weather map, proposed a theory of anticyclones, and was the first to establish a complete record of short-term climatic phenomena on a European scale.[1] He also invented the Galton Whistle for testing differential hearing ability.

Sounds like a scientist to me...

222 mich-again  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:34:16pm

re: #216 esch

Mmmmm...bacon...

Yep I think you're right there.

You gonna eat that potato?

223 Bacchus's daddy  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:34:18pm

re: #150 Gagdad Bob

If reductionistic Darwinists are correct that human beings are of no intrinsic worth and there can be no absolute truth -- let alone values -- then why are murder or rape wrong?

I'm not sure exactly what the "reductionistic" implies, on top of the Darwinism. Strict materialist? Atheist? I believe Darwin's theory, although I wouldn't label myself a Darwinist. I believe that human beings have intrinsic worth. I believe in absolute "fact", although absolute "truth" I'm uncertain about. And yet I believe rape and murder are VERY wrong. Go figure.

224 MikeySDCA  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:34:28pm

re: #194 Psaturn

This nonsense was demolished by Kant. "Intelligent design" is circular, and all of your anecdotal wonders don't change that.

225 esch  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:35:01pm

re: #222 mich-again

You gonna eat that potato?

Nope.

This spud's for you.

226 Gagdad Bob  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:35:05pm

You see, we've just had a Darwinist -- assuming he wasn't joking -- equate canine and human minds. I assume you can understand the kind of mayhem that could follow such a misapprehension of reality.

227 Max Darkside  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:35:28pm

re: #219 really grumpy big dog johnson

A book, written by the hand of superstitious and ignorant man. They were actually on the right track, therefore, they cannot be assumed to be wrong.

And considering the day, they did a pretty darn good job laying it out.

228 mich-again  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:35:52pm

re: #226 Gagdad Bob

I assume you can understand the kind of mayhem that could follow such a misapprehension of reality.

Dude we got two dogs. I see it every day.

229 Charles  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:35:59pm

I repeat: Stein told The New York Times last year that, were it up to him, he would call the movie, “From Darwin to Hitler.”

We've had a lot of people trying to tell us that Stein didn't say this.

Well, he did, in no uncertain terms.

And it's a reductionist, deceptive argument intended to fool people with no understanding of the sceintific issues.

230 Thanos  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:36:00pm

re: #204 Ojoe

Actually at the top of the atmosphere the sun puts about 2 hp per square yard onto the earth; at the surface it is less due to absorption by the atmosphere, but the percent of land required to power up any reasonable energy use is quite small.

Think how many lights you would have to turn on to light your back yard at midnight so it looked like noon, and you will get some idea of the energy that is there for the harvesting.


So go harvest it! Right now we need energy that works without messing up the air we breathe, nuclear does that and has done that emminently well for quite a while. I'm not anti-solar, I'm just saying that we need every source of energy we can get. Nuclear is the best stop gap we have ATM until we become able to harvest the large solar bounty through SPS or Sapphire solar furnaces.

231 MandyManners  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:36:06pm

re: #195 newsjunkie_ky

Do they teach in science class that we evolved from mud?

They teach the current, accepted theories.

This is an academy that produces National Merit Scholars, many who go on to preach The Word in distant lands.

232 Josephine  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:36:14pm

re: #79 jcm

All your Creationist base are belong to us!
HAHAHA!

Oh, rats. You beat me to it by 141 comments. I'm slow.

233 BGOH  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:36:25pm

re: #214 Boogberg

Then perhaps you'll enjoy....THIS!

/Seriously, someone is going to search on Youtube on my computer and think I look up nothing but boobs all day. Somehow, I'm OK with that.

234 really grumpy big dog johnson  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:36:33pm

re: #227 Max Darkside

And considering the day, they did a pretty darn good job laying it out.

I agree completely. In their modern day terms, they were visionaries.

235 Occasional Reader  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:37:09pm

re: #211 really grumpy big dog johnson


RACE DOES NOT EXIST.

I don't quite agree. Race "exists" as a group of characteristics constituting share genetic inheritance. The fact that these characteristics are somewhat arbitrarily chosen (in a strictly biological sense) doesn't mean they aren't "real".

236 Bacchus's daddy  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:37:10pm

re: #160 zmdavid

I think eugenics is what happens if you believe in evolution, realize you got the short end of the stick and try to change it.

LMAO!

237 jcm  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:37:16pm

re: #211 really grumpy big dog johnson

RACE DOES NOT EXIST.

The hell you say!
NASCAR!
/

What we call "race" is the expression of a particular set of genetic codes. The most prominent being skin color. That is control by how many sets of alleles and which one are turned on.

We all have the code, it just depends on which sets are turned on, or expressed.

238 esch  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:37:21pm

re: #233 BGOH

Boobs Great OverHead?

239 NY Nana  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:37:29pm

NY Grampa is a real scientist, and what he calls 'Unintelligent Design'?

[Deleted].

/Is Albore in on this crap with Stein?

240 Gagdad Bob  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:37:44pm

Bacchus's daddy:

I'm curious. On what basis do you believe in absolute truth, being that Darwinism only allows for change, certainly not eternal truth? How does a completely relative being know the absolute?

241 Reno911  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:37:45pm

re: #207 esch

Gs&Gs considers amp worship to be a personal journey. I can witness to the grace and power of Mesa Engineering but there are others just as worthy.

242 karmic_inquisitor  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:38:29pm
243 Josephine  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:38:34pm

re: #80 Phileosophos

That is, prior to Darwin, it simply wasn't possible to believe in a world without God.

So there were no atheists or agnostics prior to Darwin?

244 stickdude  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:38:36pm

re: #223 Bacchus's daddy

I believe Darwin's theory, although I wouldn't label myself a Darwinist. I believe that human beings have intrinsic worth.

Why would a collection of chemicals formed by random chance over a long time have any more intrinsic worth than the collection of chemicals you'd find in a rock?

For that matter, how does a collection of chemicals formed by random chance over a long time even realize it exists?

245 realwest  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:38:46pm

Hey all Y'all - sorry I'm late (again) what have I missed?!

246 MikeySDCA  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:38:51pm

re: #212 Thanos

You don't seem to know what "provenance" means.

American Heritage Dictionary

247 MandyManners  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:39:10pm

By gum, I DARE anyone here to tell me that I don't love The Kid because I don't demand he be taught A, B or C exclusively.

248 jcm  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:39:13pm

re: #232 Josephine

Oh, rats. You beat me to it by 141 comments. I'm slow.

I've got one or two tricks I'm good at...
The rest I fake!
;-)

249 Bacchus's daddy  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:39:47pm

re: #164 Neo Con since 9-11

OT Earthquake thread up at HuffPo and they forgot to close comments. A $20 says it gets as nasty as the tornado thread did yesterday before they deleted them all. This time I need to remember to take screen shots.

I imagine that the "nasty" comments have to do with the geographical location of the disaster? (I missed yesterday's snafu.)

250 Thanos  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:40:07pm

re: #246 MikeySDCA

You don't seem to know what "provenance" means.

American Heritage Dictionary

So what's your point? Campaigning for resident gramarian?

251 solomonpanting  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:40:13pm

re: #211 really grumpy big dog johnson

RACE DOES NOT EXIST.

"There are only two races, the decent and the indecent." — Viktor Frankl

252 MikeySDCA  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:40:15pm

re: #229 Charles

True.

253 Dianna  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:40:30pm

re: #211 really grumpy big dog johnson

No, it doesn't.

254 Sharmuta  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:40:32pm

re: #247 MandyManners

Darlin'- stick to your guns. I want all of America's children given the best education we can give them, and ID's not it.

255 jcm  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:40:39pm

re: #242 karmic_inquisitor

Funniest thing I have read all week!

Peace in Our Time!

256 joecitizen  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:40:49pm

re: #49 Occasional Reader

YOU DID IT, YOU FINALLY DID IT! YOU BLEW IT UP! AWWW DAMN YOU! DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!

-channelling Battlestar Galactica season finale

or Planet of the Apes..

257 Killgore Trout  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:40:53pm

re: #244 stickdude

Why would a collection of chemicals formed by random chance over a long time have any more intrinsic worth than the collection of chemicals you'd find in a rock?


Try to kill me or my family and I'll show you. You don't corner the market o valuing human life despite what you might think.

258 BGOH  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:40:59pm

re: #238 esch

Boobs Great OverHead?

Ummmm....exactly! Or something. Need more beer.

lol

259 esch  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:41:00pm

re: #242 karmic_inquisitor

"use Presidential leadership to surge our diplomacy"

WTF? Sounds like something Billybob used to do.

260 MikeySDCA  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:41:17pm

re: #250 Thanos

No. You just don't seem to know what you're talking about.

261 Killgore Trout  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:41:30pm

re: #245 realwest

Oh, it's getting ugly again. Hold on to your hat.

262 Sharmuta  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:41:40pm

re: #244 stickdude

Evolution does not deal with the origin of the universe.

263 Psaturn  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:42:04pm

re: #186 Dianna

Dianna,

About the son, did you know he got an honorary degree in doctor of science from Cambridge?

Here is the background:

Leonard Darwin was born in 1850 in Down House in Kent, England. He was the last child to die from the Darwin-Wedgwood famliy. Born into the wealthy Darwin — Wedgwood family, he was the fourth son and eighth child of the British naturalist Charles Darwin and his wife Emma (née Wedgwood). He considered himself to be the least intelligent of their children (brothers Frank, George and Horace were all elected FRS) and was sent to Clapham School in 1862.

Darwin joined the Royal Engineers in 1871. Between 1877 and 1882 he worked for the Intelligence Division of the Ministry of War. He went on several scientific expeditions, including the Transits of Venus of 1874 and 1882.

In 1890 was promoted to the rank of Major. He left the army and from 1892 to 1895 was a Liberal Unionist Member of Parliament (MP) for Lichfield constituency in Staffordshire (his grandfather Josiah Wedgwood II had also been an MP). He wrote vigorously on the economic issues of the day, bimetallism, Indian currency reform and municipal trading.

He married Elizabeth Frances Fraser in July 1882, but she died on 13 January 1898. In 1900 he married his first cousin Charlotte Mildred Massingberd (1868–1940). She was daughter of Edmund Langton (1841-1875) and his second wife Charlotte Wedgwood. Their shared ancestor was their maternal grandfather Josiah Wedgwood II. Charlotte Mildred Massingberd's paternal grandfather Charles Langton (1801–1886) also married Charles Darwin's sister Emily Catherine Darwin after Charlotte Wedgwood's death. Since Charles Darwin and Emma Wedgwood were also cousins, Charlotte Mildred Massingberd was also a second cousin on his father's side. He had no children from either marriage.

He was Chairman of the British Eugenics Society between 1911-1928, (succeeding his half-cousin once removed Francis Galton), and became Honorary President from 1928 until his death. He was an officer of the Royal Geographical Society from 1908 to 1911, and then its president. In 1912 the University of Cambridge conferred on him the honorary degree of doctor of science.

Darwin played an important part in the life of the geneticist and statistician R.A. Fisher, supporting him intellectually, morally and sometimes financially. When Fisher was elected to the Royal Society Darwin naturally congratulated him. In reply Fisher wrote, "I knew you would be glad, and your pleasure is as good to me almost as though my own father were still living." (February 25, 1929) Darwin always treated Fisher with enormous tact and generosity. A perfect example came later in 1929. Some years before, after a disagreement, Fisher had resigned from the Royal Statistical Society. Darwin regretted the development and engineered Fisher's re-entry by making him the gift of a life-time subscription to the society. (Letters of 25 and 27 June.) Fisher's 1930 book The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection is dedicated to Darwin. After Darwin's death in 1943 Fisher wrote to Darwin's niece, Margaret Keynes, "My very dear friend Leonard Darwin... was surely the kindest and wisest man I ever knew".

Now, this introduction of RA Fisher in interesting...I dont know anything about him. I am going to research him...

264 gotha  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:42:08pm

re: #173 Thanos

Yes, they adapt by being the strongest. Tell me, who in your circle of friends has adapted best to survive. If you can't tell me, your "theory" is a joke.

265 Killian Bundy  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:42:12pm

So many open light sockets.

/too few fingers

266 really grumpy big dog johnson  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:42:30pm

re: #235 Occasional Reader

I don't quite agree. Race "exists" as a group of characteristics constituting share genetic inheritance. The fact that these characteristics are somewhat arbitrarily chosen (in a strictly biological sense) doesn't mean they aren't "real".

Race was derived by societies from the difference in physical appearances of some people from others. The decoding of the genome and subsequent analysis showed that random one-on-one comparisons of those of even the most stereotypical definitions of caucusoid, mongoloid, negroid and other less widespread "assumed" racial categories showed the undeniable evidence that the random difference between two people categorized as "of the same race" was indistinguishable from the random difference between two people categorized as of different races.

I don't know how much more clear the folly of racial differentiation could be exposed. We are all humans. There are no racial subtypes.

267 Ojoe  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:42:39pm

re: #230 Thanos

I do. I'm an architect. I've designed solar buildings, have some projects like that at the moment. You might check out this book:

"The Passive Solar Energy Book" (Professional Edition) by Mazria. Rodale Press.

A modest sized solar house saves about 300 gallons of heating oil per year in many US climates.

I'm out of here until tomorrow, good night All.

268 Thanos  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:42:58pm

re: #260 MikeySDCA

No. You just don't seem to know what you're talking about.

You don't seem to be the person I was talking to unless you want to wear it dude... Do you ?

269 Dianna  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:43:13pm

re: #226 Gagdad Bob

It was either a joke, or a very good question.

What do my dogs ponder in the depths of the night, when their gods have gone to bed?

270 stickdude  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:43:32pm

re: #257 Killgore Trout

Try to kill me or my family and I'll show you.

Why? They're just collections of chemicals formed by random chance over a long period of time.

You don't corner the market o valuing human life despite what you might think.

Never said I did. Buy why do we value human life so much?

271 newsjunkie_ky  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:43:36pm

re: #231 MandyManners

They teach the current, accepted theories.

This is an academy that produces National Merit Scholars, many who go on to preach The Word in distant lands.


My daughter was a National Merit Scholar and she doesn't believe we evolved from mud.

272 jaunte  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:43:56pm

re: #264 gotha

"Fittest" was the word used, and it didn't neccessarily mean "strongest." It could mean most adaptable, or most cooperative.

273 Psaturn  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:44:13pm

re: #235 Occasional Reader

I don't quite agree. Race "exists" as a group of characteristics constituting share genetic inheritance. The fact that these characteristics are somewhat arbitrarily chosen (in a strictly biological sense) doesn't mean they aren't "real".

They do truly exist...

I am a health care professional and we use race as part of looking for certain diseases...some races are more prone to certain diseases or conditions to others...

I know....diseases are racists...who'd think ?

274 really grumpy big dog johnson  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:44:14pm

re: #262 Sharmuta

Evolution does not deal with the origin of the universe.

Evolution deals with the progression of life, a subset of the universe. And who knows what the universe is anyway? Please don't bother to answer.

275 esch  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:44:33pm

re: #264 gotha

Yes, they adapt by being the strongest. Tell me, who in your circle of friends has adapted best to survive. If you can't tell me, your "theory" is a joke.

Survival isn't a {0,1} proposition. It's a scale. Who's surviving better, Eliot Spitzer or Bill Gates?

276 Max Darkside  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:44:33pm

re: #262 Sharmuta

Evolution does not deal with the origin of the universe.

I vote that G*D flicked something sparky onto a hot rock and boom, the universe was created. You see, we all evolved from energy, to Hydrogen, to Hu, the Human Element...

/damn commercials

277 Gagdad Bob  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:44:49pm

Of course evolution deals with the origin of the universe, or rather, vice verse, since the former is constrained by aspects of the latter. In other words, it so happens that Darwinian evolution can only occur in a very specific kind of cosmos. Even Dawkins says this.

278 jcm  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:44:50pm

re: #242 karmic_inquisitor

Funniest thing I have read all week!

"At every stage of this war, we have suffered because of disdain for diplomacy. . . .
We need to launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent history to reach a new compact in the region.
This compact must secure Iraq’s borders, keep neighbors from meddling, isolate al Qaeda, and support Iraq’s
unity.”

Some how think it's we who disdain diplomacy, tell that to the guys who drive car bombs into a crowd of kids.

The actor is Iran, you going do a Chamberlain "Peace in Our Time" compact?

That last part has to be backed up... with force.

279 Thanos  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:44:53pm

Mikey

Here's more on provenance

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

now if you are too slow to understand the double entendre, please move on

280 Cognito  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:44:57pm

Really Grumpy,

I think one reason you're not getting much feedback with your thought, there, is that it's both obviously true and obviously ridiculous, depending what you mean by 'race.'

There's no great genetic difference between people no matter where on the globe? Okay. No race.

Is there really no difference between the average Norwegian and the average Zimbabwean? Hey, they're different.

So it seems to me that you're simply playing on the way most people perceive race. They don't look at genetic strands. They look at physical characteristics.

281 Dar ul Harbarian  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:44:58pm

re: #150 Gagdad Bob

If reductionistic Darwinists are correct that human beings are of no intrinsic worth and there can be no absolute truth -- let alone values -- then why are murder or rape wrong?

Intrisic worth is a matter of perspective.
The Universe doesn't give a shit about humanity or any of it's values.
There is no Absolute Truth. It is all relative. Murder and rape are perfectly OK in some cultures.

That is why Western culture and values must be defended vigorously. Because if you don't, God sure as hell won't. God fucks people over every day.

It is up to you to take a stand and defend it.

282 really grumpy big dog johnson  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:44:59pm

re: #270 stickdude

Never said I did. Buy why do we value human life so much?

Because those of a feather stick together.

283 Occasional Reader  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:45:10pm

re: #247 MandyManners

By gum, I DARE anyone here to tell me that I don't love The Kid because I don't demand he be taught A, B or C exclusively.

You don't love The Kid because you don't demand he be taught A, B or C exclusively! Ha! There, I said it!

284 Killgore Trout  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:45:34pm

re: #270 stickdude

Why? They're just collections of chemicals formed by random chance over a long period of time.


Self preservation. Go ahead, try it and we'll decide who values human life.

285 Dianna  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:45:50pm

re: #243 Josephine

Marlowe?

286 Da_Beerfreak  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:45:58pm

re: #135 itellu3times

Yes. Fits in well.
// {;-)™

287 Occasional Reader  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:46:07pm

re: #269 Dianna

What do my dogs ponder in the depths of the night, when their gods have gone to bed?

"BACON! ! !"

288 Sarge1984  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:46:22pm

re: #245 realwest

RW! How are you tonight?

289 Dainn  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:46:53pm

What is really scary about the third Reich was their very organized, systematic, empirical approach to a pseudo-science. They started with a preassumed belief of a racial hierarchy, then with that as an "axiom" proceeded in a very methodical way to develop an entire system of pseudo-science around it. Like all "scientific" endevors that evolve from a sacrosanct preassumption, the science that came after just further validated the preassumption, mainly because any possible disproofs were never published.

Science then became an excuse to validate the holocaust. Its okay to kill vermin, and their "science" "proved" just that. If your science proves that a certain race seen as a threat is subhuman, it becomes easy to justify their extermination.

For science to work, every belief must be testable and disprovable. Once a theory becomes True with a capital T the science that follows is suspect. The Nazi's are (as usual) just the most extreme example of this. Creation theory, global warming, stem cell research all have the same vulnerabilities.

Politics is rarely a good friend to science.

290 experiencedtraveller  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:47:40pm

The problem is NOT oil.
The problem is NOT technology.
The problem is NOT humans.

The problem is TYRANNY.

291 MandyManners  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:47:54pm

re: #271 newsjunkie_ky

My daughter was a National Merit Scholar and she doesn't believe we evolved from mud.

Good for her!

292 really grumpy big dog johnson  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:48:44pm

re: #273 Psaturn

They do truly exist...

I am a health care professional and we use race as part of looking for certain diseases...some races are more prone to certain diseases or conditions to others...

I know....diseases are racists...who'd think ?

You mean that some people who have grown up in different societies are more susceptible to some diseases?

Big surprise. Environmental adaptations allow differing susceptibilities to diseases, depending upon what your geographic background is.

Please don't dumb us down with this.

293 stickdude  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:48:46pm

re: #284 Killgore Trout

Self preservation. Go ahead, try it and we'll decide who values human life.

Dude, you value human life. I get it.

How/why does a collection of chemicals formed by random chance over a long time even have a sense of "self' to preserve?

294 BGOH  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:48:47pm

Good Lord Charles, such a heavy topic for a Friday night! You should have posted this:

[Link: i167.photobucket.com...]

295 Gagdad Bob  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:49:00pm

281:

In other words, might makes right. I agree with you that this is one of the ineluctable moral implications of reductionistic Darwinism. It cannot be otherwise.

But that simply isn't true. Truth is true, regardless of what people such as yourself feel about it.

296 Bacchus's daddy  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:49:15pm

re: #240 Gagdad Bob

Bacchus's daddy:

I'm curious. On what basis do you believe in absolute truth, being that Darwinism only allows for change, certainly not eternal truth? How does a completely relative being know the absolute?

I believe I said "absolute fact", and expressed uncertainty about "absolute truth". The terms are admittedly malleable, but I believe that there is an absolute reality- but an absolute "meaning" to that reality- I'm not sure. Maybe slightly OT, I am an adherent to Wittgenstein's later ideas in "Philosophical Investigations".

297 MandyManners  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:50:06pm

re: #283 Occasional Reader

You don't love The Kid because you don't demand he be taught A, B or C exclusively! Ha! There, I said it!

FUCK YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU.

298 Sharmuta  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:50:21pm

The "master race" was a myth, and that's exactly what progressives need to offer the volk to gain a following- a myth.

299 Ward Cleaver  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:50:31pm

Hey all. Jay Leno just gave a nice tribute to Tim Russert. He showed a clip of Tim on his show (promoting his book, Big Russ & Me), talking about his dad growing up in the Depression, and dropping out of the tenth grade to join the Army. Then coming home to work two jobs, to put his kids through school. Jay finished up by sending his prayers. Very classy.

300 ggt  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:50:34pm

Good Evening Lizards! In the Very Far Western Suburbs of Chicagoland is is Very, Very Dark.

How are you-all this FNDT and is it safe?

301 Bacchus's daddy  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:50:37pm

re: #257 Killgore Trout

Right on.

302 Dianna  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:51:09pm

re: #287 Occasional Reader

Not the black mutt. That dog is too clever by half.

303 really grumpy big dog johnson  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:51:18pm

re: #280 Cognito

Really Grumpy,

I think one reason you're not getting much feedback with your thought, there, is that it's both obviously true and obviously ridiculous, depending what you mean by 'race.'

There's no great genetic difference between people no matter where on the globe? Okay. No race.

Is there really no difference between the average Norwegian and the average Zimbabwean? Hey, they're different.

So it seems to me that you're simply playing on the way most people perceive race. They don't look at genetic strands. They look at physical characteristics.

But through history Cognito, race was define as people of inferior intrinsic biological worth. It was part of the sword of racism that made it most effective as a weapon to unite societies against one another.

Next thing, we'll have races called pretties and uglys.

304 Cartman  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:51:28pm

I missed another evolution thread? Dammit!

/

305 Occasional Reader  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:51:41pm

re: #266 really grumpy big dog johnson

undeniable evidence that the random difference between two people categorized as "of the same race" was indistinguishable from the random difference between two people categorized as of different races

That's both a) true, and b) not quite relevant.

Wesley Snipes and I are considered to be of different "races", based mostly on the difference in our skin color (and hair texture and some other stuff, but let's keep it simple).

Now, given that Snipes is roughly the same physical size I am, it's quite likely that our genetic makeup has more in common that does mine with a "white" man who's seven feet tall; or his with a "black" man who is four feet tall.

But our skins are different colors because of real genetic differences, not because he spend more time at the beach than I do. And while it's true that you could just as well divide humanity into races according to blood type, you wouldn't wind up with any historically coherent patterns that way.

306 jc59  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:51:48pm

I don't think the Nazis believed that Nordics were Aryans; instead they believed that Nordics had, in the aggregate, the highest concentration of of Aryan blood. They realized that populations interacted.

Their plan was for the population to approach Aryan-hood asymptotically though successive (selective) breeding and murdering of the competition.

