LGF

more options

  

Advertisement

Show top rated links | LinkViewer

Let's Get Rid of Darwinism

Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:59:07 pm PDT

I agree with Olivia Judson; it’s long past time to get rid of Darwinism.

I’d like to abolish the insidious terms Darwinism, Darwinist and Darwinian. They suggest a false narrowness to the field of modern evolutionary biology, as though it was the brainchild of a single person 150 years ago, rather than a vast, complex and evolving subject to which many other great figures have contributed. (The science would be in a sorry state if one man 150 years ago had, in fact, discovered everything there was to say.) Obsessively focusing on Darwin, perpetually asking whether he was right about this or that, implies that the discovery of something he didn’t think of or know about somehow undermines or threatens the whole enterprise of evolutionary biology today.

It does not. In the years ahead, I predict we will continue to refine our understanding of natural selection, and continue to discover new ways in which it can shape genes and genomes. Indeed, as genetic data continues to flood into the databanks, we will be able to ask questions about the detailed workings of evolution that it has not been possible to ask before.

Yet all too often, evolution — insofar as it is taught in biology classes at all — is taught as the story of Charles Darwin. Then the pages are turned, and everyone settles down to learn how the heart works, or how plants make energy from sunshine, or some other detail. The evolutionary concepts that unify biology, that allow us to frame questions and investigate the glorious diversity of life — these are ignored.

Darwin was an amazing man, and the principal founder of evolutionary biology. But his was the first major statement on the subject, not the last. Calling evolutionary biology “Darwinism,” and evolution by natural selection “Darwinian” evolution, is like calling aeronautical engineering “Wrightism,” and fixed-wing aircraft “Wrightian” planes, after those pioneers of fixed-wing flight, the Wright brothers. The best tribute we could give Darwin is to call him the founder — and leave it at that. Plenty of people in history have had an -ism named after them. Only a handful can claim truly to have given birth to an entire field of modern science.

58
Hit the tip jar!
refresh | ► spinoff links (47)
Tags: , , , , , ,
Advertisement

1118 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 JamesTKirk  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:00:13pm

It's time to evolve beyond that term.

2 noshariaincanada  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:00:21pm

Let's

3 WrathofG-d  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:00:57pm

Caio Darwin

4 sinsremoved  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:02:29pm

How about . . . .

Evolutionism

5 WrathofG-d  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:02:30pm

ot:

so sorry to go o.t. so soon, really.....but "Food Apartheid"

6 faraway  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:02:49pm

We can all agree here.

7 The_Vig  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:04:10pm

How about scientist.

8 WhiteRasta  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:04:19pm

Excellent point! Hear, hear!

9 Canadastani  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:04:25pm

Then can we get rid of militant Islamism?

10 bosforus  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:04:50pm

We should probably ask the creationists for a new term.

11 Fat Tone  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:05:19pm

well said....

12 Diamond Bullet  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:06:35pm

I'm on board as long as we never recharacterize the "Scopes Monkey Trial." 'cause that's awesome.

13 Dianna  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:06:48pm

Should I take aspirin?

14 Bubblehead II  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:07:03pm

Well time to leave for the day. See some of you on the Early Morning Open.

/And I even avoided getting whacked by Mandy :)

15 WrathofG-d  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:07:06pm

What is it with Evolutionists and removing the "creator" from every equation? ;)

16 faraway  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:07:10pm

Monkey Business

17 The_Vig  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:07:26pm

The big question to ask is what if Darwin had never published? Would we be at the same point in our knowledge of evolution?

I bet that there would be little difference in the long run.

18 rhino2  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:07:56pm

re: #15 WrathofG-d

What is it with Evolutionists and removing the "creator" from every equation? ;)

Haha - funny - Ding ;)

19 opnion  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:07:59pm

That is a good idea. nitgpicking Darwin is a way to debunk evolution.
If he made some errors , Evolution remains scientific fact.

20 Egfrow  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:08:22pm

Darwin is one of the the beneficiaries of new western thought and was brought up and raised around doctors and taxidermy from a freed slave. He didn't have his mind clouded from strict European religious doctrine which clouds judgment adds bias to world views. This type of up bringing was the result of a shift towards free thinking.

21 scottishbuzzsaw  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:08:38pm

"But his was the first major statement on the subject, not the last."

Exactly. What has been built on his work would astound him, I think. Founder, and not the final word, as some would like to believe.

22 opnion  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:08:45pm

re: #9 Canadastani

Then can we get rid of militant Islamism?

It is kinda redundant.

23 eschew_obfuscation  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:08:56pm

Well....since I'm sure there have been augmentations to the theories of relativity.....it's probably time to get Einstein's name off of those as well.
We should make a list....

24 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:09:23pm

re: #17 The_Vig

The big question to ask is what if Darwin had never published?

Well, if you believe Ben Stein, the Holocaust would never have happened.

25 WrathofG-d  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:09:29pm

re: #19 opnion

oh...so its a wedge! ;)

26 MandyManners  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:09:52pm

re: #20 Egfrow

Darwin is one of the the beneficiaries of new western thought and was brought up and raised around doctors and taxidermy from a freed slave. He didn't have his mind clouded from strict European religious doctrine which clouds judgment adds bias to world views. This type of up bringing was the result of a shift towards free thinking.

And the IDer's and their Muslim cohorts want to eradicate this materialism.

27 faraway  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:11:17pm

Or... Monkey Science

28 WrathofG-d  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:12:11pm

Monkey Business

29 Egfrow  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:12:30pm

re: #20 Egfrow

Darwin is one of the the beneficiaries of new western thought and was brought up and raised around doctors and taxidermy from a freed slave. He didn't have his mind clouded from strict European religious doctrine which clouds judgment adds bias to world views. This type of up bringing was the result of a shift towards free thinking.

I wanted to add that he was a indeed a religious man and did originally study a form of Creationism from William Paley. His father wanted him to become clergy.

30 Dianna  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:12:49pm

re: #17 The_Vig

Alfred Wallace Russel ring any bells for you?

31 opnion  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:13:17pm

re: #25 WrathofG-d

oh...so its a wedge! ;)

Yeah it can be. Darwin was a guy, a bright guy , but in the end just a guy, prone to error. To nitpick this or that Darwin assertion does not in any way defeat Evolution.
Had Darwin had SCUBA gear there would have been even better observation, but it does not diminish his scientific inquiry

32 debutaunt  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:13:37pm

re: #24 Charles

Darwin had an evil brother.

33 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:13:53pm

re: #17 The_Vig

The big question to ask is what if Darwin had never published? Would we be at the same point in our knowledge of evolution?


No difference. He was in a race with someone else (who's name I forget) to see who could publish their work first. It was an idea who's time had come and it was an unavoidable discovery.

34 Dianna  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:14:52pm

re: #33 Killgore Trout

Wallace. The co-author of the initial paper.

35 zombie  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:15:01pm

While we're at it, let's get rid of those "Einsteinian bombs" and those "Leeuwenhoekist microbes."

36 Dianna  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:15:38pm

re: #33 Killgore Trout

Oh, and don't forget G.B. Shaw's remark: Evolution was dead as a topic of dinner conversation by the 1830's.

37 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:15:49pm

re: #33 Killgore Trout

No difference. He was in a race with someone else (who's name I forget) to see who could publish their work first. It was an idea who's time had come and it was an unavoidable discovery.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

38 gunslingah  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:17:28pm

Excellent point. We don't refer to modern physics as "Einsteinism" or "Planckism". We don't refer to modern astronomy as "Hawkingism" or "Hubbleism".

"Darwinism"?

It's "modern biology". Period.

39 WrathofG-d  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:17:35pm

re: #31 opnion

I really don't want to get into this conversation too deeply, but I think removing something that can be questioned for the sake that questioning it would threaten the entire study, is a bit of underhanded theoretical protectionism.

In essence what you are doing is removing all majorly questionable aspects of a theory to ensure that you can better prove its truth. Eventually you get to a point where everything that exists to question the "truth" of evolution is off limits.

If certain aspect of the base of evolution is questionable or able to be attacked, it should still be arguable.

40 Slumbering Behemoth  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:18:07pm

Arggh! Foiled again! Those evil Secular Humanist Nihilistic Materialist Darwinian Naturalists!

/and your little dog, too

41 Yosemite bill  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:18:35pm

Wow ! CRY ME A RIVER ! If "Darwinism" is too strong/ wrong then I guess there are lots of other pejorative terms on the table ?
I guess "fundamentalist" has to go in regards to Christian conservatives ?
Then are we allowed to refer to members of the Religious Left as Semi- Secular Progressives or is that too strong ?
Ya may not like the term(s) and you may have a case in terms of the historical semantics and evolution of the terminology but pray tell what are we allowed to call folks who promote this Darwin's theory ?

42 zombie  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:19:20pm

re: #33 Killgore Trout

No difference. He was in a race with someone else (who's name I forget) to see who could publish their work first. It was an idea who's time had come and it was an unavoidable discovery.

re: #34 Dianna

Wallace. The co-author of the initial paper.

Darwin had been working on his evolution thesis since 1838. Wallace had the same idea while working in the jungle in 1856, and eventually wrote a letter to Darwin in 1858 that almost gave Darwin a heart attack because it said the exact same concept (evolution through natural selection), though with different verbiage. With other leading scientists coordinating, both Wallace's letter and a rough draft of Darwin's original essay were presented to the Linnaean society (in 1858), and the world was changed forever. The Origin of Species, which came out a year later, was merely the final nail in the coffin of creationism.

43 theparson  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:19:26pm

How 'bout Steve? You could call it Steve.

44 Egfrow  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:19:27pm
Plenty of people in history have had an -ism named after them. Only a handful can claim truly to have given birth to an entire field of modern science.

I was thinking of Obama and though of Marxism. I wish more people would call modern western thinking Aristotelism which is anti Marxism.

45 Cicero05  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:19:42pm

I come from a family of confirmed Ptolemists. We all believe that the Earth circles the Sun.

46 Thanos  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:20:15pm

Excellent point, and using the term plays to the science haters who twist language to demonize science.

47 Egfrow  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:20:27pm

re: #45 Cicero05

I'm glad your family survived being burned at the stake.

48 zombie  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:20:33pm

re: #41 Yosemite bill


Ya may not like the term(s) and you may have a case in terms of the historical semantics and evolution of the terminology but pray tell what are we allowed to call folks who promote this Darwin's theory ?

Scientists.

49 Spiny Norman  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:20:38pm

re: #30 Dianna

Alfred Wallace Russel ring any bells for you?

Alfred Russel Wallace, you mean?

50 zombie  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:21:10pm

I dinged up comment #41 by accident! A mouse slip! I meant to ding down. Sorry, universe.

51 WrathofG-d  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:21:39pm

re: #48 zombie

So the discussion is already over?

52 Thanos  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:21:45pm

re: #41 Yosemite bill

Wow ! CRY ME A RIVER ! If "Darwinism" is too strong/ wrong then I guess there are lots of other pejorative terms on the table ?
I guess "fundamentalist" has to go in regards to Christian conservatives ?
Then are we allowed to refer to members of the Religious Left as Semi- Secular Progressives or is that too strong ?
Ya may not like the term(s) and you may have a case in terms of the historical semantics and evolution of the terminology but pray tell what are we allowed to call folks who promote this Darwin's theory ?

Scientists, Biologists, Evolutionary Biologists are all perfectly acceptable terms, and they all have the requisite "ists" on the end.

53 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:21:49pm

re: #46 Thanos

Excellent point, and using the term plays to the science haters who twist language to demonize science.

Absolutely -- all you have to do is look at these threads at LGF to see creationists spitting the term out like an epithet.

54 Egfrow  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:22:04pm

re: #41 Yosemite bill

Wow ! CRY ME A RIVER ! If "Darwinism" is too strong/ wrong then I guess there are lots of other pejorative terms on the table ?
I guess "fundamentalist" has to go in regards to Christian conservatives ?
Then are we allowed to refer to members of the Religious Left as Semi- Secular Progressives or is that too strong ?
Ya may not like the term(s) and you may have a case in terms of the historical semantics and evolution of the terminology but pray tell what are we allowed to call folks who promote this Darwin's theory ?

That doen't make any damned sense!

55 debutaunt  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:22:17pm

re: #48 zombie

Scientists.

And we need a nickname for Yosemite.

56 Slumbering Behemoth  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:22:33pm

re: #50 zombie

Fixed that for ya.

57 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:22:42pm
58 bosforus  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:22:49pm
Iran is a threat to ...the hopes and dreams of Palestinians...


Condi

59 zombie  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:23:17pm

re: #45 Cicero05

I come from a family of confirmed Ptolemists. We all believe that the Earth circles the Sun.

Avast, ye infidel! How can the earth circle the sun if, as we all Know, it is flat? Nay, the sun ascends to the Zenith each day, and at night returns to Hades.

60 captainzot  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:23:23pm

Why isn't this just political correctness?

Evolutionary theory isn't Darwinism. Even the specific ideas of Charles Darwin aren't Darwinism. Darwinism is a perfectly valid term to describe an "ism." It's a referral to the materialistic worldview and creation myth that has been established quite supplementally to the actual science that is done in the biological sphere. This just sounds like a ploy to try and accomplish a cherished goal of certain peripheral organizations. To quote Eugenie Scott. "Avoid debates."

Besides even if you get rid of the moniker, it will not eliminate any of the controversy.

61 debutaunt  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:23:46pm

re: #57 buzzsawmonkey

"Sam?"

#41.

62 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:24:00pm

Here they come!

63 faraway  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:24:04pm

Planet of the Apes

64 WrathofG-d  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:24:23pm

re: #62 Charles

and who would "they" be in this case, Sir?

65 mich-again  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:24:58pm

it is a good point that the word Darwinism is used almost as a derogatory term by some. But I don't know if just using a different word will end their irrational efforts.

66 bosforus  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:25:25pm

re: #64 WrathofG-d

I would guess emails from creationists and IDers.

67 Glen Wishard  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:25:29pm

I strongly disagree. "Darwinism" is a historically meaningful term. It is not synonymous with "evolution" and does not encompass all historical theories of evolution, and this seems to be an attempt to pretend that it does. Even if all non-Darwinian accounts of evolution are outmoded or outright false, we may not pretend they never existed and lump everything into an artificial consensus.

Judson is unhappy about the amount of historical attention that Charles Darwin gets. Well, tough Cheesy Puffs, sister. Other biologists like to pay attention to Darwin. Stephen Jay Gould wrote reams about him. He understood that science cuts itself off from the history of science at its peril.

68 Slumbering Behemoth  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:25:29pm

re: #62 Charles

Here they come!

I believe that calls for some Primus.

69 OldLineTexan  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:25:32pm

re: #63 faraway

Planet of the Apes and Pigs

I fell that the Iranianism is not adequately represented in this here evolving shit-slinging contest.

70 Occasional Reader  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:25:41pm

I saw we call it Triumph of the Trilobites.

71 Spiny Norman  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:26:19pm

re: #41 Yosemite bill

Wow ! CRY ME A RIVER ! If "Darwinism" is too strong/ wrong then I guess there are lots of other pejorative terms on the table ?
I guess "fundamentalist" has to go in regards to Christian conservatives ?
Then are we allowed to refer to members of the Religious Left as Semi- Secular Progressives or is that too strong ?
Ya may not like the term(s) and you may have a case in terms of the historical semantics and evolution of the terminology but pray tell what are we allowed to call folks who promote this Darwin's theory ?

Except that is what they call themselves. Originally, it had no derogatory connotations to the non-fundementalists. That is recent political development.

72 MandyManners  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:26:23pm

re: #60 captainzot

Like renaming creationism "Intelligent Design"?

73 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:27:19pm

Panda's Thumb linked to some creationist rebuttals to the transition flat fish discovery....
National Geographic's Flatfish Story Falls Flat

It is unfathomable that a large, reputable media group like National Geographic would claim that this evidence contradicts origin by design. Clearly, this fish is no help for evolution because it is not transitional. Its features could easily have been intentionally designed—provided that we allow a Creator into the realm of possible causes.

How can you argue with "logic" like that?

74 experiencedtraveller  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:27:22pm

Can "Malthusian" be next?

75 Occasional Reader  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:27:30pm

re: #64 WrathofG-d

and who would "they" be in this case, Sir?

Them!

76 faraway  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:27:33pm

Godless Myths

/ducking

77 WrathofG-d  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:27:33pm

re: #66 bosforus

I would guess emails from creationists and IDers.

ah if that is true, that sucks. I'm not sure why they waste their time and annoy Charles with these stupid e-mails.

I'm not 100% that is what he meant though. Eh...

78 mich-again  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:27:36pm

Galapagology?

79 Thanos  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:27:42pm

re: #62 Charles

Here they come!

The refusalists spouting refusalism!

80 Conservative in Liberal Hands  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:27:44pm

Did I miss something? It's been a long time since I was in a Biology Class, and I ain't as young as I used to be, but when I learned about Darwin, it was the Theory of Natural Selection.

When did it get to be dogma? Certainly the theory of evolution seems to describe and model the world, but I keep an open mind on Theories.

Call me a skeptic.

/

81 The_Vig  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:28:01pm

re: #38 gunslingah

Actually, when studying physics they will refer to Newtonian Physics, this is mostly to limit the scale of the mathematics. In other words, since the theories of Einstein and Newton have the same results in regular world conditions you can look at it through those original equations to simplify the mathematics.

82 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:28:43pm

re: #10 bosforus

We should probably ask the creationists for a new term.

They won't want to give Darwinism up.

83 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:29:26pm

re: #13 Dianna

Should I take aspirin?

Eat a fermented pumpkin.

84 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:29:33pm

re: #68 Slumbering Behemoth

Those Damned Blue-Collar Tweekers

85 faraway  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:29:43pm

Missing Link Theory?

/under desk

86 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:29:49pm
87 Render  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:29:56pm

re: #62 Charles

Would it be possible to have the Spy reflect the comment number being rated?

INQUIRING
MINDS,
R

88 Spiny Norman  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:30:19pm

re: #73 Killgore Trout

Panda's Thumb linked to some creationist rebuttals to the transition flat fish discovery....
National Geographic's Flatfish Story Falls Flat

It is unfathomable that a large, reputable media group like National Geographic would claim that this evidence contradicts origin by design. Clearly, this fish is no help for evolution because it is not transitional. Its features could easily have been intentionally designed—provided that we allow a Creator into the realm of possible causes.

How can you argue with "logic" like that?

Creationists: there are no transitional species!

Scientists: Here's one.

Creationists: That's proof of origin by design!
...

Why do they sound like the Troofers?

89 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:30:40pm

re: #80 Conservative in Liberal Hands

Google the definition of a scientific theory.

90 mich-again  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:30:52pm

re: #80 Conservative in Liberal Hands

The term "scientific theory" has been defined in detail hundreds of times in these threads for those who aren't familiar with it.

91 Dianna  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:30:59pm

re: #42 zombie

Yes, I know.

92 shotgun  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:31:55pm

I just don't see this as a cut and dried either or scenario, and am frankly a little tired of this dichotomy being pushed around as a talking point.

93 Dianna  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:31:56pm

re: #49 Spiny Norman

Sorry.

Answering off the top of my head; he added one or the other name and I can't remember which one.

94 Spiny Norman  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:32:00pm

re: #90 mich-again

The term "scientific theory" has been defined in detail hundreds of times in these threads for those who aren't familiar with it.

And pointedly ignored hundreds of times, too, by all appearances.

95 WrathofG-d  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:32:01pm

What is in a name.....

96 zombie  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:32:03pm

re: #67 Glen Wishard

I strongly disagree. "Darwinism" is a historically meaningful term. It is not synonymous with "evolution" and does not encompass all historical theories of evolution, and this seems to be an attempt to pretend that it does. Even if all non-Darwinian accounts of evolution are outmoded or outright false, we may not pretend they never existed and lump everything into an artificial consensus.

Judson is unhappy about the amount of historical attention that Charles Darwin gets. Well, tough Cheesy Puffs, sister. Other biologists like to pay attention to Darwin. Stephen Jay Gould wrote reams about him. He understood that science cuts itself off from the history of science at its peril.

The problem is, "Darwinism" refers to the state of biological knowledge in 1859, which was much more limited than now. Darwin's theory of "descent with modification" was correct, but he wasn't proven correct with absolute certainty until Mendelian genetics were confirmed in the 1920s, and later even moreso with the discovery of DNA. The keystone missing from 1859-era "Darwinism" was the mechanism for "traits" to be passed from one generation to the next. Darwin (and every farmer) knew that it happened, but no one knew how. Even Mendel, who unearthed the mathematics of genetics all on his own right around the same time as Darwin, was himself completely unaware of how it happened.

Science is an ever-growing discipline. To call biology "Darwinism" is to intentionally freeze it forever in 1859, with all the attendant gaps and mysteries -- which were later solved.

97 faraway  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:32:32pm

Did hamsters evolve into lizards?

98 Spiny Norman  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:32:38pm

re: #93 Dianna

Sorry.

Answering off the top of my head; he added one or the other name and I can't remember which one.

No problemo.

Gave me an excuse to post the link.

99 WrathofG-d  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:32:51pm

Evolutionism!

ok on this note i'm off like a prom dress.

100 zombie  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:32:57pm

re: #73 Killgore Trout

Panda's Thumb linked to some creationist rebuttals to the transition flat fish discovery....
National Geographic's Flatfish Story Falls Flat


How can you argue with "logic" like that?

They're reverting to the ol' "God hid the fossils in the dirt to confuse us" argument.

101 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:33:25pm

Fish On

102 Spiny Norman  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:33:43pm

re: #96 zombie

Science is an ever-growing discipline. To call biology "Darwinism" is to intentionally freeze it forever in 1859, with all the attendant gaps and mysteries -- which were later solved.

Is that intentional, you think?

103 WrathofG-d  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:34:00pm

ot:

A knife attack occurs every 4 minutes in the U.K.

104 Occasional Reader  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:34:09pm

re: #73 Killgore Trout

Panda's Thumb linked to some creationist rebuttals to the transition flat fish discovery....
National Geographic's Flatfish Story Falls Flat

How can you argue with "logic" like that?

Talk about moving the goalpost. That's more like removing the goalpost, and then claiming we're really playing water polo.

105 opnion  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:34:20pm

re: #39 WrathofG-d

I really don't want to get into this conversation too deeply, but I think removing something that can be questioned for the sake that questioning it would threaten the entire study, is a bit of underhanded theoretical protectionism.

In essence what you are doing is removing all majorly questionable aspects of a theory to ensure that you can better prove its truth. Eventually you get to a point where everything that exists to question the "truth" of evolution is off limits.

If certain aspect of the base of evolution is questionable or able to be attacked, it should still be arguable.


Wrath, you make a really good point & i hear ya. Kind of like the Al Gore crowd saying that the science is settled & the dabate is over.
I am not saying that, I am just saying that sometimes on these threads the Darwin thing gets really micro & it seems to try to create a gotcha moment. If a Darwin assertion is proven wrong, it would still not defeat Evolution & people of faith should not feel threatened by the science.

106 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:34:21pm

re: #50 zombie

Went back and "threw up" for you.

107 Egfrow  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:34:26pm

re: #67 Glen Wishard

I strongly disagree. "Darwinism" is a historically meaningful term. It is not synonymous with "evolution" and does not encompass all historical theories of evolution, and this seems to be an attempt to pretend that it does. Even if all non-Darwinian accounts of evolution are outmoded or outright false, we may not pretend they never existed and lump everything into an artificial consensus.

Judson is unhappy about the amount of historical attention that Charles Darwin gets. Well, tough Cheesy Puffs, sister. Other biologists like to pay attention to Darwin. Stephen Jay Gould wrote reams about him. He understood that science cuts itself off from the history of science at its peril.

Ok. You make a more rational argument than a few of the other apologists. Darwinism is an 19th Century term and it has indeed evolved beyond the ISM. Here is a Wikipedia entry with which I pretty much wholly support.

Darwinism is a term used for various different movements or concepts related to a greater or lesser extent to Charles Darwin's work on evolution. The meaning of Darwinism has changed over time, and depends on who is using the term.

The term was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in April 1860, and was used to describe evolutionary concepts, including earlier concepts such as Malthusianism and Spencerism. In the late 19th century it came to mean the concept that natural selection was the sole mechanism of evolution, in contrast to Lamarckism, then around 1900 it was eclipsed by Mendelism until the modern evolutionary synthesis unified Darwin's and Gregor Mendel's ideas. As modern evolutionary theory has developed, the term has been associated at times with specific ideas.

While the term has remained in use amongst scientific authors,[4][5] it has fallen from favour amongst modern evolutionary biologists for various reasons.[6] For example, Darwin was unfamiliar with the work of Gregor Mendel,[7] having as a result only a vague and inaccurate understanding of heredity (see Pangenesis), and knew nothing of genetic drift.[8] In modern usage, particularly in the United States, Darwinism is often used by creationists as a pejorative term.[9]

108 debutaunt  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:34:28pm

re: #83 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Eat a fermented pumpkin.

That has a Monty Python ring to it.

109 shotgun  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:34:57pm

re: #97 faraway

Did hamsters evolve into lizards?

More pertinent to me,, did matter evolve out of a complete vacuum?

110 zombie  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:35:02pm

re: #80 Conservative in Liberal Hands

Did I miss something? It's been a long time since I was in a Biology Class, and I ain't as young as I used to be, but when I learned about Darwin, it was the Theory of Natural Selection.

When did it get to be dogma? Certainly the theory of evolution seems to describe and model the world, but I keep an open mind on Theories.

Call me a skeptic.

/

A million down-dings for wasting our time by repeating a fraudulent canard that has been debunked a trillion times before.

/unless that slash at the end meant you were joking.

111 OldLineTexan  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:35:12pm

re: #103 WrathofG-d

ot:

A knife attack occurs every 4 minutes in the U.K.

Crime evolves, too, it seems. Laws, however, are pulled directly out of some creator's arse.

112 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:35:47pm

re: #109 shotgun

Nope, the was a singularity.

113 zombie  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:35:48pm

re: #86 buzzsawmonkey

Darwin some, Dar-lose some.

That was weak.

You need some pep pills today. (As do I.)

114 Cato  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:36:01pm

Charles,

There are several issues here that you conflate to no one's good. Let's break them down.

Question 1: Is "intelligent design" science?

Answer 1: No. In order to be science it must present a proposition that can be disproven. No one can disprove the notion of a prime mover, so it is not science.

Question 2: Could "intelligent design" be true?

Answer 2: Yes. It could also be false. If it can't be disproven, no one can know.

Question 3: Is evolution science?

Answer 3: Which part of it? Genetic analysis is certainly science. One can make a proposition that a gene does x in y creature. Then the gene can be modified or removed and the proposition can be disproven. "Gene X affects a frogs legs" then we discover it affects its eyes. This is science at work.

On the other hand, "survival of the fittest" cannot be disproven, so it is not a scientific proposition.

Question 4: Why is "survival of the fittest" not disprovable?

Answer 4: Because it is a tautology, a pretty short one at that. Q:Who survives to reproduce? A:The fittest. Q: How do we know they are the fittest? A: They survived to reproduce.

Question 5: But aren't tautologies always true?

Answer 5: Yes, but they are not always meaningful. In fact, they are always fairly devoid of meaning because they are self referential.

Question 6: Is evolutiony theory science?

Answer 6: Certainly the genetic component is. But the whole theory ultimately deeply, deeply flawed. The existence of viral "life" undermines the entire foundation of Darwinism that all species have a common beginning.

115 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:36:02pm

re: #80 Conservative in Liberal Hands

Did I miss something? It's been a long time since I was in a Biology Class, and I ain't as young as I used to be, but when I learned about Darwin, it was the Theory of Natural Selection.

When did it get to be dogma? Certainly the theory of evolution seems to describe and model the world, but I keep an open mind on Theories.

Scientific Theory:

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections, inclusion in a yet wider theory, or succession. Commonly, many more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

116 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:36:09pm

re: #53 Charles

Excuse me ... "like an epithet"?
Hell, to them it IS one.

117 Dianna  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:36:22pm

re: #74 experiencedtraveller

Well, it's frequently misused....

118 Occasional Reader  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:36:49pm
To call biology "Darwinism" is to intentionally freeze it forever in 1859

I have to say, I've never understood the term to mean that. It's to refer to the line of inquiry begun by Darwin, and to distinguish it from, say, the Lamarckian theory. With that in mind, I'm quite happy to defend "Darwinism" from the IDers and Creationists.

119 Thanos  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:36:58pm

re: #105 opnion

The science is settled, first because Al Gore's no scientist. Second, the theory hasn't been around that long, third because there are many solid papers that are peer reviewed which come to different conclusions. Here's the most recent.

