Penn & Teller are formidable opponents! Mockery is the cruelest weapon!

I love these guys. Watching now....

Just the first minute of the first video is it in a nutshell. That thwack made me laugh.

No magic tricks in church.

I always check with a couple of Las Vegas illusionists if I have any scientific or theological questions...

[/sarc]

One of my great regrets is that I was once contacted by the producers of Bullshit! who asked to use my photos and videos in one of their episodes -- and I was rather rude to them, as I had never heard of the show and thought (from its name) that it was either small-time or some kind of scam. They ended up not using my stuff.

I'm still kicking myself over that one. I'm so disconnected from mainstream culture, I never watch TV and had not a clue that it was a real show.

They're okay sometimes, other times I think they just do things to push people's buttons.

I was really offended by the B*llsh*t segment on the Bible.

But I was laughing too hard to complain.

We just made it up.

re: #5 Jonas Parker

I always check with a couple of Las Vegas illusionists if I have any scientific or theological questions...

[/sarc]

And I always check with my preacher whenever I have questions about biology or the scientific method...

re: #6 zombie

That's a bummer. Live and learn.

re: #7 Jimmy the Notable

They're okay sometimes, other times I think they just do things to push people's buttons.

That's all they do is push peoples buttons......

This tired old thing again?

re: #10 zombie

And I always check with my preacher whenever I have questions about biology or the scientific method...

You do? In questions on science I usually check with my son, a PhD and college prof myself...

re: #6 zombie

... I'm so disconnected from mainstream culture, I never watch TV and had not a clue that it was a real show.

That makes 2 of us- or 3 or 4, depending on how many he and shes you really are.
/subterfuge

Wow- it's stunning to see the number of people who just don't get the Establishment Clause. In light of islamic theocracies, I think the First Amendment is the most brilliant thing our Founders gave us, and to see it thought so little of is just sad.

I found this after viewing a penn & teller AGW video and added it to spin off links. Refreshed the page and here it is! - Great perspective from these guys as usual.

re: #4 debutaunt

No magic tricks in church.

Now - that, was very, very funny!

oh good grief, my hometown

re: #15 Capitalist Tool

That makes 2 of us- or 3 or 4, depending on how many he and shes you really are.
/subterfuge

TV? Haven't owned one since the 60s.

Count me in.

Eugenie Scott made an important point about the theology of Biblical inerrancy being misapplied to science, and the confusing arguments that result.

re: #6 zombie

One of my great regrets is that I was once contacted by the producers of Bullshit! who asked to use my photos and videos in one of their episodes -- and I was rather rude to them, as I had never heard of the show and thought (from its name) that it was either small-time or some kind of scam. They ended up not using my stuff.

I'm still kicking myself over that one. I'm so disconnected from mainstream culture, I never watch TV and had not a clue that it was a real show.

Oh no! Oh well, I am sure they read LGF and will see your comment and contact you again. I am sure!

I don't think these parents realize that what they are in essence saying is they are not capable of teaching their faith to their children themselves and need the schools to do it for them. I refuse to hand that responsibility over to the government. And I likewise refuse to allow the interest groups pushing this to get their hands on any child of mine. I feel sorry for these parents- they have no idea they're being duped. They just lap it up and spit it back out, doing the DI & ICR's dirty work for them.

Their show on recycling is also chock-full of moonbat-battling goodness.

re: #4 debutaunt,

Wanna see me make this pencil dissappear?

[/Joker]

re: #24 mbruce

Their show on recycling is also chock-full of moonbat-battling goodness.

That one was great! I turned them off though, with the anti Mother Teresa stuff. So I have missed a lot.

risus iuguolo - laughter kills

Clearly Penn & Teller and anti-idiotarians. Wonder if they've stumbled onto LGF.

re: #24 mbruce

Their show on recycling is also chock-full of moonbat-battling goodness.

I loved the bottle water bit. Fancy bottle water, fancy restaurant, water waiter, Teller's out back filling them all from a garden hose.

re: #25 Iron Fist

,

Wanna see me make this pencil dissappear?

[/Joker]

Sounds painful.

Here's one for B*llsh*t segment....

Want to calculate a carbon footprint?

The calculators compute the amount of carbon produced each year -- your so-called "carbon footprint" -- and tell you how much money to give to compensate for it. With a few clicks of the mouse, anyone can achieve the ultimate state of environmental perfection: carbon neutrality.

That is, if you can believe the calculator you're using.

