With proof.

...and drive creationists crazy!

and to invent the church key!

re: #3 redc1c4

Now yer talkin'!

Has anyone heard the remark that Dan Rather just made? He was being interviewed and said that Jesse Jackson had paved the way for Osama Bin Laden!"
Nobody corrected him!

re: #5 katemaclaren

Has anyone heard the remark that Dan Rather just made? He was being interviewed and said that Jesse Jackson had paved the way for Osama Bin Laden!"
Nobody corrected him!

Hey; it could be true.

I wonder if the creationists can hire a lawyer like this? Apparently, he drops trou for his clients!

Caution: tighty-whitey alert!

re: #8 Wyatt Earp

I feel violated...excuse be while I go and bath myself...

re: #5 katemaclaren

Has anyone heard the remark that Dan Rather just made? He was being interviewed and said that Jesse Jackson had paved the way for Osama Bin Laden!"
Nobody corrected him!

It's the "Grandpa's drunk at Thanksgiving dinner again-but no one wants to talk about it" syndrome.

Here's the link to the interview on Morning Joe:
[Link: www.breitbart.tv...]

re: #9 lone_wolf_in_illinois

Terribly sorry about that. Lousy liberal lawyers!

I have a request:

Anytime Jesse Jackson makes an appearance, someone needs to ask him why he said that Regev and Goldwasser were alive. Because he was either a dupe, or he lied.

I am really sick with fury. I will not try to address the Israeli government, I am not one of their citizens. But Jesse Jackson spoke to this. And he's an American citizen, and I need him to be asked.

Again, and again, and again.

re: #8 Wyatt Earp

re: #10 little boomer

It's the "Grandpa's drunk at Thanksgiving dinner again-but no one wants to talk about it" syndrome.

Yeah that "crazy relative that lives in the attic". 'Member him?

re: #13 Dianna

Most likely both.

re: #13 Dianna

Or we could just hope and pray that Jesse Jackson never makes another appearance . . . at least in front of a camera crew.

re: #6 MandyManners

MORE COWBELL!

Is this the drinking thread? I've just cracked open my fourth Budweiser...

Scientific criticism has no nobler task than to shatter false beliefs.

Those tasks seem to keep growing. What the hell has happened to this country?

re: #18 mickthemick

Is this the drinking thread? I've just cracked open my fourth Budweiser...

drinking Europeon beer, eh? %-)

/2 buck chuck here

re: #19 Haverwilde

Those tasks seem to keep growing. What the hell has happened to this country?

i'm not sure, but this hand basket keeps going faster...

re: #16 Wyatt Earp

Or we could just hope and pray that Jesse Jackson never makes another appearance . . . at least in front of a camera crew.

no: we want him to make *more* appearances...

/not enough people think he's an asshat yet. %-)

Why do people think fining a company for wrong-doing or raising their taxes is such a good thing?

Let's be clear; NO COMPANY EVER PAYS A FINE OR TAX!

The people who use the product or service do! The company just passes the amount on to it's customers. It's considered a "cost of doing business" and usually amounts to a flea-bite anyway.

If they want to modify a company's behaviour then tax/fine the CEO'S!

/rant off

I would post links but there are too many.

re: #22 redc1c4

Good point. There's probably some crew members shooting "Deadliest Catch" that haven't seen a tv in a while.

re: #22 redc1c4

/not enough people think he's an asshat yet. %-)

Only until the MSM thinks so.

re: #18 mickthemick

Is this the drinking thread? I've just cracked open my fourth Budweiser...

It better be. God, I need a drink.

Beer does more than Milton can
To justify God's ways to man.

If only Milton had made a brew...

Maybe "Pair a Dice Lost" lager.

Skoal!

"Praise Obanal!" thanks be to him we have not one but two FNDT!

twice the posts, twice the reading, twice the "Change!"

we're gonna need more fruitcup... and someone tell the bartender he can only pour doubles!