120 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:37:22pm

re: #63 faraway

Planet of the Apes

What does your driveway look like today?
May be more interesting than what's heading this way.

121 faraway  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:38:18pm

re: #120 pre-Boomer Marine brat

The lizards are resting/ hiding this afternoon.

122 Occasional Reader  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:38:26pm

re: #103 WrathofG-d

ot:

A knife attack occurs every 4 minutes in the U.K.

Of course, you already know that the response of the UK government will be to seek a knife ban. That goes without saying.

123 debutaunt  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:38:30pm

re: #104 Occasional Reader

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

124 Conservative in Liberal Hands  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:38:37pm

re: #89 Killgore Trout

I thought a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind.

re: #90 mich-again

And my apologies! Being a young, tender lizard, I haven;t had the time or energy to plumb the depths of LGF. %-)

125 Boondock St. Bender  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:38:38pm

re: #41 Yosemite bill

ah, but in the debate/arguement game names mean things.throughout history labels have been given or taken that had an effect on the general public.it did not hurt the bolshevics that they called themselves that which means majority.the "big bang" was a lable that was given by the enemies of that theory.and so "darwinism"is a lable used to marginalise evolution.

126 Shiplord Kirel  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:38:45pm

Perhaps we should start calling creationists Hovindites, or Hamistas, or Discotarians after their favorite authorities.

127 Dianna  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:38:45pm

re: #83 pre-Boomer Marine brat

That sounds really interesting!

128 Lazarus  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:38:52pm

Absolutely. Well said.

129 DocMartyn  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:39:12pm

It is called Darwinism as Darwin made the vital contribution to the field of evolutionary biology. He of course did so with the help of others, but Darwin was the key man. Newtonian physic's on the macro and micro scale is wrong, as shown by Einstein, but we still respect, understand and use the term Newtonian with respect to physics.

130 Boondock St. Bender  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:39:22pm

re: #100 zombie

He's a crafty one!

131 Throbert McGee  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:39:27pm

Olivia Judson, incidentally, is the author of the hilarious and very recommended Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice to All Creation -- in which Judson adopts the persona of a non-judgmental sex therapist, à la Dr. Ruth, to explore the mind-boggling (and sometimes gnarly) variety of reproductive strategies to be found in nature.

Made-up example:

"Dear Dr. Tatiana -- I'm a male vomit-bug from Madagascar, Technicoloris yawnipus, and while I was entertaining a special lady friend recently, one of my penises fell off. Should I be concerned?"

Her answers sometimes get a little technical, but at a level that any college-educated layperson with no particular background in biology can follow. And the silly framing premise, with all the agonized letters from heartbroken squid and jealous flatworms, is a great sugar coating for the science.

132 Conservative in Liberal Hands  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:39:42pm

re: #110 zombie

Zom... yes! I was being sarcastic.

133 Occasional Reader  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:40:19pm

re: #126 Shiplord Kirel

Discotarians

We have a winner!

134 songbird  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:40:20pm

I think I'll just lurk on this thread.

135 shotgun  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:40:30pm

re: #112 Killgore Trout

Nope, the was a singularity.

Right and we know that because cataclysmic singularities happen so often that we can observe them rather easily.

Or maybe a bunch of strings snapped and there was no bang involved, but whatever it was WE JUST KNOW there was no Creator involved right?

136 Egfrow  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:40:40pm

re: #129 DocMartyn

It is called Darwinism as Darwin made the vital contribution to the field of evolutionary biology. He of course did so with the help of others, but Darwin was the key man. Newtonian physic's on the macro and micro scale is wrong, as shown by Einstein, but we still respect, understand and use the term Newtonian with respect to physics.

Good point but it's not refered to as Newtonianism. Right?

137 Dianna  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:40:45pm

re: #98 Spiny Norman

Odd and interesting man, wasn't he?

138 theparson  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:40:47pm

Oooh, Ooooh, I got it... how 'bout... wait for it... "The Study of Evolution" (since I don't know how to do it pretend there's one of those little circles with a R in the middle of it).

139 Occasional Reader  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:40:50pm

re: #123 debutaunt

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

I updinged you for laughing at my joke. I do that sometimes.

140 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:41:01pm

re: #108 debutaunt

That has a Monty Python ring to it.

Naw, a video's been posted here of a drunken squirrel trying to climb a tree. It had gotten into a fermented pumpkin. Figured that's jerk Dianna's chain (or be more fun than asprin - WAY up top.)

141 Thanos  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:41:12pm

re: #114 Cato

Strawman Cato.

"Survival of the fittest" displays weak understanding of the evolutionary mechanisms proposed by evolutionary biologoy today. It's an antique bumper sticker much abused.

142 mich-again  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:41:49pm

re: #114 Cato

Question 6: Is evolutiony theory science?

Answer 6: Certainly the genetic component is. But the whole theory ultimately deeply, deeply flawed. The existence of viral "life" undermines the entire foundation of Darwinism that all species have a common beginning.

Is the entire foundation of "Darwinism" that all species have a common beginning? I don't think so.

143 EC Marm  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:42:11pm

re: #133 Occasional Reader
re: #126 Shiplord Kirel

Discotarians

We have a winner!
Great, now I'll have the picture of John t'Revolta in a leisure suit stuck in my head the rest of the day.

144 captainzot  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:42:11pm

re: #72 MandyManners

Creationism is specifically creation by a deity. All intelligent design implies is that you may be able to detect that something didn't come about by chance, that it was designed. At least that is what it is supposed to mean. They may both not be scientific, but they are distinct.

And please no Wedge Document referrals. Even if someone tries to twist a certain idea to some other purpose it doesn't invalidate the idea.

145 Dianna  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:42:13pm

re: #100 zombie

They're reverting to the ol' "God hid the fossils in the dirt to confuse us" argument.

Without ever explaining why god would choose to confuse us, which has always struck me as rather a nasty gap.

146 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:42:18pm

By the way, I've captured the audio clip from that CBC broadcast I mentioned yesterday, about the Discovery Institute's collaboration with Turkish Islamists, including a statement from the Disco 'Tute's David Berlinski that makes it very clear he sees them as allies.

I'll be posting it a bit later.

147 Occasional Reader  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:42:22pm

re: #114 Cato

Question 4: Why is "survival of the fittest" not disprovable?

Answer 4: Because it is a tautology

Straw man argument.

"Survival of the fittest" simply purports to describe the process of speciation, not to come up with some normative idea of "fitness".

148 theparson  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:43:00pm

Is it just me or does it seem like a lot of people start using really big obnoxious words in these threads?

149 Conservative in Liberal Hands  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:43:02pm

re: #115 Charles

Thank you! Charles, I simply can't keep up with the conversation and type at the same time. And WORK keeps me well... working.

150 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:43:22pm

re: #114 Cato

Answer 6: Certainly the genetic component is. But the whole theory ultimately deeply, deeply flawed. The existence of viral "life" undermines the entire foundation of Darwinism that all species have a common beginning.

Well, not really. There is a lot of debate about whether viruses are actually alive. I don't think there's any evidence that we share a common ancestor with viruses.

151 opnion  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:43:38pm

re: #119 Thanos

The science is settled, first because Al Gore's no scientist. Second, the theory hasn't been around that long, third because there are many solid papers that are peer reviewed which come to different conclusions. Here's the most recent.


Ok, the science that the Earth has warming & cooling periods is provable.
What is not settled is that the planet is a new warming period.
Even if it is , it is not at all provable that we are the primary cause with emissions etc.

152 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:44:26pm

re: #126 Shiplord Kirel

Discotarians!

153 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:45:33pm

re: #114 Cato
Sorry, I botched the link: Defining Life: The Virus

154 theparson  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:45:43pm

re: #152 Killgore Trout

I used to go to those in the '70s.

155 zombie  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:45:44pm

re: #114 Cato

Question 4: Why is "survival of the fittest" not disprovable?

Answer 4: Because it is a tautology, a pretty short one at that.

"Survival of the fittest" is not a Darwinian term, not an evolutionary term, and is irrelevant. It was concocted by Herbert Spencer, who used it in his economic theories about human society. It is only the lazy media (and Darwin's detractors) who use the term in relation to evolution.

But yes, evolution is a tautology, much in the same way that gravity is a tautolgy. Objects were said to have "gravity" because they fell down. And what caused them to fall down? Gravity.

To this day, science does not know what causes the gravitational force. BUT DOESN'T MEAN GRAVITY IS A LIE.

Evolution is a fact of nature, much as gravity and radiation are.

"Evolution through natural selection" is the theory you're thinking of, and it's been confirmed more than any theory in the history of science, even more than relativity.

156 Thanos  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:45:54pm

Let's see, what could we reciprocate with for the followers of Discovery Institute... hrmmm

Well since they are well funded by certain individuals with distinct anti-freedom and anti-constitional worldviews, how about we call them "Rushdoonists" and call their movem,ent "Rushdoonism" surely that would be fair.

157 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:46:18pm

This audio clip is fascinating, because it also covers the Institute for Creation Research's collaboration with Turkish creationists -- which played a big part in driving out evolutionary theory from Turkish schools in favor of pseudo-science.

It's a glimpse of what they would like to do in the US.

158 Thanos  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:46:29pm

re: #151 opnion

Ok, the science that the Earth has warming & cooling periods is provable.
What is not settled is that the planet is a new warming period.
Even if it is , it is not at all provable that we are the primary cause with emissions etc.

Btw, that was 'sposed to be "ISN"T" multitasking here.

159 Egfrow  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:46:29pm

I think by now, with all the discoveries in paleontology. Animals that used to be here are not here anymore and animals sorta look like the old ones were never found in fossils. Ever. You have to be a completely delusional not to see a correlation for evolution.

160 Kulhwch  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:46:37pm

The Paulists should be happy about this.

}:)     [Just a hunch I have ... ]

161 Boondock St. Bender  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:46:48pm

re: #156 Thanos

luddites
(runs and ducks)

162 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:47:07pm

re: #148 theparson

Is it just me or does it seem like a lot of people start using really big obnoxious words in these threads?

I've noticed it regarding some of the trolls -- esp. the ones who don't have a clue about well-defined terminology.

163 Occasional Reader  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:47:32pm

re: #153 Killgore Trout

re: #114 Cato
Sorry, I botched the link: Defining Life: The Virus

Next level down; are prions "life"?

164 opnion  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:47:47pm

re: #158 Thanos

Btw, that was 'sposed to be "ISN"T" multitasking here.

Got ya.

165 theparson  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:47:51pm

re: #162 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Whew! It's not just me.

166 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:47:59pm

re: #155 zombie

To this day, science does not know what causes the gravitational force. BUT DOESN'T MEAN GRAVITY IS A LIE.

BIG GRAVITY IS RIPPING US OFF!

167 zombie  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:48:00pm

re: #132 Conservative in Liberal Hands

Zom... yes! I was being sarcastic.

You you be a little clearer next time! You got 5 minus votes from people who didn't get the sarcasm tag reference (including me).

168 Egfrow  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:48:24pm

re: #157 Charles

This audio clip is fascinating, because it also covers the Institute for Creation Research's collaboration with Turkish creationists -- which played a big part in driving out evolutionary theory from Turkish schools in favor of pseudo-science.

It's a glimpse of what they would like to do in the US.

The problem with Islam is they have leached and absorbed therories and ideas when they had no Koranic comparison for overwhelming evidence of logic. Many ancient writings of Islam even had pictures of Aristotle sitting with Mohamed.

169 Shiplord Kirel  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:48:33pm

re: #161 Boondock St. Bender

luddites
(runs and ducks)

re: #162 pre-Boomer Marine brat

I've noticed it regarding some of the trolls -- esp. the ones who don't have a clue about well-defined terminology.

You mean the eponymous followers of Ned Ludd?

170 Conservative in Liberal Hands  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:48:43pm

re: #167 zombie

OUCH! sorry!

171 Yosemite bill  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:48:50pm

Yes "Scientist" is correct, nice and accurate.... .
Ok let me refine the question since the crux of the article is the Darwinism is pejorative- what are we allowed to call "scientists" or others who use a "theory" as an excuse to censor the discussion of any topic that can even remotely be tied to Christianity ? Such as right from wrong or -gasp- good from evil because it is too close to the Ten Commandments ?
The amount of bile collectively aimed Christians here over this ID and Creationist noise is getting old.... .
Yea -yea I know it ain't 'Christian bashing' because you are pointing out the lunatic fringe and they may well be nuts but the "scientific community" as a fair share of fruits and nuts as well.
Again I have lots of science i my profession and no evolution and Judeo-Christian tradition are not exclusive

172 Dianna  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:49:05pm

re: #140 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Naw, a video's been posted here of a drunken squirrel trying to climb a tree. It had gotten into a fermented pumpkin. Figured that's jerk Dianna's chain (or be more fun than asprin - WAY up top.)

I missed it!

173 Occasional Reader  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:49:17pm

re: #166 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

BIG GRAVITY IS RIPPING US OFF!

Gravity is a social construct; essentially, it's a form of white supremacy.

174 debutaunt  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:49:21pm

re: #126 Shiplord Kirel

Perhaps we should start calling creationists Hovindites, or Hamistas, or Discotarians after their favorite authorities.

Discotarians with their hand jive.

175 Thanos  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:49:46pm

re: #151 opnion

Ok, the science that the Earth has warming & cooling periods is provable.
What is not settled is that the planet is a new warming period.
Even if it is , it is not at all provable that we are the primary cause with emissions etc.

Sorry about that the typo.) The paper clearly refutes MMGW carbon forcing theory, did you read the link?

176 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:50:24pm

Oh, for Pete's sake. Not the "Christian bashing" nonsense again.

The post does not even mention Christianity. This thin-skinned insult-seeking is beyond ridiculous.

177 Kulhwch  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:50:32pm
re: #24 Charles
re: #17 The_Vig

The big question to ask is what if Darwin had never published?

Well, if you believe Ben Stein, the Holocaust would never have happened.

Then Ben Stein would have remained what he is, a marginal talent with a few acting jobs.

}:)     [Quick, where's the Flux Capacitor, we've got to go Back To The Future!]

178 Boondock St. Bender  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:50:32pm

re: #169 Shiplord Kirel

I'm gonna be sorry but who's ned lud?

179 Thanos  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:51:04pm

re: #161 Boondock St. Bender

luddites
(runs and ducks)

Well since everything bad nowadays must have "neo" in front of it in luddite eyes, let's call them "Neo-Luddics" -- a conflation of "neo-luddite" and "Neolithic".

180 opnion  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:51:10pm

re: #168 Egfrow

The problem with Islam is they have leached and absorbed therories and ideas when they had no Koranic comparison for overwhelming evidence of logic. Many ancient writings of Islam even had pictures of Aristotle sitting with Mohamed.


I happen to know for a fact that Babe Ruth was a Muslim.
No wait , it was Lou Gherig. Yeah, thts it. No wait it was Cy Young, right? hey all of them

181 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:51:19pm

re: #155 zombie

(very OT trivia re gravity -- apparently, gravitation waves / fields / effects / or whatever travel FAR faster than light. I can come up with a link, if you're interested.)

182 mich-again  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:51:20pm

re: #144 captainzot

Creationism is specifically creation by a deity.

Does your use of the term mean that one who subscribes to creationism must also believe evolution is a lie?

183 Tigger2005  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:51:36pm

In the links above, there's a story about a society of physicists numbering over 50,000 members that is strongly questioning the IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

People, this is what a genuine scientific "controversy" looks like. The man-made global warming hypothesis really IS in deep trouble. Science is in the process of correcting itself. In the past, the global warming hypothesis probably wouldn't have taken on the life it has before it came under serious fire from other scientists, but so many people grabbed the ball and ran with it in order to advance their anti-capitalist, anti-globalist agenda, and the media hyped it, that I think a lot of scientists were afraid of speaking out and others were profiting from the hysteria. Now, it looks like the dam has broken.

The "controversy" over evolution, on the other hand, is a manufactured controversy. Evolution has survived 150 years of rigorous debate and determined opposition, and has prevailed. All the evidence collected, all the observations and experiments conducted since Darwin's time have supported the theory. No evidence has been discovered to discredit it. There is no mass movement of scientists abandoning evolution and embracing the ID hypothesis. Man-made global warming is questionable...evolution really isn't. It's just a fact of life.

But I'm sure people will still respond to this post with their tired old claims about how evolution (macroevolution, anyway) is obviously impossible. They'll present a strawman version of evolution, one so laughably, obviously wrong that if the real theory of evolution actually resembled it in any way, scientists and even educated laymen would have to be drooling, brain-dead idiots to accept it. They will gleefully imply that hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of scientists are morons (with the further implication that they, of course, are quite insightful to have seen through the ridiculous scam) and that science itself can never be trusted, even as they continue to use computers and electricity and fly in airplanes and see doctors, not faith healers, when they get sick.

184 opnion  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:51:56pm

re: #175 Thanos

Sorry about that the typo.) The paper clearly refutes MMGW carbon forcing theory, did you read the link?

Skimed it, I will go back

185 theparson  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:52:45pm

re: #171 Yosemite bill


The amount of bile collectively aimed Christians here over this ID and Creationist noise is getting old.... .

Fauxmartyrdom.

186 WitchDoctor[deleted]  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:53:20pm
187 Shiplord Kirel  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:53:24pm

re: #152 Killgore Trout

Discotarians!

"Discotarians" it is then. Ham and Hovind are probably too transitory as etymological sources anyway, especially for a movement that has long survived the departure of William Jennings Bryan.
Hovind is out of the loop already, in fact, having been jailed for tax evasion.

188 Egfrow  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:53:43pm

re: #171 Yosemite bill


Yea -yea

Anyone who starts out with such phrases while trying to make a point in a logical discussion is automatically assumed to be full of bullshit!.

189 theparson  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:54:00pm

re: #186 WitchDoctor

How about instead of worrying about terminology, we get rid of this endless discussion/rant on evolution versus intelligent design and get back to stuff that actually matters *right now.*

Who is "we"? When did you buy this blog?

190 opnion  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:54:07pm

re: #183 Tigger2005
True, but how in the world does a wind bag, non-scientist likle Al Gore make a fortune hyping a hoax?

191 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:54:16pm

re: #183 Tigger2005

In the links above, there's a story about a society of physicists numbering over 50,000 members that is strongly questioning the IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

I have that study open in a browser window right now. Looks like Greek to me.

But the conclusion is very interesting.

192 Boondock St. Bender  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:54:29pm

re: #185 theparson

Then perhaps these groups should stop wasteing the public money and time,trying to bring medievil teachings into a modern science classroom.

193 BigMac  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:55:06pm

Let's rename Newtonian physics Apple physics. I've always liked apples better than Fig Newtons.

194 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:55:11pm

Any comments telling me what I should not post at LGF will be deleted.

195 eschew_obfuscation  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:55:18pm

re: #171 Yosemite bill

Yes "Scientist" is correct, nice and accurate.... .
Ok let me refine the question since the crux of the article is the Darwinism is pejorative- what are we allowed to call "scientists" or others who use a "theory" as an excuse to censor the discussion of any topic that can even remotely be tied to Christianity ? Such as right from wrong or -gasp- good from evil because it is too close to the Ten Commandments ?
The amount of bile collectively aimed Christians here over this ID and Creationist noise is getting old.... .
Yea -yea I know it ain't 'Christian bashing' because you are pointing out the lunatic fringe and they may well be nuts but the "scientific community" as a fair share of fruits and nuts as well.
Again I have lots of science i my profession and no evolution and Judeo-Christian tradition are not exclusive

Thank you.....mega dittos!

196 zombie  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:55:24pm

re: #178 Boondock St. Bender

I'm gonna be sorry but who's ned lud?

A semi-mythological British reactionary who smashed up the automated looms in order to preserve the jobs of the hand-weavers.

Ever since, people who violently reject technological advancements are referred to as "Luddites."

197 Thanos  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:55:25pm

re: #171 Yosemite bill

Yosemite you are full of utter crap. I've been pretty clear in directing my attacks specifically at Discovery Institute and the Dominionists in particular. If you want to defend anti-American views, feel free, but don't drag all of Christianity into that dark hole with you, they would probably be offended.

198 theparson  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:55:25pm

re: #192 Boondock St. Bender

Then perhaps these groups should stop wasteing the public money and time,trying to bring medievil teachings into a modern science classroom.

'splain

199 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:55:28pm

re: #169 Shiplord Kirel

You mean the eponymous followers of Ned Ludd?

PARSON! Here's one!
Get out that .45 and PLUG this bas...

... uh, oh ... hi there, Shiplord
... nevermind, parson.

200 Naso Tang  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:55:32pm

re: #65 mich-again

it is a good point that the word Darwinism is used almost as a derogatory term by some. But I don't know if just using a different word will end their irrational efforts.

I may be wrong, but the only people I hear calling someone a Darwinist (or ism) are Creationists, and some IDers.

Does anyone know of a scientist within any of the many disciplines that contribute to the understanding of evolution, who call themselves Darwinists?

As far as scientists are concerned the term has already evolved into something else.

201 Egfrow  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:56:20pm

re: #194 Charles

Any comments telling me what I should not post at LGF will be deleted.

Property Rights exercised.

202 Occasional Reader  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:56:59pm

re: #196 zombie

A semi-mythological British reactionary

IIRC wasn't he entirely mythological? I don't think anyone maintained that "Ned Ludd" really existed, it's just a name chosen by the movement.

203 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:57:07pm

re: #172 Dianna

I missed it!

here

204 RedHouseBlueState  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:57:16pm

I'm 100% creationist, and I agree with this 100%. The science side of this debate has been fighting the wrong argument for years in my opinion.

There is nothing conflicting between creationism and evolution. Creationism addresses our human capacity to comprehend and explain why we are here. Not the scientific reason for 'how.'

Darwinism does not address the creation of life, but the scientific study of what happens while we are here.

Allowing wacko evangelists of what ever religion to set the rules for the debate by insisting it's either one or the other is a ludicrous.

Religion is thought and conjecture, science is fact. There is a difference between faith and statistics. Personally I prefer both, not one or the other. And I'm tired of justifying myself to both sides.

But I will say, there's a lot more people on the science side questioning my choice of faith than there are people on the faith side questioning my understanding of science.

Let's rewrite the rules of this debate.

205 Shiplord Kirel  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:57:41pm

re: #178 Boondock St. Bender

I'm gonna be sorry but who's ned lud?

Ned Ludd. A semi-mythical character from whom the Luddites took their name. The original Luddites were not totally wrong in some ways but their name has become forever associated with enemies of technical progress.

206 transient  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:58:01pm

re: #17 The_Vig

The big question to ask is what if Darwin had never published?

Creationists would be whining about Wallacism.
Other than that, probably not much difference.

207 zombie  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:58:12pm

re: #181 pre-Boomer Marine brat

(very OT trivia re gravity -- apparently, gravitation waves / fields / effects / or whatever travel FAR faster than light. I can come up with a link, if you're interested.)

Interesting! Yes, the link would be nice.

In high school I asked my physics teacher if gravitational effects were instantaneous, and he marked me down for being "uncooperative" in class. I had no idea until many years later that I was asking one of the key questions of cutting-edge physics.

208 Boondock St. Bender  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:58:35pm

re: #189 theparson

because,it is an issue which affects our foundations.and is a back door sneaky way to get religion back into public schools.(espesially into a science class.)
we laugh at islamic scholars when they espouse their beliefs as science.i don't want the same thing here.

209 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:58:45pm

re: #131 Throbert McGee

Olivia Judson, incidentally, is the author of the hilarious and very recommended Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice to All Creation -- in which Judson adopts the persona of a non-judgmental sex therapist, à la Dr. Ruth, to explore the mind-boggling (and sometimes gnarly) variety of reproductive strategies to be found in nature.

And she's a total babe too. Rowr.

210 Thanos  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:59:00pm

re: #190 opnion

True, but how in the world does a wind bag, non-scientist likle Al Gore make a fortune hyping a hoax?

It's not the first time pseudoscientists have made bundles off false science, it probably won't be the last. Pseudo science is every bit as much an attack on science as Discovery Institute's wedge is.

211 Egfrow  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:59:01pm

re: #206 transient

Creationists would be whining about Wallacism.
Other than that, probably not much difference.

Ironically Darwin was a student of Creationism and later rejected it by using is own free mind.

212 opnion  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:59:37pm

re: #205 Shiplord Kirel

Ned Ludd. A semi-mythical character from whom the Luddites took their name. The original Luddites were not totally wrong in some ways but their name has become forever associated with enemies of technical progress.

What the luddites most opposed was losing their livleyhoods due to technology.

213 Cato  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:59:44pm

re: #155 zombie

Zombie, you are quite incorrect. Gravity is a fact and is scientifically based. The second something falls up or at a rate or at a vector not expected by the theory without outside interference, the theory has been disproven. THERE IS NOW WAY TO DISPOROVE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY!

Let us start with a simple proposition: Using DDT on people infected with lice will cause lice to evolve to be resistant to DDTwithin a generation.

That is a disprovable proposition and would be scientific. However, evolutionary theory does not permit propositions of this kind. The evolutionary theory's proposition would be this: Using DDT on people infected with lice will either cause the lice to evolve into a DDT resistant strain or die out.

It takes this form of proposition: If we we had eggs, we could have ham & eggs, if we had ham. True, but is it scientific?

214 Boondock St. Bender  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 2:59:49pm

re: #196 zombie

y know,i knew the word(and what it means of course)but never knew where it came from.thanks.

215 theparson  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:00:28pm

re: #208 Boondock St. Bender

I think you've got me on the wrong side of the debate. You should research my posts before asking me to dance.

216 zombie  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:01:29pm

re: #171 Yosemite bill

Yes "Scientist" is correct, nice and accurate.... .
Ok let me refine the question since the crux of the article is the Darwinism is pejorative- what are we allowed to call "scientists" or others who use a "theory" as an excuse to censor the discussion of any topic that can even remotely be tied to Christianity ? Such as right from wrong or -gasp- good from evil because it is too close to the Ten Commandments ?
The amount of bile collectively aimed Christians here over this ID and Creationist noise is getting old.... .
Yea -yea I know it ain't 'Christian bashing' because you are pointing out the lunatic fringe and they may well be nuts but the "scientific community" as a fair share of fruits and nuts as well.
Again I have lots of science i my profession and no evolution and Judeo-Christian tradition are not exclusive

B-O-R-I-N-G.

Every aspect of your question has been dragged around the battlefield a quadrillion times. It's a complete waste of effort to even address them again.

I suspect you are intentionally wasting our time.

217 Dianna  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:01:31pm

re: #190 opnion

I remember having to listen to Merryl Streep on alar.

218 Dianna  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:02:05pm

re: #194 Charles

Hear, hear!

219 BBev  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:02:20pm

I don’t get it how can people not understand evolution? I have no problems that people think that God created the heavens and the Earth that’s all cool but I’m a science geek and follow all the new fossil finds just about daily and the evidence is growing so fast connecting the nuts and bolts of evolution.

220 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:02:42pm

re: #213 Cato

Zombie, you are quite incorrect. Gravity is a fact and is scientifically based. The second something falls up or at a rate or at a vector not expected by the theory without outside interference, the theory has been disproven. THERE IS NOW WAY TO DISPOROVE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY!

You can take the caps lock key off "stun." Yes, there are numerous ways to falsify evolutionary theory.

Just one example: come up with a "chimera," a combination of species from two different lineages.

221 Occasional Reader  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:02:54pm

re: #213 Cato

THERE IS NOW WAY TO DISPOROVE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY!

Find a 150 million year old fossilized homo sapiens. Voilá.

222 transient  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:03:04pm

re: #41 Yosemite bill

[P]ray tell what are we allowed to call folks who promote this Darwin's theory ?

I presume you didn't read the article. The whole point being that evolutionary theory is greater than Darwin. Innumerable scientists have done research which has supported to the theory, refined and added to it. Calling supporters of modern evolution "Darwinists" is simply inaccurate.

How about you call them evolutionists? (Or is that not pejorative enough for you?)

223 Dianna  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:03:05pm

re: #203 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Youtube is not behaving for me.

224 Tigger2005  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:03:09pm

You're wrong, evolution is falsifiable.

[Link: www.talkorigins.org...]

re: #213 Cato

Zombie, you are quite incorrect. Gravity is a fact and is scientifically based. The second something falls up or at a rate or at a vector not expected by the theory without outside interference, the theory has been disproven. THERE IS NOW WAY TO DISPOROVE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY!

Let us start with a simple proposition: Using DDT on people infected with lice will cause lice to evolve to be resistant to DDTwithin a generation.

That is a disprovable proposition and would be scientific. However, evolutionary theory does not permit propositions of this kind. The evolutionary theory's proposition would be this: Using DDT on people infected with lice will either cause the lice to evolve into a DDT resistant strain or die out.