307 stickdude  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:51:49pm

re: #281 Dar ul Harbarian

There is no Absolute Truth. It is all relative. Murder and rape are perfectly OK in some cultures.

If there's no absolute truth, then why is this a problem? Whatever works for them and all, right?

308 ploome hineni[deleted]  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:52:07pm
309 JHW  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:52:12pm

It's been many years since I've schooling of any sort, I started getting interested in Molecular Biology when I was researching some bio-tech stocks. I ordered a copy of this book Molecular Biology...Made Simple and Fun
it is a fascinating book that lives up to it's title,lots of diagrams and fun facts that made learning the subject a lot easier than most of the textbooks I looked at. An excellent book for the layman, taken through college level material. It is strictly a scientific text , but presented in an interesting manner. I found this little anecdote in it.

'The Napoleonic Wars provided a fascinating example of eugenics by ignorance.Napoleon deliberately recruited tall men into the French Imperial Army [The Guards Regiments]. .....The combined result of constantly selecting tall men and subjecting them to massive casualties was that the average height of the French nation decreased significantly in this period."

I heartily recommend this book if you're anything like me (not up on the subject) and would like to learn more in a fun and relatively painless manner.

310 Dirk Diggler  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:52:31pm

Oh goody another Friday Night Combusti...I mean, ID thread! Let's drop any pretense of civility and see if we can make it go supernova:

1) That Passion of the Christ movie was really good. Not a hint of anti-semitism in it either.

2) Vlaams Belang is just a conservative political party trying to salvage Dutch heritage. They're not affiliated with white supremacists in any way.

3) Terri Schiavo was murdered by her husband.

4) Abortion should be outlawed and those who have them should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

5) THE YANKEES SUCK!

311 Intrepid  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:52:31pm

This thread calls for an open bar - mosey on up!

What'll ya have?

312 realwest  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:53:06pm

re: #261 Killgore Trout
Ah shit, Killgore WHY do we keep having these stupid fights out here.
I believe in God. I also believe Jesus Christ was the Messiah and died for our sins. I also believe in Evolution and reject absolutely and completely the idea that Darwinism led to Hitler and Nazi's.
Who wants to fight over that? I don't frankly give a damn if people don't believe in God, or in Jesus Christ as those beliefs are to me, a matter of personal faith.That Darwinism led to Hitler is just too ludicrous for anyone to believe. Well, I guess except for Ben Stein.
So why are LGFer's fighting over this?

313 Gagdad Bob  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:53:13pm

Bacchus daddy:

There is no such thing as an "absolute fact." A fact, by definition, can only be recognized in a larger context. Besides, if there is an "absolute fact," then there is obviously an absolute knower, something that vastly exceeds anything Darwinism can explain.

314 MandyManners  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:53:17pm

re: #294 BGOH

Good Lord Charles, such a heavy topic for a Friday night! You should have posted this:

[Link: i167.photobucket.com...]

And, this.

[Link: www.freedomisnotfree.com...]

315 Dianna  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:53:19pm

re: #293 stickdude

You just dead-ended at the problem of consciousness, and that's not exactly amenable to easy discussion.

316 Ward Cleaver  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:53:31pm

re: #294 BGOH

Good Lord Charles, such a heavy topic for a Friday night! You should have posted this:

[Link: i167.photobucket.com...]

I've gotten that picture with an email titled, "My Resimay".

317 mich-again  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:53:33pm

Why do we have a robot digging up dirt on Mars? I heard it was looking for water. But I bet a lot of people are hoping for more than that.

Lizard eggs..

318 newsjunkie_ky  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:53:42pm

re: #291 MandyManners

If you want the Kid to succeed, and we know you do, teach him, read to him constantly, provide books of all kinds and most of all, spend time with him.
Never get tired of answering a why question.
My daughter got a full ride to a private university and partial ride to med school. And I raised her by myself.

319 karmic_inquisitor  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:53:44pm

So Obama wants to bring a "brutal warlord" in Africa to justice:

Bring a Brutal Warlord to Justice: Former Liberian President Charles Taylor has been accused of committing war crimes by international prosecutors. Taylor created a rebel group that committed a range of atrocities including rape, murder, and the use of child soldiers in neighboring Sierra Leone. Barack Obama passed a bipartisan amendment to provide $13 million for the Special Court for Sierra Leone to bring Charles Taylor to justice. Taylor was arrested in 2006 and awaits trial in April 2007.

So what about bringing his cousin to justice?

Naaaaa.

320 Charles  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:54:22pm

Some of you are no doubt wondering why I keep probing this sore tooth.

It's because I sincerely believe that this is a regressive, destructive, anti-science movement promoted by a dishonest special interest group. I have a deep aversion to being fooled by fanatics.

Of any stripe.

And as I always point out in these threads, the far right in America and the Islamofascists in the Middle East totally agree on this issue. Islam is just as opposed to evolutionary science as the Discovery Institute.

321 brainwizard73  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:54:29pm

re: #110 Muadib

I would, but somehow I always lose that game.

322 Psaturn  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:54:34pm

re: #231 MandyManners

Mandy Manners...

I was taught Darwinism too...since I majored in Biology...

And of course I never told you anything about how to raise your kids! I know you are doing the best job possible!

The thing is that the Common Descent that is the theme of evolutionism is in direct contradiction of Genesis in my opinion.

Since I am a Christian, I had to do deep research behind it...

What I found was quite interesting...and I think this is what Ben Stein was addressing in his movie Expelled.

Evolutionism by itself is a belief system based on a scientific fact of evolution. Note how they support evolutionism by using examples such as the moths that change colors in England, bacterial mutations etc...

But the problem is that no one has shown verifiable reproducible examples of one class of type of living things becoming another class....like from amphibians to mammals.

You'd think that if it happened in the past, it would occur today.

Of course you have the argument that it took millions of years.

It is the argument of millions of years that makes it a BELIEF as opposed to a scientifcally verifiable reproducible statement.

Remember a thread here about Lizards in Croatia that EVOLVED in 30 years? Scientists were shocked at the rapid evolution of these lizards, thinking those type of things would have taken MILLIONS OF YEARS...

323 MandyManners  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:55:00pm

re: #310 Dirk Diggler

Oh goody another Friday Night Combusti...I mean, ID thread! Let's drop any pretense of civility and see if we can make it go supernova:

1) That Passion of the Christ movie was really good. Not a hint of anti-semitism in it either.

2) Vlaams Belang is just a conservative political party trying to salvage Dutch heritage. They're not affiliated with white supremacists in any way.

3) Terri Schiavo was murdered by her husband.

4) Abortion should be outlawed and those who have them should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

I spewed snot all over the place reading the first few lines.

5) THE YANKEES SUCK!

324 karmic_inquisitor  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:55:34pm

re: #319 karmic_inquisitor

Link to Obama's official policy position on Africa from which I got the War Crimes quote.

325 brainwizard73  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:55:41pm

re: #106 DistantThunder

Can we see neutrinos? or do we just know they are there? That's science.

It is possible to see neutrinos...just not with the naked eye.

326 ggt  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:55:48pm

re: #309 JHW

Put in in the BOOK link category. That way we can find it when we are trying to remember it to order it.

HA!

327 Bacchus's daddy  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:55:48pm

re: #264 gotha

re: #264 gotha

re: #264 gotha

Yes, they adapt by being the strongest. Tell me, who in your circle of friends has adapted best to survive. If you can't tell me, your "theory" is a joke.

The friend best adapted is more likely to have the most descendants 2,000 years from now. If the question can't be answered "now" the theory is a joke?

328 really grumpy big dog johnson  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:55:51pm

re: #305 Occasional Reader

That's both a) true, and b) not quite relevant.

Wesley Snipes and I are considered to be of different "races", based mostly on the difference in our skin color (and hair texture and some other stuff, but let's keep it simple).

Now, given that Snipes is roughly the same physical size I am, it's quite likely that our genetic makeup has more in common that does mine with a "white" man who's seven feet tall; or his with a "black" man who is four feet tall.

But our skins are different colors because of real genetic differences, not because he spend more time at the beach than I do. And while it's true that you could just as well divide humanity into races according to blood type, you wouldn't wind up with any historically coherent patterns that way.

You and Wesley are roughly equally likely by a roll of the dice to be more or less related to each other than anyone else on earth.

Can you grasp that concept?

329 Dianna  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:55:53pm

re: #307 stickdude

The question, generally, is, "what works best over-all?"

330 swamprat  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:56:05pm

Ben Stein says that Hitler used evolution to further his goals. And now we know that the genetic premise that Hitler put forth was invalid because the Scandinavian gene pool wasn't stagnant. Non Sequitur.This has nothing to do with the evolution/intelligent design debate. Hitler used a flawed and racist arguement to advance totalitarian oppression. He was also known to lie outright. This, in itself, does not invalidate Steins contention. The debate goes on, but this neither supports or refutes it

331 Occasional Reader  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:56:10pm

re: #310 Dirk Diggler

Your post was far from kosher.

But what IS kosher, really?

332 zmdavid  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:56:27pm

Here is the most pro-ID site I've ever seen:

[Link: www.arn.org...]

Have at it pros and cons.

333 Noam Sayin'  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:56:30pm

A brief comic interlude...

Pimpin' ain't easy

334 Gagdad Bob  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:56:36pm

That's it! I'm an Islamist!

335 Dar ul Harbarian  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:56:41pm

re: #307 stickdude

If there's no absolute truth, then why is this a problem? Whatever works for them and all, right?

Wrong.
I have the balls to make judgements and defend them.
To deny that power is to deny one's humanity.
Just because the Universe is amoral doesn't mean I have to be.

336 Ward Cleaver  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:57:03pm

re: #317 mich-again

Why do we have a robot digging up dirt on Mars? I heard it was looking for water. But I bet a lot of people are hoping for more than that.

Lizard eggs..

The spectrometer on the rover was built here in Dallas, at the University of Texas at Dallas (UT-Dallas).

/okay, so it's actually located in richardson

337 Charles  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:57:11pm

re: #330 swamprat

Ben Stein says that Hitler used evolution to further his goals. And now we know that the genetic premise that Hitler put forth was invalid because the Scandinavian gene pool wasn't stagnant. Non Sequitur.This has nothing to do with the evolution/intelligent design debate. Hitler used a flawed and racist arguement to advance totalitarian oppression. He was also known to lie outright. This, in itself, does not invalidate Steins contention. The debate goes on, but this neither supports or refutes it

The entire argument is deceptive.

338 Bacchus's daddy  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:57:34pm

re: #281 Dar ul Harbarian

Very well put!

339 Thanos  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:57:39pm

re: #330 swamprat

Which contention? The one where he says "Science Kills People?"

340 brainwizard73  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:57:41pm

re: #154 Psaturn

Darwin...

Gore...

Both qualified to tell us how the world works...right?

341 Intrepid  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:57:45pm

re: #231 MandyManners

They teach the current, accepted theories.

This is an academy that produces National Merit Scholars, many who go on to preach The Word in distant lands.

Then I love them. Whoever they are.

/former missionary here, but in no way a scholar of merit

342 Sharmuta  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:57:49pm

re: #333 Noam Sayin'

Hey- thanks for reminding me! I've been saving this comic for just such a thread.

343 Psaturn  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:57:57pm

re: #292 really grumpy big dog johnson

You mean that some people who have grown up in different societies are more susceptible to some diseases?

Big surprise. Environmental adaptations allow differing susceptibilities to diseases, depending upon what your geographic background is.

Please don't dumb us down with this.

I dont know what you mean about "growing up in different societies"?

African Americans are more prone to certain medical conditions no matter where they live or what societies they live.

Same thing with Chinese, they are prone to certain medical conditions than other races.

Same thing with Hispanics...

And so on...and so on...

344 mich-again  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:57:58pm

re: #320 Charles

I have a deep aversion to being fooled by fanatics.

Of any stripe.

Sounds like something else I read a while back.

"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every from of tyranny over the mind of man."
345 Killgore Trout  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:58:00pm

re: #293 stickdude

How/why does a collection of chemicals formed by random chance over a long time even have a sense of "self' to preserve?


Wanna try me?

346 gotha  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:58:00pm

re: #272 jaunte

So please tell me, how do we determine the most "fittest" human beings? As in, the ones that will propagate the race. How do we pick the "fittest" wolves, the fittest dogs, the fittest snakes, the fittest rats, the fittest cats, etc. Afterall, we had better be able to identify this class in order for it to be a theory, right? Being able to identify an individual class (the fittest, in this case) is still necessary for theory formation, isn't it. Or isn't it?

347 BGOH  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:58:14pm

re: #314 MandyManners

I'm certainly not that drunk yet!

348 Purple Prose  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:58:14pm

re: #12 hermeneutics

Link from gnxp.com:

Lesbians against Lesbianism -

[Link: news.bbc.co.uk...]

1:02 is funny.

349 gman  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:58:25pm

Viking researchers have known for many years that the vikings traded with countries far to the East and South. They also kept slaves brought back from raids and from countries that they traded with. The slaves had "relations" with vikings and the end result was a very diverse group of people living in Scandinavia.

The term "thrall" or slave in the viking culture was even known to Roman historian Tacitus in AD 98. The historical research on diversity in Scandinavia has been around for a long time. Obviously, Hitler and his minions chose to overlook these unsavory details in favor of the ideal of "Nordic" purity.

350 ted  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:58:26pm

Three races.
Negroid: Mongoloid: Caucasoid.

Genetic differences: practically zero

351 stickdude  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:58:33pm

re: #315 Dianna

You just dead-ended at the problem of consciousness, and that's not exactly amenable to easy discussion.

I know. That's where I was heading. :)

Are there purely naturalistic explanations for why some collections of chemicals are "conscious" and others aren't? I'm actually curious to find out.

352 Charles  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:58:43pm

And because there are apparently people who still don't know about it:

The Wedge Strategy.

353 Thanos  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:59:16pm

re: #334 Gagdad Bob

That's it! I'm an Islamist!

No, but Harun Yahya is.

354 Cognito  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:59:26pm

re: #328 really grumpy big dog johnson

You and Wesley are roughly equally likely by a roll of the dice to be more or less related to each other than anyone else on earth.

Can you grasp that concept?

I think Occasional Reader and I have roughly the same point: You're measuring 'race' by a stick that has nothing to do with the common meaning of 'race.'

A potato and an apple may share many properties, organically. But they're not the same thing in appearance, taste, feel, and so forth. (Neither being inherently better than the other, of course.)

So, again: Yes, of course people are more or less all genetically identical. But no, people don't all share the same physical characterstics.

I just depends how you define 'race.'

355 Gagdad Bob  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:59:41pm

I don't see how Stein's argument is any less deceptive than the claim that people who believe in ID are creationists or Islamists. Both are scurrilous.

356 gotha  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 8:59:50pm

re: #327 Bacchus's daddy

And that my friend is a mere tautology. A truism. That is not a theory. In theory formation, you must be able to identify an individual class (the fittest) before they die. Otherwise, you don't have a theory, my friend.

357 Pastorius  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:00:21pm

Charles,
I am not a supporter of Creationism or Intelligent Design Theory (which I see more as a philosophical quest, than a scientific theory).

However, it seems clear to me that Hitler made an argument about racial purity based upon faulty science. The argument, nonetheless, had philosophical consequences for the Nazis, and for German society in general.

It would seem that Stein's argument was that Hitler used the ideas of Darwinian Evolution to support his philosohy.

Did Ben Stein say that Evolution led to the Holocaust?

Or, did he say that Darwinian theory is expressed in a series of ideas (natural selection - survival of the fittest) which became the basis of Hitler's philosophy?

I'm guessing it was the latter.

Remember, scientific theory works when it has evidence. The language expressing theory is merely a sign pointing the way to the evidence.

Don't confuse the evidence with the language used to point the way to the evidence.

358 jaunte  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:00:43pm

re: #346 gotha

So please tell me, how do we determine the most "fittest" human beings? As in, the ones that will propagate the race. How do we pick the "fittest" wolves, the fittest dogs, the fittest snakes, the fittest rats, the fittest cats, etc. Afterall, we had better be able to identify this class in order for it to be a theory, right? Being able to identify an individual class (the fittest, in this case) is still necessary for theory formation, isn't it. Or isn't it?


"We" don't unless you're a woman looking for a husband to raise children with.
You know, or can speculate on, the qualifications for that.
The dogs, snakes, rats, cats, etc. are on their own.

359 Occasional Reader  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:00:44pm

re: #349 gman

Viking researchers

Now I'm picturing guys wearing helmets with horns on them, but wearing white lab coats.

360 ted  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:01:23pm

re: #337 Charles

The entire argument is deceptive.

Many have argued this.

Human genome differences are statistically insignificant by race

361 Charles  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:01:26pm

re: #357 Pastorius

Charles,
I am not a supporter of Creationism or Intelligent Design Theory (which I see more as a philosophical quest, than a scientific theory).

However, it seems clear to me that Hitler made an argument about racial purity based upon faulty science. The argument, nonetheless, had philosophical consequences for the Nazis, and for German society in general.

It would seem that Stein's argument was that Hitler used the ideas of Darwinian Evolution to support his philosohy.

Did Ben Stein say that Evolution led to the Holocaust?

Or, did he say that Darwinian theory is expressed in a series of ideas (natural selection - survival of the fittest) which became the basis of Hitler's philosophy?

I'm guessing it was the latter.

Remember, scientific theory works when it has evidence. The language expressing theory is merely a sign pointing the way to the evidence.

Don't confuse the evidence with the language used to point the way to the evidence.

I repeat: Stein told The New York Times last year that, were it up to him, he would call the movie, “From Darwin to Hitler.”

362 ploome hineni[deleted]  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:01:50pm
363 Gagdad Bob  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:02:13pm

The list of brilliant thinkers who believe in ID but are not creationists is as long as the list of people who don't believe in the climate hysteria but aren't paid by the oil companies.

364 really grumpy big dog johnson  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:02:14pm

re: #343 Psaturn

I dont know what you mean about "growing up in different societies"?

African Americans are more prone to certain medical conditions no matter where they live or what societies they live.

Same thing with Chinese, they are prone to certain medical conditions than other races.

Same thing with Hispanics...

And so on...and so on...

And just exactly why does this dovetail into the logic of race? My mind is spinning here.

365 cicero05  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:02:20pm

re: #346 gotha

So please tell me, how do we determine the most "fittest" human beings? As in, the ones that will propagate the race. How do we pick the "fittest" wolves, the fittest dogs, the fittest snakes, the fittest rats, the fittest cats, etc. Afterall, we had better be able to identify this class in order for it to be a theory, right? Being able to identify an individual class (the fittest, in this case) is still necessary for theory formation, isn't it. Or isn't it?

The "fittest" of anything only refers to the mutation or genetic variation that is best suited to survive and reproduce under the existing local conditions. It doesn't mean "superior" in an abstract sense.

366 BGOH  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:02:21pm

I have HOPE that this thread will CHANGE into one about drinking and boobs!

367 jaunte  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:02:25pm

re: #359 Occasional Reader

Horns are for mead!

368 esch  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:02:39pm

re: #352 Charles

Wow. For a few seconds I thought it was some kind of fake, like the so-called "protocols".

*shakes head*

369 JHW  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:02:59pm

re: #326 ggt

Gotcha! I'll Do that. The book is almost all 5 star reviews at Amazon and rated highly by many professionals in the field.

370 Dianna  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:03:07pm

re: #351 stickdude

I'm fascinated by the question, and have no answer.

371 Boogberg  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:03:48pm

re: #233 BGOH

Then perhaps you'll enjoy....THIS!

[Link: www.youtube.com...]

/Seriously, someone is going to search on Youtube on my computer and think I look up nothing but boobs all day. Somehow, I'm OK with that.

Awesome! lol

When the lizards were discussing where to redirect those Digg idiots, I couldn't think of anything more disgusting than where I've been myself. Oh well! :D

372 Charles  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:03:50pm

re: #368 esch

Wow. For a few seconds I thought it was some kind of fake, like the so-called "protocols".

*shakes head*

It's not a fake. This is who is behind the "intellligent design" hoax.

The Wedge Strategy.

373 Dirk Diggler  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:04:08pm

I suspect it's a special way that Jews prepare food.

It probably also involves an equal measure of hoarding gold, displacing Palestinian moppets, and plotting world domination.

/

374 mich-again  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:04:09pm

re: #355 Gagdad Bob

I don't see how Stein's argument is any less deceptive than the claim that people who believe in ID are creationists...


Huh? How can someone believe in ID and not be a creationist?

375 realwest  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:04:16pm

re: #310 Dirk Diggler
THe YANKEES do NOT SUCK!

376 brainwizard73  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:04:25pm

re: #314 MandyManners

And, this.

[Link: www.freedomisnotfree.com...]

Stone sober this works for me!

[ducking slap from better half]

377 ted  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:04:30pm

Scientific racism

Scientific racism is a term which describes the use of ostensibly scientific methods to support or validate racist attitudes and worldviews. It encompasses both obsolete and contemporary scientific theories, usually made from a racialist belief in the existence and significance of racial categories, but extending this into a hierarchy between the races to support political or ideological positions of racial supremacy. Scientific racism includes the use of anthropology (notably physical anthropology), anthropometry, craniometry, phrenology, physiognomy and other disciplines in the construction of typologies and the classification of humans into distinct biological races.
Critics argue that such theories are simply propaganda; false ideological justifications for racism, the Holocaust, slavery, apartheid, and colonialism.
Scientific racialism was most wide-spread during the New Imperialism period in the second half of the 19th century. These theories often worked in conjunction with racism, for example in the case of "human zoos", in which human beings of various races were presented in cages during colonial exhibitions. Such theories, and associated actions, have been strongly denounced since World War II and the Holocaust, in particular by a 1950 UNESCO statement, signed by an international group of scholars, known as The Race Question.
Today, the phrase is used either as an accusation, or to describe what critics consider to be historical racist propaganda alleging the existence of different races. These critics point to The Race Question, which advocates the use of the more precise term "ethnic group".
The phrase "scientific racism" has been applied retroactively to publications on race as far back as the 18th century.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

378 brainwizard73  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:04:59pm

re: #375 realwest

THe YANKEES do NOT SUCK!

No.

They blow.

379 Killgore Trout  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:05:05pm

re: #355 Gagdad Bob

Because Al-Ghazaliplunged Islam into the pit of ignorance by disputing Greek philosophy of empiricism in favour of theocratic "science". Why emulate the ignorance and mistakes of the Islamic world?

380 stickdude  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:05:13pm

re: #345 Killgore Trout

Wanna try me?

I'm trying to find a purely naturalistic explanation for the consciousness and "intrinsic worth" of humans. You seem to be looking for a fight.

So, no, I'm not going to "try you".

381 Dirk Diggler  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:05:37pm

Ooops! My last was directed at OR's #331.

382 Psaturn  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:05:43pm

re: #320 Charles

Some of you are no doubt wondering why I keep probing this sore tooth.

It's because I sincerely believe that this is a regressive, destructive, anti-science movement promoted by a dishonest special interest group. I have a deep aversion to being fooled by fanatics.

Of any stripe.

And as I always point out in these threads, the far right in America and the Islamofascists in the Middle East totally agree on this issue. Islam is just as opposed to evolutionary science as the Discovery Institute.

Charles, I understand very well your position.

But note that IDer supporters are themselves SCIENTISTS...and they were NOT ANTI SCIENCE...

All the IDers that Ben Stein interviewed were scientists or philosophers...with one exception, Dr Sternberg claimed to be an evolutionist.

I have three degrees in sciences and one in humanity and I am definitely NOT ANTI SCIENCE...

About fanaticism...well...I don' think I am one...

383 mikalm  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:05:46pm

re: #181 Reno911

I'm forming a new religion.

It's called "Guns and Guitars".

Our God(s) are (in no particular order) Leo Fender, Les Paul, and Gerald Bull.

We believe in ID and Evolution. No arguing here.

Send me a buck and I will swear you in.

If it's "Guns and Guitars," I nominate for inclusion the Holy Prophet David Marshall Williams.

384 Occasional Reader  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:05:51pm

re: #328 really grumpy big dog johnson

You and Wesley are roughly equally likely by a roll of the dice to be more or less related to each other than anyone else on earth.

Can you grasp that concept?

First of all, drop the condescenscion. Thanks.