/Drink!
/Drink!

re: #27 profitsbeard

Beer does more than Milton can
To justify God's ways to man.

If only Milton had made a brew...

Maybe "Pair a Dice Lost" lager.

Skoal!

beer is proof that G*d loves us, and wants us to be happy...
Ben Franklin

"Brother, would you pass me another beer?"
my Coonass buddy Ben, at Ft. Sam

Well hell, I can barely keep up with Charles during the day and here I'm not even on the last thread of the night!
Well, anyway, please forgive the re-post from the prior thread - made unknowingly by me after everyone had gone here or to the next thread:

There was only ONE mystery writer who was better than Raymond Chandler and that was HIS idol, and inventor of the hard as nails private eye school, Dashiel Hammett - just an absolutely incredible writer.
Dash actually worked as a Private Investigator for the Continental Detective Agency in San Francisco before writing his first book, "The Continental Op" and then he went on to write "The Maltesse Falcon"
and numerous other books, including the entire Thin Man series.

Hey wyatt and real!

re: #31 Typicalwhitey

Hey TW (and Real)! Been a long day, but since I have off tomorrow, I figured I'd stop by and annoy the regulars. :)

re: #23 jcw46

And the BOD. It is not just the CEO alone that causes the problems.

re: #30 realwest

Well hell, I can barely keep up with Charles during the day and here I'm not even on the last thread of the night!
Well, anyway, please forgive the re-post from the prior thread - made unknowingly by me after everyone had gone here or to the next thread:

There was only ONE mystery writer who was better than Raymond Chandler and that was HIS idol, and inventor of the hard as nails private eye school, Dashiel Hammett - just an absolutely incredible writer.
Dash actually worked as a Private Investigator for the Continental Detective Agency in San Francisco before writing his first book, "The Continental Op" and then he went on to write "The Maltesse Falcon"
and numerous other books, including the entire Thin Man series.

funny you should mention them: Chandler is my fav, mostly because of the way he describes Lost Angels, but earlier this week i was unloading a bunch of books from the P's house that mummy dearest had saved, and some of mine were mixed up in them, including my copy of the Continental Op.

GMTA!

re: #32 Wyatt Earp
Something you absolutely EXCELL at!

re: #35 Typicalwhitey

I know. It's a gift that has been passed down for generations. My racist white grandmother started the ball rolling. Heh.

re: #36 Wyatt Earp

Are you moving to the new thread?

re: #37 Typicalwhitey

Yeah, since we seem to be the only ones left here. :)

1:30 am i'm still here! Wow!

A long trend of politicizing science continues:
Channel 4 to be censured over controversial climate film

Channel 4 misrepresented some of the world's leading climate scientists in a controversial documentary that claimed global warming was a conspiracy and a fraud, the UK's media regulator will rule next week.

In a long-awaited judgment following a 15-month inquiry, Ofcom is expected to censure the network over its treatment of some scientists in the programme, The Great Global Warming Swindle, which sparked outcry from environmentalists.

"You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means"
Inigo Montoya

Actually, the word is hypocricy...which many seem to think can only be applied to positions of the left. It's easy to challenge (with perfectly good reason) a scientific community that foists man-made global warming on ignorant masses. But challenge the equally poor science (coming from different players in that same scientific community) behind Darwinism, and all of a sudden we have a "consensus" that is incontrovertable. So we stand up a religious strawman (ID) or some suitable red herring as the ultimate defense (when none is called for). Science is science. It doesn't need to be defended. It always needs to be challenged. If it's correct science, it can take it. If it's bad science, it'll be found out. But only if it's allowed to be criticized and challenged.

Please note that I don't claim anything about creationism. I do know what that word means.

re: #39 beachkatie

1:30 am i'm still here! Wow!

nice pic... who's the artist?

Those poor Yemenis are in Guantanamo BECAUSE they were caught armed and dangerous, on an active battlefield, out of uniform, near dead women & children.