It takes this form of proposition: If we we had eggs, we could have ham & eggs, if we had ham. True, but is it scientific?

225 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:03:44pm

re: #213 Cato

THERE IS NOW (no-sic) WAY TO DISPOROVE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY!


Sure there is. If you were to discover that birds, mammals, and reptiles have no genetic similarities pointing to common ancestry then evolution would be disproven.

226 zombie  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:03:55pm

re: #202 Occasional Reader

IIRC wasn't he entirely mythological? I don't think anyone maintained that "Ned Ludd" really existed, it's just a name chosen by the movement.

Nope -- he may have been real:

Ned Ludd

Ned Ludd or Ned Lud (possibly born Ned Ludlam[1]) is the person from whom the Luddites took their name. His actions were the inspiration for the folkloric character of "Captain Ludd" (also known as King or General) who became the Luddites' imagined leader and founder.

Although no actual proof of his existence has been found, it is believed that he came from the village of Anstey, just outside Leicester.

The incident that inspired his transformation from 1700s common man to 1800s hero to the proletariat, was when he broke two stocking frames in a fit of rage. This incident is identified as being in 1779, rather than at the time of the Luddites in the 1810s.

227 scottishbuzzsaw  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:04:13pm

re: #209 Charles

LOL!

228 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:04:31pm

re: #204 RedHouseBlueState

But I will say, there's a lot more people on the science side questioning my choice of faith than there are people on the faith side questioning my understanding of science.

Since I live in a metaphorical cave (except for LGF) I haven't experienced this, so am not sure about your "more/than". Other than that nit-picky caveat, I updinged your comment.

Everyone should operate on a clear understanding of common terminology.

229 opnion  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:04:39pm

re: #210 Thanos

It's not the first time pseudoscientists have made bundles off false science, it probably won't be the last. Pseudo science is every bit as much an attack on science as Discovery Institute's wedge is.

Right and he gets such a pass on the hypocrisy.
Private jets & a house that houses that use the energy of a small town.
He answers any questions about it by saying that he buys carbon credits. A ridiculous concept & the kicker is he buys the form his own company

230 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:05:10pm

re: #228 pre-Boomer Marine brat

But I will say, there's a lot more people on the science side questioning my choice of faith than there are people on the faith side questioning my understanding of science.

Since I live in a metaphorical cave (except for LGF) I haven't experienced this, so am not sure about your "more/than". Other than that nit-picky caveat, I updinged your comment.

Everyone should operate on a clear understanding of common terminology.

DAMMIT, didn't "quote"! PIMF!

231 Occasional Reader  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:05:26pm

re: #220 Charles

Just one example: come up with a "chimera," a combination of species from two different lineages.

There's always Wiggle Puppy. That's a dog who flies by wagging his tail. I tell ya, that dog has had some amazing adventures.

232 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:05:27pm

I, for one, am SHOCKED at the number of so called "Creationists" who fail to recognize the seething nuclear chaos of Azathoth as the true creator.

SHOCKED I SAY, SHOCKED!

And I'm equally shocked that LGF would blatantly ignore this.

SHOCKED!

/

Did I mention SHOCKED?

233 Egfrow  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:05:31pm

re: #220 Charles

Just one example: come up with a "chimera," a combination of species from two different lineages

The Cyclops.

234 pingjockey  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:05:48pm

re: #194 Charles
Didn't we arlready go through that the other damn day? Knotheads.

235 Cato  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:05:53pm

Charles,

A chimera does in fact exist. It lives in Australia.

We call it a platypus. It is a venumous (the males only) mammal that lays eggs.

Nature is weird.

236 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:06:13pm

re: #207 zombie

I'll jump off and find it.

237 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:06:23pm

re: #220 Charles

You can take the caps lock key off "stun." Yes, there are numerous ways to falsify evolutionary theory.

Just one example: come up with a "chimera," a combination of species from two different lineages.

Would a turducken count?

238 opnion  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:06:31pm

re: #217 Dianna

I remember having to listen to Merryl Streep on alar.

Those thespians are such multi-taskers!

239 Tigger2005  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:06:53pm

re: #213 Cato

Zombie, you are quite incorrect. Gravity is a fact and is scientifically based. The second something falls up or at a rate or at a vector not expected by the theory without outside interference, the theory has been disproven. THERE IS NOW WAY TO DISPOROVE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY!

You might also be interested in this:

[Link: www.talkorigins.org...]

240 theparson  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:07:30pm

re: #238 opnion

Those thespians are such multi-taskers!

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

241 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:07:40pm

re: #235 Cato


We call it a platypus. It is a venumous (the males only) mammal that lays eggs.


No, the Platypus is another one of those pesky transitional species.

242 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:08:00pm

re: #235 Cato

Charles,

A chimera does in fact exist. It lives in Australia.

We call it a platypus. It is a venumous (the males only) mammal that lays eggs.

Nature is weird.

This is a talking point straight from the ICR. The platypus is not a chimera.

[Link: tinyfrog.wordpress.com...]

243 Shiplord Kirel  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:08:01pm

re: #233 Egfrow

The Cyclops.

.....the giant mammal stood 15 feet (4.6 meters) tall at the shoulder, and had tusks that were 4.5 feet (1.3 meters) long. It was one of the largest mammals ever to walk the face of the Earth.

First round draft pick.

244 captainzot  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:08:09pm

re: #182 mich-again

Does your use of the term mean that one who subscribes to creationism must also believe evolution is a lie?


No it doesn't. Even on Macro-evolutionary terms. While I don't believe in macro-evolution, like I've said before it still could be proven to be true. And if so then I won't have a problem with it. I currently don't think there's anything to it other than that it's the party line.

Micro-evolution is completely uncontroversial. It is truth. Easily demonstrated and repeatable. Creationism in common usage usually carries a whole boatload of unnecessary baggage. I can understand that from the crowd here though, we are primarily united by our common commitment against radical Islam. We just need to be careful about the guilt by association fallacy.

245 Mich-again  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:08:24pm

re: #210 Thanos

It's not the first time pseudoscientists have made bundles off false science, it probably won't be the last. Pseudo science is every bit as much an attack on science as Discovery Institute's wedge is.

Tort lawyers use junk science in civil cases. All you need to do is convince a jury of 12 dupes that your crazy theory just might be plausible enough to explain why the defendant is responsible for injuring your client.

246 Diamond Bullet  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:08:36pm

re: #220 Charles

You can take the caps lock key off "stun." Yes, there are numerous ways to falsify evolutionary theory.

Just one example: come up with a "chimera," a combination of species from two different lineages.

...Obama?

247 pingjockey  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:09:14pm

re: #217 Dianna
That idiot bitch damn near put a whole lot of farmers here in the Pacific Northwest out of business.

248 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:09:15pm

re: #223 Dianna

Youtube is not behaving for me.

Paste this link together and run it later.
http:
//www.
youtube.com/watch?v=4ikH9ZRcF2Q

249 Egfrow  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:09:29pm

re: #243 Shiplord Kirel

First round draft pick.

and not here any more but some other odd looking creature that looks similar is though. No relation I'm sure.

250 transient  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:09:53pm

re: #43 theparson

How 'bout Steve? You could call it Steve.

Project Steve.

Approximately 1% of the population has the name Steve (or variation thereof). Thus each scientist who has signed on to tongue-in-cheek "project Steve" represents about 100 scientists who support evolution.

Steve-o-meter.

251 Boondock St. Bender  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:10:16pm

re: #215 theparson

sorry parson,was resonding to the guy you responded to ,but,couldn't because his comment was deleted.i should have just put his original comment # up.

252 zombie  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:10:34pm

re: #213 Cato

You've lost me -- sorry. I can't make sense of what you're saying.

Evolution happens. Of that there is absolutely no question. It happens to animate as well as inanimate systems. It is basically the way the universe functions. "Natural selection" is a proposed mechanism for how evolution happens, and has been so fabulously confirmed in every single observation that any and all competing theories have died out.

Thus, the history of the eventual triumph of the "natural selection" theory is itself an example of how evolution works!

253 Cato  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:10:35pm

re: #225 Killgore Trout


Kilgore,

Why limit it to birds, mammals and reptiles? Evolution is supposed to be a universal theory. I have already said viruses don't fit the pattern and do not have a common ancestor. Do I need to give you another example?

254 Occasional Reader  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:11:01pm

re: #246 Diamond Bullet

Think very carefully about what you're writing here.

255 theparson  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:11:03pm

re: #250 transient

That's what I'm talking 'bout!

256 Thanos  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:11:09pm

re: #213 Cato

Ways to falsify evolution

You could find a bunny fossilized in a T-Rex tummy. (Please, go find one if you can.)

You could refute radiological dating as the YECs try to (note this is an OEC site thorougly refuting YEC claims.)

You could demonstrate that our DNA and other Primates doesn't match (unfortunately it does)

257 Boondock St. Bender  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:11:20pm

re: #220 Charles

p.t barnum was a master at that kind of thing!

258 theparson  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:11:26pm

re: #251 Boondock St. Bender

No prob!

259 Diamond Bullet  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:11:54pm

re: #254 Occasional Reader

Think very carefully about what you're writing here.

Well, I do think he's a "fanciful mental illusion or fabrication".

260 Tigger2005  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:12:24pm

re: #233 Egfrow

The Cyclops.

The Centuar!

(Man, I totally get why that little girl's crying.)

261 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:12:28pm

re: #253 Cato

You didn't read or understand the article I linked to, did you?

262 Render  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:12:36pm

And then there is the Griffin.

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

Which as Nick Griffin proves, really is an evil monster...

HEH,
R

263 garycooper  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:12:50pm

re: #176 Charles

Oh, for Pete's sake. Not the "Christian bashing" nonsense again.

The post does not even mention Christianity. This thin-skinned insult-seeking is beyond ridiculous.

Sometimes it's a Jewish guy, who gets his boxers in a bunch over this issue. But usually it's a Christian.

264 Egfrow  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:14:42pm

Oh, Just popped open a fresh stream of Mark Levin live. He's reaming the EnviroDems and their religion.

265 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:14:48pm

re: #207 zombie

Interesting! Yes, the link would be nice.

In high school I asked my physics teacher if gravitational effects were instantaneous, and he marked me down for being "uncooperative" in class. I had no idea until many years later that I was asking one of the key questions of cutting-edge physics.

Tom Van Flandern's Meta Research
Scroll down the front page to the group of links on "Gravity & Relativity"

If you blow a mental fuse, just remember that you're the one who asked.

266 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:14:50pm

Who says there is never any good news?

Bali bombers will be dead in a month

A lawyer representing the Bali bombers predicts his clients will be executed within a month now that the country's Supreme Court has rejected their final appeal.

All the formal legal avenues open to the Bali bombers have now been exhausted.

267 Dianna  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:15:07pm

re: #235 Cato

The platypus is not a chimera: a primitive mammal, instead

268 Render  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:15:48pm

There have been a handful of commenters who have used this discussion, in various threads, to bash Christianity itself, or all religions combined.

NOTED,
R

269 Thanos  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:16:16pm

re: #245 Mich-again

Tort lawyers use junk science in civil cases. All you need to do is convince a jury of 12 dupes that your crazy theory just might be plausible enough to explain why the defendant is responsible for injuring your client.

Exactly why the general public needs better grounding in science rather than attacks on empircism.

270 Shiplord Kirel  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:16:52pm

re: #260 Tigger2005

The Centuar!

(Man, I totally get why that little girl's crying.)

What's with all these furrin' critters anyway? We have the king of the chimeras right here in Texas, the Jackalope, familiar also from numerous inferior and probably bogus specimens from less evolved regions.

271 pingjockey  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:17:25pm

re: #268 Render
We know and they were out of line. They only folks I try to bash are idiotarians and terrorists of any stripe.

272 zombie  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:17:27pm

Curse you, Charles, I've been suckered into commenting about evolution again! I must force myself to sign off, as high-priority life-tasks await!

23 Skidoo.

273 transient  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:17:46pm

re: #96 zombie

Science is an ever-growing discipline. To call biology "Darwinism" is to intentionally freeze it forever in 1859, with all the attendant gaps and mysteries -- which were later solved.

That's what the creationists want, of course. It's much easier to dispute a 150 year old hypothesis with gaps than to fight a modern theory that has 150 years of rigorous research behind it.

Who can blame them if they'd rather fight a strawman?

274 Tigger2005  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:17:58pm

re: #268 Render

There have been a handful of commenters who have used this discussion, in various threads, to bash Christianity itself, or all religions combined.

NOTED,
R

Horrors!

As an athiest, I get bashed all the time. I'm a nihilist. I'm amoral. I'm a hedonist. I believe in nothing. I'm the reason the world's going to hell in a handbasket.

Maybe I should whine more. But people will also expect cheese.

275 Dianna  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:18:44pm

re: #247 pingjockey

That idiot bitch damn near put a whole lot of farmers here in the Pacific Northwest out of business.

Yeah.

At the time, I couldn't believe my ears. Congress is listening to this ignorant woman whine about what might be on her food. Hint: lady, you're supposed to wash your produce before you eat it.

276 nikis-knight  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:18:58pm
Yet all too often, evolution — insofar as it is taught in biology classes at all — is taught as the story of Charles Darwin. Then the pages are turned, and everyone settles down to learn how the heart works, or how plants make energy from sunshine, or some other detail. The evolutionary concepts that unify biology, that allow us to frame questions and investigate the glorious diversity of life — these are ignored.

This is untrue based on my experience (6 semesters of high school biology as hs student and student teacher & a bio major in college). All that experience was in CA, so other states may match her description. But when generalizing, it is good to give your supporting examples.

277 Occasional Reader  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:19:13pm

re: #272 zombie

23 Skidoo.


Do you know the evolution of that phrase? (It has to do with the Flatiron Building.)

278 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:19:25pm

re: #268 Render

There have been a handful of commenters who have used this discussion, in various threads, to bash Christianity itself, or all religions combined.

NOTED,
R

And to be completely fair, there have been way more than a handful of creationist commenters who have bashed atheists and scientists in extremely insulting terms. Does "Darwinism leads to Hitler" sound familiar?

279 Cato  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:19:27pm

re: #256 Thanos

Or I could say viruses are alive and didn't evolve the way we did. Oh yeah, I think I said that.

280 Thanos  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:20:31pm

re: #268 Render

There have been a handful of commenters who have used this discussion, in various threads, to bash Christianity itself, or all religions combined.

NOTED,
R

Indeed there have been, and they usually get dinged and some heat back. Infidelia never came back after I challenged her last night, or if she did it was after I left.

281 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:20:39pm

re: #279 Cato

Or I could say viruses are alive and didn't evolve the way we did. Oh yeah, I think I said that.

Wait a minute. What about that platypus you were just claiming was a "chimera?" Two articles were posted that definitely refute that statement. Are you just going to glide right past them?

282 pingjockey  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:20:55pm

re: #275 Dianna
It was a crock of shit! Alar was used to help redden the fruit, IIRC. All I ever sprayed in the orchard was this clay stuff for pears. Picked, thinned, propped apples. But grampa did the spraying himself.

283 garycooper  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:21:02pm

re: #235 Cato

Charles,

A chimera does in fact exist. It lives in Australia.

We call it a platypus. It is a venumous (the males only) mammal that lays eggs.

Nature is weird.

Nature is truly weird, but I don't think the platypus qualifies as a chimera, in the sense we're talking about. Monotremes are a distinct branch of the evolutionary tree, that broke off from the main trunk a long, long time ago. They didn't evolve from a combined-ancestry of snakes, mammals, birds and what-have-you.

284 Occasional Reader  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:21:23pm

re: #279 Cato

Or I could say viruses are alive and didn't evolve the way we did.

Please define what you mean by "the way we did".

285 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:21:36pm

re: #272 zombie

Curse you, Charles, I've been suckered into commenting about evolution again! I must force myself to sign off, as high-priority life-tasks await!

23 Skidoo.

Did you see the gravity link?

286 Cato  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:22:12pm

BTW, don't think I'm bashing Darwin -- I'm not. It is just that there is something deeply unsatisfying about a theory that says one type of spider eats its mate after mating for survival reasons and then says that another variety does the opposite -- for reasons of survival.

287 Egfrow  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:22:22pm

re: #278 Charles

And to be completely fair, there have been way more than a handful of creationist commenters who have bashed atheists and scientists in extremely insulting terms. Does "Darwinism leads to Hitler" sound familiar?

I personally like Thomas Jefferson's views on Christianity and Jesus.

288 Thanos  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:23:11pm

re: #279 Cato

Or I could say viruses are alive and didn't evolve the way we did. Oh yeah, I think I said that.

They use RNA instead, what of it specifically so we can quash that notion as well. C'mon spit it out. Be specific in your assertion or hypothesis.

289 zombie  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:24:07pm

re: #285 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Did you see the gravity link?

Yes. Will look at later. Gotta run!

290 shotgun  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:24:11pm

#157 Charles 7/17/08 2:46:18 pm

Thanks, appreciate the explanation of why these threads keep appearing on LGF.

291 Occasional Reader  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:24:50pm

re: #286 Cato

BTW, don't think I'm bashing Darwin -- I'm not. It is just that there is something deeply unsatisfying about a theory that says one type of spider eats its mate after mating for survival reasons and then says that another variety does the opposite -- for reasons of survival.

Ayayay.

As I've said before regarding this point; it's like saying that since Wal-Mart is the biggest company in the world, shouldn't EVERY business in the world be a big-box retail store?

292 RedHouseBlueState  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:25:19pm

re: #208 pre-Boomer Marine brat

"Since I live in a metaphorical cave (except for LGF) I haven't experienced this, so am not sure about your 'more/than'. Other than that nit-picky caveat, I updinged your comment."

"Everyone should operate on a clear understanding of common terminology."

I agree, the problem as I see it is we're not understanding just how far apart the two subjects are. Just as religious people are using scientific terms to try to explain their viewpoint, scientific people use religious terms to do the same. The name for the oldest female fossil in the world is Eve. And archaeologists are always on the hunt for the first man.

The very languages that make up the discipline of science and theology are different. Arguing this debate attempting to use terms used by both, which have vastly different definitions for each, will not result in victory for either side. What it will achieve is a lot of tax payer money enriching a lot of people who have a stake in keeping it going.

To resolve the debate we need to completely separate religion and science, realize they have their own languages. Science defines creation as one concept. Religion has a different definition. This debate is about who's definition is superior. That's never going to end.

Instead why don't just accept that even though people agree on most things, who's definition is better isn't one of them.

Then we can all go out and have a beer together.

293 garycooper  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:25:35pm

re: #286 Cato

BTW, don't think I'm bashing Darwin -- I'm not. It is just that there is something deeply unsatisfying about a theory that says one type of spider eats its mate after mating for survival reasons and then says that another variety does the opposite -- for reasons of survival.

What's unsatisfying about that? In one environment and time, that behavior would foster survival of the species, and in another, it would not. "Evolution is messy," to misquote our old friend Rummy. ;)

294 Egfrow  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:25:44pm

The Jefferson Bible. Read it or not. Use your own mind.

295 pingjockey  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:26:17pm

re: #286 Cato
Some fish can swim among sea anemones for survival and some fish can't. Niches in the ecology. The little fish evolved to hide among stinging anemones so the big fish didn't eat them.

296 shotgun  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:26:23pm

re: #173 Occasional Reader

Gravity is a social construct; essentially, it's a form of white supremacy.

So when I fall down IT IS A HATE CRIME!

I KNEW IT!

297 Dianna  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:26:40pm

re: #286 Cato

BTW, don't think I'm bashing Darwin -- I'm not. It is just that there is something deeply unsatisfying about a theory that says one type of spider eats its mate after mating for survival reasons and then says that another variety does the opposite -- for reasons of survival.

Different strategies to reach the same goal - lots of descendants.

298 Cato  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:27:08pm

re: #281 Charles


Charles,

I must confess my previous misunderstanding of the term Chimera. I thought it to mean a dog's breakfast of mismatched parts rather than a bunch of mismatched genes. I don't know when your definition became au currant but I do not and cannot contest the idea under your definition.

But it is a weird, weird animal, you must admit.

299 Conservative in Liberal Hands  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:27:13pm

re: #272 zombie

Curse you, Charles, I've been suckered into commenting about evolution again! I must force myself to sign off, as high-priority life-tasks await!

23 Skidoo.

Zombie, I'm with you on that! I'm outa here, lizards!

300 Occasional Reader  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:27:15pm

re: #296 shotgun

So when I fall down IT IS A HATE CRIME!

I KNEW IT!

It's the white man keeping you down. Literally.

301 Dianna  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:29:27pm

On Friday afternoon at about 2:30, we should have a designated drinking thread in which we talk about gravity.

Then, as I peruse the link above, by about 8 pm, I'll have an excuse for not understanding.

302 Cato  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:29:55pm

re: #295 pingjockey


True enough. But it makes the propositions contentless. The logical form of each Darwinian proposition is "p and not p". Of course it is true.

303 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:30:33pm

re: #298 Cato

Charles,

I must confess my previous misunderstanding of the term Chimera. I thought it to mean a dog's breakfast of mismatched parts rather than a bunch of mismatched genes. I don't know when your definition became au currant but I do not and cannot contest the idea under your definition.

But it is a weird, weird animal, you must admit.

This isn't a new definition at all, and it's not "my" definition. I stated the definition of chimera very clearly in my post replying to your statement that "evolution can't be disproved" ... another refutation you've just glided past.

304 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:30:39pm
305 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:30:50pm

re: #292 RedHouseBlueState

I agree ... (and instead of a beer, I'm getting supper into the microwave, which is why I'm tardy)

306 Tigger2005  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:30:53pm

re: #286 Cato

BTW, don't think I'm bashing Darwin -- I'm not. It is just that there is something deeply unsatisfying about a theory that says one type of spider eats its mate after mating for survival reasons and then says that another variety does the opposite -- for reasons of survival.

I see. So what is your explanation, that God designed it that way?

Are you a biologist? Nature is very, very, VERY complex. Biologists can devote their lives to studying the life cycle of a single species. I'm sure biologists who actually study these spiders you mention can give you very good reasons why they may have evolved in opposite directions in this area.

307 Dianna  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:31:00pm

re: #302 Cato

Not really.

Not, of course, you're insisting that every single being ever has to go about things exactly the same way.

308 Occasional Reader  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:31:03pm

re: #297 Dianna

Different strategies to reach the same goal - lots of descendants.

Of course, it's not really a "goal". More of an effect.
I think Richard Dawkins is a flaming arsehole, but I agree with him that one should avoid describing evolution in terms of "goals" and the like.

309 debutaunt  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:31:07pm

re: #284 Occasional Reader

Please define what you mean by "the way we did".

Viruses lack snarkiness

310 Render  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:31:16pm

re: #274 Tigger2005

re: #278 Charles

re: #280 Thanos

Absolutely, there have been more then a few on the other side who have used the discussion to bash Atheists. Neither generalization should be acceptable in polite conversation.

The all Christians this, or all Atheists that, all Jews this, or all Pagans that mentality just doesn't fly.

Which, I believe Charles and Thanos, supports the points you've made on this and other subjects.

K.F.D.,
R

311 Egfrow  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:31:54pm

South park covers the War on Ism's.

Go God Go. 1.

Go God Go 2.

312 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:32:09pm

re: #301 Dianna

On Friday afternoon at about 2:30, we should have a designated drinking thread in which we talk about gravity.

Then, as I peruse the link above, by about 8 pm, I'll have an excuse for not understanding.

You mean the one I sent to zombie?

313 Dianna  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:32:52pm

re: #308 Occasional Reader

You are, of course, correct.

314 transient  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:33:03pm

re: #119 Thanos

The science is settled, first because Al Gore's no scientist. Second, the theory hasn't been around that long, third because there are many solid papers that are peer reviewed which come to different conclusions. Here's the most recent.

I'm not a climatic or atmospheric scientist and I don't have much hope of getting my head around the math in that article. But it is not peer reviewed, as the home page of the APS Society makes clear; it was posted on the forum. It would be interesting to see refutations of the article, or peer reviewed articles supporting it.

{transient reaches for popcorn.}

315 Egfrow  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:33:12pm

re: #303 Charles

re: #303 Charles

This isn't a new definition at all, and it's not "my" definition. I stated the definition of chimera very clearly in my post replying to your statement that "evolution can't be disproved" ... another refutation you've just glided past.

It's 2008. Who has not heard of Google or Dictionary.com?

316 Cato  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:33:44pm

re: #303 Charles


I do not believe you have responded to my argument that viruses live and did not differentiate from any other species. Talk about avoiding arguments.

317 Dianna  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:33:56pm

re: #312 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Yep.

I'm generally fairly intelligent, but I read a couple paragraphs and stopped.

318 Occasional Reader  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:33:57pm

re: #313 Dianna

You are, of course, correct.

How I love hearing that.

[basking in the glow]

Upding for you!

319 Cato  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:34:32pm

re: #315 Egfrow


A really old guy.

320 pingjockey  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:34:38pm

re: #315 Egfrow
What is this Google you speak of? :)

321 Yosemite bill  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:34:45pm

Sorry Charles. I'm all out of secular tolerance . Hell and I'm not even an "evangelical" or 'fundamentalist'... .
I've got work to do . Catch up after dark.
Later

322 Dianna  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:35:02pm

re: #316 Cato

He's been busy getting links to refute your prior mis-statements.

323 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:35:09pm

re: #304 buzzsawmonkey

What's new, platypus?
Wo-wo-wo-wo-wo

--Tom Jones

I'm glad I'm not a skeet shooter. I would have blasted that one as it went past.

/and destroyed my monitor

324 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:35:35pm

re: #321 Yosemite bill

Sorry Charles. I'm all out of secular tolerance . Hell and I'm not even an "evangelical" or 'fundamentalist'... .
I've got work to do . Catch up after dark.
Later

OK -- if you really want to feel insulted that badly, it's your choice.

325 BigJohn  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:35:36pm

re: #301 Dianna

On Friday afternoon at about 2:30, we should have a designated drinking thread in which we talk about gravity.

Then, as I peruse the link above, by about 8 pm, I'll have an excuse for not understanding.

I'll be ready with Plenty of This. I just finished reading Bob Berman's book "Strange Universe". It's a lot of fun.

326 nikis-knight  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:35:51pm

re: #308 Occasional Reader

Of course, it's not really a "goal". More of an effect.
I think Richard Dawkins is a flaming arsehole, but I agree with him that one should avoid describing evolution in terms of "goals" and the like.

I think you are misapplying that. Evolution does not have a goal. (un, athiestic evolutions does not have a goal. There is room for guided evolution, right?) Individual organisms do have goals. In this case, to survive and reproduce.
What type of spiders are produced in the future is not a goal of either evolution or the particular spiders, but a result of those spiders, all species, two goals, survive and reproduce.

327 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:37:09pm

re: #316 Cato

I do not believe you have responded to my argument that viruses live and did not differentiate from any other species. Talk about avoiding arguments.

I don't know what your point is. Is this an argument against evolution you're making?

328 Tigger2005  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:37:22pm

re: #293 garycooper

What's unsatisfying about that? In one environment and time, that behavior would foster survival of the species, and in another, it would not. "Evolution is messy," to misquote our old friend Rummy. ;)

That's one thing I don't understand...why people find evolution "unsatisfying." I think it's WOW! The way life diversifies to fill every available niche, the way it finds balance and equilibrium (before yet another thing comes along to shake everything up).

Evolution is very much like a free-market economy.

329 Dianna  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:37:27pm

I'm headed for home.

When I get there and log into LGF, I expect this bar-room to be perfectly orderly, with everyone speaking in dulcet tones and exchanging abstruse information supported by good links.

/A girl can dream, can't she?

330 bosforus  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:38:39pm

re: #58 bosforus

That's what she said. Why the ding?

331 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:39:22pm

re: #317 Dianna

Yep.

I'm generally fairly intelligent, but I read a couple paragraphs and stopped.

Meta Research is one HEAVY site. Serious science. No BS.

BTW, there's some interesting stuff there regarding apparent artificiality of certain things photographed on Mars. See the Solar System tab, then the "Cydonia" sub-tab. No BS there either.

332 Egfrow  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:39:27pm

re: #316 Cato

I do not believe you have responded to my argument that viruses live and did not differentiate from any other species. Talk about avoiding arguments.

Virus don't fit into classical Biological categories and are not really considered a life form. They are mostly composed of RNA/DNA cores with protein shells. They don't exist in action unless inside a functioning cell. In and of themselves are useless without a life form. It's unarguable in this example and does not hold water.