Secondly, you're still not getting my point. Yes, I could be Wesley's first cousin. But if you were to look at the two of us, you'd be right to guess that we aren't. And there are historical reasons for that. The characteristics that were grouped together to call "race" were not randomly chosen; they relate to different groups of humans developing in different parts of the world. And again, if you try to search for a time when AB positive blood groups enslaved O negatives, you'll probably come up dry. But "race", as we define it, yields historically coherent patterns. Yes, that's self-defining and self-perpetuating... but that's kind of the point.

385 Cognito  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:05:59pm

re: #361 Charles

I repeat: Stein told The New York Times last year that, were it up to him, he would call the movie, “From Darwin to Hitler.”

My understanding of Stein's point -- and honestly, I've got no real stake in this argument beyond general intrigue -- was that he wanted to display how science without morality can be a wayward tool.

In other words, instead of comparing Darwin to Hitler, he wanted to illustrate how we'd gone from Darwin to Hitler.

Holding to that idea, it's possible to say that science -- like money, information, a steak knife, whatever -- isn't inherently anything. Quoth the mighty Eric Clapton: "It's in the way that you use it."

Have I misunderstood Stein, on this?

386 ggt  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:06:05pm

re: #346 gotha


I think the "fittest" is defined by whose DNA survives. i.e, who survives long enough to have children and whose children survive long enough to have children etc.

387 gotha  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:06:07pm

re: #358 jaunte

The fact that "we don't" means that you DON'T have a theory. This is how poor our logic education has become in this country. We don't even understand what qualifies as a theory.

388 Gagdad Bob  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:06:11pm

Michagain:

I write about ID all the time, and I've never even met a creationist, much less read one of their books.

389 Bacchus's daddy  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:06:27pm

re: #313 Gagdad Bob

Bacchus daddy:

There is no such thing as an "absolute fact." A fact, by definition, can only be recognized in a larger context. Besides, if there is an "absolute fact," then there is obviously an absolute knower, something that vastly exceeds anything Darwinism can explain.

I guess we differ in what we define as "absolute fact" (and you argue for absolute truth but against absolute fact?). Maybe the "absolute" adjective is getting in the way here. Is it not fact that the Celtics won last night, according to the final scoreboard tally of 97-91? See- this is what I believe is incontrovertible. If someone changes the terms of the argument and says by "winning" I mean playing a "superior game", then we have no absolute fact or truth because which team played a "superior" game depends on how you define superior, what your criteria are, etc. But the absolute fact remains, that at the end of the game, the Celtics had more points on the scoreboad.

390 Charles  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:06:40pm

re: #382 Psaturn

Charles, I understand very well your position.

But note that IDer supporters are themselves SCIENTISTS...and they were NOT ANTI SCIENCE...

All the IDers that Ben Stein interviewed were scientists or philosophers...with one exception, Dr Sternberg claimed to be an evolutionist.

I have three degrees in sciences and one in humanity and I am definitely NOT ANTI SCIENCE...

About fanaticism...well...I don' think I am one...

No, they are not scientists. The technical term for ID advocates posing as scientists is: frauds.

391 mich-again  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:06:44pm

re: #363 Gagdad Bob

The list of brilliant thinkers who believe in ID but are not creationists is as long as the list of people who don't believe in the climate hysteria but aren't paid by the oil companies.

You used to make more sense when you told jokes. Now I read it 3 times and I'm still not sure what you meant.

my dog told me to say that.

392 Dar ul Harbarian  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:07:11pm

re: #295 Gagdad Bob

281:

In other words, might makes right. I agree with you that this is one of the ineluctable moral implications of reductionistic Darwinism. It cannot be otherwise.

But that simply isn't true. Truth is true, regardless of what people such as yourself feel about it.

What truth is True?
Rape is bad? Numerous cultures have abused women through the ages. American style women's rights is an aberation that must be defended against the record of history.
Murder is wrong? Murder is as natural a human activity as making love or taking a shit.

Tell me, what Absolute Truth are you talking about? Aside from the second law of thermodynamics, the speed of light, and other such physical laws, I can't think of any at the moment, through my Tequilla infused brain.

393 MandyManners  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:07:20pm

re: #347 BGOH

I'm certainly not that drunk yet!

I'm spending the weekend contemplating chopping off my hair.

394 Pastorius  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:07:34pm

Charles,

I am not a scientist. I have not studied The Origin of Species. I studied Philosophy.

What I do know is that the concept of Natural Selection/Survival of the Fittest became trendy in the late 19th century and through the mid part of the 20th century. Nietzsche espoused the concept for its philosophical connotations. So did H.S. Chamberlain, if I am not mistaken. Hitler was profoundly influenced by Chamberlain and Nietzsche.

Once again, the ideas of natural selection and survival of the fittest only point the way to the evidence (for evolution of species) and serve as an explanation. They are a model of reality, not reality itself.

395 really grumpy big dog johnson  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:07:35pm

I want those who want to argue about "how" you define race to state specifically the justifications for why they support race as a genetic construct. Because that's what it's always been at the root of the argument put forth by societies.

You cannot simply assert that because you have the "correct" interpretation of race that it somehow magically exists. That's nonsense.

If race is suddenly no longer a genetic argument, then what kind of argument exists, except for blind dogma?

396 Killgore Trout  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:07:36pm

re: #380 stickdude


I'm not going to "try you".


Then don't pretend that you value your life more than I value mine. You know it's not true as much as I do.

397 karmic_inquisitor  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:07:37pm

re: #320 Charles

The world is in sore need of a neo-rational movement.

398 gman  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:07:51pm

re: #359 Occasional Reader

Now I'm picturing guys wearing helmets with horns on them, but wearing white lab coats.

If you're going to do it, have fun doing it.

399 gotha  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:07:52pm

re: #386 ggt

GGT, read #387

400 ted  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:08:04pm

Creationism debunked in a 1:23 minute video:

401 traveler[deleted]  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:08:09pm
402 brainwizard73  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:08:22pm

re: #379 Killgore Trout

Because Al-Ghazaliplunged Islam into the pit of ignorance by disputing Greek philosophy of empiricism in favour of theocratic "science". Why emulate the ignorance and mistakes of the Islamic world?

Because if things keep going the way they are going we won't have a choice.

Now, not even self-respecting narcotics dealers in custody can avoid rubbing elbows with Sheik Mohammed bin-Rashid al Maq-Kill'em All.

403 Occasional Reader  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:08:32pm

re: #381 Dirk Diggler

Ooops! My last was directed at OR's #331.

F**k you, you f**king f**k of a f**kjob f**k!

(I kid the Dirkster)

404 guzziguy  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:08:51pm

Down toward the bottom of the Ireland thread I posted about today's Patriot Guard mission in Oklahoma. Here are a couple of related links.

[Link: www.pgrok.org...] Other's take on today's mission. Click on forums/current missions/Hagerty part 2. Down through page 3 the thread is all about planning. The reflections begin on page 4. This one will soon move 1 link lower into the completed missions category.

[Link: www.news9.com...] An OKC TV station. Over on the right is a video link. One of the videos is a story about today. There's a link to the video contained in the pgrok thread above.

405 Killgore Trout  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:08:53pm

re: #394 Pastorius

Nietzsche espoused the concept for its philosophical connotations.


Link?

406 joecitizen  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:08:57pm

re: #177 really grumpy big dog johnson

It's unbelievable that otherwise thinking people completely gloss over and ignore the truth that I've just spoken.

I'm flabbergasted.

Is truth that scary?


no..just that kinda balls up arrogance.

407 Cognito  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:09:18pm

re: #395 really grumpy big dog johnson

I want those who want to argue about "how" you define race to state specifically the justifications for why they support race as a genetic construct.

That's just it, Really Grumpy. We don't support race as a 'genetic construct.' And neither do millions of other people.

408 Occasional Reader  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:09:25pm

re: #384 Occasional Reader


condescenscion

Gah. My spelling wasn't very intelligently designed, now was it.

409 mich-again  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:09:35pm

re: #395 really grumpy big dog johnson

Perception is reality.

410 Pastorius  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:09:36pm

Charles,

That being said, I agree with you that "the Wedge strategy" (which I was not familiar with) will have a regressive effect on culture to the extent that its proponents are successful in putting across their ideas.

411 Charles  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:09:43pm

re: #385 Cognito

My understanding of Stein's point -- and honestly, I've got no real stake in this argument beyond general intrigue -- was that he wanted to display how science without morality can be a wayward tool.

In other words, instead of comparing Darwin to Hitler, he wanted to illustrate how we'd gone from Darwin to Hitler.

Holding to that idea, it's possible to say that science -- like money, information, a steak knife, whatever -- isn't inherently anything. Quoth the mighty Eric Clapton: "It's in the way that you use it."

Have I misunderstood Stein, on this?

I've seen the movie. Have you? I'm speaking about what I saw in the movie, and Ben Stein absolutely does say that Darwinian evolution led directly to the Third Reich. He says it over and over, and in interviews he has expanded on it. It's not even debatable.

412 jaunte  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:09:50pm

re: #387 gotha

Darwin's theory of evolution is based on five key observations and inferences drawn from them. These observations and inferences have been summarized by the great biologist Ernst Mayr as follows:
1) Species have great fertility. They make more offspring than can grow to adulthood.
2) Populations remain roughly the same size, with modest fluctuations.
3) Food resources are limited, but are relatively constant most of the time.
From these three observations it may be inferred that in such an environment there will be a struggle for survival among individuals.
4)In sexually reproducing species, generally no two individuals are identical. Variation is rampant.
5) Much of this variation is heritable.

From this it may be inferred: In a world of stable populations where each individual must struggle to survive, those with the "best" characteristics will be more likely to survive, and those desirable traits will be passed to their offspring. These advantageous characteristics are inherited by following generations, becoming dominant among the population through time. This is natural selection. It may be further inferred that natural selection, if carried far enough, makes changes in a population, eventually leading to new species. These observations have been amply demonstrated in biology, and even fossils demonstrate the veracity of these observations.

To summarise Darwin's Theory of Evolution;
1. Variation: There is Variation in Every Population.
2. Competition: Organisms Compete for limited resources.
3. Offspring: Organisms produce more Offspring than can survive.
4. Genetics: Organisms pass Genetic traits on to their offspring.
5. Natural Selection: Those organisms with the Most Beneficial Traits
are more likely to Survive and Reproduce.

Darwin imagined it might be possible that all life is descended from an original species from ancient times. DNA evidence supports this idea.
Probably all organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial life form. There is grandeur in this view of life that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved. (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species)

413 brainwizard73  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:09:57pm

re: #393 MandyManners

I'm spending the weekend contemplating chopping off my hair.

I swear every woman in my office is doing that. For some odd reason, it looks great on every one of them and they seem happy with it.

(went out on limb there assuming you were female...I don't know many men that would refer to "chopping" hair)

414 wolfie  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:10:44pm

re: #205 MikeySDCA

Sorry, Charles, but the fact that what the Nazis believed was bs does not change the fact that they believed it and acted on it.

Ben Stein is of course an idiot, but a stopped clock is right twice a day. Social Darwinism was very big in that period, and led to many horrific things, not least in this country. The Germans went the furthest, and I offer no excuses for the inexcusable, but context should be remembered.

The mistake you are making, I believe, is in assuming that what we call "social Darwinism" is derived from evolutionary science or at least from Darwin. It isn't. You can easily trace the history of "social Darwinism" to thinkers that pre-dated Darwin's scientific work.

The 19th century was full of theories of progress that claimed a "scientific" basis. Pseudo-biological explanations of history were very popular. When Darwin's science became well-known, many thinkers of these progressive schools claimed to be Darwinian, and the term "social Darwinism" was coined.
The most you can say is that scientific Darwinism indirectedly lent credence to "social Darwinism."

The same thing happened, BTW, with Einstein's theory of relativity, if on a smaller scale. The popularity of theories of moral and cultural relativism long ante-dated Einstein. But after his work became widely recognized, many social theorists did not hesitate to claim that their views were now proven by Einstein to be "scientific."

415 Thanos  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:10:47pm

re: #355 Gagdad Bob

I don't see how Stein's argument is any less deceptive than the claim that people who believe in ID are creationists or Islamists. Both are scurrilous.


Bob, Please try to differentiate the package deal here. The ID of the Discovery Institute is all a ploy to attack science, starting with evolution, see the wedge doc Charles posted above.

Believing in an intelligent creator of the universe doesn't mean you also have to buy the Discovery institute's package deal which leads to Dominionism and a 6k year old earth, and from there to Fred Phelpsdom. It's a ploy to use people of faith as dupes.

416 gotha  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:10:54pm

Eric Harris did his slaughtering through the halls of Columbine wearing a T-Shirt with two words on it: NATURAL SELECTION

417 newsjunkie_ky  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:11:23pm

re: #361 Charles

I repeat: Stein told The New York Times last year that, were it up to him, he would call the movie, “From Darwin to Hitler.”


So?
Pastorius wrote:
Did Ben Stein say that Evolution led to the Holocaust?

Or, did he say that Darwinian theory is expressed in a series of ideas (natural selection - survival of the fittest) which became the basis of Hitler's philosophy?

Stein's use of "From Darwin to Hitler" is a valid title.

418 Cognito  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:11:36pm

re: #411 Charles

I've seen the movie. Have you? I'm speaking about what I saw in the movie, and Ben Stein absolutely does say that Darwinian evolution led directly to the Third Reich. He says it over and over, and in interviews he has expanded on it. It's not even debatable.

Cool. I've only seen him in interviews afterward; apparently he softened his message.

419 zmdavid  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:11:37pm

There are people out there using "science" to discredit religion. I've linked their site before:
[Link: www.centerforinquiry.net...]
I think it's an unworthy goal and Ben Stein is just being a reactionary because of their obvious success.

420 swamprat  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:11:38pm

re: #337 Charles
I don't see the inter relation. I can accept that ID is bunk, that Ben Stein lies, or whatever, But the genetic purity of Germans(which Hitler could only have guessed at) doesn't make Stein "wrong". Stein might very well be a liar and a polecat, but the lack Scandinavian genetic "purity" proves only that Hitler was wrong, not Stein. Steins' exaggerations and deceptions might prove him wrong, His flawed logic might prove him wrong, but the racial purity of Germans means nothing, one way or another. Conversely, if Germans had so-called "pure" blood, would Stein be correct? No! Absolutely not! The genetic purity of germans in the early part of that century is not "germain" to Steins premise. If I'm missing something here, I'll accept that.

421 jaunte  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:12:49pm

re: #416 gotha

In Texas, he would not be reproducing his genes.

422 Dianna  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:13:16pm

re: #393 MandyManners

I'd rather you didn't, but if you decide on the chop, it does grow back.

423 Psaturn  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:13:23pm

re: #352 Charles

And because there are apparently people who still don't know about it:

The Wedge Strategy.

Charles,

Would you consider reading Discovery Institute's answer to the Wedge Document?

[Link: www.discovery.org...]

This is link to PDF file [Link: www.discovery.org...]

424 karmic_inquisitor  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:13:23pm

re: #394 Pastorius

Charles,

I am not a scientist. I have not studied The Origin of Species. I studied Philosophy.

What I do know is that the concept of Natural Selection/Survival of the Fittest became trendy in the late 19th century and through the mid part of the 20th century. Nietzsche espoused the concept for its philosophical connotations. So did H.S. Chamberlain, if I am not mistaken. Hitler was profoundly influenced by Chamberlain and Nietzsche.

Once again, the ideas of natural selection and survival of the fittest only point the way to the evidence (for evolution of species) and serve as an explanation. They are a model of reality, not reality itself.

I could also argue that Newtonian mechanics is a model of reality and not reality itself. I could even argue that it is a flawed model given the modifications made by Einstein et al. Yet the structure you are in at the moment was engineered using Newtonian mechanics. if I wish to defy Newtonian mechanics as "not reality" and build a bridge over the Grand Canyon out of dried pasta, would you be willing to cross it? Could my "negation" of Newton allow me a new reality?

Science is about testing hypotheses. Ask a research biologist - Darwin has cred.

425 mich-again  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:13:29pm

re: #421 jaunte

reproducing his genes.

Pirating Levis?

426 Occasional Reader  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:13:30pm

I shall retire to my chambers. [waves hand] Carry on.

427 Boogberg  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:13:44pm

re: #320 Charles

Some of you are no doubt wondering why I keep probing this sore tooth.

It's because I sincerely believe that this is a regressive, destructive, anti-science movement promoted by a dishonest special interest group. I have a deep aversion to being fooled by fanatics.

Of any stripe.

And as I always point out in these threads, the far right in America and the Islamofascists in the Middle East totally agree on this issue. Islam is just as opposed to evolutionary science as the Discovery Institute.

Nobody's "God" likes idiots. I just made that up. Somebody google it. If no one said it before, I claim coinage. :D

428 gotha  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:13:46pm

re: #421 jaunte

Agreed

429 ted  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:13:53pm

re: #411 Charles

I've seen the movie. Have you? I'm speaking about what I saw in the movie, and Ben Stein absolutely does say that Darwinian evolution led directly to the Third Reich. He says it over and over, and in interviews he has expanded on it. It's not even debatable.

Correct: There is no morality in basic science; just facts.

In applied science ,morality can play a role.

430 Cognito  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:13:58pm

re: #420 swamprat

Germain!

Clever.

431 swamprat  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:14:02pm

re: #339 Thanos My post 440 was what I was talking about.

432 brainwizard73  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:14:20pm

re: #392 Dar ul Harbarian

What truth is True?
Rape is bad? Numerous cultures have abused women through the ages. American style women's rights is an aberation that must be defended against the record of history.
Murder is wrong? Murder is as natural a human activity as making love or taking a shit.

Tell me, what Absolute Truth are you talking about? Aside from the second law of thermodynamics, the speed of light, and other such physical laws, I can't think of any at the moment, through my Tequilla infused brain.

Either one of two sources of this "truth": See St. Augustine's and perhaps St. Thomas Aquinas on revealed truth; or grab a bottle of SoCo and pound shot for shot with your buddy. Either you will find enlightenment, or pass out drunk and wake up none the wiser.

Either way your problem is solved.

That will be $450. Pay the receptionist on the way out.

433 Charles  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:14:44pm

Just received from someone who followed a link from scumbag Lawrence Auster's web site:

Burn in hell you fucking piece of shit.

And two minutes later, with the subject, "Charles Johnson Loves Hitler, the fucking nazi:"

Eat shit Johnson. You are a worthless fucking racist nazi.

434 Josephine  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:14:56pm

re: #285 Dianna

Marlowe?

This is the only Marlowe I know about:

The Singing Detective

435 Charles  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:15:14pm

re: #423 Psaturn

Charles,

Would you consider reading Discovery Institute's answer to the Wedge Document?

[Link: www.discovery.org...]

This is link to PDF file [Link: www.discovery.org...]

That document is a complete joke. I've read it. It's pathetic.

436 Noam Sayin'  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:15:21pm

How long is it now, Mandy?

437 Sarge1984  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:15:27pm

I sure wish they'd come up with popcorn that didn't have hulls.

438 jaunte  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:15:33pm

re: #425 mich-again

Ha! (I think punning is a beneficial trait but my wife disagrees).

439 Cognito  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:15:36pm

re: #433 Charles

It's nice to be loved.

440 Pastorius  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:15:41pm

#420 Swamprat,

I'm with you. I feel like I'm missing something too. This argument doesn't make sense to me.

441 BigJohn  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:15:56pm

re: #294 BGOH

Good Lord Charles, such a heavy topic for a Friday night! You should have posted this:

[Link: i167.photobucket.com...]

Now that's a heavy subject; errr, subjects.

442 Sharmuta  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:16:34pm

Oh- and FYI.... The term "survival of the fittest" wasn't coined by Darwin.

It was Herbert Spencer- who was adamantly opposed to hitler's scheming.

443 really grumpy big dog johnson  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:16:38pm

re: #384 Occasional Reader

First of all, drop the condescenscion. Thanks.

Secondly, you're still not getting my point. Yes, I could be Wesley's first cousin. But if you were to look at the two of us, you'd be right to guess that we aren't. And there are historical reasons for that. The characteristics that were grouped together to call "race" were not randomly chosen; they relate to different groups of humans developing in different parts of the world. And again, if you try to search for a time when AB positive blood groups enslaved O negatives, you'll probably come up dry. But "race", as we define it, yields historically coherent patterns. Yes, that's self-defining and self-perpetuating... but that's kind of the point.

You did say different groups of human beings developing in different parts of the world, didn't you? Like the eastern diamondback rattlesnake versus the western diamondback?

The point is, we all have differences. But if you are randomly compared with some guy from equatorial Africa or from a isolate northern polar society, there's no concrete distinguishable difference that can be ascertained. certain genes have adaptations to particular conditions, and that's the extent of it.

People who are from places where the sun beats down relentlessly get dark skin, those next to the arctic circle get freckles in the sun.

It doesn't make us different "races". Find the term in zoology or anthropology as a scientific description of who we are.

Accept the truth.

444 Purple Prose  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:16:41pm

re: #361 Charles

William Jennings Bryant had similar motivations for prosecuting the Scopes' Monkey Trial. Clarence Darrow made mincemeat of him logically and in history as been made a hero, but at the time sentiment sided with Bryant. Historically, this affair sullied Bryant's reputation. Why would Bryant, a liberal, be opposed to the teaching of evolution. He thought it justified social Darwinism and so was un-Christian and led to justification of capitalistic inequities and worse. So he was a liberal Christian opposed to the idea essentially from a social engineering perspective. He wanted to engineer a society that ultra-egalitarian without the possible misuse of the theory of evolution to justify stratification.

It is not clear to what extent Bryant personally was opposed to the concept of natural selection, but he wanted to keep the genie in the bottle, since he was afraid of how the concept would be used. Of course, that kind of thinking is fascistic. Truth is truth whether we like it or not. And knowing things that do not appeal to us is not a bad thing - nothing good comes out of hearing nothing, seeing nothing and saying nothing. It's how we act and use or misuse scientific information that is the question, and that is where the ethical focus should lie: using knowledge responsibly to better our little lives and not to make our lives worse. But censoring science or spreading anti-scientific lies - arguments not based on experiments - in order to confuse people does not make society better. The truth will set you free.

445 Bacchus's daddy  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:16:59pm

re: #356 gotha

And that my friend is a mere tautology. A truism. That is not a theory. In theory formation, you must be able to identify an individual class (the fittest) before they die. Otherwise, you don't have a theory, my friend.

And it's impossible to know which genetic traits, right now, will be the most useful over the next several thousand years. Those that will, will proliferate more than the others. It is very possible to identify which traits in the past proved most useful to various organisms. The fact that we don't know the future that will test various genetic makeups invalidates the theory? I'm not a student of "theory formation", but it seems to me that we have many, many cases of past "classes" that have been identified, and shown to be successful or otherwise. I don't see the "tautology" here, please point it out.

446 Cartman  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:17:19pm

re: #388 Gagdad Bob

Michagain:

I write about ID all the time, and I've never even met a creationist, much less read one of their books.

It doesn't much matter. I try to avoid this topic like the plague, because it seems that a faith-based philisophical foundation for discussion is an automatic two-strike count against. Science and faith are an oil and water mixture here, so I find my meager energies better spent on other topics of interest. Just MHO.

447 ggt  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:17:46pm

re: #393 MandyManners

It's always so make an objective decision when the urge to get new hair comes, isn't it?

I usually go to my stylist and say --"whatever you want." Then I walk out looking pretty much the way I came in. If I've said it the last three times I sat in his chair, he'll give me new hair.

The trick is to have a good stylist.

448 mikalm  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:18:14pm

re: #349 gman

I remember once seeing an exhibit of items recovered from a 1,000-YO Viking grave. One of them was a statue of Buddha. That should give you an idea of just how far afield the Norsemen traveled, traded and (no doubt) mated.

449 Dianna  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:18:14pm

re: #416 gotha

Link?

450 cicero05  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:18:18pm

re: #412 jaunte

Probably all organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial life form.

On a side note, when I was in college there were some who believed that the phylum Echinoderm somehow originated independently of other animals.

451 ted  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:18:34pm

"Ethical axioms are found and tested not very differently from the axioms of science. Truth is what stands the test of experience."

Albert Einstein

452 Pastorius  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:18:44pm

#424 Karmic Inquisitor,
I'm not arguing that the word models used to express Darwinian Evolutionary theory, or Newtonian Mechanics, are not useful ways of understanding our world.