Out of UNIFORM?

Why, according to the Geneva Conventions, those armed combatants could have been SHOT THERE AND THEN! But THAT would have been doing to them something like they did to the civilians they killed...

So soft-hearted Americans put them in Guantanamo, where their 'torture' includes having MORONS like that 'lawyer' defend them!

You think the American media is bad, just check out the German media. Here's the headline: Teenager's Desperate Plea for Help. What is it about? Is a teenager being held hostage? Is a teenager trapped in a burning car? Has a teenager been attacked by some scumbags?

Nope, nope and nope again.

Our "desperate teenage" is captured al Qaeda being interrogated in that hellhole of Guantanamo. Check it out for yourself:
[Link: www.bild.de...]

von Mises is the greatest economist of the 20th century. Any student of economics only needs to read the first 1/3rd of his treatise Human Action to forever understand the fallacies of today's orthodox economics (Neo-Keynesian doctrine).

...and the paleo-conservatives who use his name at the Mises Institute are frauds who should have named themselves the Murray Rothbard Institute for Anarcho-Libertarian Studies. Mises was no anarchist.

re: #43 MrSimplistic

"You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means"
Inigo Montoya

Actually, the word is hypocricy...which many seem to think can only be applied to positions of the left. It's easy to challenge (with perfectly good reason) a scientific community that foists man-made global warming on ignorant masses. But challenge the equally poor science (coming from different players in that same scientific community) behind Darwinism, and all of a sudden we have a "consensus" that is incontrovertable. So we stand up a religious strawman (ID) or some suitable red herring as the ultimate defense (when none is called for). Science is science. It doesn't need to be defended. It always needs to be challenged. If it's correct science, it can take it. If it's bad science, it'll be found out. But only if it's allowed to be criticized and challenged.

Please note that I don't claim anything about creationism. I do know what that word means.

The theory of evolution has been challenged by scientists for 150 years -- vigorously and emphatically challenged, and tested empirically by evidence. In all that time, not one of these challenges has succeeded in falsifying the theory. Far from your assertion that "Darwinism is poor science," it has stood up so well that it's now regarded as "scientific fact." And the debate continues in the scientific community. Evolutionary science is a vibrant, constantly changing field of study.

The challenges coming from the likes of the Discovery Institute are ludicrous, dishonest, religion-based hooey, and not a single real scientist takes their nonsense seriously -- because it's not science.

On another note, it's more than a little amazing how many people are coming out of the woodwork at LGF with comments in the single digits, to dump creationist/Disco Institute talking points into these threads, then vanish again.

re: #49 Charles

I know Mr. Beaumont doesn't really like to do Windows, but does he do woodwork?

#49 Charles

Didn't know that the number of comments had anything to do with how valid a point is (or isn't). I don't think anyone responded for more than a few hours. Kinda hard to discuss something with myself on a blog. I'm pretty convinced I'm right.

And I never ascribed to either creationism or ID or the Discovery Institute. But if it helps you refute to imply that I do...have at it. I'd call that intellectual dishonesty.

And, to your specific argument, I only note that you, yourself, ascribe to the "Here's my theory. I don't have to prove it's right -- you have to prove it's wrong" school of science. You must know that science doesn't really work that way. This makes the approach you take quite a weak one. It doesn't make you wrong. But...

I'm not saying you are weak (by the way). I'm saying your approach is. Two different things. Somehow I imagine you'll still take it the wrong way. Seems to be a pattern.

Hate mail? Yeah...that too.

And I checked back to avoid the risk of a repeat accusation of being a hit-n-run artist. Perhaps nine hours again. Sorry for the inconvenience.

re: #47 MPH

von Mises is an intellectual hero of mine. I credit him for creating an epistemology consistent with his field of study. Since you chose the first third of Human Action, I assume that is what you most admire as well. His accomplishment is no small task.