333 Thanos  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:39:33pm

re: #314 transient

I'm not a climatic or atmospheric scientist and I don't have much hope of getting my head around the math in that article. But it is not peer reviewed, as the home page of the APS Society makes clear; it was posted on the forum. It would be interesting to see refutations of the article, or peer reviewed articles supporting it.

{transient reaches for popcorn.}


From the Science and Public Policy Institute:

WASHINGTON (7-15-08) — Mathematical proof that there is no "climate crisis" appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society, a learned journal of the 10,000-strong American Physical Society, SPPI reports.

Christopher Monckton, who once advised Margaret Thatcher, demonstrates via 30 equations that computer models used by the UN's climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is "climate sensitivity" (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2's effect on temperature in the IPCC's latest climate assessment report, published in 2007.


Now SPPI definitely has a bias, but I doubt they would outright lie since it would destroy their rep as a public policy think tank. (As lieing has destroyed DI"s rep.)

334 USBeast  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:39:54pm

The idea of removing "Darwinism" from the lexicon is a good one and has only one serious flaw: It won't work.

It won't work for the same reason "Pro Choice" won't fly in the "Pro Life" camp and vice versa. The argument is more important (read: "profitable") than the resolution.

Back when there was such a thing as "Common Sense" the U. S. Patent Office decided to quit accepting applications for perpetual motion devices because they were scientifically impossible. Can you imagine the uproar that would ensue if they tried to make that rule today?

"Science be damned!" "First Amendment...!" "Big Oil...!" "Conspiracy!" Millions of gallons of ink (and several gallons of blood) would be shed and, in the mean time, no one would come up with a perpetual motion device because such a thing is scientifically impossible.

Just like dinosaurs coexisting with Homo Sapiens.

335 Dianna  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:40:15pm

re: #331 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Not - please not! - the "humanoid face" on Mars?!

I am so tired of that.

336 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:40:37pm

re: #213 Cato

THERE IS NOW WAY TO DISPOROVE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY!

That's what you wrote. It's wrong, isn't it?

337 Occasional Reader  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:41:12pm

re: #329 Dianna

I'm headed for home.

When I get there and log into LGF, I expect this bar-room to be perfectly orderly, with everyone speaking in dulcet tones and exchanging abstruse information supported by good links.

/A girl can dream, can't she?

Like this?

338 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:43:24pm

re: #335 Dianna

Not - please not! - the "humanoid face" on Mars?!

I am so tired of that.

I know. I haven't followed it in years for the same reason, but there is some validity to at least some of the observations. There's an intriguing MOV animation on the Cydonia page. It raises the question, cannot answer it, so it just leaves it hanging (as it should be.)

339 StPatrick  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:43:33pm

re: #176 Charles

Taking tactics from the St. Barack campaign, it appears. Seeing insult where none exists, and using the resultant outcry to bury the original story.

340 Egfrow  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:43:41pm

re: #336 Charles

re: #213 Cato

THERE IS NOW WAY TO DISPOROVE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY!

That's what you wrote. It's wrong, isn't it?

Both of you are correct. It depends on where you start. Some life forms have not followed evolutionary patterns, but many do. You can argue both cases but it does not "Disprove Evolution" because one few species did not follow the norm. It's called deviation. Life is not a computer program. Too many variables to even fathom must be considered for every single case.

341 Mich-again  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:44:09pm

re: #316 Cato

Viruses are not alive.

342 NemoParticularis  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:44:15pm

re: #274 Tigger2005

Maybe I should whine more. But people will also expect cheese.

Stilton, please. And a nice ruby Port. Preferably Cockburn. Thanks.

343 Cato  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:44:54pm

re: #327 Charles

Yes. A central tenat of evolutionary theory is the all life started with a common ancestor and different species evolved therefrom. Viruses could not have. You may object that viruses are not really alive, but you cannot contest that they did not evolve from a common ancestor.

BTW:

chi·me·ra 1. (often initial capital letter) a mythological, fire-breathing monster, commonly represented with a lion's head, a goat's body, and a serpent's tail.
2. any similarly grotesque monster having disparate parts, esp. as depicted in decorative art.
3. a horrible or unreal creature of the imagination; a vain or idle fancy: He is far different from the chimera your fears have made of him.
4. Genetics. an organism composed of two or more genetically distinct tissues, as an organism that is partly male and partly female, or an artificially produced individual having tissues of several species.

My definition was 1 and 2. Yours was 4.

344 transient  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:44:56pm

re: #213 Cato

Hypothesis:

THERE IS NOW WAY TO DISPOROVE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY! [sic]

If you could show dinosaurs, trilobites, and human remains in the same geological stratum radiometrically dating to approximately 6,000 BC, you would disprove evolution (and support, but not prove, Biblical creationism).

Not surprisingly, no such evidence has been found.

Your hypothesis has been falsified.

345 garycooper  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:45:07pm

re: #328 Tigger2005

I feel the same way. Every time I read a book about evolution, which has to be in layman's terms for me, I am rocked anew with the near-infinite varieties and processes of life. I can sort of understand where Creationists are coming from, in that regard, though I am a confirmed atheist and all-around skeptic. I think where Creationists and ID people get flummoxed, is that they can't begin to cope with the sheer amount of time that is involved with evolution, as it is involved with geology, and the universe for that matter. Of course, they only have about 6000 years to work with, heheh.

346 Occasional Reader  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:45:27pm

re: #342 NemoParticularis

Preferably Cockburn.

Ouch!

347 Mich-again  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:46:00pm

re: #334 USBeast

You can't get a patent without a working model. Thats what they told me when I tried to get a patent on the flying car.

/

348 gman  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:47:04pm

The notion of Darwin as the "foundation upon which the house of evolutionary theory was built" is a tantalizing one for opponents of evolutionary biology because it gives them a location to concentrate their efforts in destroying the entire "house".

Again, this type of reasoning by anti- evolutionists shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Science. Scientists use the scientific method to gather information about the natural world. The best way to imagine this process of gathering information of the natural world is to think of the process by which someone solves a puzzle. By observation and experimentation, scientists gather pieces of knowledge concerning a particular phenomenon. As more scientists conduct experiments, more pieces of information are gathered to complete the puzzle framework until a complete theory is fleshed out.

349 Rule303[deleted]  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:47:06pm
350 Egfrow  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:47:26pm

The AID virus can mutate and evolve it's self against a new drug that it borders on accelerated evolution. The new virus only after a two or three generations does not even genetically resemble the original in almost every way. Still, in my opinion, Virus are outside of this argument because they can not self sustain without a cellular host.

351 Cato  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:47:30pm

re: #341 Mich-again


Then how do they keep "evolving" to infect us? Does evolution apply to the non-living as well?

I am commuting so I won't be responding for a while.

352 transient  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:47:46pm

re: #255 theparson

That's what I'm talking 'bout!

Thought you might have been!

;)

353 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:47:48pm

Any comments telling me what I should not post at LGF will be deleted.

354 Occasional Reader  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:48:03pm

Whoa. I think Stinky's deletion ray moves even faster than gravitrons.

355 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:48:35pm

re: #316 Cato
Here's another link for you to ignore....
Where did viruses come from?

356 Cognito  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:48:43pm

re: #242 Charles

This is a talking point straight from the ICR. The platypus is not a chimera.

[Link: tinyfrog.wordpress.com...]

Ahem. Actually there are chimeras among us mere humans. Sometimes -- rarely -- two fetuses meld in a mother's womb, so that the person born has two sets of DNA. A patchwork, so to speak.

357 Egfrow  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:48:51pm

re: #351 Cato

Then how do they keep "evolving" to infect us? Does evolution apply to the non-living as well?

I am commuting so I won't be responding for a while.

They have to combine with a living cell and steal the raw cellular functions of a host cell to replicate it's own DNA. It's like Islam.

358 Boondock St. Bender  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:49:06pm

re: #349 Rule303

interesting side note,after his comment one of einsteins compatriots resonded to him"albert,stop telling god what to do."

359 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:49:06pm

re: #343 Cato

Oh, I see. You thought that, during a discussion of biology and evolution, I might be using a definition of "chimera" that relates to mythical monsters.

right

360 Naso Tang  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:49:34pm

re: #256 Thanos

Ways to falsify evolution

You could find a bunny fossilized in a T-Rex tummy. (Please, go find one if you can.)

Actually it wouldn't refute evolution.

It would however raise obvious question about other influences in the universe. Time travelers perhaps?

Visits from aliens losing pets, which would suggest evolution happened the same way elsewhere, thereby confirming it further?

Maybe a god doing fast track experiments with evolution, but forgetting to lock the door?

361 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:49:34pm

re: #274 Tigger2005

Maybe I should whine more. But people will also expect cheese.

Just tell them you're an Omar Khayyam fan -- bread to loaf and whine under a tree.

362 Cognito  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:49:38pm

re: #356 Cognito

Ahem. Actually there are chimeras among us mere humans. Sometimes -- rarely -- two fetuses meld in a mother's womb, so that the person born has two sets of DNA. A patchwork, so to speak.

And to be perfectly clear, that's no argument for or against 'Darwinism' or 'unDarwinism' or whatever -- I just like words, and 'chimera' is neato.

363 Cato  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:49:44pm

re: #344 transient


You of course understand the logical falisy of your argument. I still expect to see WMDs in Iraq.

364 NemoParticularis  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:49:44pm

re: #332 Egfrow

Virus don't fit into classical Biological categories and are not really considered a life form. They are mostly composed of RNA/DNA cores with protein shells. They don't exist in action unless inside a functioning cell. In and of themselves are useless without a life form.

A somwhat tangential question, but I am very curious: I believe that viruses can and do mutate. If so, are they able to mutate only within the life form? What if one were to create a designer virus - a whole bunch of it. What would they do with it prior to dispersal? Freeze it? Keep it in some sort of liquid medium? And during that time, would it mutate? Or would that happen only AFTER the virus takes up residence in a hos organism? Thanks.

365 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:50:17pm

re: #343 Cato


Viruses could not have.


Says you.

366 USBeast  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:50:29pm

re: #347 Mich-again

You can't get a patent without a working model. Thats what they told me when I tried to get a patent on the flying car.

/

You're right. As I understand it the reason for the "working model" rule was that the patent office was being inundated with applications for perpetual motion devices.

367 nikis-knight  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:50:31pm

re: #345 garycooper

ID people have not specidifed 6000 years. Some may think so, for all I know, but it isn't a part of the arguement, meritless as it may otherwise be.

Personally I like Gerald Schroeder's take the best.

368 garycooper  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:50:32pm

I was going to mention the title of a book I just obtained, and look forward to reading on vacation in a couple of weeks: "Your Inner Fish," by Neal Shubin. It came highly-recommended from a friend whose scientific aptitude is far greater than mine.

369 debutaunt  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:50:44pm

re: #330 bosforus

That's what she said. Why the ding?

Sometimes when you talk to yourself, you actually speak out loud.

370 NemoParticularis  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:51:19pm

re: #346 Occasional Reader

Ouch!

LOL. A very fine Port. The name is pronounced "Co-Burn."

371 Thanos  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:51:34pm

re: #343 Cato

Another strawman.

populations of common ancestors, not a "single common ancestor" like you would find with a geneology tree if you wanted to find your first ancestor who emigrated from Europe or China. Indeed, you could have two .

Most species can be traced back to a common ancestor, just as recently most Amerinds can be traced back to aproximately six common but different ancestors in the Americas.

372 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:51:42pm

re: #351 Cato

Meanwhile, your claim that "evolution can't be disproven" is wrong, isn't it?

373 shotgun  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:51:46pm

re: #300 Occasional Reader

It's the white man keeping you down. Literally.

so I am keeping myself down,, well, I always suspected I was behind my own shortcomings,,, just never realized how deep the conspiracy ran, heh

374 Occasional Reader  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:52:06pm

re: #363 Cato

You of course understand the logical falisy of your argument. I still expect to see WMDs in Iraq.

Um, you asked for a hypothetical way in which evolution could be disproven. Transient gave you a hypothetical answer. What logical fallacy?

375 Tigger2005  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:52:29pm

re: #347 Mich-again

You can't get a patent without a working model. Thats what they told me when I tried to get a patent on the flying car.

/

Caractacas Potts, is that you?

376 jaunte  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:52:31pm

re: #355 Killgore Trout

Interesting link. Viruses; the first parasites, and still with us.

377 garycooper  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:52:43pm

re: #367 nikis-knight

ID people have not specidifed 6000 years. Some may think so, for all I know, but it isn't a part of the arguement, meritless as it may otherwise be.

Personally I like Gerald Schroeder's take the best.

I know, I was kidding about that ("heheh"). Thanks for the Schroeder link!

378 Thanos  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:52:48pm

re: #351 Cato

Then how do they keep "evolving" to infect us? Does evolution apply to the non-living as well?

I am commuting so I won't be responding for a while.

You do realize you are proving our point for us? Even proto life evolves.

379 Render  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:53:52pm

re: #358 Boondock St. Bender

And Alberts response was?

BEEN
THERE,
R

380 garycooper  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:54:23pm

re: #377 garycooper

I know, I was kidding about that ("heheh"). Thanks for the Schroeder link!

P.S. Gerald Schroeder is full of beans. Not kidding!

381 Occasional Reader  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:54:30pm

re: #370 NemoParticularis

LOL. A very fine Port. The name is pronounced "Co-Burn."

Yes, I know. Merci beaucoup, as Obama would say. Not much of a porto drinker myself, though.

382 Render  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:55:11pm

re: #363 Cato

So you didn't bother to read the full Kay report?

ANOTHER
ONE?,
R

383 Naso Tang  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:55:12pm

re: #316 Cato

I do not believe you have responded to my argument that viruses live and did not differentiate from any other species. Talk about avoiding arguments.

Depends on your word definitions.

Viruses are alive to the extent that they live (reproduce) in other life, though not separately. They evolve and they were probably responsible for much of life's evolution.

384 transient  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:55:32pm

re: #286 Cato

It is just that there is something deeply unsatisfying about a theory that says one type of spider eats its mate after mating for survival reasons and then says that another variety does the opposite -- for reasons of survival.

I find gravity to be deeply unsatisfying. I would prefer to float through my house, launch myself upwards for easy changing of lightbulbs in my cathedral ceiling, and fly to work without spending $4/gallon to fuel my earth-bound transportation device.

Reality bites.

385 Mich-again  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:55:33pm

re: #375 Tigger2005

Caractacas Potts, is that you?

Ha. He had a working model.

386 Boondock St. Bender  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:55:37pm

re: #379 Render

"go f--- yourself....,i'm albert einstein!"or something like that.

/

387 garycooper  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:57:02pm

From Dr. Tatiana's book, see sample #1: [Link: www.drtatiana.com...]

Hmm...maybe the Muslims are onto something, with keeping their women in the house, and inside tents when in public. ;)

Just kidding...nobody needs to remind me, most Muslims are skull-f'd from birth.

388 Egfrow  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:57:02pm

re: #364 NemoParticularis

They only function inside a cell. They do nothing outside of a cell but sit there. The mutations follow two reasons,

1. Some virus integrates segments of a host cells DNA to make changes and can also mix with other virus RNA.

2. The RNA has loose bindings that allow certain sequences of DNA not to be exactly replicated and also even allows segments to be skipped in replication.

389 Tigger2005  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:57:03pm

re: #385 Mich-again

Ha. He had a working model.

Wasn't that just in the story he was telling to Truly Scrumptious and those insufferably cute children?

390 George guy  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:57:09pm

re: #345 garycooper

I think where Creationists and ID people get flummoxed, is that they can't begin to cope with the sheer amount of time that is involved with evolution, as it is involved with geology, and the universe for that matter.

An interesting, but poorly grounded speculation I'm afraid.

391 bosforus  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:57:11pm

re: #369 debutaunt

Sometimes when you talk to yourself, you actually speak out loud.

Ha ha, I was actually asking the person who dinged me. But oh well. I'm going home.

392 Render  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:57:21pm

re: #386 Boondock St. Bender

LOL!

Not Albert. I think that is when he made his "God does not play dice with the world" quote.

It is an amusing image to think of Einstein cursing somebody out though...

IT
COULD
HAPPEN,
R

393 akak  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:57:32pm
Cato 7/17/08 3:49:44 pm reply quote 0

re: #344 transient


You of course understand the logical falisy of your argument. I still expect to see WMDs in Iraq.

Guess you didn't read about that shipment to Canada last week eh scumbag?

394 itellu3times  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:58:00pm

But if we get rid of Darwinism, won't we be immediately overrun with dinosaurs? I'm against that.

395 Occasional Reader  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:58:11pm

re: #370 NemoParticularis

LOL. A very fine Port. The name is pronounced "Co-Burn."

Addendum; despite not drinking port myself, I have fond memories of it, because the very first time I ever bought a bottle (Cockburn's, in fact, as a gift), it was in one of the most beautiful places I've ever visited; Sintra.

396 Thanos  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:58:14pm

re: #359 Charles

Sure he was hoping you'd whip out the crockoduck

397 itellu3times  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:59:23pm

re: #383 Naso Tang

They evolve and they were probably responsible for much of life's evolution.

They evolve like mad, new flu viruses every year, AIDS viruses evolving to defeat new drugs.

398 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 3:59:38pm

re: #390 George guy

I think where Creationists and ID people get flummoxed, is that they can't begin to cope with the sheer amount of time that is involved with evolution, as it is involved with geology, and the universe for that matter.

An interesting, but poorly grounded speculation I'm afraid.

Well, that's because you believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, right?

399 Occasional Reader  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:00:32pm

re: #393 akak

1) No need for that sort of personal attack.

2) And anyway, you're misunderstanding Cato's point. (I disagree with him, but you're misunderstanding his point.)

400 NemoParticularis  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:01:35pm

re: #388 Egfrow

They only function inside a cell. They do nothing outside of a cell but sit there. The mutations follow two reasons,
1. Some virus integrates segments of a host cells DNA to make changes and can also mix with other virus RNA.
2. The RNA has loose bindings that allow certain sequences of DNA not to be exactly replicated and also even allows segments to be skipped in replication.

Nuts. This completely blows an element of a storyline I am working on right out of the water. How about this: is it possible for the virus to mutate shortly AFTER it enters the host organism - mutate in such a fashion that it does NOT do what it was designed to do?

Sorry to be a pest.

401 nikis-knight  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:01:42pm

re: #364 NemoParticularis

Viruses could mutate outside of a host (though they don't in general spend much of their lifecycle outside of a host.) It's Nucleic acid sequneces that mutates, not lifeforms, and both all living things and viruses have Nucleic Acid sequences.

Some forms of mutation, however, probably the most significant, could only happen in a cell, using the 'machinery' of the cell. replication, deletion, insertion of specific sequences of DNA/RNA for example. (Most of what viruses do is replicate the DNA or RNA, so they will mutate much more rapidly, and they have less mechanism for 'proofreading' as Eukaryotes do.)

Outside of a cell, radiation damage can change some nucleic acids into others, or could knock out some sections of code, or simply destroy some.

Bear in mind that much of these mutations might make the virus unable to function, especially that by radiation, I think, but there are a great number of viruses produced from each cell they are able to successfully invade and utilize.

What if one were to create a designer virus - a whole bunch of it. What would they do with it prior to dispersal? Freeze it? Keep it in some sort of liquid medium? And during that time, would it mutate? Or would that happen only AFTER the virus takes up residence in a hos organism? Thanks.

Probaly freeze it, unless some technical reason prevented them from doing so (remember, we can freeze human cells, such as eggs & sperm without damage.) I believe any mutation there would be much slower. Infection with the virus could be by inhalation or blood or orally, and they would probably start mutating very fast after release or infection.

If one were doing anything other than making a weapon (like trying to repair the DNA) you want to be very careful not to let any escape your control. (There is an Orscon Scott Card book called Invasive Procedures, a novel, which discusses that.)

402 nikis-knight  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:03:10pm

re: #380 garycooper

P.S. Gerald Schroeder is full of beans. Not kidding!

Do you want to be more specific? It's been awhile since I read it.

403 Gordon Marock  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:05:05pm

I agree with Ms. Judson, we'll rename Darwinism . . . .


SATANISM!


//////////////////////

404 Naso Tang  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:06:47pm

re: #403 Gordon Marock

I agree with Ms. Judson, we'll rename Darwinism . . . .


SATANISM!


//////////////////////

That's actually appropriate in the regard that only creationists use the word commonly and that is what they mean.

405 Egfrow  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:07:25pm

re: #400 NemoParticularis

Nuts. This completely blows an element of a storyline I am working on right out of the water. How about this: is it possible for the virus to mutate shortly AFTER it enters the host organism - mutate in such a fashion that it does NOT do what it was designed to do?

Sorry to be a pest.

As soon as the virus enters the host, it must hijack cellular functions immediately or risk being attacked by the immune system. So, it happens pretty fast or else it get's hit, including the host cell. I don't know what you mean by "designed" to do. But it has "evolved" only in the context of other cells. Virus mutations change such as Ebola. Most of the time Ebola does is not dangerous. But it mutates so fast that once in a while it starts to make people ill and creates a Pandemic, Then disappears again.

406 itellu3times  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:10:12pm

re: #390 George guy

I think where Creationists and ID people get flummoxed, is that they can't begin to cope with the sheer amount of time that is involved with evolution, as it is involved with geology, and the universe for that matter.

That's true, but to throw in my two cents worth, pro-evolution people get flummoxed by the magnitudes involved, too. This leads them to make qualitative instead of quantitative statements, which gives the ID people a sliver into which they can insert their wedge.

It seems that evolution - evolved! Early life (or current life!) can get along without it, only reproducing exact copies, but then, one day, conditions change, and goodbye species! Evolution gives you a much better chance that a few near-relative will survive, and so we reproduce with a few extra degrees of freedom.

But we have so few quantitative measures of this. Just reading a SciAm article on the trace of human genetic changes since the species left Africa, mitochondrial DNA and human Y-chromosomes. That has a few numbers in it, but those are numbers for successful, major mutations. In biological models, it's hard to know what kind of "error rate" to allow, and the "errors" are not fully random, especially the ones that survive, they preserve large structures, homeoboxes, etc.

Daniel Dennett has tried to write a bit about evolution as exploring a search space (I almost said "design space"!), which is all good, but we need more detailed biology and numbers at the micro-levels, before we really nail this sucka.

407 transient  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:10:35pm

re: #333 Thanos

Now SPPI definitely has a bias, but I doubt they would outright lie since it would destroy their rep as a public policy think tank. (As lieing has destroyed DI"s rep.)

I am not accusing them of lying. It is entirely possible that it was an honest mistake. Looking at the APSS website it is easy to see how someone could infer that the article is peer reviewed. The following statement is from the APSS homepage and appears to have been added in response to this article (though they do not mention it by name):

An article at odds with [the APS climate change] statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that "Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum." This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.

Monckton's article appears on the Forum on Physics and Society, which the homepage states is not peer reviewed. While the disclaimer mentioned does not appear above the article, it does appear at the newsletter page, which links to Monckton's article.

408 Naso Tang  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:10:44pm

re: #371 Thanos

Most species can be traced back to a common ancestor, just as recently most Amerinds can be traced back to aproximately six common but different ancestors in the Americas.

......which does not mean that this was the "first" ancestor, just the one whose genes survived to the present.

409 itellu3times  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:10:46pm

re: #400 NemoParticularis

Nuts. This completely blows an element of a storyline I am working on right out of the water. How about this: is it possible for the virus to mutate shortly AFTER it enters the host organism - mutate in such a fashion that it does NOT do what it was designed to do?

Yes.

410 Thanos  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:12:05pm

Cato you appear to have missed the whole "retrovirus's are part of our genome" thing, and how unique chains of them confirm our relation to other primates.

[Link: www3.interscience.wiley.com...]

411 itellu3times  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:12:59pm

re: #410 Thanos

Cato you appear to have missed the whole "retrovirus's are part of our genome" thing, and how unique chains of them confirm our relation to other primates.

[Link: www3.interscience.wiley.com...]

Yeah but it's ichy.

412 freetoken  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:15:02pm

re: #191 Charles

I have that study open in a browser window right now. Looks like Greek to me.

But the conclusion is very interesting.

I added a comment in the spinoff links addressing this. It is a classic case of the media (in this case DailyTech and Drudge) simply not understanding the process of what is going on.

Which is relevant to this blog entry... put simply the layman is so far removed from the daily activities of the scientific community that it is often a challenge to keep the wrong impression from being given!

413 Occasional Reader  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:17:24pm

OT--

Pelosi to Bush: I know you are, but what am I?

Stay classy, Nancy.

414 NemoParticularis  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:17:42pm

re: #405 Egfrow

As soon as the virus enters the host, it must hijack cellular functions immediately or risk being attacked by the immune system. So, it happens pretty fast or else it get's hit, including the host cell. I don't know what you mean by "designed" to do. But

In his case the fictional virus, code-named POGO, is created by patching together sequences from Ebola and HIV which are then grafted onto the basic structure of the influenza virus, modified for airborne transmission. The virus is to be delivered by aerosol to the general public but is designed to strike only those individuals who have a residual prion in their systems. But the virus somehow mutates - either before or after it infects the host organisms and is harmless to them. HOWEVER, this mutated virus boomerangs and ultimately wipes out the individuals who created it, members of a group that have another, different prion in their systems.

Outlandish, I know, then again it is the stuff of fiction. But is it plausible?

415 transient  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:17:58pm

re: #407 transient

Correction:
Should be APS, not APSS.

416 J.S.  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:18:08pm

"the origin of viruses" (from "Biology of Plants," Raven, Evert, Eichhorn; fifth edition, p. 204). The authors write: "Because of the simplicity of viral genomes and viral structure, some earlier investigators mistakenly thought that viruses might represent the direct descendants of the self-replicating units from which the first cells evolved. This line of descent is unlikely, for viruses exist only by virtue of their ability to utilize the genetic machinery of their host cells. They compete with the nucleic acids of these cells and take over the host genetic and metabolic activities in directing the formation of new viral particles. It is clear, therefore, that viruses came into being after the evolution of cells in which the genetic code was already established. Viruses probably originated independently on many occasions during the history of life on earth. They can evolve with astonishing rapidity in response to strong selection pressures. It is likely that novel viruses are still evolving today from both bacteria and eukaryotes."

417 Boondock St. Bender  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:19:17pm

re: #413 Occasional Reader

ah...wait till their lil denver shin-dig,then you'll see class!

418 jcm  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:19:52pm

BHO has changed the location of his Berlin speech.

From the Brandenburg Gate to.....

'Lightworker' Candidate To Speak Before Angelic Column

Campaign Spot reader Tim tells me Berliner Morgenpost is reporting that the Obama campaign and Berlin city authorities have agreed on the location for his speech next week, the Great Star (Grosser Stern), where seven streets intersect. It lies in the middle of the big park in the center of Berlin, the Tiergarten.

It is a totally non-descript place except for one thing. The Victory Column (Siegessaeule) is there and Sen. Obama will speak directly in front of it. The Victory Column is a tower over 700 feet high and is a monument to Prussia's victories in wars against Denmark, Austria and France in the 19th century.


I don't have much of a complaint with Obama speaking in front of a Prussian War memorial — almost any site seems to have potential for an off-key memory or context — but Tim sees problems:

Sen. Obama will certainly get his cheering crowd and will most likely appear "Presidential" on TV news. I don't think, though, that he will help himself much with other European countries by appearing in front of what they regard with justification as a monument to Prussian militarism (which also cost American lives). This will likely be something long remembered negatively throughout Europe. I suppose that Sen. Obama will next choose to speak at the Yasukuni shrine when he goes to Japan


419 kansas  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:20:40pm

re: #403 Gordon Marock

I agree with Ms. Judson, we'll rename Darwinism . . . .


SATANISM!


//////////////////////

Like the churchlady?

420 angst  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:21:18pm

re: #45 Cicero05

I come from a family of confirmed Ptolemists. We all believe that the Earth circles the Sun.

Ptomely believed in a geocentric theory of the universe. You're Copernicans.

Anyway, I didn't make it through the whole thread, but what bothers me isn't that we're referring back to a single person, Darwin, but rather it's the "ism" that is problematic. SOmeone mentioned "Newtonian physics". I wouldn't have a problem with "Darwinian evolution" as a subset of evolution, because his theory is a little different that what is accepted today, what with plasmids, punctuated equilibrium and all that.

"-ism", however, denotes an ideology, which may or may not have anything to do with actual scientific study or facts. Other "-sms" are (of course) terrorism, Catholicism, evangelism, antidisestablishmentarism.... you get the picture. These are belief systems.

People that use the term "Darwinism" aren't simply trying to tie evolution to an old theory that has been heavily refined- they're also trying to divorce it from its empirical roots and imply that it requires a leap of faith rather than an examination of known evidence.

421 NemoParticularis  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:22:39pm

re: #416 J.S.