However, the math is the evidence in the case of Newtonian mechanics, not the verbal descriptions.

In Evolutionary theory the evidence is the fossil record.

As you yourself asserted, the words used to describe Newtonian mechanics are not an accurate description of our universe. They are a model.

453 karmic_inquisitor  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:19:07pm

Id' like to ask a question to the creationists on the thread who reject Darwinism and evolution outright: Why did God give us intelligence?

454 lostlakehiker  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:19:28pm

Ben Stein's claim is, to be pedantic, that it was a belief in evolution that led the Nazis to do all that. Ben Stein doesn't think that evolution itself led to anything, because he doesn't understand that evolution has occurred and is ongoing.

As to the article, I'm shocked, shocked, to learn that this seagoing people had considerable genetic diversity.

Read ``The Kite Runner'' for a (fictionalized, but it did happen) account of how the Taliban perpetrated a massacre of Hazara men in Afghanistan, partly out of the belief that they muddied the racial purity of the Pashtuns.

Then they took the Hazara wives, who were widowed and therefore available, and "married" them on the spot. Go figure. So much for genetic purity. All such projects are doomed, because it is human nature to be fascinated by the exotic.

As to why men might take wives of the captives rather than kill them too, or free them, Darwin's scientific theory offers no value judgment, but it does offer a scientific hypothesis. Maybe men who act that way leave more children than those who don't. Genghis Khan [well, a man of his time and place, and who else?] has an incredible number of lineal descendants in direct male-to-male line of descent, for instance.

455 Boogberg  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:19:31pm

re: #437 Sarge1984

I sure wish they'd come up with popcorn that didn't have hulls.

Not me. Then I'd have to buy floss. :D

456 Dianna  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:20:02pm

re: #421 jaunte

Harris and Klebold shot each other at the end.

457 really grumpy big dog johnson  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:21:03pm

re: #407 Cognito

That's just it, Really Grumpy. We don't support race as a 'genetic construct.' And neither do millions of other people.

In other words, you support race because racism feels good. Nothing more, nothing less.

458 Dirk Diggler  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:21:09pm

OR,

Wesley Snipes and I are considered to be of different "races", based mostly on the difference in our skin color (and hair texture and some other stuff, but let's keep it simple).

You're not black? And to think all this time I heard Barry White's voice as I read your posts.

459 Charles  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:21:35pm

Notice: the Discovery Institute wants to be taken seriously as "scientists," but they haven't even corrected a VERY obvious spelling error in their page that supposedly "debunks" the Wedge document -- for years:

CSC - The 'Wedge Document': So What?

Conspircay theorists in the media continue to recycle the urban legend of the "Wedge" document, which Discovery Institute has responded to in the past, in detail.

Pathetic.

460 stickdude  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:21:36pm

re: #396 Killgore Trout

Then don't pretend that you value your life more than I value mine. You know it's not true as much as I do.

I don't recall ever stating otherwise, but I apologize if it came across that way.

I know why I value my life. I'm simply trying to find out why you value yours - why you have a concept of "self" worth preserving in the first place.

461 jaunte  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:21:51pm

re: #456 Dianna

Thanks, I forgot that.

462 Thanos  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:22:03pm

re: #431 swamprat

My post 440 was what I was talking about.

Ah. You are missing the point. Ben is disparaging science, and science has just disproved Hitler. That's pretty straightforward to me.

Weimar Germany was a stew of mysticism, religion, marxism, and pseudoscience at Hitler's rise. It wasn't science that led there, but Ben uses the blood libel to smear science as the cause.

463 Dianna  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:22:18pm

re: #434 Josephine

Sigh. Marlowe, playwright, contemporary of Shakespeare.

464 Pastorius  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:22:37pm

#405 Kilgore Trout,

One thing I can think of off the top of my head is that Nietzsche espoused that war is good for the human because it cleans out all that is weak. Nietzsche seemed to espouse this as an idea on both a personal psychological level, and on a cultural level.

I'll try to find you some links.

465 Noam Sayin'  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:23:02pm

re: #416 gotha

466 Psaturn  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:23:19pm

re: #390 Charles

No, they are not scientists. The technical term for ID advocates posing as scientists is: frauds.

Dr Michael Behe is a scientist, Biochemistry professor and so are several other scientists...Dr Gerald Schroeder is a Nuclear Physicist and Orthodox Jew and he was interviewed in Expelled the Movie, he is more than ID, he is a creationist.

467 Dianna  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:23:20pm

re: #433 Charles

Oh, I'm so sorry.

468 karmic_inquisitor  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:24:04pm

re: #452 Pastorius

#424 Karmic Inquisitor,
I'm not arguing that the word models used to express Darwinian Evolutionary theory, or Newtonian Mechanics, are not useful ways of understanding our world.

However, the math is the evidence in the case of Newtonian mechanics, not the verbal descriptions.

In Evolutionary theory the evidence is the fossil record.

As you yourself asserted, the words used to describe Newtonian mechanics are not an accurate description of our universe. They are a model.

Math also supports evolution. Statistics, specifically.

Here is an RSS feed for research on Molecular Evolution. The FDA approves Gene Therapies based on these statistical methods. Biological engineering is evry bit as "math driven" as civil engineering.

469 realwest  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:24:08pm

re: #355 Gagdad Bob
"Even before the publication of On the Origin of Species, the idea that life had evolved was an active source of debate. Evolution is still a contentious concept in some quarters outside the scientific community. Debate has centered on the philosophical, social and religious implications of evolution, not on the science itself; the proposition that biological evolution occurs through the mechanism of natural selection is standard in the scientific literature.[177]

Although many religions and denominations have reconciled their beliefs with evolution through various concepts of theistic evolution, there are many creationists who believe that evolution is contradicted by the creation myths found in their respective religions.[178] [emphasis added, realwest] As Darwin recognized early on, the most controversial aspect of evolutionary thought is its implications for human origins. In some countries—notably the United States—these tensions between scientific and religious teachings have fueled the ongoing creation–evolution controversy, a religious conflict focusing on politics and public education.[179] While other scientific fields such as cosmology[180] and earth science[181] also conflict with literal interpretations of many religious texts, evolutionary biology experiences significantly more opposition from many religious believers.

Evolution has been used to support philosophical positions that promote discrimination and racism.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

470 Pastorius  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:24:18pm

#405 Kilgore Trout,
The whole idea of the Superman was an evolutionary idea.

However, Nietzsche's idea of the Eternal Recurrence does not seem evolutionary in nature, but is instead cyclic.

Are you familiar with Nietzsche?

471 Charles  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:24:24pm

In an interview recently, Ben Stein said, directly and with no ambiguity: "Science leads to killing people."

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

472 Charles  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:25:04pm

re: #466 Psaturn

Dr Michael Behe is a scientist, Biochemistry professor and so are several other scientists...Dr Gerald Schroeder is a Nuclear Physicist and Orthodox Jew and he was interviewed in Expelled the Movie, he is more than ID, he is a creationist.

Frauds.

473 Psaturn  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:25:04pm

re: #411 Charles

I've seen the movie. Have you? I'm speaking about what I saw in the movie, and Ben Stein absolutely does say that Darwinian evolution led directly to the Third Reich. He says it over and over, and in interviews he has expanded on it. It's not even debatable.

I thought Ben Stein specifically stated that evolution did NOT lead to nazism and holocaust ....

But the ideas and distortion behind it...

474 Sharmuta  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:25:37pm

re: #416 gotha

Eric Harris did his slaughtering through the halls of Columbine wearing a T-Shirt with two words on it: NATURAL SELECTION

WTF? How is going on a shooting spree evolution? Or for that matter- how is genocide "natural selection" or evolution? It's man's interference with nature and the natural progression of life- as is eugenics, imo.

475 swamprat  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:25:45pm

re: #462 Thanos

You are correct. I did not get the point. I will mull your post over. It is not as clear to me as you.

476 Thanos  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:26:13pm

re: #464 Pastorius

#405 Kilgore Trout,

One thing I can think of off the top of my head is that Nietzsche espoused that war is good for the human because it cleans out all that is weak. Nietzsche seemed to espouse this as an idea on both a personal psychological level, and on a cultural level.

I'll try to find you some links.


I linked the online version of "Beyond Good and Evil" above. I think all of his works are online.

477 Psaturn  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:26:17pm

re: #472 Charles

Frauds.

You may disagree with their position but I do not think they are 'frauds'...

478 mikalm  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:26:33pm

re: #433 Charles

Charles, how can you possibly match such closely-reasoned arguments and rapier wit?
/

479 really grumpy big dog johnson  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:26:37pm

I'm going to step away from this mosh pit for a moment, and relax while I try to contemplate the motives of those who wish to convert me to racial hatred over the truth.

I won't be gone long. It's not like this is an impossible riddle.

480 zmdavid  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:26:44pm
481 Dar ul Harbarian  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:26:54pm

re: #432 brainwizard73

Either one of two sources of this "truth": See St. Augustine's and perhaps St. Thomas Aquinas on revealed truth; or grab a bottle of SoCo and pound shot for shot with your buddy. Either you will find enlightenment, or pass out drunk and wake up none the wiser.

Either way your problem is solved.

That will be $450. Pay the receptionist on the way out.

I don't need the will and judgment of God revealed to me by holy books or Saints. God's will is evident in the world as placed before us today. The advantage modern people have over the likes of Aquinas and Augustine is that the fog of ignorace is vastly thinner today than it was for them. To think that people don't find happiness in the domination and suffering of others is denial of the vast and horrific potential of human nature.

482 Thanos  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:27:13pm

re: #475 swamprat

You are correct. I did not get the point. I will mull your post over. It is not as clear to me as you.

Well it's not as clear cut as all that, it's the blood libel part that makes this necessary. We've seen that used time and again by our enemies.

483 ted  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:27:41pm

re: #471 Charles

In an interview recently, Ben Stein said, directly and with no ambiguity: "Science leads to killing people."

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Ben Stein is an asshole. Being a scientist myself, I consider Stein an evolutionary biologist as Gore a climatologist.

484 gotha  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:27:44pm

re: #445 Bacchus's daddy

In theory formation, you must be able to identify each individual class of your theory. Here we have the fittest and the survivors. We are UNABLE to identify with any certainty who are today's fittest. We can only say that the survivors were the fittest. It was the fittest that survived because only the fittest survive. This isn't a theory. It is a tautology. And a tautology is nothing at all. The entire "theory" of evolution is based on a trusim and no once seems to care.

Let's say, I have a theory that says "ONLY THE BEST HOCKEY PLAYERS ARE GERMAN. You then bring me one of the best players. I then say he's German. You say, no he's Swedish. I then say, "no", my theory says that the best players are all German. How would we test that he may not be German? We could probably find family history and proof of his heritage. With natural selection, their is nothing.

How about another? Only the wolves with the strongest legs survive. Seems plausible. Then we do some research and it shows that stronger legs put more stress on the heart and consequently the wolf with the stronger legs is not so "fit".

A true theory of Natural Selection should be able to identify today all creatures of the "fittest" class. Today! Not after they die.

485 Bacchus's daddy  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:27:47pm

re: #433 Charles

Just received from someone who followed a link from scumbag Lawrence Auster's web site:

You should be proud, and us derivatively and to a lesser extent, to have people like this as ideological adversaries.

486 Charles  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:27:51pm

re: #477 Psaturn

You may disagree with their position but I do not think they are 'frauds'...

Michael Behe and Gerald Schroeder are dishonest frauds, promoting a hoax for political/religious reasons.

487 Josephine  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:28:24pm

re: #384 Occasional Reader

And again, if you try to search for a time when AB positive blood groups enslaved O negatives, you'll probably come up dry.

Waaaaaaait a minute.

You mean my O-neg peeps were enslaved?

/Can I sue for compensation?

488 Pastorius  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:28:31pm

#405 Kilgore Trout,
From my brief perusal of Google, here is an essay which discusses Nietzsche, Darwin and Hitler:

As Darwin makes clear in his Descent of Man, his very rejection of the belief that human nature is defined by God, allows for the possibility of creating a super-man from man, for “the fact of his having thus risen” by evolution to where he is, “instead of having been aboriginally placed there” by God, “may give him hopes for a still higher destiny in the distant future.”

So how do you go up? On the evolutionary ladder, the same way you got there -- by conflict, where those with superior traits extinguish those with inferior traits. As Darwin made clear, human evolution takes place by conflict and conquering, even the evolution of moral traits like fidelity and courage.

“When two tribes of primeval man, living in the same country, came into competition, if the one tribe included...a greater number of courageous, sympathetic, and faithful members, who were always ready to warn each other of danger, to aid and defend each other, this tribe would without doubt succeed best and conquer the other. Let it be borne in mind how all-important, in the never-ceasing wars of savages, fidelity and courage must be."

Now let’s hear from Nietzsche, whose words sound so like Darwin’s, albeit with a sharper rhetorical edge.

“Let us admit to ourselves...how every higher culture on earth so far has begun. Human beings whose nature was still natural, barbarians in every terrible sense of the word, men of prey who were still in possession of unbroken strength of will and lust for power, hurled themselves upon weaker, more civilized, more peaceful races...”


The will-to-power. A more savage, but also more spiritualized form of Darwinism. More savage, because Nietzsche chooses to emphasize what Darwin mutes, that it is the savage destruction of one tribe by another, just as it the destruction of one species by another, that eliminates the weak and carries forth the new-found powers of the strong.

“The essential characteristic of a good and healthy aristocracy” argues Nietzsche, is that it “accepts with a good conscience the sacrifice of untold human beings who, for its sake, must be reduced and lowered to incomplete human beings, to slaves, to instruments.” The “fundamental faith” of the aristocracy, then, is that “society” exists for them, for their sake, so that all the lesser types who serve them in society exist “only as the foundation and scaffolding on which a choice type of being is able to raise itself to its higher task and to a higher state of being...”


etc.

Link:

[Link: www.humanevents.com...]

489 Dianna  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:28:34pm

re: #461 jaunte

Columbine is one of those subjects I know rather better than I want to.

490 swamprat  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:29:14pm

re: #462 Thanos
Ben is/was an idiot in that regard. Science wasn't the cause of Hitlers evil. Hitler was.

491 jaunte  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:29:35pm

re: #489 Dianna

Sorry about that, in multiple ways.

492 lostlakehiker  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:29:41pm

re: #106 DistantThunder

Can we see neutrinos? or do we just know they are there? That's science.

We know they're there because we can see evidence of their existence. You cannot see infrared light, for that matter. But you can feel the heat of it on your face. You can build a machine that detects it. A viper's pits detect it, and it strikes accurately in the dark at heated targets.

Few would insist that infrared light is merely a fiction of scientists, a faith without evidence or logic. There is evidence. There is logic. Likewise with neutrinos, though our understanding of neutrinos is less complete than our understanding of IR light, and though neutrinos interact far less strongly with ordinary matter than does IR light. We see them like the detective sees the crime. He is not an eyewitness, but he has a sharp eye for clues and he reconstructs what must have happened. No clues, no science. There has to be observational fact at the base of scientific theories.

The world is very strange, but much of it makes sense that we can riddle, if we work at it hard enough, long enough, and with enough inspiration. This meta-belief, the one that underpins all science, is a cultural gift from the judeo-christian tradition. It's a tragedy that some christian sects reject this insight. But I'm no preacher, and I won't try to explain the theological side of it.

493 Da_Beerfreak  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:30:05pm

re: #313 Gagdad Bob

Bacchus daddy:

There is no such thing as an "absolute fact." A fact, by definition, can only be recognized in a larger context. Besides, if there is an "absolute fact," then there is obviously an absolute knower, something that vastly exceeds anything Darwinism can explain.

That is an absolute load of crap and that's a fact.
I'm out of here!
ps Don't knock mud, it's damn versatile stuff.

494 Thanos  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:30:36pm

re: #486 Charles

Michael Behe and Gerald Schroeder are dishonest frauds, promoting a hoax for political/religious reasons.

There's also the monetary angle as well. They sell quite a few books through DI, and I'm certain been got paid to be their PR flack.

495 Etaoin Shrdlu  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:30:44pm

People were breeding animals and plants for desired characteristics for thousands of years before Darwin.

496 Charles  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:30:47pm

re: #488 Pastorius

My goodness. What a bunch of confused, deceptive garbage that is.

This is why I don't link to Human Events. They're one of the main promoters of the ID hoax.

497 Thanos  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:31:41pm

Howard Abramson is the Sugardaddy behind the DI.

498 ggt  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:31:41pm

re: #454 lostlakehiker

Ah, but you see, women are just vessels to carry on the Male line. They contribute nothing.

Icky non-theocratic science proved all that wrong --as a result, we must decapitate the scientists and anyone that has read or heard their work. Unless, of course, we can use any of it or them to our advantage (like any of the works on brainwashing)

//channelling Obsama. :O

499 Dianna  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:32:00pm

re: #474 Sharmuta

Actually, I'm not sure Eric Harris did wear such a tee. I'm not sure he didn't, either, but so many legends have accreted around Columbine that I insist on a hard factual link.

500 Pastorius  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:32:14pm

#462 Thanos,
To the extent that anyone would disparage science (and argue for a wholly theological view of the universe sans science) that person is an idiot.

That being said, theology and philosophy have their place, in my opinion.

Philosophers and theologians make a mistake when they argue their points using scientific word models to describe mathematical evidence.

However, all of philosophy is word models, so ...

501 Charles  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:32:23pm

re: #494 Thanos

There's also the monetary angle as well. They sell quite a few books through DI, and I'm certain been got paid to be their PR flack.

Yes, there is definitely a monetary angle too.

502 Boogberg  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:32:45pm

I have to say I'm disappointed with Stein. I can't abide kooks. Even ones with funny game shows. Could it all be a ruse? You know. To make craploads of cash?

503 Bacchus's daddy  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:32:56pm

re: #484 gotha

In theory formation, you must be able to identify each individual class of your theory. Here we have the fittest and the survivors. We are UNABLE to identify with any certainty who are today's fittest. We can only say that the survivors were the fittest. It was the fittest that survived because only the fittest survive. This isn't a theory. It is a tautology. And a tautology is nothing at all. The entire "theory" of evolution is based on a trusim and no once seems to care.

Let's say, I have a theory that says "ONLY THE BEST HOCKEY PLAYERS ARE GERMAN. You then bring me one of the best players. I then say he's German. You say, no he's Swedish. I then say, "no", my theory says that the best players are all German. How would we test that he may not be German? We could probably find family history and proof of his heritage. With natural selection, their is nothing.

How about another? Only the wolves with the strongest legs survive. Seems plausible. Then we do some research and it shows that stronger legs put more stress on the heart and consequently the wolf with the stronger legs is not so "fit".

A true theory of Natural Selection should be able to identify today all creatures of the "fittest" class. Today! Not after they die.

I agree that we are unable to identify "today's fittest", but if that invalidates, in your mind, everything the theory has explained regarding the historical fossilized and scientific records, and renders it not a "theory",- then we're just playing word games here.

504 gotha  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:33:05pm

re: #474 Sharmuta

Watch your language.

I believe Darwinism's belief that we are nothing more than molecules in motion, leads them to a much lower value of man. Darwinism makes it easy for Hitler and Eric Harris to slaughter. It doesn't mean ALL Darwinians will slaughter, it only means than you'll find many who disregard life to be Darwinians.

505 Cognito  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:33:29pm

re: #457 really grumpy big dog johnson

In other words, you support race because racism feels good. Nothing more, nothing less.

No. Race doesn't 'feel' anything.

Here's the deal: You apparently think you've come up with this bombshell philosophical notion that there is no such thing as race, and that -- further -- anyone who finds that trite and boring must be on a mission to 'convert' you to 'racial hatred.'

Not to put too fine a point on it, Really Grumpy Big Dog Johnson, but you're no Kierkegaard.

506 Racer X  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:33:38pm

I'm not jumping in.

507 brainwizard73  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:33:42pm

re: #481 Dar ul Harbarian

I don't need the will and judgment of God revealed to me by holy books or Saints. God's will is evident in the world as placed before us today. The advantage modern people have over the likes of Aquinas and Augustine is that the fog of ignorace is vastly thinner today than it was for them. To think that people don't find happiness in the domination and suffering of others is denial of the vast and horrific potential of human nature.

Well, it seemed like there was a desire to find something beyond what could be seen and empirically tested; and one of the ways that mankind has seen fit to understand the world in the past was with an understanding and study of devine truth, at various times called natural truths.

If you don't need anything revealed or need to find anything (i.e. you weren't looking for something), why were you asking about where truth comes from?

Then again, maybe just have another sip of Patron and it will all come rushing over you like a warm blanket.

508 Purple Prose  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:33:49pm

I am a naked ape and proud of it. Go to a zoo. Take some time looking at the behavior and expressions of chimpanzees or gorillas. The kinship with humans is undeniable.

509 really grumpy big dog johnson  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:34:03pm

It's funny that people are diverting the discussion from incontrovertable truth. There are no rational arguments against the truth, from such they flee.

510 Charles  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:34:08pm

re: #502 Boogberg

I have to say I'm disappointed with Stein. I can't abide kooks. Even ones with funny game shows. Could it all be a ruse? You know. To make craploads of cash?

I was incredibly disappointed in Ben Stein too. I used to be a fan.

511 Pastorius  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:34:16pm

#496 Charles,
Do you deny that Nietzsche used the ideas of Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest in his philosophy?

As I said, I offered that article after a brief persual of Google. It presents quotes from Nietzsche and Darwin.

What do you disagree with specifically?

512 jaunte  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:34:25pm

re: #504 gotha

The other way to look at it would be to say that those inclined to disregard life will use whatever rationalization they can find.

513 Psaturn  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:34:37pm

re: #229 Charles

haven't even corrected a VERY obvious spelling error

re: #459 Charles

And it's a reductionist, deceptive argument intended to fool people with no understanding of the sceintific issues.

I think it is more of a typo...and no one is immune to it...

But I agree with you, a typo on a website such as on Discovery Institute is not becoming...and respectable.

514 gotha  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:34:42pm

re: #494 Thanos

A monetary angle? Are you joking. Take a look at who gets millions upon millions of dollars in Federal grants. It aint the IDers.

515 Killian Bundy  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:35:03pm
Fleshy-headed mutant. Are you friendly?

/Bob McKenzie

516 esch  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:35:09pm

re: #508 Purple Prose

I am a naked ape and proud of it. Go to a zoo. Take some time looking at the behavior and expressions of chimpanzees or gorillas. The kinship with humans is undeniable.

Especially when they fling poo. Reminds me of liberals...

517 Dianna  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:35:27pm

re: #484 gotha

Strictly speaking, three sisters who have many kids by different fathers is the most fit; those women will pass more of their genes on than you or I will.

518 Sharmuta  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:35:48pm

re: #504 gotha

Actually- I've found the common theme in people who devalue life is their adherence to progressive ideologies. And furthermore- it was progressives who coined the term "social Darwinists" to smear people who disagreed with them.

519 experiencedtraveller  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:35:53pm

re: #412 jaunte

Darwin was a minor post Malthusian who swallowed his master's poison. He believes:


1) Species have great fertility. They make more offspring than can grow to adulthood.
2) Populations remain roughly the same size, with modest fluctuations.

Modern western life offers de facto evidence that we humans can support all of our offspring (probably in high style!) IF we have correct democratic governance and modern economic systems.

As to:

3. Offspring: Organisms produce more Offspring than can survive.

Lol. What would we expect from a dude born in 1776!

/I hate Malthus...

520 gotha  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:36:19pm

re: #512 jaunte

But why do they disregard life? That's the question.

521 Intrepid  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:36:44pm

re: #487 Josephine

Waaaaaaait a minute.

You mean my O-neg peeps were enslaved?

/Can I sue for compensation?

I'm ok, since I'm an A pos. Right?

522 jaunte  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:36:49pm

re: #519 experiencedtraveller

Maybe he was referring to beermaking.

523 Psaturn  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:36:59pm

re: #486 Charles

Michael Behe and Gerald Schroeder are dishonest frauds, promoting a hoax for political/religious reasons.

Charles, Michael Behe is Roman Catholic, same religion as Dr Kenneth Miller...how could he be promoting ID for religious reasons?

As to the political one...I don't know what is his political view...

524 Killgore Trout  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:37:27pm

re: #433 Charles

Burn in hell you fucking piece of shit.