More antisemitism at GAwker...

[Link: gawker.com...]

re: #41 abolitionist

A long trend of politicizing science continues:
Channel 4 to be censured over controversial climate film

It's actually a great film... It's rather interesting what isn't listed in the list of complaints (which is almost exclusively nitpicking and trivial details), and the most important thing is that up to the early 80's, absolutely everybody that had anything to say about the climate, including the precursor to IPCC, were convinced that a new ice age was coming - and coming soon. Their data was very clear and the global temperature was dropping - faster and faster.

Then due to a dirty battle between the British government (Margaret Thatcher) and the coal mine industry on a bitter strike, an unknown scientist was pulled into the spotlight. He had a very different theory about the climate: That CO2 was causing global warming (and the burning of coal was a major source of CO2). Rather absurd given the scientific consensus at the time but it played with Thatchers anti-coal agenda and thus was promoted heavily by the British government.

And today, the IPCC and everybody else use the same data that showed global cooling back in the 80's to show global warming today...

My point here is that the data quite obviously is either flawed or so unclear that the interpretation can be so diverse, and the scientific community is nothing more than lemmings following the pack regardless of common sense, scientific method and what have you.

Hey gang, who wants $100 billion Zimbabwe dollars!

re: #51 MrSimplistic

#49 Charles

Didn't know that the number of comments had anything to do with how valid a point is (or isn't). I don't think anyone responded for more than a few hours. Kinda hard to discuss something with myself on a blog. I'm pretty convinced I'm right.

Its peripherally, secondarily significant: SOME commenters here ONLY come out to criticize evolution and the scientists who engage in research within the bio-evolutionary-archeological framework.

And I never ascribed to either creationism or ID or the Discovery Institute. But if it helps you refute to imply that I do... have at it. I'd call that intellectual dishonesty.

Strawman. Charles did NOT, and representing otherwise leaves you open to criticism of intellectual hypocrisy.

And, to your specific argument, I only note that you, yourself, ascribe to the "Here's my theory. I don't have to prove it's right -- you have to prove it's wrong" school of science. You must know that science doesn't really work that way. This makes the approach you take quite a weak one. It doesn't make you wrong. But...

Actually, Mister, science DOES work that way, stating a FALSIFIABLE HYPOTHESIS about observable reality and then seeking empirical evidence that the hypothesis is 'right' or 'prove it's wrong'.

Charles argues from the extremely STRONG position of 'here is the reality of human observations, notations, records, calculations, over 150 years of focused RESEARCH'. It doesn't make you wrong, but continued refusal to SEE or acknowledge having seen marks one as intellectually dishonest OR craven.

I'm not saying you are weak (by the way). I'm saying your approach is. Two different things. Somehow I imagine you'll still take it the wrong way. Seems to be a pattern.

"take it the wrong way"? Mr Simplistic, your projections are perfect.

Hate mail? Yeah...that too.

Science, Mr, is NOT about hating or loving, it is about KNOWING. Hate mail is prima facie evidence on underlying ignorance.

A fine defense. Charles doesn't need it any more than science does. But I'm sure you'll be bumped up on his "friend of Charles" list.

And sorry for the lack of a sarc tag on the hate mail comment. Just a bit too deep for you, I guess. I assumed way too much. For clarity, since my simple attempt to discuss the weakness of the evolution argument that Charles postulated was immediately treated as religious hooey (how dare I disagree), I figured anything I wrote contrary to his (and your) position would also be treated as hate mail. I wasn't far from the mark now, was I? But isn't that the liberal way? Do you miss that concept? Thought so.

Nice touch with the bold button too. If you knew my actual credentials, Mister is hardly the half of it. It did really hurt though. (Ouch!)

I can see that this is not a site for honest dialog any more than that of the moonbats. Thought I'd give it a try.

Won't bother you with any further attempt. I'll find something a bit more mature. (no sarc tag on that one).