Viruses probably originated independently on many occasions during the history of life on earth. They can evolve with astonishing rapidity in response to strong selection pressures. It is likely that novel viruses are still evolving today from both bacteria and eukaryotes.

What about mutagenic viruses? Are these viruses capable of altering the DNA of host organisms? If so, to wht extent can mutagenesis occur? Is it possible for a series of viruses to actually alter the genetic code of an entire species?

422 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:22:42pm

re: #406 itellu3times

You misunderstood George Guy's post -- that part about people not understanding the time scale was a quote from 'garycooper' above.

George Guy is a young earth creationist.

423 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:23:10pm

re: #418 jcm

the Yasukuni Shrine

OH! Be still my heart!

424 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:24:30pm

re: #423 pre-Boomer Marine brat

OH! Be still my heart!

(meaning ... I hope he DOES!)

425 goddessoftheclassroom  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:24:39pm

Good evening, Lizards.

426 pingjockey  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:25:10pm

re: #422 Charles
Is that the YEC term I see thrown around here? Also, are these the folks that believe the earth is only 6000 years old?

427 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:25:49pm

re: #426 pingjockey

Is that the YEC term I see thrown around here? Also, are these the folks that believe the earth is only 6000 years old?

Bingo.

428 VegasRick  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:25:59pm

re: #425 goddessoftheclassroom

Good evening, Lizards.

Evnin' maam.

429 pingjockey  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:26:21pm

re: #427 Charles
Holy scales Lizard Chief!

430 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:26:34pm

re: #425 goddessoftheclassroom

Good evening, Lizards.

Huh? Who's that?

431 pingjockey  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:26:53pm

re: #425 goddessoftheclassroom
Evenin' to you ma'am.

432 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:26:56pm

If anyone can give me a quick answer, do young earth creationist believe EVERYTHING (earth, universe) was created 6000 years ago?

433 Naso Tang  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:27:26pm

re: #432 Walter L. Newton

wait for it

434 jcm  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:27:42pm

re: #426 pingjockey

Is that the YEC term I see thrown around here? Also, are these the folks that believe the earth is only 6000 years old?

A number of folks believe the earth was created in 6 - 24 hour days about 6000 years ago. The 6000 year figure comes from Bishop Usher's adding up the generations in the Bible and the ages given for various individuals mentioned.

435 transient  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:27:46pm

re: #432 Walter L. Newton

If anyone can give me a quick answer, do young earth creationist believe EVERYTHING (earth, universe) was created 6000 years ago?

Yes, as written in Genesis.

436 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:27:51pm

re: #433 Naso Tang

wait for it

?

437 pingjockey  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:27:57pm

re: #433 Naso Tang
Are we there yet?

438 Throbert McGee  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:27:57pm

re: #220 Charles

Yes, there are numerous ways to falsify evolutionary theory.

Just one example: come up with a "chimera," a combination of species from two different lineages.

Somewhat ironic, to me, that a chimera would in fact be a falsification of evolutionary theory. Creationists are fond of asserting that "no transitional fossils have ever been found" -- and when presented with well-established fossil sequences as in the equines or whales, they move the goal posts as necessary and say that every intermediate form in the sequence was a "fully formed, distinct species," and thus not "transitional" at all.

From which I have long had the impression that when anti-evolutionists say "just show me ONE example of a transitional species," they have in mind something like a Gary Lawsonish* mer-cow, with a fuzzy bovine head and a scaly piscine tail (with udders) -- which, if it existed, would be just the sort of chimera you're talking about, and would tend to undermine evolution, rather than confirming it.

* Or Disney-esque, as in Pete's Dragon:

♪♫ He has
The head of a camel
The neck of a crocodile
-- It sounds rather strange! --
He's both
A fish and a mammal... ♪♫

439 Ann NY  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:28:00pm

re: #80 Conservative in Liberal Hands

Did I miss something? It's been a long time since I was in a Biology Class, and I ain't as young as I used to be, but when I learned about Darwin, it was the Theory of Natural Selection.

When did it get to be dogma? Certainly the theory of evolution seems to describe and model the world, but I keep an open mind on Theories.

Call me a skeptic.

/

I think you are confused at what scientists mean by theory, here is a good quote by Gould:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

440 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:28:16pm
441 Winslow  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:28:25pm

re: #404 Naso Tang

[re: We'll rename Darwinism Satanism.]

That's actually appropriate in the regard that only creationists use the word commonly and that is what they mean.

Naso Tang, I beg to differ.

The legendary evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr:

"I'm an old-time fighter for Darwinism," he told the Harvard Gazette in a 1991 interview. "I say, 'Please tell me what is wrong with Darwinism. I can't see anything wrong with Darwinism.'"

Ernst Mayr, a creationist?

From Mayr's One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought (1991):

Darwinism is not a simple theory that is either true or false but is rather a highly complex research program that is being continuously modified and improved.”

Darwinism=Satanism?

Stephen Jay Gould:

The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, Part I, Chapter 2: The Essence of Darwinism and the Basis of Modern Orthodoxy: An Exegesis of the Origin of Species. (2002)

Stephen Jay Gould, a creationist?

From the library of The Royal Society:

1 1871
STEBBING, THOMAS R.R.
Essays on Darwinism

2 1871
WRIGHT, Chauncey
Darwinism: being an examination of Mr. St. George Mivart's 'Genesis of species'

3 1876
MACLAREN, James
A critical examination of some of the principal arguments for and against Darwinism

4 1880
O'NEILL, T Warren; T.Warren O'NEILL
The refutation of Darwinism; and the converse theory of development; based exclusively upon DARWIN's facts...

5 1889
RITCHIE David G.
Darwinism and politics

6 1889
WALLACE Alfred Russel; Alfred Russel WALLACE
Darwinism: an exposition of the theory of natural selection, with some of its applications

7 1890
WALLACE Alfred Russel; Alfred Russel WALLACE
Darwinism: an exposition of the theory of natural selection, with some of its applications

8 1899
HUTTON Frederick Wollaston
Darwinism and Lamarckism old and new; four lectures

9 1909

DARWIN centenary number

10 1909
THOMSON John Arthur; J.Arthur THOMSON
Darwinism and human life; the South African lectures for 1909

11 1912
PEARSON, Karl
Darwinism, medical progress and eugenics: the Cavendish Lecture 1912; an address to the medical profession

12 1928
KEITH Arthur; Sir Arthur KEITH
Darwinism and what it implies

13 1930
WILLEY, Arthur
Lectures on Darwinism

14 1935
KEITH Arthur; Sir Arthur KEITH
Darwinism and its critics

15 1963
GRAY Asa; DUPREE A.Hunter ed.
Darwiniana: essays and reviews pertaining to Darwinism

16 1971
GASMAN Daniel
The scientific origins of National Socialism: social Darwinism in Ernst HAECKEL and the German Monist League

17 1974
GLICK Thomas F. ed.
The comparative reception of Darwinism (proceedings of the conference held in Austin, Texas, April 22-23, 1972, under the joint sponsorship of the American Council of Learned Societies and the University of Texas at Austin)

18 1974
SPILSBURY Richard; Richard SPILSBURY
Providence lost: a critique of Darwinism

19 1982
LEITH Brian; Brian LEITH
The descent of DARWIN: a handbook of doubts about Darwinism

20 1983
BOWLER, Peter J.
The eclipse of Darwinism: anti-Darwinian evolution theories in the decades around 1900

21 1983
GRENE Marjorie; edited by Marjorie GRENE
Dimensions of Darwinism: themes and counterthemes in twentieth-century evolutionary theory; (essays resulting from a conference held at Bad Homburg, August 27-28, 1981

22 1992
MILTON Richard
The facts of life: shattering the myth of Darwinism

23 1994
CROOK, Paul
Darwinism, war and history: the debate over the biology of war from the 'Origin of species' to the first World War

24 1998
GAYON, Jean; COBB, Matthew, trans.
Darwinism's struggle for survival: heredity and the hypothesis of natural selection

25 2000
STRICK, James E.
Sparks of life: Darwinism and the Victorian debates over spontaneous generation

The Royal Society: A hotbed of creationists?

I think not.

442 Egfrow  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:28:25pm

There is allot of growing theories about the mechanism that cause evolutionary change. One is that comic ray bursts such as neutrinos collied directly with atom of DNA molecules and changing them. Comic ray burst are very common and even the collapse and resulting blast of a neutron star over 400 light years away can bath the earth in more radiation than a day with the Sun. The other is that virus are playing an effect in evolution by changing the host cells original DNA even in non infected cells because RNA particles can sometimes enter a cell during Meiosis cell division.

443 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:28:33pm

re: #435 transient

Yes, as written in Genesis.

Thanks. Idiots (oops, did I say that).

444 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:28:40pm

re: #432 Walter L. Newton

If anyone can give me a quick answer, do young earth creationist believe EVERYTHING (earth, universe) was created 6000 years ago?

Yes, they do. They calculate that age by going through the "begats."

445 goddessoftheclassroom  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:28:46pm

re: #430 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Huh? Who's that?

{pingjockey}
(WegasRick)
{pre-Boomer Marine brat}

[Link: icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com...]

446 jcm  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:29:00pm

re: #430 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Huh? Who's that?

Fluffy! Anyone seen Fluffy?

447 pingjockey  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:29:36pm

re: #434 jcm
Isn't Bishop Usher the guy that Frederick March quoted in that movie with Spenser Tracy? "4004 BC" was the date IIRC.

448 Thanos  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:29:41pm

re: #407 transient

Interesting indeed, I would wager that peer reviewed papers will follow on the heels of this however, and there are others crtical of IPCC prior to this which are peer reviewed.
Also, it appears that he is lining up for peer review, note the acknowledgement section of his paper:

Acknowledgements
I am particularly grateful to Professors David Douglass and Robert Knox for having patiently answered many questions
over several weeks, and for having allowed me to present a seminar on some of these ideas to a challenging audience in the Physics Faculty at Rochester University, New York; to Dr. David Evans for his assistance with temperature feedbacks; to Professor Felix Fitzroy of the University of St. Andrews for some vigorous discussions; to Professor Larry Gould and Dr. Walter Harrison for having given me the opportunity to present
some of the data and conclusions on radiative transfer and climate sensitivity at a kindly-received public lecture at Hartford
University, Connecticut; to Dr. Joanna Haigh of Imperial College, London, for having supplied a crucial piece of the argument; to Professor Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for his lecture-notes and advice on the implications of the absence of the tropical mid-troposphere “hot-spot” for climate sensitivity; to Dr. Willie Soon of the Harvard Center for Astrophysics for having given much useful
advice and for having traced several papers that were not easily obtained; and to Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama at Huntsville for having answered several questions in connection with satellite data. Any errors that remain are mine alone. I have not received funding from any source for this research

449 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:29:55pm

re: #445 goddessoftheclassroom

{pingjockey}
(WegasRick)
{pre-Boomer Marine brat}

[Link: icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com.. .]

ROFL!

450 Thanos  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:30:24pm

re: #415 transient

Correction:
Should be APS, not APSS.

Btw, I do appreciate the info and will update my post.

451 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:30:37pm

re: #444 Charles

Yes, they do. They calculate that age by going through the "begats."

Then they're "fucked." (I couldn't help myself) Delete if necessary.

452 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:31:05pm
453 jcm  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:31:07pm

re: #447 pingjockey

Isn't Bishop Usher the guy that Frederick March quoted in that movie with Spenser Tracy? "4004 BC" was the date IIRC.

Sounds 'bout right. I'm not recalling the movie.

454 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:31:10pm

re: #446 jcm

Fluffy! Anyone seen Fluffy?

The muffled echo sounds like you're underneath the desk, to avoid the shrapnel.

455 pingjockey  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:31:31pm

re: #445 goddessoftheclassroom

{gotc} :)

456 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:31:39pm

re: #453 jcm

Sounds 'bout right. I'm not recalling the movie.

Yes. And in the play by the same name "Inherit the Wind."

457 freetoken  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:31:44pm

There is the famous Gallup poll on the issue of origins:
[Link: www.gallup.com...]

which shows that the percentage of Americans who believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so" has stayed at 44% over the past couple of decades.

I wonder if that % will ever change? Is there any evidence that could change those peoples' opinions? Is it important?

It would be great if the term "Darwinist" would just fade away, but I doubt it ever will, given how slowly we see the numbers change in the Gallup poll.

This is not an anti-God screed.... that poll includes "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process" as an option at that is the second most popular choice... and it works quite well since science is not about disproving God or not.... but that there are so many Americans who can't get free of Ussher-ism says something about human nature.

458 pingjockey  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:32:08pm

re: #445 goddessoftheclassroom
Ahahahaha! That cat don't look happy!

459 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:32:13pm

re: #453 jcm

Sounds 'bout right. I'm not recalling the movie.

Inherit the Wind

460 jcm  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:32:15pm

re: #451 Walter L. Newton

Then they're "fucked." (I couldn't help myself) Delete if necessary.

Begat you!

Just doesn't have the same umph does it?

461 Racer X  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:33:20pm

OT

Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate

"Considerable presence" of skeptics

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."

In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."

"In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years ... Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth."

Nice to see more smart people are speaking out on this myth.

462 pingjockey  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:33:26pm

re: #453 jcm
It was the Monkey Trial. The first Darrin off Bewitched played the teacher, and Gene Kelly was a reporter. I can't think of the name of the flic!

463 pingjockey  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:33:45pm

re: #459 pre-Boomer Marine brat
Bravo!

464 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:33:57pm

re: #460 jcm

Begat you!

Just doesn't have the same umph does it?

Nah.

465 itellu3times  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:34:15pm

re: #286 Cato

BTW, don't think I'm bashing Darwin -- I'm not. It is just that there is something deeply unsatisfying about a theory that says one type of spider eats its mate after mating for survival reasons and then says that another variety does the opposite -- for reasons of survival.

Theory doesn't say that, that's the number one error people make in trying to understand evolution. Variation is generally neutral until the crunch comes, something survives for good reasons or random ones, and the offspring maintain the combined features.

That's why we have stuff like appendixes, it's not because they help us survive, they're just sort of there and we haven't managed to drop them yet. Bit of a packrat, evolution is.

466 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:34:26pm

re: #462 pingjockey

It was the Monkey Trial. The first Darrin off Bewitched played the teacher, and Gene Kelly was a reporter. I can't think of the name of the flic!

I already posted it "Inherit the Wind"

467 freetoken  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:34:27pm

re: #461 Racer X

OT


Nice to see more smart people are speaking out on this myth.

It has been discussed above, and in the spin-off links. Please see my comment in the spin-off link.

468 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:34:38pm

re: #462 pingjockey

It was the Monkey Trial. The first Darrin off Bewitched played the teacher, and Gene Kelly was a reporter. I can't think of the name of the flic!

That's 'Inherit the Wind'. Great movie. Spencer Tracy was the Clarence Darrow character.

I just watched it the other night, via iTunes.

469 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:34:54pm
470 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:35:01pm

re: #451 Walter L. Newton

A handy reference chart

471 jcm  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:35:16pm

re: #456 Walter L. Newton

Yes. And in the play by the same name "Inherit the Wind."

Now I got it!

The evening 23rd of October, 4004 BC to be precise on is when God started, according to Ussher.

Now if someone could calculate the date the Turtle Stacker started stacking turtles I would be impressed.

472 pingjockey  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:35:21pm

re: #466 Walter L. Newton
Didn't see it until too late. Oops!

473 NemoParticularis  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:35:59pm

re: #442 Egfrow

...virus are playing an effect in evolution by changing the host cells original DNA even in non infected cells because RNA particles can sometimes enter a cell during Meiosis cell division.

May I conclude, therefore, that a powerfully mutagenic virus can cause substantial physiological changes in a species? (it's a plot related storyline question)

474 itellu3times  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:36:26pm

re: #422 Charles

You misunderstood George Guy's post -- that part about people not understanding the time scale was a quote from 'garycooper' above.

George Guy is a young earth creationist.

Um, quick look upthread and I'm still confused, I guess. I was just making a technical point about grasping evolution. Read "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" and/or "Freedom Evolves" by Dennett.

475 itellu3times  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:36:51pm

Gotta go do real-world stuff, bbl.

476 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:37:00pm

re: #473 NemoParticularis

May I conclude, therefore, that a powerfully mutagenic virus can cause substantial physiological changes in a species? (it's a plot related storyline question)

I like to know where people are coming from -- are you a young earth creationist?

477 Render  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:37:26pm

re: #404 Naso Tang

Anton LeVay?

RINGING
BELLS,
R

478 transient  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:37:30pm

re: #448 Thanos

Interesting indeed, I would wager that peer reviewed papers will follow on the heels of this however, and there are others crtical of IPCC prior to this which are peer reviewed.
Also, it appears that he is lining up for peer review, note the acknowledgement section of his paper:

I would welcome peer reviewed papers that challenge (or support) global warming. I am currently agnostic on the topic, as I have not read enough of the science to have an informed opinion. It is possible that those arguing against climate change are correct, but it is also possible that Big Energy has put enough money into the business to muddy the waters. Whichever way it goes, I want to see good science.

479 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:37:35pm

And the irony of the Scopes Trial (and Inherit the Wind) was that Darrow and Bryan were best of friends ... at least before that.

480 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:37:37pm

re: #474 itellu3times

Um, quick look upthread and I'm still confused, I guess. I was just making a technical point about grasping evolution. Read "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" and/or "Freedom Evolves" by Dennett.

Your point's good, but I think you were assuming that George Guy is on your side -- he isn't.

481 WitchDoctor[deleted]  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:37:51pm
482 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:38:25pm

Any comments telling me what I should not post at LGF will be deleted.

483 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:38:45pm

re: #472 pingjockey

Didn't see it until too late. Oops!

I played a part in the show back in Dallas in the 70's. The hardest part of the show (for me) was getting into the "revival meeting scene" and all that emotion. I guess that's why they call it acting.

484 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:38:46pm

And that's the third time I've posted that notice in this thread.

485 goddessoftheclassroom  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:39:07pm

I remember seeing a program (can't remember name now) about how during the Industrial Revolution moths adapted to blend in with the soot-covered trees, and after pollution abated, adapted back to blend in with the lighter-colored trees.

That was so cool.

486 debutaunt  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:39:10pm

re: #462 pingjockey

It was the Monkey Trial. The first Darrin off Bewitched played the teacher, and Gene Kelly was a reporter. I can't think of the name of the flic!

42nd Street?

487 jcm  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:39:49pm

Text of GWB's eulogy of Tony Snow.

Tony Snow was a man of uncommon decency and compassion. He was a devoted husband, a proud and loving father, an adoring son, a beloved colleague, and a wonderful role model and friend.

In a life that was far too brief, he amassed a rare record of accomplishment. He applied his gifted mind to many fields: as a columnist, newspaper editor, TV anchor, radio host, and musician. He had the sometimes challenging distinction of working for two Presidents named Bush. As a speechwriter in my Dad's administration, Tony tried to translate the President's policies into English. (Laughter.) As a spokesman in my administration, Tony tried to translate my English into English. (Laughter.)

488 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:40:19pm

re: #479 pre-Boomer Marine brat

And the irony of the Scopes Trial (and Inherit the Wind) was that Darrow and Bryan were best of friends ... at least before that.

And Bryan died 5 days after the end of the trial. The ACLU was the ones banking the defense of Cates (character name in the movie/play), the teacher.

489 Racer X  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:40:20pm

Meanwhile, alGore continues spewing his fear mongering.

Just as John F. Kennedy set his sights on the moon, Al Gore is challenging the nation to produce every kilowatt of electricity through wind, sun and other Earth-friendly energy sources within 10 years, an audacious goal he hopes the next president will embrace.


He hopes. heh.

The Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan group that he chairs, estimates the cost of transforming the nation to so-called clean electricity sources at $1.5 trillion to $3 trillion over 30 years in public and private money. But he says it would cost about as much to build ozone-killing coal plants to satisfy current demand.

Hmm..I wonder if The Alliance for Climate Protection stands to make any money off these new energy products?

490 HoosierHoops  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:40:32pm

{goddess}
good to see you

491 Racer X  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:41:20pm

re: #467 freetoken

It has been discussed above, and in the spin-off links. Please see my comment in the spin-off link.

Thanks - I will.

/catching up.

492 debutaunt  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:41:32pm

re: #470 Killgore Trout

A handy reference chart

Gomer? Are you sure?

493 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:41:39pm

re: #488 Walter L. Newton

And Bryan died 5 days after the end of the trial. The ACLU was the ones banking the defense of Cates (character name in the movie/play), the teacher.

Yes. Bryan's death was the element of tragedy, where that friendship was concerned.

494 Egfrow  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:41:45pm

re: #473 NemoParticularis

May I conclude, therefore, that a powerfully mutagenic virus can cause substantial physiological changes in a species? (it's a plot related storyline question)

Yeah, like being depressed about knowing you're going to die from a virus or being scared and pissed off from the pain endured by watching your facial tissue dissolve from Ebola. On a solid note there is theory that some forms of Alzheimer may be caused by a virus. If a virus attacks and prefers brain cells then it can effect psychology to a point.

495 goddessoftheclassroom  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:42:15pm

re: #490 HoosierHoops

{goddess}
good to see you

{HoosierHoops}

496 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:42:54pm
497 jaunte  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:43:11pm

re: #489 Racer X

Here's the Board of Directors of The Alliance for Climate Protection:
[Link: www.climateprotect.org...]

498 debutaunt  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:43:17pm

re: #478 transient

I would welcome peer reviewed papers that challenge (or support) global warming. I am currently agnostic on the topic, as I have not read enough of the science to have an informed opinion. It is possible that those arguing against climate change are correct, but it is also possible that Big Energy has put enough money into the business to muddy the waters. Whichever way it goes, I want to see good science.

Big Gore is making out like a big bandit.

499 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:43:41pm

re: #484 Charles

And that's the third time I've posted that notice in this thread.

Some people don't read.
/or have common sense

500 Throbert McGee  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:43:46pm

re: #432 Walter L. Newton

If anyone can give me a quick answer, do young earth creationist believe EVERYTHING (earth, universe) was created 6000 years ago?

Usually, yes -- I guess, in theory, there might be some who believe that the universe is billions of years old, but the Earth was supernaturally created only several millennia ago. But I've never personally encountered anyone who endorsed that variant.

The OECers, in contrast to the YEC crowd, tend to accept that the Universe is something like 20 billion years old, that the Earth at least 5 billion years old, that life has existed for more than 1 billion years, that the earliest lifeforms were unicellular microorganisms, that most species that have ever existed have gone extinct, etc.

But Old Earth Creationists, by definition, deny "macroevolution" and speciation, insisting that every species was created in its perfected form. A corollary is that OECers deny the common ancestry and inter-relatedness of different species -- thus, if humans, rats, lobsters, and cabbages happen to have DNA sequences in common, it's just one of those amazing coincidences with no real meaning.

501 reine.de.tout  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:44:03pm

re: #489 Racer X

Meanwhile, alGore continues spewing his fear mongering.

Just as John F. Kennedy set his sights on the moon, Al Gore is challenging the nation to produce every kilowatt of electricity through wind, sun and other Earth-friendly energy sources within 10 years, an audacious goal he hopes the next president will embrace.

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that there is a huge difference between a goal of scientific development to allow a nation to fly a man to the moon, and a goal of using existing wind, sun and other Earth -friendly energy sources to good effect?

502 jcm  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:44:09pm

re: #492 debutaunt

Gomer? Are you sure?

Book of Hosea. A counter point to Song of Songs.

503 VegasRick  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:44:42pm

re: #445 goddessoftheclassroom

{pingjockey}
(WegasRick)
{pre-Boomer Marine brat}

[Link: icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com.. .]

Thanks gwoddess!

504 Naso Tang  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:44:46pm

re: #441 Winslow

The Royal Society: A hotbed of creationists?

I think not.

I am indeed impressed with your research, and so quick :)

....except for the fact that going by titles most of these references sound like creationist tomes or much earlier works when the word was in vogue which, if true, would make my point rather than yours.

The Royal Society, as impressive as it may be overall, can be applied to by essentially anyone.

505 Egfrow  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:44:59pm

re: #484 Charles

And that's the third time I've posted that notice in this thread.

I've been here for several years posting. I have disagread and had fights and said my honest piece, I have never once had a deleted post. I even disagreed with Charles from but it's rare. When you tell Charles what he can and can't do on his own site, then that's not to be tolerated by anyone's attempts at censorship of his own mind and site.

506 vagabond trader  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:45:05pm

OT, just finished a little work in the garden and could not help myself. Every mangy little beetle I picked off my flowers was christened with a name. Pelosi, Reid, Waxman, Biden, Dodd, Obama.I need some new ones for tomorrow's work, because like all good lefties, they'll be back for more punishment.Very therapeutic.

507 jcm  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:45:05pm

re: #498 debutaunt

Big Gore is making out like a big bandit.

Algore's inherited fortune comes from Occidental Petroleum. No small irony.

508 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:45:29pm
509 goddessoftheclassroom  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:45:36pm

re: #506 vagabond trader

OT, just finished a little work in the garden and could not help myself. Every mangy little beetle I picked off my flowers was christened with a name. Pelosi, Reid, Waxman, Biden, Dodd, Obama.I need some new ones for tomorrow's work, because like all good lefties, they'll be back for more punishment.Very therapeutic.

Oh, that is SO funny!

510 pingjockey  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:45:56pm

re: #484 Charles

What part of that statement don't those hosers understand?!

511 wolfie  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:46:20pm

Haven't read all of this thread, but...........
I think Judson is spot on. We should call it evolutionary science or evolutionary biology or just evolution.

The sad fact is that the term "Darwinism" has been kicked around for well over a century in contexts that have nothing to do with science and precious little (if anything) to do with Darwin's specific work. So who needs it?
It isn't a scientific term. It's much too fuzzy to be useful in philosophy. The only field in which I can see any need to use it is in history, simply because, like "fyrd" or "triumvir" it was once used.

Time to put it in the past where it belongs.

512 Naso Tang  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:46:36pm

re: #436 Walter L. Newton

?

Sorry I was trying to be humorous. I thought you would be overwhelmed with answers, and thought I should step back.

513 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:46:39pm

re: #502 jcm

re: #492 debutaunt

Gomer? Are you sure?

Book of Hosea. A counter point to Song of Songs.

She must have thought Killgore was merely pyling on.

/sorry, deb, I couldn't resist it

514 freetoken  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:46:57pm

BTW, the Physics and Society newsletter than has the Monckton letter also has a whole section devoted to science and creationism. There are two letters:

Science, Evolution, and Creationism

and

The Science of Evolution and the Myth of Creationism, Knowing What's Real and Why it Matters which is a book review.

Happy reading...

515 LoFlyer  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:47:01pm

Being from Chattanooga Tennessee I know a little of the history behind the "Clarance Darrow monkey trials" There was a small town outside of Chattanooga Tennessee that wanted some publicity to bring tourists to the town. They cooked up the whole scam, arresting the local school-teacher for teaching the heresy that "man descended from monkeys". The whole town was in on the deal, school teacher, sheriff, judge, prosecutor, jury, everybody. They hired Clarence Darrow to defend the school teacher and the rest is history. The town was packed with reporters during the trials, and the money poured in. The town now rests in quiet obscurity. I can't even remember the name of it....

516 jaunte  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:47:34pm

re: #500 Throbert McGee

I don't think I've ever seen a clear definition of a biblical "kind" (other than humans). Does anyone here know if there is one established?

517 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:47:41pm
518 debutaunt  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:47:57pm

re: #502 jcm

Book of Hosea. A counter point to Song of Songs.

I'm such a dunce.

519 vagabond trader  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:48:42pm

re: #509 goddessoftheclassroom

Organic gardening is the best! lol.

520 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:49:20pm

re: #501 reine.de.tout

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that there is a huge difference between a goal of scientific development to allow a nation to fly a man to the moon, and a goal of using existing wind, sun and other Earth -friendly energy sources to good effect?

I don't see any difference, unless one or the other becomes an end unto itself.

/did NOT use the word r*ligion

521 angst  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:50:00pm

re: #465 itellu3times

Theory doesn't say that, that's the number one error people make in trying to understand evolution. Variation is generally neutral until the crunch comes, something survives for good reasons or random ones, and the offspring maintain the combined features.

That's why we have stuff like appendixes, it's not because they help us survive, they're just sort of there and we haven't managed to drop them yet. Bit of a packrat, evolution is.

Well, appendices (I don't know what the plural is, just like I can't spell "Ptolemy") just aren't sufficiently lethal to be selected out. Appendicitis doesn't occur often enough to exert a negative selection bias on those who carry one. Now, of course, it won't select out anyone since there's surgery to cure it.