Rotating title?
/I guess not

525 Dianna  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:37:48pm

re: #495 Etaoin Shrdlu

And Darwin spent a lot of Origin discussing that.

526 Charles  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:38:28pm

re: #511 Pastorius

#496 Charles,
Do you deny that Nietzsche used the ideas of Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest in his philosophy?

As I said, I offered that article after a brief persual of Google. It presents quotes from Nietzsche and Darwin.

What do you disagree with specifically?

Benjamin Wiker is another Discovery Institute shill.

527 brainwizard73  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:38:31pm

re: #501 Charles

Yes, there is definitely a monetary angle too.

NO!

You mean there might be...gasp, financial incentive in convincing people you are right in the face of conflicting facts?

Next thing you'll tell me that global warming skeptics are all a part of some cabal funded by Big Oil.

528 gman  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:38:39pm

I found this definition for "scientific method" at the intelligent design network:

Scientific Method: The principles and procedures used in the systematic pursuit of Intersubjectively Accessible knowledge, and involving as necessary procedures: (1) the recognition and formulation of a problem; (2) the collection of data through observation and, if possible, experiment; (3) the formulation of
hypotheses; and, (4) the testing and confirmation of the hypotheses formulated

Notice the use of the word "intersubjectively" and not "objectivity."
This is a much weaker standard than the one used in the traditional set of techniques that scientists have used to investigate phenomena.

529 Josephine  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:39:02pm

re: #463 Dianna

Sigh. Marlowe, playwright, contemporary of Shakespeare.

LOL. Was he an atheist, too?

Have you seen the original "Singing Detective" series? It's brilliant.

530 Killgore Trout  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:39:14pm

re: #511 Pastorius

Do you deny that Nietzsche used the ideas of Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest in his philosophy?


Nietzsche was influenced by Plato, not Darwin.

531 Bacchus's daddy  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:39:22pm

re: #484 gotha

A tautology isn't nothing at all, it's often an adjective that is redundant in that in merely reinforces an idea/ characteristic implied by the noun (or perhaps other adjectives). And I have no idea what "tautologies" have to do with Darwin, and our inability to know how the future will test today's genetic makeups/ vs. our ability to know how previous genetic makeups succeeded or disappeared in earlier epochs.

532 esch  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:39:26pm

My rule is whenever someone tells me the science is settled and we need to something right away, I check my wallet. There's a scam brewing.

533 gotha  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:39:50pm

re: #518 Sharmuta

Sharmula,

Wouldn't you also agree that most with progressive ideologies are secular Darwinists. Hence, I would argue, the very low value of life.

This is why Islamic and progressive ideologies are joined at the hip. They both have little regard for life. To claim to be created in the image of God in Isalm, is Blasphemy. Just as it is in progressive secularism.

534 Purple Prose  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:39:51pm

Check out this clip of bonobos (pygmy chimpanzees) in a zoo. We are equally related to bonobos and chimpanzees, having split off from the lineage that gave rise to both of them about 4 million years ago.

535 Thanos  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:39:54pm

Another Nietschzean Creationist speaks.

Let's go to the argument here. Were there morals before Christianity and Judaism?

Were there Cities? Laws? Civilization?

536 Dainn  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:40:01pm

SciAm has an interesting review of this film.

I haven't seen the movie. Is it out on DVD yet?

537 lostlakehiker  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:40:18pm

re: #484 gotha

You have made a mistake. It's a truism, yes, that the theory of survival of the fittest is tautological. Fitness is nothing else than survival and reproduction.

What the theory says is not this boring and obvious truth, that survivors have survived and reproducers reproduced. The point is that carrying some novel feature of body build or biochemistry, as a result of mutation, may confer a survival or reproductive advantage. As a result, the genes that code for that trait multiply down the generations, and the trait becomes fixed in the population. It becomes the norm, rather than an oddity. Over very long spans of time, one trait piles atop the other until the remote descendants of what had been an animal sort of like a hippo, are whales. The remote descendants of some ancestral species of wasp, are ants. And the remote descendants of some ancestral species of ape, are humans.

Even now this goes on. The novel trait of being able to drink milk as an adult, and not get sick because of lactose intolerance, has become the norm in populations that for centuries or millennia have kept dairy herds. This is evolution. Being lactose tolerant isn't some sort of "higher" kind of human. But it's an advantage if you live among cattle herders.

538 Racer X  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:40:23pm

re: #527 brainwizard73

Next thing you'll tell me that global warming skeptics are all a part of some cabal funded by Big Oil.


Killing my buzz, man.

539 really grumpy big dog Johnson  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:40:33pm

re: #517 Dianna

Strictly speaking, three sisters who have many kids by different fathers is the most fit; those women will pass more of their genes on than you or I will.

Odds are more than 50-50 that those slugs passed along more genes.

540 Charles  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:40:35pm

Again -- this is the Discovery Institute's agenda:

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

It's all spelled out very clearly in this document. If you'd rather ignore it, that's your choice.

541 Dianna  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:40:51pm

re: #504 gotha

Darwin and the theory of evolution had nothing to do with Harris' vicious nihilism.

542 Psaturn  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:41:18pm

re: #444 Purple Prose

This is very interesting view you wrote!

William Jennings Bryant had similar motivations for prosecuting the Scopes' Monkey Trial. Clarence Darrow made mincemeat of him logically and in history as been made a hero, but at the time sentiment sided with Bryant. Historically, this affair sullied Bryant's reputation. Why would Bryant, a liberal, be opposed to the teaching of evolution. He thought it justified social Darwinism and so was un-Christian and led to justification of capitalistic inequities and worse. So he was a liberal Christian opposed to the idea essentially from a social engineering perspective. He wanted to engineer a society that ultra-egalitarian without the possible misuse of the theory of evolution to justify stratification.

It is not clear to what extent Bryant personally was opposed to the concept of natural selection, but he wanted to keep the genie in the bottle, since he was afraid of how the concept would be used. Of course, that kind of thinking is fascistic. Truth is truth whether we like it or not. And knowing things that do not appeal to us is not a bad thing - nothing good comes out of hearing nothing, seeing nothing and saying nothing. It's how we act and use or misuse scientific information that is the question, and that is where the ethical focus should lie: using knowledge responsibly to better our little lives and not to make our lives worse. But censoring science or spreading anti-scientific lies - arguments not based on experiments - in order to confuse people does not make society better. The truth will set you free.

543 zmdavid  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:41:31pm

Don't be too hard on Ben Stein, I think he's just a reactionary. Misguided. He just thinks society is losing religion, that that's a bad thing, and that Darwinism or "science" is responsible.

I think he is only wrong in blaming Darwin/science. There are people out there trying to use "science" to discredit religion. Stein makes a mistake in accepting their premise and attacking science instead of the people abusing it.

544 swamprat  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:41:33pm

re: #506 Racer X

What does that mean!
/kidding

545 jc59  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:41:35pm

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."
--Darwin

546 Thanos  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:41:49pm

re: #514 gotha

A monetary angle? Are you joking. Take a look at who gets millions upon millions of dollars in Federal grants. It aint the IDers.


See my link on Howard Abramson above. Do some reading. They take donations, they sell books, if they can get their books into schools even moreso. There are the lecture circuits, and the money they make from their articles. It's a business.

547 Racer X  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:42:02pm

re: #532 esch

My rule is whenever someone tells me the science is settled and we need to do something right away, I check my wallet. There's a scam brewing.

Ha! Bingo!

True science MUST always be open to new data.

548 really grumpy big dog Johnson  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:42:23pm

re: #505 Cognito

No. Race doesn't 'feel' anything.

Here's the deal: You apparently think you've come up with this bombshell philosophical notion that there is no such thing as race, and that -- further -- anyone who finds that trite and boring must be on a mission to 'convert' you to 'racial hatred.'

Not to put too fine a point on it, Really Grumpy Big Dog Johnson, but you're no Kierkegaard.

I didn't come up with any bombshell Cognito. It's you that is the racist based upon societal conditioning. Let's get this one straight right from the start.

549 johnny 100 pesos  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:42:34pm

So, Hitler was never a Darwinist, he was just a nasty person who never heard of natural selection, and killed all those people for no reason at all.

What's next, are you going to claim that the Eugenicist movement had nothing to do with Darwinism?

Hitler believed in the prevailing version of Darwinism of his day. He believed that killing the Jews would improve the human race by taking undesirables out of the Gene Pool. He believed that people were animals (with Aryans being Best Of Breed) and that culling the herd would improve the stock. He believed that natural selection would have weeded out the mentally handicapped, and we were doing our species a disservice by protecting them ( (as inspired by that awful mamby-pamby Christian religion that turned warriors into nice people).

There was indeed anti-semitism in the past. The holocaust was different, taking something from past Jew-hatred, and adding something special to it (and remember, Jews were actually treated quite well in Germany before this!). It happened because the intelligentsia of Germany (the most scientifically advanced nation at that time) felt that the human race could be improved by directed natural selection, starting with the elimination of certain peoples.

Incidentally, I finally saw Expelled yesterday, at a special screening (that awful Yoko Ono delayed it's release here in Canada). In the audience was an acquaintance of mine, the Vice President of B'Nai B'rith. He had no problem with the assertion that Darwinism was one of the inspirations of the holocaust. He spoke to the producer and asked how we can support the academic freedom issue of questioning Darwinism, while opposing the right of academics to hold "Israel Apartheid" weeks and other anti-semetic events.

550 Charles  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:42:36pm

John McCain at the Discovery Institute:

[Link: www.discovery.org...]

551 Sharmuta  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:42:44pm

re: #533 gotha

No- I wouldn't agree to that, because as I've stated a couple times on this thread now, genocide, eugenics, murder, etc. are not nature taking it's course- it's man's interference.

552 Dianna  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:42:59pm

re: #510 Charles

He wrote an extremely moving essay on losing a dog that I still treasure.

553 tokyobk  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:42:59pm

re: #534 Purple Prose

Check out this clip of bonobos (pygmy chimpanzees) in a zoo. We are equally related to bonobos and chimpanzees, having split off from the lineage that gave rise to both of them about 4 million years ago.

[Link: www.youtube.com...]


The bonobos are notoriously bisexual and that Liberace get-up proves it.

554 ethanxxx  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:43:22pm

re: #453 karmic_inquisitor

Id' like to ask a question to the creationists on the thread who reject Darwinism and evolution outright: Why did God give us intelligence?

I haven't read anything that rejects Darwinism or evolution outright. If any one does they would be in error. Evolution doesn't overturn a creation, and a creation doesn't overturn evolution. When Georges-Henri Lemaitre presented his theory of "The Big Bang" to Albert Einstein, Einstein said he agreed with his "Science" but disagreed with his conclusion. Well... history has shown that Einstein was wrong. Now, one could argue that Einstein "Could" have disagreed with Lemaitre for no other reason than Lemaitre was also a Catholic Priest. I don't know why he did, so I'll just keep searching for an answer. My point is... an expanding universe pretty much demands a beginning. How that "Beginning" began isn't known by anyone... as far as I know.

555 mikalm  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:43:29pm

re: #529 Josephine

LOL. Was he an atheist, too?

Have you seen the original "Singing Detective" series? It's brilliant.

I'd like to see it, as "Philip Marlow" (no E) was obviously based on the protagonist of some of my favorite novels.

556 Pastorius  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:43:42pm

Charles,
I don't understand. Who cares what Human Events makes of Nietzsche?

Kilgore asked me to provide links to support my assertion that "Nietzsche espoused the concept for its philosophical connotations."

I did that. I provided a link with quotes, which showed that Nietzsche borrowed from the language of Darwin in his philosopy.

Why are you arguing with me? I don't get the point.

557 brainwizard73  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:43:57pm

re: #538 Racer X

Killing my buzz, man.

Not sure where you get your buzz from, but humblest apologies.

I just can't take all this TRUTH. It makes my fingers hurt.

558 gotha  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:45:06pm

re: #531 Bacchus's daddy

My friend. I've tried to show you how natural selection is NOT a scientific theory. The fittest of their kind would survive whether they were created or evolved. A tautology doesn't give evidence for or against evolution or creation. Get it?

Now I have to go to sleep. It's 11:42 in the great north.

Bye

559 experiencedtraveller  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:45:37pm

re: #522 jaunte

Maybe he was referring to beermaking.

They NEVER saw it coming... and we are still paying the price for it.

560 Psaturn  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:45:42pm

Here is a list of scientists that have expressed dissent on Darwinism and have signed agreeing to this statement:

A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism

"I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

[Link: www.reviewevolution.com...]

561 Sharmuta  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:45:50pm

re: #549 johnny 100 pesos

Eugenics enthusists called their opponents "social Darwinists", so yeah- I will claim that.

562 karmic_inquisitor  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:45:58pm

Regarding Ben Stein - He attempted a polemic very much like Michael Moore's and employed the same logical fallacies and "proof by repeated assertion" that Moore does.

As a polemicist, he has made some assertions that are alarming and indefensible yet got enough people whipped up to form a counter-cultural movement against what he sees as a threat to religiosity in America.

Frankly, I see "the left" assuming the mantle of "science" ih justifying a great many inane propositions. The "it's science" assertions are often made by people who aren't familiar with the idea of testing a hypothesis - to them science is a process of "discovery" which it isn't. Day in day out science is drudgery with very few "aha!" moments sprinkled in. But the romantic notion of "discovery" and "progress" as well as the idea that smart people engage in science pretty much seals the deal for them - they support "science" and "science" supports them.

It is sad when people on the right try to ape (pardon the evolutionary metaphor) the same behavior.

1) science is no threat to God and never will be. Google "leap of faith Kierkegaard" to learn why.

2) science doesn't justify efforts to ban God from public life. that is a cultural political movement.

3) scientists are wrong most of the time. That is why they are scientists. They hypothesize a rational explanation to a given phenomenon, and their hypothesis is usually wrong. The process of testing and modification of hypothesis leads to something that is less wrong. Even when a hypothesis becomes theory (broadly accepted as right) it is often shown to be wrong as a greater understanding is developed (Newton -> Einstein -> Hawking).

4) a decent scientist is a skeptic.

Scientists aren't the threat. Science isn't the threat. Political charlatans claiming that science justifies their politics are the threat.

ID is politics.

563 Cognito  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:46:11pm

re: #548 really grumpy big dog Johnson

I didn't come up with any bombshell Cognito. It's you that is the racist based upon societal conditioning. Let's get this one straight right from the start.

Fascinating.

Please quote.

564 Sharmuta  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:46:30pm

re: #558 gotha

Darwin didn't coin that phrase!

565 Racer X  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:46:30pm

re: #557 brainwizard73

No need to apologize, I'm just tryin to lighten things up.

/Buzz arises from several Guiness and Bass Ales (BLack and Tan).

566 Pastorius  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:46:43pm

#530 Kilgore Trout,

Nietzsche was influenced by Plato and Spinoza and Hume. He was not influenced by just one thinker.

What is your point? Why don't you tell me why you are arguing that Nietzsche did not use Darwinian language in his writings?

I honestly don't get this argument. I don't know if it is that you are not familiar with Nietzsche or if you are trying to make a larger point.

If you are trying to make a larger point, then let's hear it.

567 Charles  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:46:58pm

re: #556 Pastorius

Charles,
I don't understand. Who cares what Human Events makes of Nietzsche?

Kilgore asked me to provide links to support my assertion that "Nietzsche espoused the concept for its philosophical connotations."

I did that. I provided a link with quotes, which showed that Nietzsche borrowed from the language of Darwin in his philosopy.

Why are you arguing with me? I don't get the point.

Have you noticed the Discovery Institute links I've been posting?

An article by a shill for this deceptive group is not evidence of anything.

568 Bacchus's daddy  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:47:00pm

Gotha:

I see what you're saying now. The expression "survival of the fittest" is a tautology, in a sense, yes. But the fact that the theory was given an ill-chosen name is irrelevant as to its utility.

Anyway, it's been fun chatting, and we've had some serious but friendly disagreement without devolving into Kos/ Huffpo rhetoric. I think I'm signing off for now- please know that I sincerely respect your views even if I don't share them.

569 Josephine  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:47:03pm

re: #521 Intrepid

I'm ok, since I'm an A pos. Right?

It depends. Is your daddy rich?

/Is your ma good-looking?

570 gotha  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:47:17pm

re: #546 Thanos

Then it's a business on both sides. Let's weigh the money. My bet is that the scale would topple towards the Darwinists by about 100 fold.

571 Charles  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:47:24pm

re: #560 Psaturn

Here is a list of scientists that have expressed dissent on Darwinism and have signed agreeing to this statement:

A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism

"I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

[Link: www.reviewevolution.com...]

More garbage from the Discovery Institute. Sheesh.

572 brainwizard73  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:47:25pm

So if I really want to toss a "Scopes" monkey wrench into the mess, could I do this?

Resolved: The existance of Ibrahim-X disproves evolution.

573 lostlakehiker  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:47:38pm

re: #519 experiencedtraveller

Most species produce more offspring than can survive. Humans might regulate this. We can establish governments that institute one-child policies, for example. But what we cannot do is double our numbers every century, indefinitely. In a thousand years, there would be 6000000000000 people. That's 1000 of us for every 1 now. Corn would have to grow at speeds resembling a bullet from a gun, to feed us all.

In two thousand years, there would be 1 million people for every person now alive. In ten thousand years, well, you get the general idea. The entire mass of the sun, all converted into human body-mass, would not suffice to sustain this kind of exponential explosion for the mere 6000 years that the wackiest creationists insist upon.

574 mikalm  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:47:52pm

The official MikalM position on this controversy:

Science gives us the how
Religion gives us the why
Confusing the two just gives us trouble

575 newsjunkie_ky  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:48:04pm

re: #517 Dianna
I know a couple sisters that have children by multiple fathers (they even have a kid with the same guy). they are the dumbest people I know. Most are bi-polar and all are obese.

576 Charles  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:48:34pm

re: #562 karmic_inquisitor

Regarding Ben Stein - He attempted a polemic very much like Michael Moore's and employed the same logical fallacies and "proof by repeated assertion" that Moore does.

Exactly right.

577 really grumpy big dog Johnson  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:48:52pm

re: #549 johnny 100 pesos

So, Hitler was never a Darwinist, he was just a nasty person who never heard of natural selection, and killed all those people for no reason at all.

What's next, are you going to claim that the Eugenicist movement had nothing to do with Darwinism?

Hitler believed in the prevailing version of Darwinism of his day. He believed that killing the Jews would improve the human race by taking undesirables out of the Gene Pool. He believed that people were animals (with Aryans being Best Of Breed) and that culling the herd would improve the stock. He believed that natural selection would have weeded out the mentally handicapped, and we were doing our species a disservice by protecting them ( (as inspired by that awful mamby-pamby Christian religion that turned warriors into nice people).

There was indeed anti-semitism in the past. The holocaust was different, taking something from past Jew-hatred, and adding something special to it (and remember, Jews were actually treated quite well in Germany before this!). It happened because the intelligentsia of Germany (the most scientifically advanced nation at that time) felt that the human race could be improved by directed natural selection, starting with the elimination of certain peoples.

Incidentally, I finally saw Expelled yesterday, at a special screening (that awful Yoko Ono delayed it's release here in Canada). In the audience was an acquaintance of mine, the Vice President of B'Nai B'rith. He had no problem with the assertion that Darwinism was one of the inspirations of the holocaust. He spoke to the producer and asked how we can support the academic freedom issue of questioning Darwinism, while opposing the right of academics to hold "Israel Apartheid" weeks and other anti-semetic events.

I'm sorry, but I'm confused. Did Darwin argue that race was part of evolution, or did I miss it? Or maybe you confuse the contemporary definition of race in Darwin's time to what vicious vestige exists today?

And please don't give us the old canard that nazi Germany was the most scientifically advanced nation of the time. That's pure horsebleep, but you wouldn't know it because you are the blind man led by the gopher.

How did Hitlerian darwinism work out?

578 gotha  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:48:52pm

Good Night Bacchus. Nice chatting with you as well.

579 Psaturn  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:49:05pm

re: #571 Charles

More garbage from the Discovery Institute. Sheesh.

Well...they are SCIENTISTS...

Not theologians...

580 Dianna  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:49:10pm

re: #520 gotha

In Harris' case?

Start with the medications he was on. Look at the self-esteem programs he was indoctrinated with in grade school, while lacking any real accomplishments. Look at the bullying he suffered in his first two years of high school. Look at his intense relationship with Dylan Klebold; Dylan was both passive and depressed, and Eric Harris needed, more and more, to be the important and big man in Dylan's eyes.

When he lied to the Marine recruiter, and was rejected by the Marines, he was primed to do something violent and terrible.

It's just fortunate that he and Klebold were incompetent at building pipe bombs, or Columbine would have been much, much worse.

581 Intrepid  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:49:25pm

Meanwhile, at LGFWatch:

CJ really stirred things up there, and it's wild!

Anonymous1: Yeah! They're saying stuff about Darwin and how Hitler didn't read Darwin, WHICH WE ALL KNOW IS WRONG!, and..

Anonymous2: What the heck is the whole "ID" thing they keep talking about?

Anonymous1: It's something to do with Freud and the Id, Ego and Super Ego, I think. That's what I remember about my science classes from last year.

IbrahimX: No! It has to do with Intelligent Design, which we all know LGF has none of! Take that, CJ! HAH!

Anonymous3: Doesn't this group want to say anything good about Barack Obama?

/hee

582 Charles  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:49:57pm

re: #579 Psaturn

Well...they are SCIENTISTS...

Not theologians...

No, they are not scientists. They are frauds. Real scientists laugh at them.

583 Thanos  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:50:45pm

re: #549 johnny 100 pesos

What's next, are you going to claim that the Eugenicist movement had nothing to do with Darwinism?

Yeah, I have already. Read Plato's "The Republic" Eugenics and the idea of breeding "Philosopher Kings" has been around a reaaaaaaaallly long time. It predates Christianity.

584 brainwizard73  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:51:02pm

re: #565 Racer X

No need to apologize, I'm just tryin to lighten things up.

/Buzz arises from several Guiness and Bass Ales (BLack and Tan).

I feel you. Nice choice of adult beverages.

I am mister lighten up (and often lit up). I have some guy here arguing with me about "truth" and he clearly doesn't get that 87% of me just wants to have fun.

Speaking of fun, I just get in my every thread Michelle Obama slam...I better start working on that one now...maybe something about evolution/Michelle Obama...hmm.

585 Josephine  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:51:07pm

re: #555 mikalm

I'd like to see it, as "Philip Marlow" (no E) was obviously based on the protagonist of some of my favorite novels.

Yes! I highly recommend it.

586 Dianna  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:51:10pm

re: #529 Josephine

Well, when he died, he was due to appear before the star chamber to answer an accusation of atheism.

587 gotha  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:51:21pm

re: #580 Dianna

It also didn't help that he believed we were made from pond scum. Out of all the T-Shirt statements he could have made and he picked that one.

588 johnny 100 pesos  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:51:57pm

A piece of Nazi propaganda that speaks of Natural Selection.

589 Racer X  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:52:21pm

re: #584 brainwizard73

Heh. Do not go there.

LOL!

590 Sharmuta  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:52:59pm

re: #587 gotha

It also didn't help that he believed we were made from pond scum. Out of all the T-Shirt statements he could have made and he picked that one.

And McVeigh had a t-shirt on quoting a Founding Father. Are we going to use that as a blood libel now too?

591 jc59  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:53:05pm

re: #577 really grumpy big dog Johnson

"Did Darwin argue that race was part of evolution, or did I miss it? Or maybe you confuse the contemporary definition of race in Darwin's time to what vicious vestige exists today?"

See #545

592 Thanos  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:53:26pm

re: #550 Charles

DI also backs a lot of conservative causes, some that you would agree with. Many genuflect at their altar for obvious reasons.

593 really grumpy big dog Johnson  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:53:29pm

re: #563 Cognito

Fascinating.

Please quote.

OK, forget quotes. I don't need them. Why are you supporting race? Because you feel it, or because you have a wish that some peoples will become eternally dominated on this planet?

Let's get something out in the open Cognito, not like it isn't obvious already. I really don't like you. Your attitudes and positions suggest that you are at the least a troll, and more likely a neo-nazi.

Don't play around with that.

594 newsjunkie_ky  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:53:32pm

re: #546 Thanos
As is science.