A recent University of Washington study found that when the same values were used with 10 different online calculators, the results varied greatly. In one category, the bottom line for a typical American homeowner varied by more than 32,800 pounds of carbon produced per year.

re: #29 jcm

I loved the one on dihydrogen monoxide.

re: #6 zombie

One of my great regrets is that I was once contacted by the producers of Bullshit! who asked to use my photos and videos in one of their episodes -- and I was rather rude to them, as I had never heard of the show and thought (from its name) that it was either small-time or some kind of scam. They ended up not using my stuff.

I'm still kicking myself over that one. I'm so disconnected from mainstream culture, I never watch TV and had not a clue that it was a real show.

Do you know which topic they wanted to use your stuff for?

Brilliant!
Thank you, Penn and Teller!

It seems that those who are in the professional business of fooling people (ie illusionists and stage magicians) also make the best debunkers of mystical bulls@#$.

The tradition goes back to Harry Houdini (aka Eric Weiss, curiously his father was a Rabbi) who used to debunk Spiritualists, through the amazing Randi (debunker of Uri Geller, among others, and maintainer of the $1,000,000 challenge) and more recently Penn and Teller.

re: #6 zombie

if anything like that happens again,just let us know.we'll help clue you in.(gotta protect our favorite undead!)

I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said... "Darwin Loves you"

busy watching, ...

Earth going around the sun another theory, good.

re: #32 Sharmuta

I loved the one on dihydrogen monoxide.

Running around a moonbat festival gathering signatures!

re: #39 jcm

ban water!

re: #40 Boondock St. Bender

ban water!

I never drink water, do you know what fish do in water?

Perhaps P&T could do something with the following ... :-)

Political Science for Dummies

DEMOCRAT

You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none.
You feel guilty for being successful.

You push for higher taxes so the government can provide cows for
everyone.

REPUBLICAN

You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none.
So?

SOCIALIST

You have two cows.
The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor.
You form a cooperative to tell him how to manage his cow.

COMMUNIST

You have two cows.
The government seizes both and provides you with milk.
You wait in line for hours to get it.
It is expensive and sour.

CAPITALISM, AMERICAN STYLE

You have two cows.
You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows.

BUREAUCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE

You have two cows.
Under the new farm program the government pays you to shoot one, milk
the other, and then pours the milk down the drain.

AMERICAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.
You sell one, lease it back to yourself and do an IPO on the 2nd one.
You force the two cows to produce the milk of four cows. You are
surprised when one cow drops dead. You spin an announcement to the
analysts stating you have downsized and are reducing expenses.
Your stock goes up.

FRENCH CORPORATION

You have two cows.
You go on strike because you want three cows.
You go to lunch and drink wine.
Life is good.

JAPANESE CORPORATION

You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow
and produce twenty times the milk.
They learn to travel on unbelievably crowded trains.
Most are at the top of their class at cow school.

GERMAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.
You engineer them so they are all blond, drink lots of beer, give
excellent quality milk, and run a hundred miles an hour.
Unfortunately they also demand 13 weeks of vacation per year.

ITALIAN CORPORATION

You have two cows but you don't know where they are.
You break for lunch.
Life is good.

RUSSIAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.
You have some vodka.
You count them and learn you have five cows.
You have some more vodka.
You count them again and learn you have 42 cows.
The Mafia shows up and takes over however many cows you really have.

TALIBAN CORPORATION

You have all the cows in Afghanistan, which are two.
You don't milk them because you cannot touch any creature's private parts.
You get a $40 million grant from the US government to find
alternatives to milk production but use the money to buy weapons.

IRAQI CORPORATION

You have two cows.
They go into hiding.
They send radio tapes of their mooing.

POLISH CORPORATION

You have two bulls.
Employees are regularly maimed and killed attempting to milk them.

BELGIAN CORPORATION

You have one cow.
The cow is schizophrenic.
Sometimes the cow thinks he's French, other times he's Flemish.
The Flemish cow won't share with the French cow.
The French cow wants control of the Flemish cow's milk.
The cow asks permission to be cut in half.
The cow dies happy.

FLORIDA CORPORATION

You have a black cow and a brown cow.
Everyone votes for the best looking one.
Some of the people who actually like the brown one best accidentally
vote for the black one.
Some people vote for both.
Some people vote for neither.
Some people can't figure out how to vote at all.
Finally, a bunch of guys from out-of-state tell you which one you
think is the best-looking cow.

CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

You have millions of cows.
They make real California cheese.
Only five speak English.
Most are illegal.

Arnold likes the ones with the big udders.

Forbidden Archeology

re: #38 itellu3times

Careful that's the next stop in the debate of Physics vs Intelligent Falling.

All I could think of when watching that first video was one day that school board room will be full of islamic parents demanding their ideology be taught - all because the Christian fundamentalists got their demands met.

re: #35 looking closely

p&t work closely with james randi(he's one of their inspirations)They are the enemies of hucksters,and snake oil salesmen who prey on the misery and gullability of others.

re: #33 rlevitin

Do you know which topic they wanted to use your stuff for?