I wonder, too, about the spiders. There could be different selective pressures in their little microenvironments that cause one kind to eat the mate, and another not to. After all, a ready food supply increases the ability to produce healthy offspring. There are even some kinds of bugs in which the mother is eaten from the inside out.

522 jaunte  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:50:02pm

Time to begin my homeward evolution.

523 wolfie  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:50:09pm

re: #420 angst

Well said.

524 jcm  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:50:22pm

re: #518 debutaunt

I'm such a dunce.

Don't worry. In my experience growing up Baptist Hosea is seldom dealt with. Let me just say, it's a very instructive book, very revealing to those willing to accept the message. Even today.

525 Naso Tang  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:50:33pm

re: #477 Render

Anton LeVay?

RINGING
BELLS,
R

Not sure. Should I? I tend to remember posters in one class, but not in another. I won't say which is which ;)

526 vagabond trader  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:51:05pm

The Goracle appears to have trimmed his rotund self down a bit. Or was it smoke and mirrors like his pseudo science?

527 LoFlyer  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:51:44pm

re: #517 buzzsawmonkey

Dayton.

Yep, thats it. Went through it about a dozen years ago with my dad, and he told me the story.

528 Render  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:51:53pm

re: #515 LoFlyer

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

OCTOBER
RUST,
R

529 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:51:58pm

re: #515 LoFlyer

They hired Clarence Darrow to defend the school teacher and the rest is history

The ACLU hired Darrow, not the town.

530 debutaunt  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:52:05pm

re: #524 jcm

Don't worry. In my experience growing up Baptist Hosea is seldom dealt with. Let me just say, it's a very instructive book, very revealing to those willing to accept the message. Even today.

I'm gonna go have a nice glass of wine.

531 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:52:51pm

re: #506 vagabond trader

OT, just finished a little work in the garden and could not help myself. Every mangy little beetle I picked off my flowers was christened with a name. Pelosi, Reid, Waxman, Biden, Dodd, Obama.I need some new ones for tomorrow's work, because like all good lefties, they'll be back for more punishment.Very therapeutic.

Is the evidence of the therapeutic benefit in the long line of tiny squish-dots on the back patio?

/I hope you wiped your shoes at the door

532 WitchDoctor[deleted]  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:52:52pm
533 theparson  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:53:00pm

It really isn't fair that Charles won't just say up front what he'll do if somebody tries to tell him what to post. All this secrecy...

534 VegasRick  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:53:12pm

Anybody post this already? Look for today 7/17. Fuuunnnyyy!
[Link: www.ibdeditorials.com...]

535 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:53:46pm

Any comments telling me what I should not post at LGF will be deleted.

Fourth time.

536 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:53:58pm

re: #515 LoFlyer

Dayton, IIRC

537 Egfrow  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:53:58pm

The Darwinism apologist rhetoric sure died out fast here. Got hit from all sides. Some caught in the crossfire did not survive either.

538 Render  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:54:15pm

re: #529 Walter L. Newton

Darrow volunteered.

GREEN
MAN,
R

539 Thanos  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:54:26pm

re: #473 NemoParticularis

May I conclude, therefore, that a powerfully mutagenic virus can cause substantial physiological changes in a species? (it's a plot related storyline question)

Large mutagenic change in Adult species is a rarity. It does occasionally occur: e.g. changes in chemical environs can cause somes species of frogs to change sex.

540 jcm  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:54:35pm

re: #535 Charles

Any comments telling me what I should not post at LGF will be deleted.

Fourth time.

Hmm, reading comprehension issues....
Maybe that explains the problems some have with the entire subject.

541 angst  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:54:39pm

re: #523 wolfie

Well said.

Thanks. Semantics sometimes aren't just semantics, they're the whole issue.

542 Salamantis  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:55:06pm

re: #39 WrathofG-d

I really don't want to get into this conversation too deeply, but I think removing something that can be questioned for the sake that questioning it would threaten the entire study, is a bit of underhanded theoretical protectionism.

In essence what you are doing is removing all majorly questionable aspects of a theory to ensure that you can better prove its truth. Eventually you get to a point where everything that exists to question the "truth" of evolution is off limits.

If certain aspect of the base of evolution is questionable or able to be attacked, it should still be arguable.

Why don't we call it Mendelism, then? Because Gregor Mendel's theories of the inheritance of dominant and recessive traits are critical to the modern evolutionary theiry synthesis. Or call it Watson&Crickism, after the co-discoverers of the DNA material substrate that makes the whole thing possible?

No, 'evolutionary theory' is a good enough name for me, because it is neutrally descriptive, and nonpersonalized.

543 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:55:06pm
544 Egfrow  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:55:10pm

re: #535 Charles

Any comments telling me what I should not post at LGF will be deleted.

Fourth time.

Is is the same person? Boot 'em.

545 Racer X  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:55:32pm

re: #540 jcm

Hmm, reading comprehension issues....
Maybe that explains the problems some have with the entire subject.

Bingo!

546 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:55:46pm

re: #538 Render

Darrow volunteered.

GREEN
MAN,
R

To be more accurate, the ACLU ruffled all this up themselves...

"In 1925, the ACLU persuaded John T. Scopes to defy Tennessee's anti-evolution law in a court test. Clarence Darrow, a member of the ACLU National Committee, headed Scopes' legal team. The prosecution, led by William Jennings Bryan, contended that the Bible should be interpreted literally in teaching creationism in school. The ACLU lost the case and Scopes was fined $100. The Tennessee Supreme Court later upheld the law but overturned the conviction on a technicality"

547 Jewels (AKA Julian)  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:55:49pm

evening all

548 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:56:27pm

re: #533 theparson

It really isn't fair that Charles won't just say up front what he'll do if somebody tries to tell him what to post. All this secrecy...

I know. I haven't the FOGGIEST what all these DELETIONS are about. GASP!

549 pingjockey  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:57:02pm

re: #535 Charles
Goddamn morons!

550 theparson  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:57:05pm

re: #543 buzzsawmonkey

Baulderdash! Who would try that?

551 Salamantis  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:57:14pm

re: #41 Yosemite bill

Wow ! CRY ME A RIVER ! If "Darwinism" is too strong/ wrong then I guess there are lots of other pejorative terms on the table ?
I guess "fundamentalist" has to go in regards to Christian conservatives ?
Then are we allowed to refer to members of the Religious Left as Semi- Secular Progressives or is that too strong ?
Ya may not like the term(s) and you may have a case in terms of the historical semantics and evolution of the terminology but pray tell what are we allowed to call folks who promote this Darwin's theory ?

Really? Who was this Fundament guy that fundamentalism was named after? And who was secularism's Mr. Secul?

552 angst  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:57:20pm

re: #546 Walter L. Newton

Ahh... the good old days when the ACLU stood for something other than perceived victimization.

553 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:57:32pm

re: #543 buzzsawmonkey

I get the distinct impression, Charles, that any comments telling you what you should not post at LGF will be deleted.

Oh, is THAT it?
Why didn't some one TELL me?!

554 Jewels (AKA Julian)  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:57:33pm

Getting rid of Darwinism? Well, I suppose. To me it's just a term...but then again, it's been used to describe and justify all sorts of nasty behavior. Look at Naziism and Stalinism.

555 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:57:59pm
556 transient  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:58:00pm

re: #498 debutaunt

Big Gore is making out like a big bandit.


To paraphrase a known saying, Doing good science without Al Gore is like going hunting without an accordion.

I don't care what he says or thinks. He may be making out like a bandit, but so are plenty of others on both sides of the issue.

re: #501 reine.de.tout

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that there is a huge difference between a goal of scientific development to allow a nation to fly a man to the moon, and a goal of using existing wind, sun and other Earth -friendly energy sources to good effect?


Yes, but it would be a worthy goal to develop efficient methods of turning renewable sources of energy into electricity, and to develop effective means of using that electricity in the transportation sector, to eliminate the toxic influence of the oil ticktators.

557 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:58:17pm

Oh no, Jewels. Not you, too.

558 vagabond trader  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:58:34pm

re: #531 pre-Boomer Marine brat

No squish, just a faint crunchy whining sound, much like their namesakes. We're in a woodsy area so insect carcases are part of the gig.Shoes are verbotem on my floors!

559 Throbert McGee  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:59:09pm

re: #420 angst

Ptomely believed in a geocentric theory of the universe. You're Copernicans.

A little trivia (actually, it's not so trivial): the triumph of Copernican heliocentrism over Ptolmaic geocentrism is often cited as an example of Occam's Razor in action.

Which is to say, Ptolemy's Earth-centered universe necessitated an elaborate system of epicycles to explain the observed motions of the Sun, Moon, and the five planets known to the ancients -- "epicycles" being a fancy way to say that certain planets supposedly orbited the Earth in a series of small loops, like the icing swirls on a delicious Hostess™ cupcake.

And it is often said that Copernicus won out because his sun-centered universe did away with these ridiculous epicycles -- thus, it was a simpler hypothesis, and therefore a victory for Occam's Razor.

But in fact, the Copernican model required an even more cumbersome system of epicycles than had been needed in the Ptolmaic model! Copernicus was obviously wrong about assuming that the sun was the center of the universe, but that wasn't the primary flaw in his model -- the real problem was that he assumed the planets revolved around the Sun in circular orbits, and at a constant speed.

560 Salamantis  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:59:20pm

re: #45 Cicero05

I come from a family of confirmed Ptolemists. We all believe that the Earth circles the Sun.

Umm...Ptolemy believed that the Sun, and all the other planets, circled the Earth. Maybe you are thinking of Copernicus.

561 Winslow  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:59:40pm

re: #504 Naso Tang

And what about Mayr and Gould?

562 transient  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 4:59:54pm

re: #516 jaunte

I don't think I've ever seen a clear definition of a biblical "kind" (other than humans). Does anyone here know if there is one established?

What do you want it to be?
;)

563 wolfie  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:00:17pm

re: #452 buzzsawmonkey

Mira, lagartos; no entiendo porque algos personas no pueden entender la realidad de evolucion. Es muy fossil.

I believe we have discovered a transitional species between the American zoo chimp and the average Paraguayan tree monkey!

564 LoFlyer  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:00:53pm

re: #528 Render

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

OCTOBER
RUST,
R

Thanks for the link, the history is even more fascinating than what I remember my dad telling me....

565 NemoParticularis  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:01:17pm

re: #476 Charles

I like to know where people are coming from -- are you a young earth creationist?

I'm flattered that I have intrigued you enough to ask.

No, sir. I am NOT a young earth creationist. As you may or may not have read in any of my initial posts in the past week or so, I am a Christian (Eastern Catholic). While I believe that God created the Heavens and the Earth I do not profess to know with any certainly precisely HOW he did it.

The best scientific evidence so far indicates to me a very, very old universe and a very, very old earth - on the order of billions of years. This evidence likewise indicates to me that life on this planet evolved into myriad kingdoms, phyla, classes, orders, families, genera and ultimately species.

Is there a Divine Intelligence behind the creation of the universe, the origin of life on earth and the subsequent evolution of that life?

I believe so. But it is just that, sir. A belief, with no foundation whatsoever in empirical science and therefore no place in the halls of empirical science because it can be neither confirmed nor disproven by any method of empirical science we know today.

Should Intelligent Design be taught in public schools? Perhaps in a class on comparative religion, but certainly not in any course where the sciences are taught - because it ISN'T science. It's a tenet of faith.

I believe that God created the universe and directed its course because it pleases me to do so, but that is MY business, no one else's - nor should it be anyone else's but my own.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

566 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:02:22pm

re: #563 wolfie

I believe we have discovered a transitional species between the American zoo chimp and the average Paraguayan tree monkey!

Please, wolfie, NOT while I'm chewing!
Where'd I put that spare keyboard?

567 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:03:22pm

re: #565 NemoParticularis

Thanks for clarifying that.

568 goddessoftheclassroom  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:03:53pm

re: #565 NemoParticularis

Well put.

569 jcm  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:04:19pm

re: #563 wolfie

I believe we have discovered a transitional species between the American zoo chimp and the average Paraguayan tree monkey!

Why drag Algore into this?

570 George guy  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:05:24pm

re: #398 Charles

Well, that's because you believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, right?

No, it is not because I believe that.
It's a bad speculation because it indicates a habit of chalking up contrary opinions to some basic cognitive failure. Regardless of whether or not such insanity is eventually demonstrated, it is simply bad sloppy methodology to make that assumption from the beginning. I'm talking about basic rhetorical skills that don't bear a whit on anyone's particular story of life, the universe and anything.

571 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:05:30pm
572 Salamantis  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:05:36pm

re: #60 captainzot

Why isn't this just political correctness?

Evolutionary theory isn't Darwinism. Even the specific ideas of Charles Darwin aren't Darwinism. Darwinism is a perfectly valid term to describe an "ism." It's a referral to the materialistic worldview and creation myth that has been established quite supplementally to the actual science that is done in the biological sphere. This just sounds like a ploy to try and accomplish a cherished goal of certain peripheral organizations. To quote Eugenie Scott. "Avoid debates."

Besides even if you get rid of the moniker, it will not eliminate any of the controversy.

What you are alluding to is not something that Darwin, or Mendel, or Watson&Crick ever claimed; it is, instead, the garbage and mud that Disco Dude type creationists constantly fling at a well-empirical-evidence-supported scientific theory whech they viscerally despise, in the hope that they can get some of it to stick.

573 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:05:44pm

re: #565 NemoParticularis

You are not alone here.
A good description of myself, too.

574 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:06:17pm

This is a good post on the "Darwinism led to Hitler" canard:

[Link: www.pandasthumb.org...]

575 jcm  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:06:54pm

re: #573 pre-Boomer Marine brat

You are not alone here.
A good description of myself, too.

DITTO!

Be NemoParticularis hasn't dealt with the real issue.
TURTLES!
/

576 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:08:08pm
577 angst  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:08:14pm

re: #559 Throbert McGee

Isn't amazing that anyone even paid attention to Copernicus? And another bit of trivia- Brahe supplied Kepler the data to finally come up with elliptical orbits, but Brahe believed in a geocentric theory. Just goes to show, it's a wise man who can change his tightly-held beliefs when confronted with the facts. That seems to be a rare occurrence, these days.

578 VegasRick  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:08:38pm

re: #576 buzzsawmonkey

#571 PIMF

That should be: "...so why not ptake Ptolemy?"

Now I get it!

579 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:08:45pm

re: #570 George guy

No, it is not because I believe that.

So you're not a young earth creationist?

580 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:09:20pm

re: #575 jcm

DITTO!

Be NemoParticularis hasn't dealt with the real issue.
TURTLES!
/

And I'm soooo glad you posted it

581 Jewels (AKA Julian)  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:09:57pm

Charles,

Sorry....kinda moody today. plus little sleep. I'll behave

582 Salamantis  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:10:01pm

re: #80 Conservative in Liberal Hands

Did I miss something? It's been a long time since I was in a Biology Class, and I ain't as young as I used to be, but when I learned about Darwin, it was the Theory of Natural Selection.

When did it get to be dogma? Certainly the theory of evolution seems to describe and model the world, but I keep an open mind on Theories.

Call me a skeptic.

/

No, I just call you someone who has no ideal what the word 'theory' means, in scientific, rather than in common, parlance.

583 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:10:21pm

re: #579 Charles

So you're not a young earth creationist?

Good comeback. I noticed the clever construct of that sentence too!

584 LoFlyer[deleted]  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:10:48pm
585 HoosierHoops  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:10:53pm

I just don't post much on these threads..
Mainly cause I'm out of my element, But my friends, i should tell you this story...I believe in pure science..period. Many millions of people have been killed over observation and scientific methods..As a catholic boy our religion has destroyed many lives..
/those that only sought the truth.
crap..here we go..
A couple of week ago I was returning from Michigan NASCAR race in my entourages Bus.. I was sitting in the back by myself when i saw the most beautiful double rainbow../yea after the race i was a little buzzed.. but this stuck with me...
I thought...The Bible says that the reason we have rainbows is because of Noah and the promise of never flooding the human race with rain..
That is a myth.
Either the science proves that light causes rainbows with a 23 1/2 diffraction from the beginning of time or Gawd decided a couple thousand years ago to change basic physics for this myth.
i guessing rainbows existed for at least 13.7 billion years..but the story line tries to change everything..
Pure science! your doctor, your scientist, your preacher needs to look beyond the bible...after all..wasn't Luke a doctor..God must love smart people.

586 Jewels (AKA Julian)  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:11:09pm

that and looking for a new line of work. Job has become a stress ball with no end in site

587 Salamantis  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:11:40pm

re: #92 shotgun

I just don't see this as a cut and dried either or scenario, and am frankly a little tired of this dichotomy being pushed around as a talking point.

It's an empirical evidence vs. no empirical evidence scenario.

588 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:12:20pm

I guess it isn't getting through that I'm going to delete comments telling me not to post on this topic.

It's especially irritating to have people come into a thread that very obviously is interesting to a lot of people, and tell me how pointless it is.

589 NemoParticularis  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:13:10pm

re: #575 jcm

DITTO! Be NemoParticularis hasn't dealt with the real issue. TURTLES!/

Don't be silly. It's turtles all the way down.

590 angst  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:13:30pm

re: #582 Salamantis

No, I just call you someone who has no ideal what the word 'theory' means, in scientific, rather than in common, parlance.

Kind of like the germ theory of disease.
it might be a theory, but damned if all those operating room personnel don't insist on sterile technique anyway!

591 jcm  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:13:50pm

re: #589 NemoParticularis

Don't be silly. It's turtles all the way down.

Whew, I was worried about you there for a moment!
;-P

592 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:13:51pm

re: #588 Charles

I guess it isn't getting through that I'm going to delete comments telling me not to post on this topic.

It's especially irritating to have people come into a thread that very obviously is interesting to a lot of people, and tell me how pointless it is.

Maybe, put a bullet point in your comment rules above.

593 Salamantis  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:14:47pm

re: #109 shotgun

More pertinent to me,, did matter evolve out of a complete vacuum?

Evolutionary theory refers to biology, not cosmology.

594 VegasRick  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:15:06pm

re: #588 Charles

I guess it isn't getting through that I'm going to delete comments telling me not to post on this topic.

It's especially irritating to have people come into a thread that very obviously is interesting to a lot of people, and tell me how pointless it is.

5 times now. I don't agree with Charles on this topic and have posted as such, but we should all respect Charles' right to post whatever he wants to as a topic.

595 goddessoftheclassroom  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:15:07pm

re: #585 HoosierHoops

That's interesting--I never read that story that way (rainbows not existing before then) but as the rainbow appearing and God using it as His sign.

596 theparson  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:15:39pm

re: #588 Charles

I guess it isn't getting through that I'm going to delete comments telling me not to post on this topic.

It's especially irritating to have people come into a thread that very obviously is interesting to a lot of people, and tell me how pointless it is.

I think it's people who don't really care what anyone here has said they just want their opportunity to tell you what to do. I say destroy them!

597 Jewels (AKA Julian)  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:16:07pm

hmm... Okay. now that I've had time to assimilate the article. I can see that authors point

598 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:16:34pm

And one more point before I crack open a Duvel...

There are dozens of posts on the front page that are not about evolution. If you don't like the evolution threads, don't read them.

It's becoming clear that some people just don't want the topic discussed here, period. And I'm not going to be bullied or gult-tripped into avoiding it.

Now for that Duvel.

599 Winslow  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:16:54pm

re: #504 Naso Tang

The Royal Society, as impressive as it may be overall, can be applied to by essentially anyone.

(From the Royal Society website:)

The Fellowship of the Royal Society is composed of 1300 of the most distinguished scientists from the United Kingdom, other Commonwealth countries and the Republic of Ireland. Fellows of the Royal Society are elected for life and designate themselves through the use of the letters FRS after their names.

In 2007, 44 new Fellows were elected through a peer review process that culminated in a vote by existing Fellows. The main criterion for election as a Fellow is scientific excellence.

Current Fellows include Jocelyn Bell Burnell, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Harry Kroto, Tim Berners Lee, Paul Nurse and John Sulston. There are currently 21 Nobel prize winners among the Fellows and many other holders of other equally prestigious awards. Previous Fellows include Isaac Newton, Christopher Wren, Charles Darwin, Ernest Rutherford and Dorothy Hodgkin.

In addition, the Royal Society has 127 Foreign Members who are eminent for their scientific discoveries and attainments. Foreign members are also elected for life and designate themselves through the use of the letters ForMemRS after their names. Each year, up to eight Foreign Members are elected through a peer review process that also culminates in a vote by existing Fellows. There are currently 48 Nobel prize winners among the Foreign Members (including one Peace prize winner).

The election process for Fellows and Foreign Members is extremely rigorous and is based upon the established practice of peer review.

600 VegasRick  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:17:08pm

Drink!

601 gr8inferno  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:17:48pm

Evolutionist: I have an idea! let's get rid of something flawed and confused more people! yea

602 theparson  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:18:45pm

re: #601 gr8inferno

Evolutionist: I have an idea! let's get rid of something flawed and confused more people! yea

Ummm... what?!?

603 LoFlyer[deleted]  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:19:18pm
604 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:19:29pm

re: #601 gr8inferno

Evolutionist: I have an idea! let's get rid of something flawed and confused more people! yea

Are you confused?

605 pingjockey  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:20:33pm

603 is 0 for 2.

606 Throbert McGee  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:20:51pm

Oh, and on the topic of sex-cannibalism among spiders: that book I recommended in #131, namely Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice to All Creation, by Olivia Judson, devotes an entire chapter to that topic, iff'n I rahtly recollect.

(It's been a few years since I've read the book after checking it out from the library -- I really should've bought it. Anyway, as Charles said, Judson's one of those annoying people who's both intellectually gifted and gorgeous.)

607 pingjockey  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:21:05pm

re: #601 gr8inferno
Huh?

608 angst  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:21:24pm

re: #593 Salamantis

Though, the answer to the question, is "no," if shotgun really wants to know.

Time, matter, and space all happened at once.

609 USBeast  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:23:15pm

re: #574 Charles

This is a good post on the "Darwinism led to Hitler" canard:

[Link: www.pandasthumb.org...]

Hitler and company touted any and all arguments that could be twisted to justify their madness.

Pinned to the cork board above my desk is a message from a fortune cookie I got at a Chinese buffet some weeks ago: "No one is standing in your way anymore. It is time to move forward."

Imagine what Hitler would have done with that.

610 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:24:15pm

re: #598 Charles

Cheers!

611 Salamantis  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:26:12pm

re: #114 Cato

Charles,

There are several issues here that you conflate to no one's good. Let's break them down.

Question 1: Is "intelligent design" science?

Answer 1: No. In order to be science it must present a proposition that can be disproven. No one can disprove the notion of a prime mover, so it is not science.

Question 2: Could "intelligent design" be true?

Answer 2: Yes. It could also be false. If it can't be disproven, no one can know.

Question 3: Is evolution science?

Answer 3: Which part of it? Genetic analysis is certainly science. One can make a proposition that a gene does x in y creature. Then the gene can be modified or removed and the proposition can be disproven. "Gene X affects a frogs legs" then we discover it affects its eyes. This is science at work.

On the other hand, "survival of the fittest" cannot be disproven, so it is not a scientific proposition.

Question 4: Why is "survival of the fittest" not disprovable?

Answer 4: Because it is a tautology, a pretty short one at that. Q:Who survives to reproduce? A:The fittest. Q: How do we know they are the fittest? A: They survived to reproduce.

Question 5: But aren't tautologies always true?

Answer 5: Yes, but they are not always meaningful. In fact, they are always fairly devoid of meaning because they are self referential.

Question 6: Is evolutionary theory science?

Answer 6: Certainly the genetic component is. But the whole theory ultimately deeply, deeply flawed. The existence of viral "life" undermines the entire foundation of Darwinism that all species have a common beginning.

"Survival of the fittest" was a term used not by Darwin, but by Wallace. Darwin's conception was for random mutations to be acted upon by nonrandom evolutionary selection, that differentially favors those organisms more able to exploit a changing ecological niche. The fact that it possesses concrete utility, that is, that it works as an explanation for what in fact happens, should not be held against it. It is like claiming a Newtonian tautology invalidates gravitation: What things have mass? Those things that attract each other. What things attract each other? Those things that have mass.

If we were presented with situations and circumstances where the organisms more able to exploit their ecological niche perished, while those less able to exploit it survived, THEN we could talk about empirical difficulties with the theory of evolution via random mutation and nonrandom environmental selection.

And no, viruses do not present difficulties with evolutionary theory.

612 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:26:18pm

On a tangential topic -- the 'Favorites' feature is just great for keeping records of interesting links posted in comments, or good arguments that might need to be recycled. I'm really starting to rely on it.

613 Slumbering Behemoth  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:26:20pm

re: #296 shotgun

So when I fall down IT IS A HATE CRIME!

I KNEW IT!

That excuse almost worked for Randi Rhodes.

/Not to be confused with super bad-ass Randy Rhoads

614 VegasRick  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:26:23pm

Now Online: 2,585
Logged in: 237

Wow.

615 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:27:15pm

re: #598 Charles

Attempts at bullying and/or guilt-tripping sound like some, at least, are in desperation mode.

/we can always hope

616 theparson  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:28:31pm

re: #614 VegasRick

Now Online: 2,585
Logged in: 237

Wow.

Just think, if I log off there will only be 236 logged in. I feel soooo powerful!

617 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:28:42pm

re: #613 Slumbering Behemoth

That excuse almost worked for Randi Rhodes.

/Not to be confused with super bad-ass Randy Rhoads

Funny how he speaks english when he sings, otherwise I can't understand a single thing he is saying.

618 Jewels (AKA Julian)  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:29:15pm

Im kinda partial to Zwicklegold Stout myself

619 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:29:48pm

re: #616 theparson

Just think, if I log off there will only be 236 logged in. I feel soooo powerful!

(I'm biting my tongue, afraid of that avatar.)

620 VegasRick  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:30:09pm

re: #616 theparson

Just think, if I log off there will only be 236 logged in. I feel soooo powerful!

Actualy my wow was for 237 logged in and kinda quiet. On an ID thread? Wow!

621 Slumbering Behemoth  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:30:52pm

re: #617 Walter L. Newton

Funny how he speaks english when he sings, otherwise I can't understand a single thing he is saying.

That would be Ozzy (before he turned into a mush mouth), Randy is the guitarist. But you probably knew that already.

622 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:31:17pm

re: #620 VegasRick

Actualy my wow was for 237 logged in and kinda quiet. On an ID thread? Wow!

It has been very peaceful, hasn't it.
Wow, indeed.

623 jcm  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:31:49pm

Obama's July 2nd speech in Colorado Springs where he added to the prepared text theses lines:

We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've gotta have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

Interestingly, his entire July 2nd National Security speech is missing from his website speech page.

624 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:32:10pm

re: #621 Slumbering Behemoth

That would be Ozzy (before he turned into a mush mouth), Randy is the guitarist. But you probably knew that already.

Yea, I was talking about Ozzy. You say "turned into a mush mouth." Did he speak clearer when he was younger? I didn't pay much attention back then, I was taking accordion lessons.

625 theparson  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:32:20pm

I wonder how the dingin' is going?

626 Salamantis  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:32:49pm

re: #135 shotgun

Right and we know that because cataclysmic singularities happen so often that we can observe them rather easily.

Or maybe a bunch of strings snapped and there was no bang involved, but whatever it was WE JUST KNOW there was no Creator involved right?

Science has nothing to say concerning the presence or absence of an initiating demiurge, but the Big Bang echo permeates the cosmos, providing empirical evidence that the Big Bang DID indeed happen, and the degree of its red shift coefficient allows us to ascertain WHEN it happened (approximately 13.7 billion years ago).

627 pingjockey  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:32:58pm

re: #620 VegasRick

I've noticed that the online to logged in seems to run about 90-10. 90% online, 10% logged in. That is a shit load of lurkers, or watchers, or whatever the hell ya want to call 'em.

628 jaunte  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:33:55pm

re: #606 Throbert McGee

By the way, sorry I posted that up in the spinoff links before first reading the whole thread and noticing you had already posted it.

629 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:34:25pm

re: #627 pingjockey

I've noticed that the online to logged in seems to run about 90-10. 90% online, 10% logged in. That is a shit load of lurkers, or watchers, or whatever the hell ya want to call 'em.

Realize, that logged in includes people that are not on the site at the current moment, but have not logged out. The site doesn't log you off when you go somewhere else.

630 pingjockey  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:35:15pm

re: #629 Walter L. Newton
Hadn't thought of that.

631 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:35:19pm

re: #629 Walter L. Newton

Realize, that logged in includes people that are not on the site at the current moment, but have not logged out. The site doesn't log you off when you go somewhere else.

Well, now that I made that comment, maybe I need to check.