595 brainwizard73  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:53:56pm

re: #581 Intrepid

LOL. Awesome.

596 Josephine  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:53:57pm

re: #586 Dianna

Well, when he died, he was due to appear before the star chamber to answer an accusation of atheism.

Thanks for your patience, Dianna. I will learn more about him.

597 Charles  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:54:03pm

re: #588 johnny 100 pesos

At this point, the only question in my mind is how low you will go to promote this dishonest agenda? Because that's pretty low.

598 mikalm  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:54:03pm

Can we turn this into a drinking thread?

/Foster's Lager here

599 Pastorius  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:54:16pm

#567 Charles,
Ok, if that's your argument, fine. That's not the argument I am making. I am not supporting Intelligent Design. I am arguing that Nietzsche and other philosophers used the language of Darwin's Natural Selection/Survival of the Fittest idea, and they formed philosophies of power out of their understanding of Darwin's ideas.

Does that make sense?

Nietzsche and H.S. Chamberlain were influenced by their understanding of Darwin, and they were an influence on Hitler and the Nazis.

Do you deny that?

For me to make that argument has nothing to do with the Discovery Insitute.

I admit that I do not know about the Discovery Insitute. Again, I am not a supporter of ID or Creationism.

600 Syrah  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:55:14pm

re: #575 newsjunkie_ky

I know a couple sisters that have children by multiple fathers (they even have a kid with the same guy). they are the dumbest people I know. Most are bi-polar and all are obese.

You are describing a very disturbing genetic trend line. It is important to keep in mind that intelligence is not necessarily the most successful genetic path to biological success.

601 Charles  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:55:28pm

re: #599 Pastorius

#567 Charles,
Ok, if that's your argument, fine. That's not the argument I am making. I am not supporting Intelligent Design. I am arguing that Nietzsche and other philosophers used the language of Darwin's Natural Selection/Survival of the Fittest idea, and they formed philosophies of power out of their understanding of Darwin's ideas.

Does that make sense?

Nietzsche and H.S. Chamberlain were influenced by their understanding of Darwin, and they were an influence on Hitler and the Nazis.

Do you deny that?

For me to make that argument has nothing to do with the Discovery Insitute.

I admit that I do not know about the Discovery Insitute. Again, I am not a supporter of ID or Creationism.

If you don't know anything about the Discovery Institute, why are you linking to their articles?

602 brainwizard73  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:55:40pm

re: #583 Thanos

Yeah, I have already. Read Plato's "The Republic" Eugenics and the idea of breeding "Philosopher Kings" has been around a reaaaaaaaallly long time. It predates Christianity.

Do you mean breeding the "guardians"? I thought Plato said we had to build or educate the PKs in the city in speech. After all, you only need one PK...but you need a lot of guardians.

603 Sharmuta  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:55:43pm

re: #442 Sharmuta

Oh- and FYI.... The term "survival of the fittest" wasn't coined by Darwin.

It was Herbert Spencer- who was adamantly opposed to hitler's scheming.

I just thought I'd repeat this....

604 Thanos  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:56:11pm

re: #588 johnny 100 pesos

Johhny, I'll see your nazi's and raise you a Harun Yahya and Sharia Design.

605 johnny 100 pesos  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:56:16pm
Sir Francis Galton systematized these ideas and practices according to new knowledge about the evolution of man and animals provided by the theory of his cousin Charles Darwin during the 1860s and 1870s. After reading Darwin's Origin of Species, Galton built upon Darwin's ideas whereby the mechanisms of natural selection were potentially thwarted by human civilization. He reasoned that, since many human societies sought to protect the underprivileged and weak, those societies were at odds with the natural selection responsible for extinction of the weakest; and only by changing these social policies could society be saved from a "reversion towards mediocrity," a phrase he first coined in statistics and which later changed to the now common "regression towards the mean."[19]

From an article about the origins of eugenics movement.

606 Josephine  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:56:25pm

Well, it's way past bedtime here in the Big Smoke. I've had a lot of fun today on LGF.

Thank you, Charles, and everyone. Sleep tight, all.

607 Albertanator  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:56:27pm

I find it amazing that any Darwinist cannot deny a link between the theory of evolution and the tremendous evil that has happened in the last century or so...ie Marxism, Nazism etc etc....

As the great Russian Writer, Dostevsky wrote over a century ago, 'without God, all is allowed'.....He wrote that meaning that without belief in God, which Darwin at his heart attacks, all evil is permitted...

And so it is in Western Society now....I think even the most radical darwinist will admit that we are sinking and sinking fast.......

Darwin is not only appalling science....it is an eqaully appalling philosophy.....

608 Boogberg  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:56:36pm

re: #550 Charles

John McCain at the Discovery Institute:

[Link: www.discovery.org...]

You can't be the President of the US without being a Christian, Charles. I think you know this. It's technically not "law", but I think it's one of those "unwritten" laws. Looking around the world today, I think I prefer it that way.

609 Slumbering Behemoth  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:56:54pm

re: #123 MandyManners

Visual inspection alone will not suffice for such a study.
/

610 gotha  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:56:55pm

Nope. But I do find it curious that most of the 100M deaths in the twentieth century were caused caused by secular men who had little regard for human life. As I stated, that does not mean that all secular men will kill. Only that many of the slaughterers will be secular and probably Darwinists. My $.02

Sharmuta it's been a pleasure, but now I'm going to bed.
Good Night

611 Intrepid  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:57:24pm

re: #569 Josephine

It depends. Is your daddy rich?

/Is your ma good-looking?

My daddy's dead and my ma has dementia, although she is nice looking.

I'm screwed, ain't I?

612 Dainn  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:58:13pm

That scientists question evolution is nothing special. It will always happen as long as evolution is a real scientific theory. The second it becomes above the need to defend, it ceases to be scientific and becomes ideology.

That said, nothing out of ID or creationism threatens the theory's foundation. The arguments just don't stand up to the rigors of scientific peer review. It bugs people who don't believe, but modern evolution is so robust of a natural science that it is an well-established scientific fact (which just means it's a theory most scientists accept). They keep throwing stones at what they think are the clay feet of the statue, but evolution is like the statue of liberty: it stands up to the test, and has for most of two centuries.

There is just so much evidence that supports the basic premise that Darwin postulated in Origin of the Species that most serious debate is not about "if" but "how."

613 Cognito  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:58:13pm

re: #593 really grumpy big dog Johnson

OK, forget quotes. I don't need them.

No, friend. When you call me a racist, you do indeed need quotes.

Why are you supporting race? Because you feel it, or because you have a wish that some peoples will become eternally dominated on this planet?

Where have I 'supported' race? I've said that your notion that there's no such thing as genetic races is just fine. I've also said that it's got limited applicability, as people around the world don't think in terms of genetics. They think in terms of physical characteristics. I don't 'support' that. It's just how most people connotate 'race,' for better or worse.

Let's get something out in the open Cognito, not like it isn't obvious already. I really don't like you. Your attitudes and positions suggest that you are at the least a troll, and more likely a neo-nazi.

Don't play around with that.

Really Grumpy Big Dog Johnson, I think you vastly overrate the weight of your opinion of me.

And you vastly underrate the need for quotes when you turn to calling people Neo-Nazis.

Because otherwise you just seem a bit desperate, and a lot silly.

614 ggt  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:58:29pm

re: #598 mikalm


Fresh coffee all around!

615 Thanos  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:58:45pm

re: #602 brainwizard73

Nope, he specifically wanted to marry the superior to the superior, it's somewhere in there books five through nine, it's been a long time since I read it.

616 Dan G.  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:58:55pm

To those stating that Darwinism leads to a devaluation of life... How? How does knowing the molecular basis of life and the fact that it has changed over time lead to me devaluing the only life I have? How does it lead to me ignoring the benefits of civil society for my life? How does it lead to me to ignoring that freedom and respect for individual rights is the only way to create a civil and productive society? How does it lead to ignoring all of this and then wholesale slaughter? It doesn't. On the contrary, evolution, and the sciences that spawned therefrom, make it more possible to protect one's precious life; by knowing the actual causes of disease. Whereas when your alleged life-loving faith ruled the Western world it blamed bad smelling air. What's worse, modern archaeologists are finding more and more that the Romans had many advanced medical technologies that were summarily destroyed by your barbaric creed.

After 9/11, I (and others, I'm sure) was willing to hold my criticism of the "religious right" because OUR country was under attack and at least they spoke about strong defense etc... I'd hold my tongue and join them in the fight against the barbarians at the gate. The theocrats took advantage of this and have begun trying to force their agenda on everyone else by hook or by crook; stabbing me, and other formerly tolerant people in the back. NO MORE.

617 mikalm  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:58:56pm

re: #600 Syrah

LOL! That movie was exactly what came to mind when I read that post!

618 experiencedtraveller  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:59:07pm

re: #573 lostlakehiker

Humans might regulate this.

Humans (who happen to live in democratic societies ) ARE regulating their population in a very natural and advantageous way. Growth rates in modern, democratic societies are easily sustainable.

Malthus saw an acre Y produce X and nothing more. Ever.
Darwin bought this junk. It is fascinating to me that we even discuss these men.

The issue is political freedom. It solves all the others...

619 karmic_inquisitor  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:59:09pm

re: #554 ethanxxx

I haven't read anything that rejects Darwinism or evolution outright. If any one does they would be in error. Evolution doesn't overturn a creation, and a creation doesn't overturn evolution. When Georges-Henri Lemaitre presented his theory of "The Big Bang" to Albert Einstein, Einstein said he agreed with his "Science" but disagreed with his conclusion. Well... history has shown that Einstein was wrong. Now, one could argue that Einstein "Could" have disagreed with Lemaitre for no other reason than Lemaitre was also a Catholic Priest. I don't know why he did, so I'll just keep searching for an answer. My point is... an expanding universe pretty much demands a beginning. How that "Beginning" began isn't known by anyone... as far as I know.

Regarding the Big Bang theory, you are right - it points to a singularity and we cannot see or ever perceive what begat that singularity.

I happen to be a rationalist who believes in God and the singularity at the Big Bang seems to me to be God's "signature". I have met many people who, after getting to know me, are a bit stunned that I believe in God. I point to the mechanics of the big bang and ask them how they can't. It doesn't prove God, but for a universe of such scale, complexity and dynamism to have been set in motion from a single point in space time would seem like a creator "showing off".

620 Thanos  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:59:35pm

re: #605 johnny 100 pesos

Plato. Read your Plato.

621 Charles  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:59:37pm

re: #616 Dan G.

After 9/11, I (and others, I'm sure) was willing to hold my criticism of the "religious right" because OUR country was under attack and at least they spoke about strong defense etc... I'd hold my tongue and join them in the fight against the barbarians at the gate. The theocrats took advantage of this and have begun trying to force their agenda on everyone else by hook or by crook; stabbing me, and other formerly tolerant people in the back. NO MORE.

Well said.

622 Sharmuta  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 9:59:47pm

re: #610 gotha

All those men were progressives.

623 brainwizard73  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:00:00pm

re: #598 mikalm

Can we turn this into a drinking thread?

/Foster's Lager here

I think you will find support for that motion.

Jameson on ice with a touch of cola...damn it, my kids ate all the cherries.

Seriously, my four year old sat in my fridge with the door open this evening and ate 3/4 of a full jar of cherries.

624 realwest  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:00:11pm

re: #581 Intrepid
I can't believe you actually went to that shithole of a site.
Didja at least take a long hot shower afterwards?!

625 WitchDoctor  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:00:21pm

I don't get it. What does debunking hitler's theories on racial purity, or as I like to call it, common sense (that refers to the debunking part for you Democrats) have to do with the persecution of creationists/intelligent design?

626 Racer X  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:00:40pm

"Are you classified as human?"

"Negative, I am a meat popsicle."

627 dhimmimoore  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:01:22pm

Darwin's Descent of Man has some pretty damning ideology in it. His 150-year-old theory is showing its age, and it is not complete. And the underpinning philosophy is used to justify eugenics, Chinese population control, forced abortions, and many other unnatural, anti-human evils.

I think some on the Darwin side of things need to open their minds. Using science, the universe shouldn't exist, as you could never get to an origin that didn't require a prior cause. So unless you want to abandon science and say that we popped out of nothing, you have a paradox on your hands that human logic can not solve. Seriously, think about it.

The idea that the beauty of the universe is the way it is on purpose, because of God, should not be so offensive. The fact that God may have a guiding hand in the development of life in the universe should also not be so offensive, especially when the evidence is so obvious.

Ben Stein was right to point out the hostility to questioning Darwin.

628 zmdavid  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:01:34pm

re: #619 karmic_inquisitor
Wasn't the term "Big Bang" coined by the theory's opponents who thought it sounded a little too much like creation?

629 Thanos  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:01:34pm
630 Dar ul Harbarian  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:01:43pm

re: #507 brainwizard73

Well, it seemed like there was a desire to find something beyond what could be seen and empirically tested; and one of the ways that mankind has seen fit to understand the world in the past was with an understanding and study of devine truth, at various times called natural truths.

If you don't need anything revealed or need to find anything (i.e. you weren't looking for something), why were you asking about where truth comes from?

Then again, maybe just have another sip of Patron and it will all come rushing over you like a warm blanket.

If devine truth equals natural truth then there should be no arguements over evolution. It has been observed. It has been tested. It is real. No faith is required. Evolution is devine truth.

This business about moral truth being absolute is unconvincing. It has been stated that this is so, and I dispute it. I want Truth to be defined. It isn't that hard is it? Is rape bad? Prove it. Is murder bad? Prove it. The record of history demonstrates the insignificace of these limits on human behavior.

As far as I can see, the Universe is amoral. People are moral. And their morality is dependent on who has the most power and the circumstances of the day.

A mother can eat her own child in the right conditions. What does God say about that? He says "that which survives, survives."

A cult leader can rape girls after their first menstruation. What does God say about that? He says "that which survives, survives."

A dictator can throw millions into death camps. What does God say about that? He says "that which survives, survives."

I was asking about where truth come from because it was asserted that in a previous post that true was true. I dispute this.

631 brainwizard73  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:01:49pm

re: #615 Thanos

Thanks for narrowing that down for me. I'll just take a spin through the Republic and get back to the thread...sometime...next week.

632 Charles  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:01:54pm

re: #625 WitchDoctor

I don't get it. What does debunking hitler's theories on racial purity, or as I like to call it, common sense (that refers to the debunking part for you Democrats) have to do with the persecution of creationists/intelligent design?

There is no persecution of intelligent design advocates.

633 Pastorius  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:02:09pm

Charles,
Kilgore Trout asked for links to support the idea that Nietzsche was influenced by Darwin. That article contained quotes. So, I posted it for the quotes.

Does that make sense?

If you would like me to dig up some quotes myself, I will do so. That will require me pulling some books off the shelf and doing some writing. That's fine. However, I don't know when another thread is going to merit this discussion.

My point is, simply, that Nietzsche was influenced by the ideas of Darwin. And, he was an influence on Hitler.

634 Gagdad Bob  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:02:24pm

Oh well. There's obviously no trans-reasoning with some people, which is as it should be. I just thank the Creator that I live in a nation that was founded by men who recognized that the Creator endowed us with certain absolute an unalienable rights, and not in a nation founded my men who believe that humans are just clever animals with no intrinsic rights. 'Night, all.

635 Psaturn  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:02:28pm

re: #582 Charles

No, they are not scientists. They are frauds. Real scientists laugh at them.

Charles,

Just because one believe evolutionism and atheism does not make one scientist.

Robert Boyle was a creationist and an eminent scientist. From him we have Boyle's Law.

Blaise Pascal was a creationist and he was an eminent scientist. Pascal actually wrote in defense of scientific method. He is the one that came up with the Pascal's Wager.

Michael Faraday, Rene Descartes, Pasteur...

I could go on and on...

636 ggt  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:02:45pm

re: #624 realwest

Hey rw! How ya' doin' tonite.

Do you think Charles will create an open thread where we can have some fun?

637 esch  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:02:47pm

Disagreement and/or criticism are not persecution.

638 Dianna  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:04:11pm

re: #575 newsjunkie_ky

I know; but they're passing more genes into future generations.

It's not about good parenting, or good judgment.

639 Sharmuta  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:04:21pm

re: #637 esch

Disagreement and/or criticism are not persecution.

Indeed- although cair disagrees.

640 rlevitin  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:04:21pm

Slightly OT:

Hey everyone, I dunno how much this has been talked about on this site... but I have heard a few anti-semites on a few different forums calling Jews Khazars... does anyone know what the story behind that is? I was told on one of them its a "popular" theory that Jews are genetically linked to a "Khazar" culture.

641 Purple Prose  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:04:41pm

re: #554 ethanxxx

Einstein invented a fudge term which was called the cosmological constant to explain why gravity didn't cause the universe to implode back on itself. The Big Bang Theory made the use of a mathematical cosmological constant term unnecessary, and in fact Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, which deals with gravity, makes more sense when you can do away with the cosmological constant and explain that things don't implode because they are expanding at a velocity that is greater than the attractive force of gravity.

So the two theories reinforce each other. General Relativity had already been experimentally verified, e.g. observation of the bending of light by the suns gravitational pull measured during an eclipse by Arthur Eddington and many later more sophisticated experiments. However, in order to make it work and explain why the universe doesn't fall back in on itself, Einstein needed to invoke some constant that essentially repels bodies to keep them from collapsing back down onto each other. The Big Bang Theory made that assumption unecessary.

I suspect Einstein felt it was right but had just heard of the idea and so it took him some time to process it and accept it. He may have also been philosphophically or aesthetically opposed to it initially, as he was human like everyone else. But then he came around, which is the great thing about science. Scientists can be wrong at any given time, but since science is a community and changes with time and is self-correcting, it "evolves" to provide better and better explanations, closer and closer to Truth with a capital T.

Einstein later called coming up with the cosmological constant the biggest scientific mistake of his life. So science worked. It allowed a sound theory, supported by many observations but with one big glaring contradiction with reality, since it did not yet incorporate all known measurements, to be made completely consistent with other observations.

Einstein's opposition to quantum mechanics is even more commented on. It has to do with philosophical bent toward classical determinism: if you know something precisely, its mass, trajectory, speed, acceleration, etc., you must be able to predict where it will be at any future time. Quantum mechanics would have none of that. While both General Relativity, which deals with "big things," and quantum mechanics, which deals with "tiny things," are both equally good at predicting things on their respective length scales, they have not yet been brought together in any unified field theory, despite partly successful efforts by Feynman and others to bring them closer. That's science. It builds a model. The model is always provisional. It is generally subsumed in a larger model or theory that explains both sets of observations and is consistent across the whole spectrum of physical reality. Science is the only human endeavor that allows for predictions, testing and retesting and then revision, with the ideas getting closer and closer to a complete description of reality.

But it's a process and it is like a train that never arrives. This is its greatest strength. It is also what pseudo-scientists exploit. They obfuscate the nature of science to make moral and political points entrenched in their immutable prejudices.

642 Charles  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:04:48pm

re: #634 Gagdad Bob

Oh well. There's obviously no trans-reasoning with some people, which is as it should be. I just thank the Creator that I live in a nation that was founded by men who recognized that the Creator endowed us with certain absolute an unalienable rights, and not in a nation founded my men who believe that humans are just clever animals with no intrinsic rights. 'Night, all.

I'm really disappointed to find out that you've bought into this anti-science nonsense.

643 mikalm  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:04:50pm

re: #623 brainwizard73

It's that shade of red that drew him. You only see that glowing red coloration on Maraschino cherries.

644 Karridine  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:05:06pm

Well, as relates to The Wedge Strategy, when I was atop my mountain on the Korean DMZ, we had an officer whom we called "The Wedge"

/because the wedge is the simplest tool known to humankind!

645 Dianna  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:05:15pm

re: #587 gotha

He didn't believe any such thing. If he had, he'd have shot Dylan Klebold and then himself.

He avoided suicide, in case you didn't notice.

646 swamprat  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:05:38pm

re: #588 johnny 100 pesos

Obama at .49 sec.

647 Gagdad Bob  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:05:39pm

Funny how typos don't create higher meaning, but interfere with it....

648 Charles  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:06:17pm

re: #640 rlevitin

Slightly OT:

Hey everyone, I dunno how much this has been talked about on this site... but I have heard a few anti-semites on a few different forums calling Jews Khazars... does anyone know what the story behind that is? I was told on one of them its a "popular" theory that Jews are genetically linked to a "Khazar" culture.

I'm beginning to get very suspicious about your "questions."

649 newsjunkie_ky  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:06:23pm

re: #603 Sharmuta
How was he opposed to hitler's scheming when he was dead before hitler?

650 Thanos  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:06:46pm

re: #640 rlevitin

Slightly OT:

Hey everyone, I dunno how much this has been talked about on this site... but I have heard a few anti-semites on a few different forums calling Jews Khazars... does anyone know what the story behind that is? I was told on one of them its a "popular" theory that Jews are genetically linked to a "Khazar" culture.

Khazars were nomads, hence no claim to the land.... sorta like berbers etc....

651 ethanxxx  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:06:54pm

re: #628 zmdavid

Wasn't the term "Big Bang" coined by the theory's opponents who thought it sounded a little too much like creation?

Yes. But even Albert Einstein admitted, "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened."

652 experiencedtraveller  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:07:25pm

re: #616 Dan G.

Whereas when your alleged life-loving faith ruled the Western world it blamed bad smelling air.

Easy on the wild eyed historical generalizations...

653 Alberta Oil Peon  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:07:38pm

re: #141 gotha

Aren't we missing the point here. Does it really matter whether the science was valid on which Hitler based his decisions? Right or wrong, he was merely following the logical Darwinian conclusion. He was following the tautology that only the strongest survive.

Actually, that's bullshit.

The Darwinian idea of "survival of the fittest" means that those individuals which are best adapted to their environment will out-compete less-adapted individuals, and will survive to spread their genes.

Really, what happened in the Holocaust was that the ill-adapted ganged up on the better-adapted, and tried to liquidate them. Hitler did not need to quote Darwin to "justify" the Holocaust, because he had no need to seek anyone's approval of his actions. Nor did he "base his actions" on evolutionary science, valid or faulty. His actions were based upon hate and fear. The Holocaust was an inferiority complex run amok.

654 Gagdad Bob  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:07:49pm

Charles, as you probably don't know, I've written 990 posts about this anti-science nonsense!

655 mikalm  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:08:12pm

re: #640 rlevitin

Arthur Koestler wrote a book based on this theory called The Thirteenth Tribe. I don't feel like chasing down the citations, but the "Khazar" theory has apparently been debunked by genetic mapping, which shows Ashkenazi Jews as largely from Semitic origins.

656 Sharmuta  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:08:18pm

re: #649 newsjunkie_ky

The notion of eugenics and state sponsored genocide.

657 jc59  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:08:19pm
658 krypto  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:08:31pm

re: #466 Psaturn

Dr Michael Behe is a scientist, Biochemistry professor and so are several other scientists...Dr Gerald Schroeder is a Nuclear Physicist and Orthodox Jew and he was interviewed in Expelled the Movie, he is more than ID, he is a creationist.

It's pretty rare for a university faculty member whose work remotely qualifies as science to find his department issuing this sort of disclaimer stating that they consider his work to be nothing of the kind:

[Link: www.lehigh.edu...]

659 Dianna  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:08:41pm

re: #590 Sharmuta

I'm still not entirely certain of the accuracy of the assertion of what tee Eric Harris chose that day.

660 johnny 100 pesos  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:08:43pm

re: #597 Charles

At this point, the only question in my mind is how low you will go to promote this dishonest agenda? Because that's pretty low.

Let's see: You say Darwin did not inspire the Nazis. I say they did. I present a historical piece of Nazi propaganda to prove my argument. You call me low.

I did not intend to hurt anyone, or to cause offense. I do feel that we should consider the roots of the holocaust and even debate the cause, which is sadly impossible without referring to material put out by the Nazis themselves.

Nazi propaganda should not go down the memory hole, it should be dissected to find out how it evolved. And because of my fears of another holocaust, I don't think it is low to do so.

661 karmic_inquisitor  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:09:20pm

re: #628 zmdavid

Wasn't the term "Big Bang" coined by the theory's opponents who thought it sounded a little too much like creation?

So I just hit google for "big bang etymology" and got an interesting site for am etymological dictionary. But that site came back with some very "eye opening" responses to my search.

No answer to "big bang" yet, but "gang bang" originated in 1953.

662 mikalm  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:09:38pm

re: #642 Charles

As much as I admire Bob, I think that he's confusing the How and Why concepts I mentioned above.

663 Psaturn  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:10:45pm

re: #616 Dan G.

After 9/11, I (and others, I'm sure) was willing to hold my criticism of the "religious right" because OUR country was under attack and at least they spoke about strong defense etc... I'd hold my tongue and join them in the fight against the barbarians at the gate. The theocrats took advantage of this and have begun trying to force their agenda on everyone else by hook or by crook; stabbing me, and other formerly tolerant people in the back. NO MORE.

The problem is this DanG

Without the "religious right"...your views and patriotic values would be a MINORITY...

I am part of a local anti Islamist / anti terrorist club. Guess what is the make up of the club? You got it! Religious rights: conservative Christians and Jews and Republicans.

I have tried to get gays and atheists and agnostics involved to no avail.

664 Pastorius  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:10:48pm

Good night, everyone. It's been fun.

665 really grumpy big dog Johnson  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:11:08pm

re: #613 Cognito

Really Grumpy Big Dog Johnson, I think you vastly overrate the weight of your opinion of me.

And you vastly underrate the need for quotes when you turn to calling people Neo-Nazis.

Because otherwise you just seem a bit desperate, and a lot silly.

No, I think you continually attempt to deflect the argument to your own advantage.

Why is it that you would support the notion of race on the basis of societal perception? Maybe you could explain the rationality behind that. Because your elitism is your downfall, Cognito. You cannot accept that the guy next door is just like you. You cling to your teddy bear, I'll cling to the truth.

You have no platform. You are an amorphous blob of ambiguous definition, and by that theory, you expect to survive around here?

666 Dainn  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:11:49pm

re: #633 Pastorius


My point is, simply, that Nietzsche was influenced by the ideas of Darwin. And, he was an influence on Hitler.

Once again, guild by association. It is not a reflection on Darwin's scientific theory that a politician found it useful more than a century later. Politicians take what they need from whomever they want, and disgard the rest. The underlying truths of the borrowed idea is almost always lost. There is nothing in Darwin that says that Aryans are superior to Jews. That is a cynical application of the theory by those who already had their answer and just needed something to back it up.

Modern white supremacists similarly use the Bible to do the same thing. That doesn't invalidate the message of that book any more that Hitler invalidates Darwin.

667 dhimmimoore  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:12:00pm

re: #651 ethanxxx

Yes. But even Albert Einstein admitted, "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened."

And it still requires you to take on faith that there was nothing, and then poof, contrary to all laws of science and reasoning, there was something. Do your homework, the big bang theory is not an end. It is simply a big cause to which most don't bother to think about what led to it...because something had to. Even the idea that vacuum flux caused the big bang still requires a first cause, because scientists admit the flux wasn't really a vacuum....

So what caused the big bang?

To follow science exclusively, existence is impossible. You are here because of the grace of God, just look around at the beauty around you. It's not random.

668 snowtravel  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:12:06pm

re: #633 Pastorius

Charles,
Kilgore Trout asked for links to support the idea that Nietzsche was influenced by Darwin. That article contained quotes. So, I posted it for the quotes.

Does that make sense?

If you would like me to dig up some quotes myself, I will do so. That will require me pulling some books off the shelf and doing some writing. That's fine. However, I don't know when another thread is going to merit this discussion.

My point is, simply, that Nietzsche was influenced by the ideas of Darwin. And, he was an influence on Hitler.

Your conclusion being what? To support the premise that Darwin bore some responsibility for Hitler?

All of us "stand on the shoulders of giants," the good and the evil alike. If you blame Darwin for Nazi abuse of evolution, well, Mengel was a Doctor and he was certainly influenced by Hippocrates. Ergo, Hippocrates was responsible for all the medical experiments of the Third Reich?

I think not.

(This is the most absurd thing I've read about Nazi Germany in a long time, and given the arguments elsewhere on this site the last couple of days, that's saying something.)

669 Sharmuta  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:12:08pm

re: #659 Dianna

I'm with you, but I was trying to make a larger point, I guess.

670 Purple Prose  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:12:11pm

re: #553 tokyobk

The bonobos are notoriously bisexual and that Liberace get-up proves it.

Just proves bonobos are a lot like us.

Chimpanzees are also a lot like us. They much more warlike than bonobos. They go to war against neighboring groups, and usually only one survives these protracted conflicts. Sounds a lot like human history.

Bonobos tend to diffuse tension within the group by homosexual acts. They are also more "matriarchal."

Humans are bit of each, but it's thought that our common ancestor was more like the modern chimpanzee and that bonobos drifted away more from that ancestor than chimps or us.

So we are equally related genetically, since we split off from them before they split from each other. But it is likely that chimps kept more of the social traits of the ancestor and he probably did to.

671 brainwizard73  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:12:22pm

re: #630 Dar ul Harbarian

If devine truth equals natural truth then there should be no arguements over evolution. It has been observed. It has been tested. It is real. No faith is required. Evolution is devine truth.

This business about moral truth being absolute is unconvincing. It has been stated that this is so, and I dispute it. I want Truth to be defined. It isn't that hard is it? Is rape bad? Prove it. Is murder bad? Prove it. The record of history demonstrates the insignificace of these limits on human behavior.

As far as I can see, the Universe is amoral. People are moral. And their morality is dependent on who has the most power and the circumstances of the day.

A mother can eat her own child in the right conditions. What does God say about that? He says "that which survives, survives."

A cult leader can rape girls after their first menstruation. What does God say about that? He says "that which survives, survives."

A dictator can throw millions into death camps. What does God say about that? He says "that which survives, survives."

I was asking about where truth come from because it was asserted that in a previous post that true was true. I dispute this.

Three things:

First, relax a bit...I am trying to be a bit lighter given the gravity of this situation...if you didn't pick that up or are just ignoring it, you might want to check your meds.

Second, your assertions as to what God would say/did say/might say seem to need to be taken with a grain of salt. Maybe the whole shaker. Your assertion that God is some amoral "clockmaker" might be your take, but it is not the experience or proofs of a lot of other people. If that gets you through the night, good on you; but don't expect anyone else to agree with you.

Third, I'll just clarify a point; if you are going to ask questions about truths and science, don't get bent out of shape when someone answers. If you already have all the answers, go ahead and share...we're game. Problem is I don't see a lot of answers. I see a lot of deconstructionist dogma dressed up as philosophy.

672 Dan G.  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:12:23pm

re: #635 Psaturn

Argument from authority. Who cares what they believed outside of their field? It has no bearing on the argument.

673 Psaturn  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:12:45pm

re: #658 krypto

It's pretty rare for a university faculty member whose work remotely qualifies as science to find his department issuing this sort of disclaimer stating that they consider his work to be nothing of the kind:

[Link: www.lehigh.edu...]

I know that very well...

Curious, eh ?

674 karmic_inquisitor  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:13:00pm

re: #628 zmdavid

Wasn't the term "Big Bang" coined by the theory's opponents who thought it sounded a little too much like creation?

Found it - you are right:

The term was coined by Fred Hoyle in 1950 in the course of discussions entitled "the Nature of the Universe" broadcasted by BBC. Hoyle's intention was a pejorative term in order to ridicule the theory which his own (stationary state) contested.

675 ggt  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:13:01pm

re: #651 ethanxxx

Now, I'm beginning to go into metaphysical mode. Maybe the coffee, maybe the late hour . . .

"Big Bang" refers to the creation of the known universe--right? The stars, planets, black holes and what not.

Are there any theories that take into account the unknown universe?

Please don't laugh, I feel like something is missing in the whole argument. As humans, we always feel that there is something more --bigger, better, faster --whatever. As as result, I fall back on St. Thomas Aquinas: "That than which nothing greater can be conceived". Once we understand something, scientifically, we find there is more to understand.

So, once we make a final decision on the creation of the known universe, there will be something new to figure-out.

676 rlevitin  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:13:05pm

re: #648 Charles

I'm beginning to get very suspicious about your "questions."

Hey Charles... I know you really keep a close eye on people's comments here. I can assure you I am Jewish, Zionist, and very Pro-Democratic. I find this site is a fantastic resource, and so while I may sometimes post controversial questions, I post them to see how it can be torn apart, or because I want to learn more about something... not because I believe it or because I am trying to troll.

A lot of people here have a lot more experience with a lot of these arguments then I do, I am just trying to learn.

677 Ojoe  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:13:48pm

re: #352 Charles

Just read the link.

Gee, why are they hanging their agenda on defeating the idea of "evolution"?

And it is an agenda

it is not free inquiry

or freedom

they want.

Creepy

678 ggt  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:14:08pm

re: #653 Alberta Oil Peon

Hitler was attempting what dog breeders do everyday: "selective breeding."

As I understand it, it is illegal to do it with humans.

679 swamprat  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:14:40pm

re: #627 dhimmimooreYou realy think the Chinese give a rats rear about Darwin? Much of that post is good, poetry, even. But c'mon.

680 Dar ul Harbarian  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:15:00pm

re: #641 Purple Prose

But it's a process and it is like a train that never arrives. This is its greatest strength. It is also what pseudo-scientists exploit. They obfuscate the nature of science to make moral and political points entrenched in their immutable prejudices.

speaking of global warming...China biggest CO2 emitter last year: Dutch agency

681 Charles  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:15:06pm

re: #660 johnny 100 pesos

Let's see: You say Darwin did not inspire the Nazis. I say they did. I present a historical piece of Nazi propaganda to prove my argument. You call me low.

I did not intend to hurt anyone, or to cause offense. I do feel that we should consider the roots of the holocaust and even debate the cause, which is sadly impossible without referring to material put out by the Nazis themselves.

Nazi propaganda should not go down the memory hole, it should be dissected to find out how it evolved. And because of my fears of another holocaust, I don't think it is low to do so.

Nazi propaganda has been dissected for half a century now, and only recently has this anti-science outlook become part of it, through the efforts of creationists and ID advocates. It's a reductionist, illegitimate argument. The Nazis were not "Darwinians," they were fascist goons. And the antisemitic nature of the Nazis can be traced back through European culture for centuries.

The scientific theory of evolution is not responsible for the Nazis, no matter how many times you try to float that silly, deceptive argument. It's ludicrous.

682 zmdavid  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:15:15pm

re: #674 karmic_inquisitor

Thanks, I heard it on TV awhile ago and forgot the exact details.

683 Dainn  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:15:32pm

re: #666 Dainn

Once again, guild by association.

Sigh. Guilt by association. I'm too tired. Ironic that my post was 666. Some people here may find that fitting :)

684 Dianna  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:16:37pm

re: #618 experiencedtraveller

I would say that Darwin found it a useful concept for natural selection, even a clarifying concept, not that he thought it a good thing to be applied to human society.

Description versus prescription.

Morality hasn't much to do with how species evolved, but it has everything to do with individual, conscious choices, and societal choices.

The mistake, made constantly, is to attribute to Darwin prescriptions he did not make, and that evil people have derived prescriptions from misconceptions about Darwin's description of mechanism.

685 Thanos  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:17:16pm

It's a thin association at best to link Darwin and Science to Nazism. Meanwhile upthread I've linked people who at one point said it was fine to stone homosexuals directly to the Discovery Institute. I don't know why I bother posting links since people are so convinced they are not willing to look at conflicting evidence.

686 Dan G.  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:17:25pm

re: #681 Charles

They need to try and pile some dead bodies up on the scientists side... their history is too litered with them and they need to even the odds a bit.

687 realwest  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:17:36pm

re: #636 ggt Hi ggt! Well I sure hope so - tempers always flare on this particular topic and I fear because of that some otherwise fine LGFer's will wind up getting banned.
You can see how overheated this thread is getting, really by just reading say the last 100 comments and especially #634 by Gahdad Bob.
There are some very fine people out here who are creationists (and no I'm not one, that's not why I'm saying that) who obviously feel hurt because of their perceived need to justify "Expelled" and Ben Stein's comments about it. Thus we see the fights about philosophers, who is and who isn't a scientist, etc. and whether or not Hitler was a believer in Darwin when we all know Hilter was a major league psychotic and he could have believed in say Twinkies and the same results would have occured, and an awful lot of people walk away with, at a minimum, bruised feelings and unusually high BP's.
So, yeah, I do wish we'd get an open thread or at least one of Charle's wonderful photographic threads and soon!

688 Slumbering Behemoth  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:18:00pm

re: #205 MikeySDCA

Ben Stein is not an idiot. He is an intelligent man who just happens to be wrong about certain things.

689 ethanxxx  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:18:19pm

Do your homework, the big bang theory is not an end.

Are you talking to me? Would you like to point out where I even implied that the "Big Bang Theory" was an... End? Do my homework? I do all my work at home!

690 really grumpy big dog Johnson  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:18:41pm

Where's Cognito?

691 krypto  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:18:59pm

re: #673 Psaturn

I know that very well...

Curious, eh ?

Curious about what?

692 Ojoe  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:19:12pm

re: #681 Charles

The scientific theory of evolution is not responsible for the Nazis

No, they just used it as one excuse among many.

If you read Churchill's book "The Gathering Storm", he has a summary in an early chapter, of "MeinKampf", and it is full of excuses and rationalizations, take your pick.

693 Psaturn  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:19:24pm

re: #672 Dan G.

Argument from authority. Who cares what they believed outside of their field? It has no bearing on the argument.

DanG.

How would you know if their belief system did not guide them and lead them in their search for nuggets of truth and laws in G-d's creation?

The problem with today's education is that we separate the spiritual (and philosophical) with the material and physical. Or ignore the spiritual and philosophical and concentrate on the physical and material.

694 Gagdad Bob  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:19:25pm

I'll say one last hopefully non-controversial thing, and then I'm out of here. Ultimately, in the final analysis, there are only two philosophies, some version of idealism (or philosophical realism) or some version of materialism. The former believe that reality can only be comprehensively understood from the top down, while a materialist necessarily believes it is possible to account for all levels of reality from the bottom up. I am utterly convinced that materialism is simply a non-starter, so I place natural selection in a much larger meta-cosmic context. And I certainly don't expect anyone here to agree with me. But as Dennis Prager always says, "clarity is better than agreement."

695 Cognito  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:19:31pm

re: #665 really grumpy big dog Johnson

No, I think you continually attempt to deflect the argument to your own advantage.

That's the nature of any argument, Grumpy.

Why is it that you would support the notion of race on the basis of societal perception? Maybe you could explain the rationality behind that.

Again: I've not 'supported' race anywhere. And the rationality of race as a social perception is just that: social perception, for better or worse. I didn't invent it, nor do I 'support' it.

Because your elitism is your downfall, Cognito. You cannot accept that the guy next door is just like you. You cling to your teddy bear, I'll cling to the truth.

You're making an awful lot of assumptions, bud. So far in our discussion, I've been a racist, a Neo-Nazi, and I've not accepted my neighbor. Yet you have yet to offer a single quote.

Frankly your claim to cry out truth -- "It's unbelievable that otherwise thinking people completely gloss over and ignore the truth that I've just spoken" and so forth -- is a bit of a chuckle. Relax.

You have no platform. You are an amorphous blob of ambiguous definition, and by that theory, you expect to survive around here?

Oh. I'll find a way.

696 Johnny 100 Pesos  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:19:44pm

re: #681 Charles

Sorry, Charles, but I recently read an article that points out that historians have been linking Darwin to Hitler since the 50's, and quotes from their books and articles.

Just because you only heard about it recently doesn't mean it's a new thing.

I will try to dig out that article for you.

697 ggt  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:19:53pm

re: #687 realwest


Beautiful photograph --or very nice guitar solo --either would be welcome.

698 snowtravel  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:20:28pm

re: #681 Charles

Actually the Nazis were racist goons, but it's a quibble. The underlying proposition that science produced the Nazis is absurd.

699 karmic_inquisitor  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:20:46pm

re: #675 ggt

Nothing to laugh at.

There are legitimate astrophysicists out there that theorize about parallel universes. Problem is that there is no way (or not enough energy in "this" universe) to test them.

Here is a very interesting and entertaining article that deals with the idea of "Escaping" our universe to another in an effort to survive the end of our universe.

700 Sharmuta  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:20:54pm

re: #693 Psaturn

The problem with today's education is that we separate the spiritual (and philosophical) with the material and physical. Or ignore the spiritual and philosophical and concentrate on the physical and material.

No- the problem with today's education is we don't educate, we indoctrinate.

701 brainwizard73  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:21:08pm

re: #643 mikalm

It's that shade of red that drew him. You only see that glowing red coloration on Maraschino cherries.

So, in other words my kid and a Great White Shark have something in common...

You might be on to something there. He does like to bite his younger brother when he gets mad and throwing his "Dora the Explorer" DVD case doesn't get the job done.

702 Psaturn  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:21:09pm

re: #684 Dianna

I would say that Darwin found it a useful concept for natural selection, even a clarifying concept, not that he thought it a good thing to be applied to human society.

Description versus prescription.

Morality hasn't much to do with how species evolved, but it has everything to do with individual, conscious choices, and societal choices.

The mistake, made constantly, is to attribute to Darwin prescriptions he did not make, and that evil people have derived prescriptions from misconceptions about Darwin's description of mechanism.

Dianna, that is true, but his BLOOD descendants proved otherwise though.

703 Ojoe  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:21:20pm

Anyway, Nazis were evil

evil goes way back, way before science.

704 ggt  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:21:21pm

re: #699 karmic_inquisitor

thanks!

705 dhimmimoore  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:21:23pm

re: #689 ethanxxx

I didn't mean for that to sound like a challenge, I'm sorry it did. No, I just meant that the big bang theory is just a theory going from A to B, with no help figuring out where A came from... but many people think the big bang is the cosmological answer. It's not. It just leads to the same question of origin.

The proof of God surrounds us, it's beauty itself.

706 really grumpy big dog Johnson  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:21:38pm

re: #689 ethanxxx

Do your homework, the big bang theory is not an end.

Are you talking to me? Would you like to point out where I even implied that the "Big Bang Theory" was an... End? Do my homework? I do all my work at home!

If truth is to be said here, no one really knows whether or not the big bang is the beginning or the end, or maybe not either.

I have a certain entirely unscientific theory that neither is the case. If I told people what I thought, they'd either think I'm psychotic or Huckabee, or maybe both and more...

707 Dan G.  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:21:44pm

Pogroms against Jews in Europe as a response to a catastrophe has happened more than once in European history... The Holocaust was yet another. This pattern predates Darwin by centuries.

708 Fionn MacCumhaill  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:22:16pm

Sigh. Skipping to end to post a comment. There isn't enought time to plow through almost 600 comments.

I don't follow the logic here. What is the connection between a a proof that Nazi racial theories were wrong and Stein's assertion about Darwinism? The Telegraph article quoted does not mention either Stein or Darwin and the archaeological and genetic research described in it does not directly touch on human evolution .

709 LeePro  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:22:28pm

re: #649 newsjunkie_ky

How was he opposed to hitler's scheming when he was dead before hitler?

Very good point, newsjunkie!

710 zmdavid  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:23:07pm

There is a smear campaign against Intelligent Design proponents. You may think it is justified because they are dangerous wackos, but it does exist. Alternately you might think they are dangerous wackos because of the smear campaign.

711 Psaturn  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:23:07pm

re: #700 Sharmuta

No- the problem with today's education is we don't educate, we indoctrinate.

That is very true Sharmuta!

We agree!

We are indoctrinating children on evolution and look what we got!

712 Sharmuta  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:23:24pm

re: #708 Fionn MacCumhaill

We could tell you, but it might take another 600 comments. Or- you could read the thread.

713 karmic_inquisitor  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:23:38pm

If Hitler believed in the tooth fairy can we blame the tooth fairy for the Holocaust?

714 Intrepid  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:23:56pm

re: #624 realwest

I can't believe you actually went to that shithole of a site.
Didja at least take a long hot shower afterwards?!

Realwest - that post was a parody! It wasn't actual LGFw posts, just my impression of what those wackos would say.

But yes, I must say that after I checked them out earlier in the evening, I very much felt shower inclined.

:-)

715 Charles  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:24:11pm

re: #696 Johnny 100 Pesos

Sorry, Charles, but I recently read an article that points out that historians have been linking Darwin to Hitler since the 50's, and quotes from their books and articles.

Just because you only heard about it recently doesn't mean it's a new thing.

I will try to dig out that article for you.

Uh, excuse me, but I've read a lot about the history of the Third Reich, probably more than is healthy. The reason I'm disgusted with this revisionist garbage is because I know the history, not because I'm ignorant of it.

716 ggt  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:24:15pm

re: #708 Fionn MacCumhaill

This is an ongoing combustible topic -- Ben Stein, ID and Darwin always come-up.

717 jaunte  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:24:16pm

re: #713 karmic_inquisitor

He ate carrots...

718 Psaturn  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:24:25pm

re: #707 Dan G.

Pogroms against Jews in Europe as a response to a catastrophe has happened more than once in European history... The Holocaust was yet another. This pattern predates Darwin by centuries.

That is very true...

But the recent one in "civilized" Germany was based on "science" or so the Nazis claimed...

719 Sharmuta  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:24:26pm

re: #711 Psaturn

No- we are indoctrinating children in progressive ideologies.

720 Ojoe  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:24:41pm

re: #706 really grumpy big dog Johnson

Maybe it is the big spin, and the expansion is due to centrifugal force.

It would be equivalent

721 ethanxxx  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:25:05pm

re: #705 dhimmimoore

Well then... we are in agreement. It is a Wonderful World.

722 Dan G.  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:25:12pm

re: #693 Psaturn

Still inconsequential. I, as an atheist, can arrive at the same truths at they did via objective experimentation. Are you insinuating that since they were smart enough to discover new aspects of natural philosophy that they're automatically right about their religious beliefs (a fact that I haven't verified yet, BTW, but assuming you are correct)? That might work on weak minded children...

723 Cognito  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:25:20pm

re: #713 karmic_inquisitor

If Hitler believed in the tooth fairy can we blame the tooth fairy for the Holocaust?

"You big silly, there's no such thing.

So stop blaming Tooth Fairy for it."

- Achmadinejad

724 Dianna  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:25:27pm

re: #669 Sharmuta

You're right about the larger point; but I must object to the specific examples, as I read them as worrisome and ambiguous.

725 newsjunkie_ky  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:25:51pm

re: #656 Sharmuta
link?

726 ggt  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:26:21pm

re: #711 Psaturn

WE are allowing science to me misused.

727 really grumpy big dog Johnson  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:26:24pm

re: #695 Cognito

Oh. I'll find a way.

So you are saying that if I go back in this thread, your nature as an argumentative opposer of whatever has been said won't be revealed in what you've said before?

You do know that you are living on borrowed time?

After that revelation, I might have to get drunk. I'll take one for the Timmer.

728 Purple Prose  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:26:25pm

re: #553 tokyobk

The bonobos are notoriously bisexual and that Liberace get-up proves it.

Bonobo males don't engage in anal intercourse. They sometimes stimulate each other's genitals after conflict. It's a homosexual equivalent of human "make up sex." Bonobo females also take part of stimulating each other's genitals but as a form of bonding. Bonds between female bonobos are strong. They help to raise each other's children. Also, female bonobos will stick up for each other in the face of an aggressive male, who generally backs down. So they have a mechanism for preventing violence against women.

A lot of this is overstated in the media, though. They don't spend all their time in sexual trysts. It's just the part that fascinates people. That reflects more on us than them.

With regard to homosexuality in animals. It happens in other species as well, although it is under extreme circumstances. For example, a group of non-reproducing beta sea lions were once observed to gang sodomize an injured and weakened alpha male. The alpha male ended up dying after the rape.

729 Charles  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:26:54pm

re: #710 zmdavid

There is a smear campaign against Intelligent Design proponents. You may think it is justified because they are dangerous wackos, but it does exist. Alternately you might think they are dangerous wackos because of the smear campaign.

No, there is no smear campaign. This nonsense is all part of the Wedge strategy.

730 Dan G.  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:26:58pm

re: #715 Charles

[...] I've probably read more about the history of the Third Reich than you have forgotten.

Muahaha

731 Cognito  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:27:41pm

re: #727 really grumpy big dog Johnson


You do know that you are living on borrowed time?