Charles, am I correct.

632 Jewels (AKA Julian)  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:35:25pm

re: #623 jcm

And I'm trying to figure out why a police presence so big is needed....

633 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:35:28pm

re: #623 jcm

Obama's July 2nd speech in Colorado Springs where he added to the prepared text theses lines:


Interestingly, his entire July 2nd National Security speech is missing from his website speech page.

Really?!
WOW!

/if Obama comes up missing, the Secret Service should look under the bus.

634 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:35:32pm

Josephine just posted this link in the spinoffs. It's a corker. Behold, the Creation Museum.

[Link: www.flickr.com...]

635 pingjockey  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:35:52pm

re: #626 Salamantis
Damn facts are a pain in the ass!

636 profitsbeard  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:36:12pm

I think Darwin would be able to handle the silly pejorative use of his name, considering how thoroughly he was pilloried in his lifetime.

"Darwinian evolution" is a useful term like "Newtonian Physics", because they both define something more of an historical period than the current concepts propelling their fields (ideas like punctuated evolution, etc. have superceded Darwin's first, limited, pre-DNA era concepts).

Each one has its uses and should be defended against their Luddite detractors ...or should be drop the word Luddite, too?

637 bellamags  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:36:28pm

OK this is OT:

Has anyone looked at the slideshow of Fallujah? The terrorists are very sophisticated. That is a fact that should be put to the front of the issue of the War on Terror. I think a lot of people don't realize this. They think of the terrorists as skinny malnourished men in raggedy robes running around the desert randomly shooting at soldiers. The terrorists have IT departments and weekly meetings at the conference room. They have computer networks, marketing tools AND a bunch of weapons. Look at the computer room for God's sake, it looks better than most offices I see.

638 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:36:58pm

re: #634 Charles

Josephine just posted this link in the spinoffs. It's a corker. Behold, the Creation Museum.

[Link: www.flickr.com...]

I've been there. The "begatting" exhibet is really racy.

639 jcm  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:37:05pm

re: #632 Jewels (AKA Julian)

And I'm trying to figure out why a police presence so big is needed....

Think Sword and Shield of the State.

640 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:37:07pm

re: #629 Walter L. Newton

Realize, that logged in includes people that are not on the site at the current moment, but have not logged out. The site doesn't log you off when you go somewhere else.

The 'logged in' number is a 30-minute sampling. Those are the logged in accounts that have been active within the past 30 minutes.

641 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:37:21pm

re: #634 Charles

A classic

642 Salamantis  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:37:54pm

re: #144 captainzot

Creationism is specifically creation by a deity. All intelligent design implies is that you may be able to detect that something didn't come about by chance, that it was designed. At least that is what it is supposed to mean. They may both not be scientific, but they are distinct.

And please no Wedge Document referrals. Even if someone tries to twist a certain idea to some other purpose it doesn't invalidate the idea.

The Disco Dewdes didn't find the term Intelligent Design already out there somewhere and twist it to their own dark PR propaganda purposes, they actually coined (engineered, designed) the term in the first place so that they could make it serve their dark PR propaganda purposes.

643 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:39:04pm

re: #641 Killgore Trout

A classic

It's the Flintstonian theory of non-evolution.

644 Thanos  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:39:05pm

George it looks like from this post that you are undecided, but sympathetic to YEC'ers

[Link: neoprophet.blogspot.com...]

645 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:39:23pm
646 melinwy  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:39:25pm

re: #204 RedHouseBlueState

well said

647 HoosierHoops  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:39:33pm

re: #595 goddessoftheclassroom

That's interesting--I never read that story that way (rainbows not existing before then) but as the rainbow appearing and God using it as His sign.

Hey goddess.. let's set the record straight..
After reading this site for like a year..and never getting to join for like 10 months.. You are my absolute favorite poster...
I am so impressed with your persona.. you are good people.
/hey you other freaks that want us to get a room..you know who you are..I'm married with 5 kids..But the goddess has a center point and pure goodness..you can't hide that over a period of time...
kind regards goddess.. i got some great stories for you.

648 Throbert McGee  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:40:36pm

re: #612 Charles

On a tangential topic -- the 'Favorites' feature is just great for keeping records of interesting links posted in comments, or good arguments that might need to be recycled. I'm really starting to rely on it.

Thanks for that reminder, Charles... I had never bothered clicking on the heart icon before. But I just Favorited my post upthread linking to the Dr. Tatiana site, so that I can have it as an easy reference.

649 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:41:24pm

re: #648 Throbert McGee

Thanks for that reminder, Charles... I had never bothered clicking on the heart icon before. But I just Favorited my post upthread linking to the Dr. Tatiana site, so that I can have it as an easy reference.

You just want to have easy access to her picture LOL.

650 Jewels (AKA Julian)  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:41:41pm

re: #639 jcm

actually It reminds me of the Presidential Guard Special Service (PGSS) from Tom Kratmans State of Disobedience novel, a what if novel if someone like hillary got in the white house and every nightmare ever posted about here were true. Lead toa second civil war

651 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:41:53pm
652 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:41:58pm

A hidden feature of the Favorites function: once you click a red heart and it turns green, you can then click the green heart to go directly to your 'My Favorites' page.

653 goddessoftheclassroom  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:42:35pm

re: #647 HoosierHoops

You are so kind.

654 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:44:17pm

re: #652 Charles

A hidden feature of the Favorites function: once you click a red heart and it turns green, you can then click the green heart to go directly to your 'My Favorites' page.

Thanks for talking about Favorites (right here, and above). I've got to get a big round-tuit and start using that.

655 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:44:33pm

re: #652 Charles

A hidden feature of the Favorites function: once you click a red heart and it turns green, you can then click the green heart to go directly to your 'My Favorites' page.

Where do you keep the info for the "My Favorites?" A local cookie or server side?

656 Slumbering Behemoth  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:45:17pm

re: #624 Walter L. Newton

Yea, I was talking about Ozzy. You say "turned into a mush mouth." Did he speak clearer when he was younger? I didn't pay much attention back then, I was taking accordion lessons.

Well, he didn't enunciate like someone fresh out of finishing school, but he did speak a heck of a lot more clearly than he does now. I think his current slurring can be attributed to anti-depressants mixed with a little wine, plus the massive drug/alcohol abuse in his past.

I've only seen one episode of "The Osbournes", and just couldn't watch it. It broke my heart to see a metal hero from my youth reduced to what he is now. Still loved his "Hippie Killer" t-shirt, though.

657 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:45:30pm
658 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:45:56pm

re: #655 Walter L. Newton

Where do you keep the info for the "My Favorites?" A local cookie or server side?

It's on the server.

659 shotgun  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:47:00pm

re: #613 Slumbering Behemoth

That excuse almost worked for Randi Rhodes.

/Not to be confused with super bad-ass Randy Rhoads

Not the biggest BS/Ozzy fan around but no denying that cat(Rhoads) got IT.. the little arpeggio work he does at the bridge/refrain whatever around 3:30 has always been a hallmark rock guitar moment to me.

660 Independent Voter123  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:47:11pm

I know "reasonable" and "not-crazy" people who believe believe that the universe and creative monsters (dnosaurs) were created in 7 days. Disprove this if you don't agree! Fosiles prove that world is 4-6 thousand years old!

661 HoosierHoops  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:47:22pm

re: #652 Charles

A hidden feature of the Favorites function: once you click a red heart and it turns green, you can then click the green heart to go directly to your 'My Favorites' page.

is that it? I have so many questions..
1) How do you know when somebody dings you?
/besides in the ring..only happened once
2) where do you find stats?
/ not that i care...sh*t who is fooling who?
3) what does that heart thing mean? I clicked on my heart and it turned green
/ crap..i just screwed myself

662 BBev  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:47:29pm

re: #622 pre-Boomer Marine brat

It has been very peaceful, hasn't it.
Wow, indeed.

I'm here and reading as always

663 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:48:17pm

re: #656 Slumbering Behemoth

Well, he didn't enunciate like someone fresh out of finishing school, but he did speak a heck of a lot more clearly than he does now. I think his current slurring can be attributed to anti-depressants mixed with a little wine, plus the massive drug/alcohol abuse in his past.

I've only seen one episode of "The Osbournes", and just couldn't watch it. It broke my heart to see a metal hero from my youth reduced to what he is now. Still loved his "Hippie Killer" t-shirt, though.

Sad. Yea, the first time I really saw/heard him (well, I guess I heard some of his older tunes when I was in my 20's) was on that show. The first time I saw the show, that thought crossed my mind, burnout.

664 Render  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:49:39pm

re: #624 Walter L. Newton

Early interviews (1970-73) with Ozzy reveal him to have been strangely articulate at that point. By '78 Ozzy had evolved into something not quite human and by the mid 80's he was all but unintelligible.

He seems to have recovered a tiny amount since then...

S.A.T.O.,
R

665 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:50:08pm

re: #661 HoosierHoops

1) How do you know when somebody dings you?

Click the number -- pops up an alert box showing you who dinged.

2) where do you find stats?

Left sidebar -- the flippy triangle menu labeled Statistics. (5th from the bottom.)

3) what does that heart thing mean? I clicked on my heart and it turned green

That's the 'Favorites' feature. Lets you save personal bookmarks to LGF items.

666 Salamantis  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:50:12pm

re: #171 Yosemite bill

Yes "Scientist" is correct, nice and accurate.... .
Ok let me refine the question since the crux of the article is the Darwinism is pejorative- what are we allowed to call "scientists" or others who use a "theory" as an excuse to censor the discussion of any topic that can even remotely be tied to Christianity ? Such as right from wrong or -gasp- good from evil because it is too close to the Ten Commandments ?

And just precisely where has that happened here? And in the sceintific world in general, for there are both Dawkinses (who are atheists) and Collinese (who are theists). Don't know who Francis Collins is? He's the guy who designed the scientific process by means of which the human genome was decoded.

BTW: good/evil and right/wrong dichotomies are indeed reflected in the Ten Commandments, but they are reflected in other religious pronouncements, from other religions, as well, and also from nonreligious sources.

The amount of bile collectively aimed Christians here over this ID and Creationist noise is getting old.... .
Yea -yea I know it ain't 'Christian bashing' because you are pointing out the lunatic fringe and they may well be nuts but the "scientific community" as a fair share of fruits and nuts as well.
Again I have lots of science i my profession and no evolution and Judeo-Christian tradition are not exclusive

Umm...atheist, secularist, amoralist, relativist, nihilist...none of which epithets should apply to a scientific theory or its adherents (many of whom are Christian, including in here)...there have been plenty of bile-spewers to go around - on BOTH sides.

667 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:50:13pm

re: #660 Independent Voter123

I know "reasonable" and "not-crazy" people who believe believe that the universe and creative monsters (dnosaurs) were created in 7 days. Disprove this if you don't agree! Fosiles prove that world is 4-6 thousand years old!

Are you sure your screen name shouldn't be "low information voter?"

Have you read ANY of the threads here, or clicked on ANY of the articles, or are you just jumping in here cold?

668 USBeast  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:50:40pm

re: #636 profitsbeard

I think Darwin would be able to handle the silly pejorative use of his name, considering how thoroughly he was pilloried in his lifetime.

"Darwinian evolution" is a useful term like "Newtonian Physics", because they both define something more of an historical period than the current concepts propelling their fields (ideas like punctuated evolution, etc. have superceded Darwin's first, limited, pre-DNA era concepts).

Each one has its uses and should be defended against their Luddite detractors ...or should be drop the word Luddite, too?

Excellent post. Unfortunately, such points will be lost upon them asses the masses as quantity and volume take precedence over quality and veracity.

669 Independent Voter123  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:51:21pm

re: #660 IndependenEveryone who goes here believes that dinosaurs are real! They have nothing to dispute this!

670 goddessoftheclassroom  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:52:03pm

re: #657 buzzsawmonkey

Hey, goddess: you may find this, this and this interesting.

Wow. What a great writer you are (and not just because I agree with your points!).

671 akak  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:52:15pm

AP really needs to be dealt with if they are gonna use Taliban cameramen.

[Link: mypetjawa.mu.nu...]

/Bilal Hussein channel off

672 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:52:33pm

By the way, I'm actually not so much in favor of dropping the term "Darwinism." But it was a great lead-in.

I've even gotten an email from someone who thinks I'm anti-evolution, and that I misunderstood the article. Heh.

673 shotgun  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:52:43pm

re: #626 Salamantis

Science has nothing to say concerning the presence or absence of an initiating demiurge, but the Big Bang echo permeates the cosmos, providing empirical evidence that the Big Bang DID indeed happen, and the degree of its red shift coefficient allows us to ascertain WHEN it happened (approximately 13.7 billion years ago).

and we know that red shift proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that that's how it went down all those years ago... sorry dude you're gonna go away thinking you've proven blah blah blah and I'm gonna leave it knowing you aren't nearly as smart as you think you are... if you want to believe you have proof that no Creator exists that is of course your right, but in reality you can't prove jack about what happened that long ago, you're belief in your own infallibility will likely wind up being your greatest flaw.

674 BBev  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:53:13pm

re: #665 Charles

Charles I can not wait for debates and the election. It's my Super bowel and World series in one.

675 Render  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:53:30pm

re: #649 Walter L. Newton

Somehow I doubt that's Throbbers reasoning...

JUST
SAYIN,
R

676 jcm  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:53:55pm

re: #660 Independent Voter123

I know "reasonable" and "not-crazy" people who believe believe that the universe and creative monsters (dnosaurs) were created in 7 days. Disprove this if you don't agree! Fosiles prove that world is 4-6 thousand years old!

Huh?

Disprove? (Try the library under "science")

Fosiles?

677 wolfie  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:54:20pm

re: #636 profitsbeard

"Darwinian evolution" is a useful term like "Newtonian Physics", because they both define something more of an historical period than the current concepts propelling their fields (ideas like punctuated evolution, etc. have superceded Darwin's first, limited, pre-DNA era concepts).

I agree w/ Judson that the noun "Darwinism" is misleading and should not be used as a synonym for "evolutionary science."

But I agree w/ you that "Darwinian" is fine in a specific, historical sense. It would be silly and awkward to dance around it!

678 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:54:22pm

re: #675 Render

Somehow I doubt that's Throbbers reasoning...

JUST
SAYIN,
R

It would be my reason!

679 Sharmuta  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:54:22pm

re: #68 Slumbering Behemoth

I believe that calls for some Primus.

High Five!

680 goddessoftheclassroom  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:54:26pm

re: #674 BBev

Charles I can not wait for debates and the election. It's my Super bowel and World series in one.

I don't mean to be picky or unkind, but your typo is absolutely Freudian!

681 VegasRick  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:54:30pm

re: #674 BBev

Charles I can not wait for debates and the election. It's my Super bowel and World series in one.

Freudian slip? Spell check and all.

682 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:54:54pm

re: #657 buzzsawmonkey

Hey, goddess: you may find this, this and this interesting.

Buzzsaw,

An excellent series.

"remora" -- ouch! -- good metaphor

683 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:55:32pm

re: #660 Independent Voter123

Fosiles prove that world is 4-6 thousand years old!

This might have to become a rotating title.

684 Naso Tang  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:55:54pm

re: #561 Winslow

And what about Mayr and Gould?

OK. You got two. Truth is even I have used the word at times. It becomes a habit sometimes when reading so much creationist balderdash.

685 USBeast  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:56:07pm

re: #674 BBev

Charles I can not wait for debates and the election. It's my Super bowel and World series in one.

"Super bowel..." Perhaps you meant "Supper Bowl". :)

686 jcm  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:56:13pm

re: #683 Charles

This might have to become a rotating title.

Excellent!

687 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:56:29pm

re: #672 Charles

By the way, I'm actually not so much in favor of dropping the term "Darwinism." But it was a great lead-in.


Agreed, that's why I haven't really been commenting on the article itself. Although they author does have a point I'm not so concerned with the terminology. Smacks of reframing too much for my taste.

688 BBev  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:56:36pm

re: #680 goddessoftheclassroom

I don't mean to be picky or unkind, but your typo is absolutely Freudian!

Ya you may think that but I have also broken "Iron fist" first rule tonight. My last day at my old job is tomorrow.

689 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:57:32pm

Actually, "Disprove this if you don't agree!" is even better.

690 jcm  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:57:47pm

re: #688 BBev

Ya you may think that but I have also broken "Iron fist" first rule tonight. My last day at my old job is tomorrow.

Involuntary?
You got something lined up?

691 VegasRick  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:57:56pm

Is obambi still whining? Comments keep going up.

692 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:58:40pm

re: #661 HoosierHoops

I clicked on my heart and it turned green

You should have washed your hands first. Get to the nearest E.R. fast!

693 goddessoftheclassroom  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:58:48pm

re: #688 BBev

Ya you may think that but I have also broken "Iron fist" first rule tonight. My last day at my old job is tomorrow.

What a great reason to celebrate!

When I knew I was leaving my last position, it was wonderfully freeing. Although I always did my best, I wasn't nagged by "what if" doubts because I told myself, "What can they do, fire me?"

I'm so happy for you. Let me get your next drink...

694 Gordon Marock  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:59:00pm

re: #660 Independent Voter123

I know "reasonable" and "not-crazy" people who believe believe that the universe and creative monsters (dnosaurs) were created in 7 days. Disprove this if you don't agree! Fosiles prove that world is 4-6 thousand years old!

I have underwear older than 6,000 years. Sheesh.

695 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:59:27pm

"lgf: Disprove this if you don't agree!"

That has a real ring to it.

696 BBev  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 5:59:35pm

re: #690 jcm

Involuntary?
You got something lined up?

On my own, I was in negotiations for months on this one, Very cool.

697 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:00:11pm

re: #694 Gordon Marock

I have underwear older than 6,000 years. Sheesh.

That reminds me, have to do laundry tomorrow.

698 Sharmuta  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:00:28pm

re: #695 Charles

I still like "Laced with Darwinism".

699 jcm  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:00:34pm

re: #696 BBev

On my own, I was in negotiations for months on this one, Very cool.

Outstanding! Good luck on your new venture!

700 Jewels (AKA Julian)  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:00:52pm

I dunno, I kinda liked "Into the OverBob" as a Rotating Title....just ot keep them wondering.

But that's just me :D

701 USBeast  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:00:53pm

re: #688 BBev

Ya you may think that but I have also broken "Iron fist" first rule tonight. My last day at my old job is tomorrow.

Congrats! There is nothing more uplifting than leaving an old job. Hope the new job is more fulfilling and more profitable.

702 BBev  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:01:04pm

re: #699 jcm

Outstanding! Good luck on your new venture!


Thank you all.

703 Naso Tang  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:01:50pm

re: #634 Charles

Josephine just posted this link in the spinoffs. It's a corker. Behold, the Creation Museum.

[Link: www.flickr.com...]

This is the kind of stuff that if posted directly here gets flamed, seriously.

Readers be warned.

704 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:02:02pm

re: #680 goddessoftheclassroom

I don't mean to be picky or unkind, but your typo is absolutely Freudian!

He should have used a colon in that sentence.

705 jaunte  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:02:22pm

re: #698 Sharmuta

I think "thin-skinned insult-seeking" has a ring to it!

706 EC Marm  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:02:42pm

re: #660 Independent Voter123

I know "reasonable" and "not-crazy" people who believe believe (sic) that the universe and creative monsters (dnosaurs) (sic) were created in 7 days. Disprove (sic) this if you don't agree! Fosiles (sic) prove that world is 4-6 thousand years old!


You've got to be kidding.

707 Salamantis  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:03:02pm

re: #213 Cato

Zombie, you are quite incorrect. Gravity is a fact and is scientifically based. The second something falls up or at a rate or at a vector not expected by the theory without outside interference, the theory has been disproven. THERE IS NOW WAY TO DISPOROVE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY!

Umm...you don't think finding the fossilized bones of a human within the fossilized stomach of a T Rex wouldn't toss a major fly in the ointment?

Let us start with a simple proposition: Using DDT on people infected with lice will cause lice to evolve to be resistant to DDTwithin a generation.

That is a disprovable proposition and would be scientific. However, evolutionary theory does not permit propositions of this kind. The evolutionary theory's proposition would be this: Using DDT on people infected with lice will either cause the lice to evolve into a DDT resistant strain or die out.

It takes this form of proposition: If we we had eggs, we could have ham & eggs, if we had ham. True, but is it scientific?

Completely non sequitous analogy. Placing artificial limits on how many generations it would take for an organism to evolve in response to an environmental change is like withdrawing from Iraq within 16 months regardless of the facts on the ground.

708 HoosierHoops  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:03:07pm

re: #692 pre-Boomer Marine brat

You should have washed your hands first. Get to the nearest E.R. fast!


LOL
My 21 yr old is a marine.. I red your stories today about your service to our country during Vietnam..
Thank you Marine..

709 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:03:09pm

re: #685 USBeast

"Super bowel..." Perhaps you meant "Supper Bowl". :)

Beast, that's disgusting!
LOL!

710 VegasRick  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:03:24pm

re: #706 EC Marm

You've got to be kidding.

I think some drinking might be involved as well.

711 goddessoftheclassroom  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:03:47pm

re: #704 pre-Boomer Marine brat

He should have used a colon in that sentence.

Ooooo--nice!

I had a gut feeling you'd have a riposte...

712 EC Marm  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:05:05pm

re: #710 VegasRick

I think some drinking might be involved as well.


It's like the Super Bowel of typos.

713 USBeast  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:05:16pm

re: #709 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Beast, that's disgusting!
LOL!

Me Beastie. Me do that thing.

714 Big Steve  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:06:33pm

re: #43 theparson

How 'bout Steve? You could call it Steve.

Just getting on line.....but this I LIKE,

715 VegasRick  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:06:33pm

re: #674 BBev

Charles I can not wait for debates and the election. It's my Super bowel and World series in one.

I was stargazing and I think I just saw part of Uranus!

716 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:06:50pm

re: #679 Sharmuta

Primus sucks....
/Whamola

717 angst  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:07:05pm

re: #673 shotgun

and we know that red shift proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that that's how it went down all those years ago... sorry dude you're gonna go away thinking you've proven blah blah blah and I'm gonna leave it knowing you aren't nearly as smart as you think you are... if you want to believe you have proof that no Creator exists that is of course your right, but in reality you can't prove jack about what happened that long ago, you're belief in your own infallibility will likely wind up being your greatest flaw.

This is, in a nutshell, why ID is outside the realm of scientific investigation. The existence of a Creator can't be proven or disproven, because philosophers have been trying for millenia.

It's an untestable theory, and thus is not amenable to scientific investigation.

718 Salamantis  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:07:41pm

re: #235 Cato

Charles,

A chimera does in fact exist. It lives in Australia.

We call it a platypus. It is a venumous (the males only) mammal that lays eggs.

Nature is weird.

[Link: news.nationalgeographic.com...]

719 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:07:57pm

re: #708 HoosierHoops

Thanks, but it was my Dad who was in the Marines, and in Vietnam, I was Navy, on an aircraft carrier in the Tonkin Gulf. I was never in-country, and was never shot at. Those who were are the ones who deserve our gratitude.

720 USBeast  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:08:14pm

re: #715 VegasRick

I was stargazing and I think I just saw part of Uranus!

I'm not an astronomer, but isn't there a big, red spot on Uranus?

721 VegasRick  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:08:17pm

re: #712 EC Marm

It's like the Super Bowel of typos.

LMAO! Oh, wait!

722 BBev  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:08:29pm

Can I get a brake tonight please? Man you. Guys are rough on my spelling.

723 bellamags  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:08:41pm

Who was it that said screenshits instead of screenshots during the Obama blog threads?

724 Big Steve  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:08:50pm

re: #720 USBeast

I'm not an astronomer, but isn't there a big, red spot on Uranus?

This site is not Uranus so lets keep it clean.

725 Gordon Marock  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:09:49pm

These idiot "Disprove Thisers" don't get what science is all about. As soon as any scientist comes up with a theory, a lot of other pissed off scientists set about to disprove the theory. And many theories are disproved. Science wants to be disproved, because that is a good portion of what scientists do. The ID people are so wedded to their beliefs, that they fear anyhting that may disprove them. Scientists are ready and willing to change their 'beliefs' when presented with a disproof, while the ID people will cling to their 'theories' in the face of mountains of solid evidence.

726 angst  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:10:52pm

re: #718 Salamantis

[Link: news.nationalgeographic.com...]

Well, that's cool. It's like the Coelacanth, only more applicable to humans.

727 experiencedtraveller  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:11:00pm

re: #598 Charles

And one more point before I crack open a Duvel...

There are dozens of posts on the front page that are not about evolution. If you don't like the evolution threads, don't read them.

Everybody likes the host's attention. As interesting as the other threads may be, people will crowd into the room where the host is at. Sometimes they will say something dumb, or loud, just to get attention.

I wish you the patience of a saint.

Cheers.

728 NemoParticularis  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:11:14pm

re: #598 Charles

If you don't like the evolution threads, don't read them. It's becoming clear that some people just don't want the topic discussed here, period. And I'm not going to be bullied or gult-tripped into avoiding it.

I suspect that most of the Lizards here actually DO like the evolutin threads - if the number of posts for these threads relative to the number of posts for other threads is any indicator. What many of them DO NOT like, in my opinion, is the fact that sometimes the kitchen gets very hot.

729 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:11:21pm

re: #711 goddessoftheclassroom

Ooooo--nice!

I had a gut feeling you'd have a riposte...

Oh, be still my heart!
A compliment from The Goddess regarding Grammar!
*pitterpat*
(seriously)

/wellll, maybe overdoing it a little, but that's how dogs are

730 HoosierHoops  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:11:24pm

re: #719 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Thanks, but it was my Dad who was in the Marines, and in Vietnam, I was Navy, on an aircraft carrier in the Tonkin Gulf. I was never in-country, and was never shot at. Those who were are the ones who deserve our gratitude.

/great Americans.. I love them all..Sorry about the mix up.. I know you guys were talking about battles in like 66-67 and i was still drinking coffee...

731 VegasRick  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:11:43pm

re: #723 bellamags

Who was it that said screenshits instead of screenshots during the Obama blog threads?

I think it was Mandy.

732 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:12:18pm

re: #725 Gordon Marock

Science wants to be disproved.

Exactly right.

733 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:12:40pm

re: #713 USBeast

Me Beastie. Me do that thing.

I'm washing off my monitor screen, but GAAK, you're still THERE!

734 opnion  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:13:07pm

re: #722 BBev

Can I get a brake tonight please? Man you. Guys are rough on my spelling.

O yeah u auoo bee mee

735 Glen Wishard  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:13:19pm

Egfrow:

You make a more rational argument than a few of the other apologists.

Jeez, does that make me the head apologist? What was I apologizing for? Was little Suzie Creamcheese involved?

736 Salamantis  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:13:45pm

re: #244 captainzot

No it doesn't. Even on Macro-evolutionary terms. While I don't believe in macro-evolution, like I've said before it still could be proven to be true. And if so then I won't have a problem with it. I currently don't think there's anything to it other than that it's the party line.

Micro-evolution is completely uncontroversial. It is truth. Easily demonstrated and repeatable. Creationism in common usage usually carries a whole boatload of unnecessary baggage. I can understand that from the crowd here though, we are primarily united by our common commitment against radical Islam. We just need to be careful about the guilt by association fallacy.

Geographically separate two populations of a species. Have them undergo differential nonrandom environmental selection pressures originating from their different locations, and allow those selection pressures to act upon the different random mutations that arise in each population. Simmer for a long time, as microevolutionary differences accumulate. Voila! Two distinctive and macroevolutionarily different species, that cannot interbreed.

737 BBev  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:13:53pm

OK I'm using "Iron First" first rule and signing off for the night.

738 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:14:23pm

re: #730 HoosierHoops

/great Americans.. I love them all..Sorry about the mix up.. I know you guys were talking about battles in like 66-67 and i was still drinking coffee...

Drink more coffee.
It always helps.
*grin*

739 Josephine  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:14:33pm

re: #634 Charles

Thanks, Charles, I'm glad you're enjoying it!

The post on his blog is interesting, too. His readers raised the money for him to go, plus about five thousand dollars that was donated to an organization for the separation of church and state.

"Your Creation Museum Report"

740 VegasRick  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:14:34pm

re: #722 BBev

Can I get a brake tonight please? Man you. Guys are rough on my spelling.

I'm going to stop kidding you about your spelling.

741 Annar  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:14:36pm

re: #59 zombie

Avast, ye infidel! How can the earth circle the sun if, as we all Know, it is flat? Nay, the sun ascends to the Zenith each day, and at night returns to Hades.

And global warming is probably caused by the raging hell fire based on something Muhammad once said. (I'm sure Goracle would confirm this.)