Aren't we all, Grumpy.

Aren't we all.

732 Psaturn  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:27:55pm

re: #632 Charles

There is no persecution of intelligent design advocates.

There is none? I am quite surprised. It seems to be they are "persecuted" enough here...being called frauds and all that...

Just think, you called Behe, Schroeder etal "frauds" and you said "real scientists laugh at them..."

I think that contradicts what you just said, Charles.

733 incommunicado  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:28:31pm

A little girl asked her mother, "How did the human race appear?"

The mother answered, "God made Adam and Eve and they had children and so was all mankind made."

Two days later the girl asked her father the same question.

The father answered, "Many years ago there were monkeys from which the human race evolved."

The confused girl returned to her mother and said, "Mom, how is it possible that you told me the human race was created by God, and Dad said they developed from monkeys?"
The mother answered, "Well, dear, it is very simple. I told you about my side of the family and your father told you about his."

734 ethanxxx  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:28:52pm

If truth is to be said here, no one really knows whether or not the big bang is the beginning or the end, or maybe not either.

Or both... The Alpha and the Omega. You're right... we don't know. Maybe that's one of the things that makes this all so... fascinating. I tend to keep my theories and opinions close to my chest too.

735 really grumpy big dog Johnson  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:29:16pm

re: #720 Ojoe

Maybe it is the big spin, and the expansion is due to centrifugal force.

It would be equivalent

As Albert would have known without hesitation, if you are in a spinning world, your relative worldview is static.

My particular theory (unfortunately) is MUCH messier than that.

736 medaura18586  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:29:16pm

re: #150 Gagdad Bob

If reductionistic Darwinists are correct that human beings are of no intrinsic worth and there can be no absolute truth -- let alone values -- then why are murder or rape wrong?

I have independently discovered and read your blog before realizing that you have an account here. I find some of your writings quite brilliant, but your universal animosity toward atheists/agnostics is overbearing.

In your comment I think you sum up the world-view of many religious folks, who may not even be fully self-conscious of this problem: ethics without God, ethics without an authoritative personal source of natural law...

Without God, humans don't have to succumb into a moral void. Natural law can be objective, lend itself to analysis through our reason, and respected, with or without the notion of an omnipotent omniscient Creator.

No matter our origins, we have a certain human nature, which flourishes only under certain societal conditions, those being (from a pan-Aristotelian perspective) the ones that foster and accentuate our most distinctive human traits: reason, consciousness, creativity.

I don't understand where religious people get the idea that morality is unintelligible without God, because Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, and the Empiricists have produced great meaningful and relevant philosophy around moral themes without invoking a Creator.

I think your belief is sadly more prominent than most realize. Neo-Leftists, for one, largely form a new disgruntled generation of kids bored and/or disillusioned with their parents' stale Judeo-Christianity, who yet implicitly took their parents' moral paradim for granted: "there is no ethics without God".

Which is why the new Left is so nihilistic/culturally/morally-relative.

737 Dianna  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:29:16pm

re: #678 ggt

Not illegal, provided everyone involved consents, but certainly problematic. For one thing, I have no idea how one would continue it past a couple generations before it all went to pot.

Humans are worse than cats for following their whims.

738 karmic_inquisitor  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:29:18pm

re: #700 Sharmuta

No- the problem with today's education is we don't educate, we indoctrinate.

I agree with you there. A great deal of leftist theory claims a "scientific" foundation (which is crap).

The most influential Marxist philosopher on this election cycle is Herbert Marcuse (who influenced all of the radicals that Obama now disassociates with). He comes from the "Frankfurt School" of Marxism which adopted the idea of Critical Theory to serve as a foundation for restructuring society around a scientifically justified order (which just happens to comport 100% with Marx's disproven dialectic).

This election is about smug Marcusians trying to take over the government and impose a new order. Since it is all based in their version of rationality, only irrational dullards like you and me are opposed to it.

739 Honorary Yooper  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:29:30pm

re: #712 Sharmuta

Shar, I saw something interesting in the Lounge. My nic is blue for e-mail.

740 Dan G.  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:29:38pm

re: #732 Psaturn

Ibraham Hooper would be proud... Criticism = persecution, Calling your bluff = persecution.

741 mikalm  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:29:43pm

re: #694 Gagdad Bob

Understood. Bob, I read One Cosmos daily, and get a lot out of it. But as both a "liberal materialist" who accepts Darwin's theory as the best way to explain biological origins and diversity, and an esoteric Christian who's pretty much on the same spiritual page as yourself, I'm a bit put off by the rancor on both sides of this issue. Talk about a Wedge Strategy...

742 Racer X  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:29:50pm

re: #697 ggt
Picture
Solo

743 Psaturn  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:29:55pm

re: #722 Dan G.

Still inconsequential. I, as an atheist, can arrive at the same truths at they did via objective experimentation. Are you insinuating that since they were smart enough to discover new aspects of natural philosophy that they're automatically right about their religious beliefs (a fact that I haven't verified yet, BTW, but assuming you are correct)? That might work on weak minded children...

Dan G...

I was NOT saying that...

It it today's evolutionist and atheist;s argument that a Creationist or an IDer could never discover anything useful in science or helpful to mankind....like in medicine, because of the belief system.

744 Thanos  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:30:13pm

behe debunked

745 brainwizard73  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:30:16pm

Can someone help me? I'm new.

For the LGF drinking game, how many drinks is each bi-sexual monkey post worth?

746 gman  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:30:34pm

re: #700 Sharmuta

No- the problem with today's education is we don't educate, we indoctrinate.

Ding Ding. That explains the abundance of superficial knowledge and scarcity of knowledge depth in our schools.

747 really grumpy big dog Johnson  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:30:49pm

re: #731 Cognito

Aren't we all, Grumpy.

Aren't we all.

We can drink to that, and resume very spirited discussion on another day.

748 Ojoe  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:30:51pm

re: #735 really grumpy big dog Johnson

i.e. If the whole universe were spinning, could you tell? you could not. So the expansion could just as well be from a spin as from a bang.

749 Karridine  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:31:19pm

re: #732 Psaturn

Ah, but 'debunking' and 'ridiculing' is not quite the same as 'persecution', PSat!

750 Charles  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:31:20pm

re: #732 Psaturn

There is none? I am quite surprised. It seems to be they are "persecuted" enough here...being called frauds and all that...

Just think, you called Behe, Schroeder etal "frauds" and you said "real scientists laugh at them..."

I think that contradicts what you just said, Charles.

Behe and Schroeder are frauds. Scientists laugh at them because their ID "theories" are completely ridiculous, and don't hold up to scientific examination. This isn't "persecution." It's intellectual rigor. Their "theories" are laughable.

751 Sharmuta  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:31:35pm

re: #725 newsjunkie_ky

Here

752 karmic_inquisitor  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:31:39pm

re: #723 Cognito

Would that be the "12th tooth fairy" or the "hidden tooth fairy?"

753 jaunte  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:31:44pm

re: #745 brainwizard73

42

754 Dar ul Harbarian  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:32:15pm

re: #710 zmdavid

There is a smear campaign against Intelligent Design proponents. You may think it is justified because they are dangerous wackos, but it does exist. Alternately you might think they are dangerous wackos because of the smear campaign.

I consider the proponants of Intelligent Design to be many things but dangerous isn't one of them.

755 Dianna  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:32:23pm

re: #685 Thanos

I've got 16 tabs open. I'm trying, but I keep falling further and further behind, and I can't do more that skim anything.

756 brainwizard73  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:32:38pm

re: #753 jaunte

Shit.

Does that count for hard stuff too? I do have to get up in the morning.

757 rlevitin  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:33:02pm

re: #752 karmic_inquisitor

Would that be the "12th tooth fairy" or the "hidden tooth fairy?"

hahaha, golden!

758 Thanos  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:33:12pm

re: #751 Sharmuta

ugh Sharm, you linked Lew Rockwell...

759 Karridine  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:33:17pm

Their theories are laughable, and we take them at their face value, and we enjoy a good laugh

/at their expense!

760 Dianna  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:33:30pm

re: #702 Psaturn

His blood descendants have nothing to do with it.

What's more, you know it, or ought to.

761 jaunte  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:33:37pm

re: #756 brainwizard73
I think if it's just a post-conflict stimulation mention, you take half a shot.

762 stickdude  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:33:59pm

re: #722 Dan G.

Still inconsequential. I, as an atheist, can arrive at the same truths at they did via objective experimentation. Are you insinuating that since they were smart enough to discover new aspects of natural philosophy that they're automatically right about their religious beliefs

I believe the point was that their religious beliefs (or even, heaven forbid, a belief in creation) didn't prevent them from making useful contributions to science.

763 Psaturn  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:34:01pm

re: #740 Dan G.

Ibraham Hooper would be proud... Criticism = persecution, Calling your bluff = persecution.

Do understand the difference between criticism and persecution?

Scientific criticism is different from calling someone a fraud and simply dismissing that person because he is guilty being associated with an organization like Discovery Institute.

Scientific criticism would be to argue a point on its own merits.

If you do not see the difference, then I am afraid for you.

764 Purple Prose  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:34:14pm

re: #667 dhimmimoore

And it still requires you to take on faith that there was nothing, and then poof, contrary to all laws of science and reasoning, there was something. Do your homework, the big bang theory is not an end. It is simply a big cause to which most don't bother to think about what led to it...because something had to. Even the idea that vacuum flux caused the big bang still requires a first cause, because scientists admit the flux wasn't really a vacuum....

So what caused the big bang?

To follow science exclusively, existence is impossible. You are here because of the grace of God, just look around at the beauty around you. It's not random.

You can't talk about what happened before the Big Bang or what kicked it off. Science can't go beyond what can be modeled and then proven or disproven. The presence of uniform cosmic background radiation, which would be expected from a Big Bang event, is a very strong piece of evidence in its favor. What happened before or to start the expansion of energy which coalesced into matter as it cooled is another question. Any scientist will tell you, there's no problem with the religious speculating about the hand of God there.

765 Charles  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:34:15pm

re: #744 Thanos

behe debunked

[Link: www.youtube.com...]

That's an excellent video; but unfortunately I've learned that the ID ideologues really aren't interested in evidence or logic. When I posted the Ken Williams video, most of the pro-ID people here were proud about the fact that they wouldn't even watch it.

The Jesuits call it "invincible ignorance."

766 experiencedtraveller  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:34:27pm

re: #696 Johnny 100 Pesos

I will try to dig out that article for you.

You should probably 'dig things out' before you source them.

767 LeePro  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:34:41pm

re: #442 Sharmuta

Oh- and FYI.... The term "survival of the fittest" wasn't coined by Darwin.

It was Herbert Spencer- who was adamantly opposed to hitler's scheming.

re: #649 newsjunkie_ky

How was he opposed to hitler's scheming when he was dead before hitler?

re: #656 Sharmuta

The notion of eugenics and state sponsored genocide.

Sharm, you did say he was "adamantly opposed to hitler's scheming"

? ? ?

768 Ojoe  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:34:44pm

I am for a sweet and happy religion, free of contention.

Good Night.

769 wolfie  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:34:56pm

re: #703 Ojoe

Anyway, Nazis were evil

evil goes way back, way before science.


But science precedes human evil.
Adam delighted in the exploration of the Garden.
He named all the objects and all the beasts.
It was good.
Before he fell.

Before he made the wrong moral choice.
And then knew/experienced evil.

Like you said, the Nazi's were evil.
Moral decision.

770 Dar ul Harbarian  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:35:01pm

re: #671 brainwizard73

Three things:

First, relax a bit...I am trying to be a bit lighter given the gravity of this situation...if you didn't pick that up or are just ignoring it, you might want to check your meds.

Second, your assertions as to what God would say/did say/might say seem to need to be taken with a grain of salt. Maybe the whole shaker. Your assertion that God is some amoral "clockmaker" might be your take, but it is not the experience or proofs of a lot of other people. If that gets you through the night, good on you; but don't expect anyone else to agree with you.

Third, I'll just clarify a point; if you are going to ask questions about truths and science, don't get bent out of shape when someone answers. If you already have all the answers, go ahead and share...we're game. Problem is I don't see a lot of answers. I see a lot of deconstructionist dogma dressed up as philosophy.

I give up. I just can't type fast enough to respond.
You win.

Uncle.

771 joecitizen  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:35:02pm

re: #727 really grumpy big dog Johnson

So you are saying that if I go back in this thread, your nature as an argumentative opposer of whatever has been said won't be revealed in what you've said before?

You do know that you are living on borrowed time?

After that revelation, I might have to get drunk. I'll take one for the Timmer.

who in the hell are you to say that ANY Lizard is on borrowed time? really,grumpy,your arrogance is truly getting the better of you...

772 Dan G.  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:35:08pm

re: #763 Psaturn

Persecution includes force... none has been brought to bear.

773 Charles  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:35:24pm

Sorry ... Ken Miller, not Ken Williams. Typing getting ahead of brain.

774 Sharmuta  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:36:02pm

re: #758 Thanos

Sorry. I'll find another, but there's so much revisionism on Spencer it's not easy.

775 realwest  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:36:55pm

re: #640 rlevitin Didja try Dog.pile or AskMe.com or even wikipedia first?
I have no idea who said that to you or where you read it or in what context so you're probably gonna have to look it up yourself.
BTW - in your profile you say you're Canadian but your avatar is the Israeli flag - why is that?

776 Etaoin Shrdlu  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:37:07pm

In the following, the writer argues for state-enforced eugenics:

S. And how can marriages be made most beneficial? that is a question which I put to you, because I see in your house dogs for hunting, and of the nobler sort of birds not a few. Now, I beseech you, do tell me, have you ever attended to their pairing and breeding?
G. In what particulars?
S. Why, in the first place, although they are all of a good sort, are not some better than others?
G. True.
S. And do you breed from them all indifferently, or do you take care to breed from the best only?
G. From the best.
S. And do you take the oldest or the youngest, or only those of ripe age?
G. I choose only those of ripe age.
S. And if care was not taken in the breeding, your dogs and birds would greatly deteriorate?
G. Certainly.
S. And the same of horses and of animals in general?
G. Undoubtedly.
S. Good heavens! my dear friend, I said, what consummate skill will our rulers need if the same principle holds of the human species!
G. Certainly, the same principle holds; but why does this involve any particular skill?
S. Because, I said, our rulers will often have to practise upon the body corporate with medicines. Now you know that when patients do not require medicines, but have only to be put under a regimen, the inferior sort of practitioner is deemed to be good enough; but when medicine has to be given, then the doctor should be more of a man.
G. That is quite true, he said; but to what are you alluding?
S. I mean, I replied, that our rulers will find a considerable dose of falsehood and deceit necessary for the good of their subjects: we were saying that the use of all these things regarded as medicines might be of advantage.
G. And we were very right.
S. And this lawful use of them seems likely to be often needed in the regulations of marriages and births.
G. How so?
S. Why, I said, the principle has been already laid down that the best of either sex should be united with the best as often, and the inferior with the inferior as seldom, as possible; and that they should rear the offspring of the one sort of union, but not of the other, if the flock is to be maintained in first-rate condition. Now these goings on must be a secret which the rulers only know, or there will be a further danger of our herd, as the guardians may be termed, breaking out into rebellion.

Anyone want to pin that on Darwin?

777 Thanos  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:37:15pm

re: #774 Sharmuta

Sorry. I'll find another, but there's so much revisionism on Spencer it's not easy.


Got you covered friend

Herbert Spencer

778 Dianna  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:37:39pm

re: #715 Charles

It's healthy to learn. Always. Though not always easy on the mind and heart.

779 Dainn  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:37:53pm

re: #734 ethanxxx

If truth is to be said here, no one really knows whether or not the big bang is the beginning or the end, or maybe not

Isn't the Big Bang theory something to do with turtles? Terry Pratchet says so.

780 Purple Prose  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:38:10pm

re: #628 zmdavid

Wasn't the term "Big Bang" coined by the theory's opponents who thought it sounded a little too much like creation?

Yes, and the term Yankee was coined by the British to make fun of us. I hope we adopt the term kaffir as a point of pride too. I am a kaffir apeman!

781 karmic_inquisitor  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:38:10pm

re: #773 Charles

Sorry ... Ken Miller, not Ken Williams. Typing getting ahead of brain.

Freudian slip google search yields ... a baseball executive?

Hmmmm.

782 Cognito  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:38:37pm

Awright. Ten LGF Bux to the first wise guy or gal who can tell me what happened before the singularity.

Oh, heck. Make it twenty.

783 carbon footprint  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:38:50pm

re: #433 Charles

Do you ever worry about your security? These idiots are unstable.

784 snowtravel  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:38:53pm

re: #780 Purple Prose

Yes, and the term Yankee was coined by the British to make fun of us. I hope we adopt the term kaffir as a point of pride too. I am a kaffir apeman!

I have a kaffir lime tree!

785 brainwizard73  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:39:02pm

re: #770 Dar ul Harbarian

It's not about winning or losing; its what we get for the time we spend here. Have a virtual drink on me.

Because of this thread, I now have to read books 5-9 of Plato's Republic this week...damn it.

786 talon_262  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:39:07pm

re: #433 Charles

Wow, that person's a real winner!

/

787 Killgore Trout  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:39:14pm

Whatever
/Namaste, y'all

788 Dan G.  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:39:42pm

re: #784 snowtravel

I think Yankee was of Dutch origin...

789 Psaturn  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:40:05pm

re: #750 Charles

Behe and Schroeder are frauds. Scientists laugh at them because their ID "theories" are completely ridiculous, and don't hold up to scientific examination. This isn't "persecution." It's intellectual rigor. Their "theories" are laughable.

There was this discussion on the human and mammalian clotting factor that Behe introduced as a support for irreducible complexity theory and there was this evolutionist answer in the clotting factor of lamprey fish which was more primitive and more basic than the human clotting factor.

I was studying that and I since haemotology and clotting is not my expertise, it is taking me longer to formulate the deficiency in the usage of lamprey 's blood clotting mechanism.

I am thinking it was more like a circular reasoning but like I said, I am still studying on that subject and I can delineate my argument maybe better in the future.

May I ask you, Charles, what do you know about Dr Gerald Schroeder?

790 Dan G.  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:40:18pm

Oops, wrong post referenced...

791 experiencedtraveller  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:40:29pm

re: #684 Dianna

Thanks Dianna. I have read your response three times and still cannot fully understand what it means in relation to my point but this is assuredly my homework. I clicked the little red heart next to it for future study. Thanks and best wishes to all.

792 rlevitin  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:40:35pm

re: #775 realwest

Didja try Dog.pile or AskMe.com or even wikipedia first?
I have no idea who said that to you or where you read it or in what context so you're probably gonna have to look it up yourself.
BTW - in your profile you say you're Canadian but your avatar is the Israeli flag - why is that?

Yeah, I gathered from Charles' reaction that that kinda question wasn't welcome here, i'll have to figure out what it was all about on my own.

The flag is there quite simply because I am Jewish and I support Israel. That and I don't have anything better to put up there.

793 Sharmuta  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:40:54pm

re: #777 Thanos

Got you covered friend

Herbert Spencer

Thanks, {Thanos}!

794 Dar ul Harbarian  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:41:00pm

re: #785 brainwizard73

It's not about winning or losing; its what we get for the time we spend here. Have a virtual drink on me.

Because of this thread, I now have to read books 5-9 of Plato's Republic this week...damn it.

Thanks for the drink!

795 Purple Prose  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:41:15pm

re: #779 Dainn

Isn't the Big Bang theory something to do with turtles? Terry Pratchet says so.

Maybe that's from Yertle the Turtle by Dr. Seuss. It was a Big Burp that toppled the turtle tower.

796 AmeriDan  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:41:32pm

Just checking out my new avatar.

Nothing to see here... move along.

Oh, and good evening to everyone.

797 ggt  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:41:33pm

re: #742 Racer X

Thanks! You are a wonderful Lizard.

The pictures was awesome. I was hoping for a more relaxing guitar solo, tho :)

798 Killgore Trout  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:42:33pm

re: #550 Charles

Dude.

799 Dar ul Harbarian  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:43:01pm

Nite all.

800 Charles  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:43:03pm

re: #789 Psaturn

There was this discussion on the human and mammalian clotting factor that Behe introduced as a support for irreducible complexity theory and there was this evolutionist answer in the clotting factor of lamprey fish which was more primitive and more basic than the human clotting factor.

I was studying that and I since haemotology and clotting is not my expertise, it is taking me longer to formulate the deficiency in the usage of lamprey 's blood clotting mechanism.

I am thinking it was more like a circular reasoning but like I said, I am still studying on that subject and I can delineate my argument maybe better in the future.

May I ask you, Charles, what do you know about Dr Gerald Schroeder?

You're not going to get anywhere by citing Michael Behe to me. I'm very familiar with his "work," and have absolutely zero respect for it.

Schroeder is a "young earth" creationist, who has concocted a weird theory about "flexible time" in order to explain away the fact that he's crazy.

801 mean Gene  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:43:10pm

Don't you wonder though, how Hitler might have taken this bit of knowledge?
Would he have been able to accept it and let go of his racist theory?
Or would he have tried to deny it, possibly even burying both the research AND the researcher in an attempt to continue using his bogus theory as a means for justifying his continued conquests and ethnic cleansing campaigns?
Since we have Darfur to go by, Copts in Egypt to go by, Buddhists in South Thailand to go by, and more, I'd say Hitler would probably have continued his conquests even if it meant shutting up the mouths of persons who disagreed with his whys and wherefores.

802 Cartman  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:43:47pm

re: #736 medaura18586

I think your belief is sadly more prominent than most realize. Neo-Leftists, for one, largely form a new disgruntled generation of kids bored and/or disillusioned with their parents' stale Judeo-Christianity, who yet implicitly took their parents' moral paradim for granted: "there is no ethics without God".

I think you're mistaken, here. The "new left" are a bunch of lazy, spoiled brats with way too much time on their hands.

803 talon_262  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:43:50pm

re: #648 Charles

I'm detecting the scent of a troll there...

804 Dianna  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:43:56pm

re: #765 Charles

You were at a Dominican school, weren't you?

805 Psaturn  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:44:03pm

re: #760 Dianna

His blood descendants have nothing to do with it.

What's more, you know it, or ought to.

His descendants do not have anything to do with Eugenics?

His son was the second President or Chair of the Eugenics Society, after Darwin's cousin was the first one!

806 Thanos  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:44:06pm

re: #789 Psaturn


Psat see the video linked above.

807 Honorary Yooper  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:44:16pm

OK, I have a question for the ID crowd.

Why do you feel evolutionary theory affects your faith? Why do you feel the need to invalidate it by any means necessary?

Why do you even care?

808 brainwizard73  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:44:28pm

Alright my BAC is falling. Quick, I need a bisexual monkey comment to keep it going.

Either that or I have to start ripping Michelle Obama...that's way off topic.

809 Charles  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:44:45pm

re: #798 Killgore Trout

Dude.

I know. Isn't that lovely? The only way I can find to excuse it is that McCain has to get support from all kinds of people. But it's pretty damned disturbing.

810 Dianna  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:45:08pm

re: #769 wolfie

But, predictably, because he was a man, he bleated, "The woman tempted me!"

811 Dianna  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:45:33pm

re: #805 Psaturn

Nothing to do with Darwin, or his writings.

And you know it.

812 Killgore Trout  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:46:45pm

re: #809 Charles

Maybe i'm luck to be in a state that doesn't matter this next election. Even my absentee ballot may stay home this year.

813 Psaturn  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:46:51pm

re: #800 Charles

You're not going to get anywhere by citing Michael Behe to me. I'm very familiar with his "work," and have absolutely zero respect for it.

Schroeder is a "young earth" creationist, who has concocted a weird theory about "flexible time" in order to explain away the fact that he's crazy.

I thought it was quite an elegant explanation of using Einstein's Theory of Relativity and understanding Time from a different view outside of normal human perception.

I would NOT call him a "young earth" creationist either...for Dr Schroeder accepts the Earth as being billions of years in age.

As to the 6000 years...Dr Schroeder is limiting that to the creation of Adam and his lineage.

814 Charles  Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:47:16pm

re: #804 Dianna

You were at a Dominican school, weren't you?

Catholic... elementary and high school. With teachers who were enthusiastic about science. I know that at least one of my science teachers (a brother) would have been absolutely appalled at this ID hoax.