742 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:14:54pm
743 goddessoftheclassroom  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:15:06pm

re: #729 pre-Boomer Marine brat

And I trust you caught my pun as well?

This one is not directed at you at all, but it's one of my favorites for a true LOL:
[Link: icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com...]

744 BBev  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:15:33pm

re: #740 VegasRick

I'm going to stop kidding you about your spelling.

And you should never, Man I feel good right now

745 opnion  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:16:00pm

Oh man I just went up thread a little bit. I have not seen these many spelling corrections, since Sister Marie Kevin in the second grade

746 HoosierHoops  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:16:14pm

re: #735 Glen Wishard

Egfrow:


Jeez, does that make me the head apologist? What was I apologizing for? Was little Suzie Creamcheese involved?

/hold it..Zappa references are so unfair..
15 yard penality..2nd and 25..
sorry

747 Slumbering Behemoth  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:16:52pm

re: #396 Thanos

Sure he was hoping you'd whip out the crockoduck

I find the crocostimpy more compelling.

748 experiencedtraveller  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:17:03pm

re: #742 buzzsawmonkey

I'm both alone and yet beset by hordes
In my isolation I'm happy on the boards
Saint Misbehavin', just savin' myself for you
And you, and you...

Gershwin?

749 BBev  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:17:04pm

I'm going to make dinner. that wil help

750 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:17:11pm

re: #739 Josephine

Thanks, Charles, I'm glad you're enjoying it!

The post on his blog is interesting, too. His readers raised the money for him to go, plus about five thousand dollars that was donated to an organization for the separation of church and state.

"Your Creation Museum Report"

Scalzi hates LGF. He has said very mean things about me. (Sob.) If he's watching referrals he'll probably have a WTF moment.

751 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:17:56pm
752 VegasRick  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:18:07pm

re: #744 BBev

And you should never, Man I feel good right now

Iron Fist Rule: If you think you are too drunk to post, keep drinking until the feeling goes away.

753 jcm  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:18:17pm

re: #733 pre-Boomer Marine brat

I'm washing off my monitor screen, but GAAK, you're still THERE!



You might need help.

754 bellamags  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:18:22pm

Does anybody watch Ghost Hunters? They try to dis-prove hauntings. Sometimes they can't.

755 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:18:49pm

re: #742 buzzsawmonkey

I'm both alone and yet beset by hordes
In my isolation I'm happy on the boards
Saint Misbehavin', just savin' myself for you
And you, and you...

Whot th' hell
Enjoy!

756 George guy  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:18:55pm

re: #579 Charles

So you're not a young earth creationist?

I think it's clear from reading my previous post that this is not what I said, but rather that my beliefs are not necessarily relevant to the particular point I was trying to make. As far as what "side" I'm on, I favor teaching creationists how not to be sloppy debaters, and expect the same from the opposition.

757 goddessoftheclassroom  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:19:08pm

re: #754 bellamags

Does anybody watch Ghost Hunters? They try to dis-prove hauntings. Sometimes they can't.

The CREEPIEST thing I ever saw on that show what the voice recordings.

758 opnion  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:19:15pm

re: #754 bellamags

Does anybody watch Ghost Hunters? They try to dis-prove hauntings. Sometimes they can't.

Who ya gonna call? Ghostbusters!

759 Salamantis  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:19:53pm

re: #253 Cato

Kilgore,

Why limit it to birds, mammals and reptiles? Evolution is supposed to be a universal theory. I have already said viruses don't fit the pattern and do not have a common ancestor. Do I need to give you another example?

That's kinda funny, since their genetic material obeys the same coding rules as does the genetic material of animals and plants. If it didn't, they'd have a hard time infecting us.

760 bellamags  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:20:36pm

re: #757 goddessoftheclassroom

OMG - i know. the first one I ever heard made me turn off the TV and run into bed w/my husband. Freaked me the f*ck out.

761 bellamags  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:21:20pm

re: #758 opnion

I loved that move. Bill Murray and Dan Akroyd are hilarious.

762 Gordon Marock  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:21:33pm

re: #754 bellamags

Does anybody watch Ghost Hunters? They try to dis-prove hauntings. Sometimes they can't.

Well, let's be honest. They don't always help the situation by filming in infrared, in the pitch black of a cellar, with that creepy anti-redeye effect, and then shrieking like a school girl every time the wind blows.

763 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:22:03pm

re: #743 goddessoftheclassroom

And I trust you caught my pun as well?

This one is not directed at you at all, but it's one of my favorites for a true LOL:
[Link: icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com.. .]

LOL

764 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:22:11pm

re: #756 George guy

I think it's clear from reading my previous post that this is not what I said, but rather that my beliefs are not necessarily relevant to the particular point I was trying to make. As far as what "side" I'm on, I favor teaching creationists how not to be sloppy debaters, and expect the same from the opposition.

Ok, then lets cut throught the shit.

1) Are you a young earth creationist? (yes/no)
2) Do you believe the earth is only about 6000 years old (yes/no)

765 bellamags  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:22:58pm

re: #762 Gordon Marock

you know your scared. just admit it. and BTW only the idiot Brian screams.

766 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:23:15pm

re: #753 jcm


You might need help.

DAMN!
Now the INSIDE of the CRT is all crappy!

767 USBeast  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:23:16pm

re: #725 Gordon Marock

These idiot "Disprove Thisers" don't get what science is all about. As soon as any scientist comes up with a theory, a lot of other pissed off scientists set about to disprove the theory. And many theories are disproved. Science wants to be disproved, because that is a good portion of what scientists do. The ID people are so wedded to their beliefs, that they fear anyhting that may disprove them. Scientists are ready and willing to change their 'beliefs' when presented with a disproof, while the ID people will cling to their 'theories' in the face of mountains of solid evidence.

Gordon, your are right to the extent that you are talking about pure scientific dialogue. The sad fact is that scientists, even great ones, are wedded to their convictions even in the face of evidence. Einstein argued for the "steady state" universe and could not come to grips with Quantum Theory. Newton handed the ball off to God when he couldn't get beyond his explanation of Gravity.

Science has always been a matter of fits and starts with axes ground and oxen gored. It must be so because it is a human endeavor and, while we are evolving, we're not changing much.

768 opnion  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:23:29pm

re: #760 bellamags

OMG - i know. the first one I ever heard made me turn off the TV and run into bed w/my husband. Freaked me the f*ck out.

Oh yeah, you want to really get freaked out? Hmmm?
Get on a late Sunday Night thread.
I did after a night ball game. We were the night undead lizards.
That's all I'm sayin.

769 Naso Tang  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:23:32pm

re: #599 Winslow

Re the Royal Society. I appear to be corrected. I was under the impression that there were honorary positions and more common membership with less stringent citieria

At first glance that appears to be wrong, however not to get too sidetracked, the original point was whether scientists "call themselves" Darwinists, or something else; not whether they had written a paper with the word in the title.

I still maintain that you will have trouble finding scientists who label themselves with the word Darwinism.

770 bellamags  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:24:36pm

re: #768 opnion

do I dare?

771 NemoParticularis  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:24:36pm

re: #754 bellamags

Does anybody watch Ghost Hunters? They try to dis-prove hauntings. Sometimes they can't.

I've watched it several times. I'm not impressed. It's in the mold of all the so-called "reality" shows today: contrived crisis, angst or terror to hold the attention of the viewing audience. So far I have seen so proof for the existence of ghosts that can withstand either Occam's Razor or the onslaught of empirical science - although I do enjoy ghost stories. The motion picture Ghostbusters was immensely entertaining and The Lengend of Hell House scared the bejabbers out of me, because you never actually SAW the ghost - only what it did.

772 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:24:50pm

re: #756 George guy

I think it's clear from reading my previous post that this is not what I said, but rather that my beliefs are not necessarily relevant to the particular point I was trying to make. As far as what "side" I'm on, I favor teaching creationists how not to be sloppy debaters, and expect the same from the opposition.

So, how old is the earth?

773 Throbert McGee  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:24:59pm

re: #381 Occasional Reader

Yes, I know. Merci beaucoup, as Obama would say. Not much of a porto drinker myself, though.

I've only recently discovered that I like port sometimes, so I'll have to keep an eye out for this "Cockburn" stuff. (Usually I prefer either a nice red wine, especially shiraz, or something that rhymes with "urban," "risky," or "crotch," neat. And then there's beer, glorious beer...)

774 Slumbering Behemoth  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:25:05pm

re: #403 Gordon Marock

I agree with Ms. Judson, we'll rename Darwinism . . . .


SATANISM!


//////////////////////

I don't know this for a fact, but I'd be willing to bet Jack Chick beat you to that already.
/

775 jcm  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:25:18pm

re: #766 pre-Boomer Marine brat

DAMN!
Now the INSIDE of the CRT is all crappy!

Got Hairball?

776 Annar  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:25:20pm

re: #173 Occasional Reader

Gravity is a social construct; essentially, it's a form of white supremacy.

Not true! Gravity is at its best around a black hole.

777 hazzyday  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:25:24pm

"Let's get rid of Darwinism" sounds like one of those issues I am always wrong about.

My first thought is that this is the common way to run away from the argument and start anew. It seems eventually that the chickens come home to roost on the new term also.

I was thinking that if the term 'Darwinism' assumes a lessor role in a broader category of science then maybe the ID folks have indeed won. They then should also be able redefine the terms that describe themselves and come up with a term that fits next to Darwinism in the new science.

I wouldn't give them that opening this year, maybe in 20-50 years or so. After we have educated a few more generations of recycling based, social justice oriented green kids.

Something that puzzle me about the Discovery Institute. If what they are advocating is an alternative to evolution why are the YEC'rs acquiring support from the long term theo oriented evoluntionists? Is it a psychology like VB where the YEC'rs are the only ones available to make the wanted morals arguments?

778 Gordon Marock  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:25:42pm

re: #765 bellamags

you know your scared. just admit it. and BTW only the idiot Brian screams.

Who's to say that I am not shrieking like a school girl right now, stricken with the fear that, just maybe, the Earth is not 6,000 years old, and the Bible is really meant as an allegory. SHUDDER! I am closing my eyes.

779 bellamags  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:25:49pm

re: #771 NemoParticularis

jeez. bet you're fun on a hay ride.

780 NemoParticularis  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:26:17pm

re: #771 NemoParticularis

Damn my misspelling fingers!

781 opnion  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:26:19pm

re: #770 bellamags

do I dare?

Well, just let me say this. It is not for the faint of heart, if ya get my drift.

782 jcm  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:26:19pm

re: #772 Charles

So, how old is the earth?

Created the evening of Oct. 23rd, 4004 BC.
////////

783 jcm  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:26:37pm

re: #776 Annar

Not true! Gravity is at its best around a black hole.

RACIST!
/

784 Dar ul Harb  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:26:48pm

re: #444 Charles

Yes, they do. They calculate that age by going through the "begats."

Well, they kind of rely on Bishop Ussher, rather than doing the calculation themselves.

So the Young Earthers are probably Ussherites.

785 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:27:20pm

re: #775 jcm

Got Hairball?

Naw, but that damned mutt just got 3 Trinitron beams up his behind.

/is this getting wierd, or what?

786 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:27:24pm
787 bellamags  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:27:30pm

re: #781 opnion

I had a top 10 comment once, so THERE.

/sticks out tongue.

788 Big Steve  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:27:34pm

re: #732 Charles

Exactly right.

In college, one summer I worked for an entomology professor and my sole job was to anesthetize wolf spiders and shave the microscopic hairs off of their front two limbs. A recent report had been published that these hairs served the purpose of allowing the spider to climb upside down. However our spiders were perfectly able to climb once coming to but what they could no longer do was subdue crickets (their major food source). It turned out that the hairs on their front two limbs were barbed and the spider could throw its arms out like a harpoon and then hold the cricket at arms length. Crickets have incredibly powerful legs and can kick the crap out of just about anything their size. Anyway, the wolf spider harpoons the cricket, allows it to harmlessly kick itself tired while holding it out and the quickly pulls it in, bites it with a poison and then holds it out again until it croaks. Without these hairs on its front limbs it would harpoon the cricket and the cricket would bound away. Publishing this and disproving an established theory, even if it was only wolf spiders was an incredible thrill an felt very manly. Scientist love to kick other scientist's asses and disproving their published work is the home run trot.

789 USBeast  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:28:18pm

re: #782 jcm

Created the evening of Oct. 23rd, 4004 BC.
////////

"Ah yes, I remember it well..."

790 Josephine  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:28:28pm

re: #750 Charles

Scalzi hates LGF. He has said very mean things about me. (Sob.) If he's watching referrals he'll probably have a WTF moment.

LOL. I hope lots of people click on the link, then.

This is the first time I've seen his blog. It's too bad he hates LGF.

791 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:28:37pm
792 angst[deleted]  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:28:41pm
793 goddessoftheclassroom  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:28:55pm

re: #788 Big Steve

I'm picturing you with that razor...

794 opnion  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:28:56pm

re: #787 bellamags

I had a top 10 comment once, so THERE.

/sticks out tongue.

Alright! I need an autograph.

795 Dar ul Harb  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:28:56pm

re: #649 Walter L. Newton

You just want to have easy access to her picture LOL.

Well, he would, if he weren't "playing for the other team."

796 bellamags  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:29:23pm

re: #794 opnion

LOL.

797 Salamantis  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:29:34pm

re: #286 Cato

BTW, don't think I'm bashing Darwin -- I'm not. It is just that there is something deeply unsatisfying about a theory that says one type of spider eats its mate after mating for survival reasons and then says that another variety does the opposite -- for reasons of survival.

Could it be because the exigencies of their different ecological niches are...umm...different?

And, btw; duck-billed platypuses aren't the only egg-laying mammals in the world; spiny anteaters are monotremes, too.

798 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:29:45pm

re: #772 Charles

So, how old is the earth?

NO TRICK QUESTIONS!

799 EC Marm  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:29:50pm

Knew that one was headed out the door.

800 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:29:55pm

re: #783 jcm

Seriously, visualize a dual- or triple-star system ... and then visualize what the gravitational tides must be like in that system.

801 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:29:55pm

angst: that's not cool at all. Not everyone reading these comments is your friend.

802 jcm  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:30:01pm

re: #785 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Naw, but that damned mutt just got 3 Trinitron beams up his behind.

/is this getting wierd, or what?

SHOCKING!

803 tradewind  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:30:21pm

re: #753 jcm

Now THAT is scary to the unwarned :)........
(muttering that I hope I don't revisit it in my dreams....)

804 HoosierHoops  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:30:42pm

re: #772 Charles

So, how old is the earth?


thats easy goto universetoday.com and copy the answer from the experts..
/jez am i the only one that knew how to get a B.A.?
Last i heard my church doesn't give out degrees for science..

805 angst  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:30:44pm

re: #801 Charles

angst: that's not cool at all. Not everyone reading these comments is your friend.

Sorry, that's why I put in the sarc thingy at the end.

806 goddessoftheclassroom  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:30:51pm

re: #800 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Another theory disproved:

[Link: icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com...]

807 NemoParticularis  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:31:12pm

re: #773 Throbert McGee

I've only recently discovered that I like port sometimes, so I'll have to keep an eye out for this "Cockburn" stuff. (Usually I prefer either a nice red wine, especially shiraz, or something that rhymes with "urban," "risky," or "crotch," neat. And then there's beer, glorious beer...)

Port is a very sweet, fortified wine. The only authentic Port wine comes from Portugal (the area around Porto), just as the only authentic Scotch comes from Scotland.

Because the British and the Portuguese have had a close alliance since the 14th century (Queen Elizabeth has a villa in Cascais) many of the great importers are British houses - such as Cockburn. The British are very fond of Port wine (it really is splendid with a nice, sharp Stilton cheese) and early in our own history colonial and post-colonial Americans drank a great deal of Port and Madeira wines.

808 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:31:18pm

re: #795 Dar ul Harb

Well, he would, if he weren't "playing for the other team."

Oops.

809 George guy  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:31:28pm

re: #764 Walter L. Newton

Ok, then lets cut throught the shit.

1) Are you a young earth creationist? (yes/no)
2) Do you believe the earth is only about 6000 years old (yes/no)

There is no shit. The answers are yes and yes, respectively.

It is also something of a red herring fallacy to assume everything I say is dependent on those beliefs.

810 Gordon Marock  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:32:02pm

re: #767 USBeast

Gordon, your are right to the extent that you are talking about pure scientific dialogue. The sad fact is that scientists, even great ones, are wedded to their convictions even in the face of evidence. Einstein argued for the "steady state" universe and could not come to grips with Quantum Theory. Newton handed the ball off to God when he couldn't get beyond his explanation of Gravity.

Science has always been a matter of fits and starts with axes ground and oxen gored. It must be so because it is a human endeavor and, while we are evolving, we're not changing much.

You are correct, even scientists are subject to the same fallibility that applies to YEC'ers. However, because scientists readily admit the fallibility of their theories, we have been able to advance beyond axes and oxen.

811 jcm  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:32:12pm

re: #800 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Seriously, visualize a dual- or triple-star system ... and then visualize what the gravitational tides must be like in that system.

There was a old Mac solar system simulator. 2D, you could set up systems and watch gravity at work. When you had multiple large bodies, getting the system balances was entertaining.

812 Big Steve  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:32:42pm

re: #793 goddessoftheclassroom

I'm picturing you with that razor...

Done with a high powered stereo microscope. But I'll tell you what, I occasionally get wolf spiders in my house. They are large and scary, are brown or light gray and have two black racing stripes down their backs. They don't spin webs. I allow them to exist and love the thought they are torturing crickets right under my nose.

813 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:32:42pm
814 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:32:49pm

re: #809 George guy

There is no shit. The answers are yes and yes, respectively.

It is also something of a red herring fallacy to assume everything I say is dependent on those beliefs.

Just wanted to know where you sit before you tell us where you stand.

815 EC Marm  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:32:52pm

re: #805 angst

Sorry, that's why I put in the sarc thingy at the end.


Certain words are not permissible to use until November 2008 or November 2012. Unless you are Jesse Jackson.

816 hazzyday  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:33:12pm

re: #739 Josephine

Thanks, Charles, I'm glad you're enjoying it!

The post on his blog is interesting, too. His readers raised the money for him to go, plus about five thousand dollars that was donated to an organization for the separation of church and state.

"Your Creation Museum Report"

This reminds me of many of the pooh flinging democrats I read online. Lol a good laugh. He is definitely a freudian personality with child hood issues. I reccomend more beer and gambling for him.

817 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:33:15pm

re: #786 buzzsawmonkey

Always good.

Minor Drag.
This one's too "busy" and glossy for my taste.
Doesn't appear to be a version on the Web of Fats doing it.
RATS!

818 Charles  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:33:41pm

re: #809 George guy

There is no shit. The answers are yes and yes, respectively.

It is also something of a red herring fallacy to assume everything I say is dependent on those beliefs.

Thanks for clarifying that.

819 goddessoftheclassroom  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:34:15pm

re: #812 Big Steve

Done with a high powered stereo microscope. But I'll tell you what, I occasionally get wolf spiders in my house. They are large and scary, are brown or light gray and have two black racing stripes down their backs. They don't spin webs. I allow them to exist and love the thought they are torturing crickets right under my nose.

Every since I read Charlotte's Web in third grade, I haven't been afraid of spiders, nor have I been able to kill them.

However, I have an irrational fear of crickets.

820 Salamantis  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:34:38pm

re: #302 Cato

True enough. But it makes the propositions contentless. The logical form of each Darwinian proposition is "p and not p". Of course it is true.

I have yet to see a proposition formulated by evolutionary theorists that reads "If fossilized human bones are found in a fossilized T Rex stomach, and if they aren't, the theory of evolution holds regardless."

821 profitsbeard  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:34:54pm

Darwin's DI detractors remind me of a person who couldn't draw a straight line (-to use to the art-challenged cliche-) wandering into the Sistine Chapel and starting to criticize Michelangelo's brushwork.

"Look at the bicep on the third prophet from the left in the Last Judgment... it's very unrealistic!"

As if they could paint it. Or conceive of it. Or even copy it.

822 Dan G.  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:35:02pm

re: #279 Cato

Viruses are not alive, they require a living entity to replicate precluding their consideration. Nice try though.

823 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:35:33pm

re: #806 goddessoftheclassroom

Another theory disproved:

[Link: icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com.. .]

C'mere, kitty, bite this cattle prod.

824 bellamags  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:35:37pm

In case you are not familiar with my current situation, the new County Democratic Headquarters is located 1 foot away from my business. They have been banging on the walls and toting stuff in. One object I saw was a blow up George Bush with a long Pinocchio nose. Their grand opening is tomorrow. I will keep an eye out and watch how many people show.

825 Dar ul Harb  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:35:53pm

re: #660 Independent Voter123

I just had to ding that up for the humor value alone.

826 wolfie  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:36:53pm

re: #824 bellamags

Be sure to keep your camera ready in case they put up any Che Guevara flags!

827 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:36:59pm

re: #811 jcm

There was a old Mac solar system simulator. 2D, you could set up systems and watch gravity at work. When you had multiple large bodies, getting the system balances was entertaining.

Never heard of that.
Glad I don't have one here now.
Sounds damned addictive.

828 goddessoftheclassroom  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:37:00pm

re: #823 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Is that thing on?

829 VegasRick  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:37:05pm

re: #824 bellamags

In case you are not familiar with my current situation, the new County Democratic Headquarters is located 1 foot away from my business. They have been banging on the walls and toting stuff in. One object I saw was a blow up George Bush with a long Pinocchio nose. Their grand opening is tomorrow. I will keep an eye out and watch how many people show.

dhimmisRUS

830 Kosh's Shadow  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:37:06pm

re: #784 Dar ul Harb

Well, they kind of rely on Bishop Ussher, rather than doing the calculation themselves.

So the Young Earthers are probably Ussherites.

Whereas if they relied on the Hebrew calendar, they'd know it was 5768 years since Creation.
Some people I know say the universe was created exactly 5768 years plus 6 days ago, (the first day of the calendar is the first Shabbat), and it was created so it was already 13.5 billion years old.
I don't think the Creator is messing with us that way; I believe He created the universe 13.5 billion years or so ago, and has guided the development since.
I wouldn't say that in a public school science class, because it involves theology, but I'll give that in a college class as one way to reconcile science and the Bible, without saying that it is my opinion,

It does bother me, though, to have science say that they have disproven the existence of a Creator scientifically, when their arguments are philosophical, not scientific.

Maybe someday we will have proof, like finding the cosmic background radiation when played back, involves a deep resonant voice speaking the words of Torah. But there would be some scientists who would disbelieve that, and the Moslems would say it was a joooish fake, because it would have been the words of the Koran.

831 NemoParticularis  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:37:39pm

re: #813 buzzsawmonkey

Somebody needs to start producing faux-port. I suggest that they call it "Starboard."

LOL. Well done.

Actually, there are domestic producers of faux-Port; among them Gallo and Masson. California produces some of the world's most splendid wines in addition to the world's most AWFUL Port wine wannabes. The cheapest authentic Port wine is infinitely better than the most expensive domestic version.

832 jaunte  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:37:48pm

re: #826 wolfie

Following the New Yorker lead, they can now call that 'satire.'

833 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:37:58pm
834 Miss Trixie  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:38:06pm

Charles, could we have a new thread please? This one's breaking my heart.

835 opnion  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:38:30pm

re: #819 goddessoftheclassroom

Every since I read Charlotte's Web in third grade, I haven't been afraid of spiders, nor have I been able to kill them.

However, I have an irrational fear of crickets.


See I go the other way. Crickets, grasshoppers & lightning bugs, I just can not kill. Spiders? Hah, I am their worst enemy.

836 Gordon Marock  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:38:38pm

re: #819 goddessoftheclassroom

Every since I read Charlotte's Web in third grade, I haven't been afraid of spiders, nor have I been able to kill them.

However, I have an irrational fear of crickets.

Wait til you get bit by a Brown Recluse. After that, you will probably be burning every Charlotte's Web you come agross with a can of Right Guard and a lighter.

837 Kosh's Shadow  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:38:41pm

re: #811 jcm

There was a old Mac solar system simulator. 2D, you could set up systems and watch gravity at work. When you had multiple large bodies, getting the system balances was entertaining.

I should port my old Windows 16 version. (Wrote one back on a 486)

838 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:38:44pm

re: #819 goddessoftheclassroom

I have an irrational fear of cricket

A real Anglophobe, it appears.

839 goddessoftheclassroom  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:38:58pm

re: #833 buzzsawmonkey

BIG SPIDER SHAVERS ARE RIPPING US OFF!

...said the poorly-dilpilatated wolf spider

840 tradewind  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:39:11pm

re: #788 Big Steve

Dammit...what is this, the Natural Selection thread?
Screening out wusses at work here, sending me screaming....
first slobbering kitties attacking and now hairy spiders being shaved.......
Hell week back in school was less stressful...
:)

841 bellamags  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:39:21pm

re: #819 goddessoftheclassroom

goddess - spiders don't scare me either, but my irrational fears are: monkeys, clowns and roaches.

842 Slumbering Behemoth  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:39:25pm

re: #470 Killgore Trout

A handy reference chart

Bogus, I didn't see my name anywhere in there. Wait, what the... :The Behemoth slowly fades from existence:
//

843 NemoParticularis  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:39:39pm

re: #838 pre-Boomer Marine brat

LOL

844 USBeast  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:39:52pm

re: #810 Gordon Marock

You are correct, even scientists are subject to the same fallibility that applies to YEC'ers. However, because scientists readily admit the fallibility of their theories, we have been able to advance beyond axes and oxen.

I think the statement would be better expressed: "Because scientists readily admit the fallibility of otherscientist's theories, we have been able to advance..."

Science is a competitive sport. If you don't believe it, just try to get a grant.

845 jcm  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:40:05pm

re: #827 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Never heard of that.
Glad I don't have one here now.
Sounds damned addictive.

It was.

It's been updated.....
Gravit is a gravity simulator which runs under Linux, Windows and Mac OS X. It's released under the GNU General Public License which makes it free. It uses Newtonian physics using the Barnes-Hut N-body algorithm. Although the main goal of Gravit is to be as accurate as possible, it also creates beautiful looking gravity patterns. It records the history of each particle so it can animate and display a path of its travels. At any stage you can rotate your view in 3D and zoom in and out. Gravit uses OpenGL with Lua, SDL, SDL_ttf and SDL_image.

846 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:40:39pm

re: #828 goddessoftheclassroom

Is that thing on?

LOL

BTW, what was that cat? Looked like a wild, larger cat. An ocelot, or something like that.

847 Salamantis  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:40:44pm

re: #316 Cato

I do not believe you have responded to my argument that viruses live and did not differentiate from any other species. Talk about avoiding arguments.

Do you mean to say that there is only one kind of virus, or do you mean to say that they are the same as animals or plants?

Actually, I think you meant to say that they do not share common ancestors with the rest of living things - which is kinda hard to understand, since their genetic material obeys the same coding rules that all other genetic materials, whether from animals or from plants, obey.

848 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:40:46pm
849 hazzyday  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:41:07pm

re: #788 Big Steve

I had heard that scientists are over charged sexually and that magnets and tuning forks act oddly when two polar opposites operate a single bunsen burner.

850 Miss Trixie  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:41:14pm

SPIDERS?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

GETITOFFMEGETITOFFMEGETITOFFMEGETITOFFMEGETITOFFME !

/arachniphobe to the nth degree

851 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:41:25pm

Jaws is on AMC right now. Cool!

Hey y'all. I'm in the Holiday Inn Obama Express. The hotel vibrates (tingles).

852 Salamantis  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:41:35pm

re: #321 Yosemite bill

Sorry Charles. I'm all out of secular tolerance . Hell and I'm not even an "evangelical" or 'fundamentalist'... .
I've got work to do . Catch up after dark.
Later

I never expected to find any in you.

853 Gordon Marock  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:42:19pm

re: #844 USBeast

I think the statement would be better expressed: "Because scientists readily admit the fallibility of otherscientist's theories, we have been able to advance..."

Science is a competitive sport. If you don't believe it, just try to get a grant.

Science is clearly a competetive sport among both Scientists and the theories they support. However, as a scientific theory, ID is merely hangin' around the locker room sniffin' jock straps.

854 opnion  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:42:42pm

re: #848 buzzsawmonkey

How many spiders could a spider shaver shave if spider shavers could shave spiders?

/please don't ask me to look on the world-wide Web for the answer

You really don't have to. The answer is 22. I thought that it was common knowledge.

855 Winslow  Thu, Jul 17, 2008 6:42:51pm

re: #769 Naso Tang

Again, I beg to differ. This thread is based on the question of whether "Darwinism," not "Darwinist," should be abandoned.
Secondly, your statement, whi