Something about moonbat protesters. I forget.

re: #41 jcm

ewww...the ocean is one big toilet.lol

re: #45 ladycatnip

All I could think of when watching that first video was one day that school board room will be full of islamic parents demanding their ideology be taught - all because the Christian fundamentalists got their demands met.

That seems to be the plan.

re: #45 ladycatnip

Ding!ding!We have a winner!

re: #36 Boondock St. Bender

if anything like that happens again,just let us know.we'll help clue you in.(gotta protect our favorite undead!)

It happens nearly every day! I've been contacted by four film production comoanies in the last week alone.

Now I know to suspend disbelief for a while. Once I have proof they're flaky or moonbats, then and only then can I become dismissive. But half the time they end up being real!

What's the scientific evidence for this so-called "hydrogen"?

re: #45 ladycatnip

All I could think of when watching that first video was one day that school board room will be full of islamic parents demanding their ideology be taught - all because whether or not the Christian fundamentalists got their demands met.

That's better.

re: #47 zombie

Hmmm, must have been part of an episode on a bigger issue.... I wonder if it was the 9/11 Troofer episode (third episode of season 3).

Wikipedia List of Episodes (topics covered)

I'm enjoying their Global Warming is bullshit show right now.

re: #51 zombie

problematic,and awesome at the same time!You my friend are making quite a mark,and i for one am proud to be able to correspond with you.

re: #52 itellu3times

What's the scientific evidence for this so-called "hydrogen"?

It was lost in the Hindenburg disaster.

I agree with the theology teacher in the 3rd installment.

There's always this:

dang I missed the pokemon thread...
/full-metal pikachu

Is there any scientific evidence that LGF exists? Shouldn't there have been primitive web sites a million years ago, that the dinosaurs used? No, I think it's obvious, LGF was created in six days, six thousand years ago.
/thank you, ladies and germs

re: #51 zombie

It happens nearly every day! I've been contacted by four film production comoanies in the last week alone.

Now I know to suspend disbelief for a while. Once I have proof they're flaky or moonbats, then and only then can I become dismissive. But half the time they end up being real!

You shouldcould demand royalties, or at the very least, get the names of all the productions your work is used in, and add a section to zombietime listing them.

I know I'd be interested. Or do you already have something like that?

re: #57 nemoparticularis

damn,beat me to it....but i got video.neener,neener

re: #52 itellu3times

What's the scientific evidence for this so-called "hydrogen"?

Hydrogen!

*yes I am aware of the aluminum oxide and iron oxide dope theory*

re: #60 wii42

we didn't get past squirtle......

re: #43 So?

Forbidden Archeology

Biodata for Michael A. Cremo

The soul that I am entered its present body at the moment I was conceived in the fall of 1947. I appeared from my mother's womb on July 15, 1948, in Schenectady, New York. That birth was probably one of millions I have experienced since I left my real home in the spiritual world. My mother tells me that when I was an infant, she would give me alphabet soup, and sometimes I would not eat it, but would just spell out words in the bowl. From that, I take it that I must have practiced writing in many previous existences. In this life, I recall always having wanted to be a writer.

What?

#53 nemoparticularis

re: #45 ladycatnip

All I could think of when watching that first video was one day that school board room will be full of islamic parents demanding their ideology be taught - all because whether or not the Christian fundamentalists got their demands met.

That's better.

Yep. That'll no doubt be the case.

Excellent!

Their show on gun control was great as well.

NSFW, of course.

re: #45 ladycatnip

All I could think of when watching that first video was one day that school board room will be full of islamic parents demanding their ideology be taught - all because the Christian fundamentalists got their demands met.

To me, that's the most important point.

re: #64 jcm

"*yes I am aware of the aluminum oxide and iron oxide dope theory*"
whats with the name calling?
/

I fear that we won't be defeating radical Islam anytime soon with an army of atheists. Right though they might be. Anti-scientific elite sentiments are generally good to have around; socialism is the ultimate "rational" and "scientific" way of "operating" a society, and these folks would oppose those "experts" as well. Can't be right on all accounts.. And there might very well be a plan behind the universe as a whole, that tends toward intelligent life. Evolution does not preclude that. Consciousness does not have to be an accident although the current specific form of consciousness in this corner of the galaxy certainly is.

It's interesting though that those who "believe" in "intelligent design" do oppose state intervention in other areas. Somehow they don't believe the economy requires an "intelligent designer" i.e. a State to direct things around. I wonder if that's just because it's not THEIR kind of state that is intervening.

re: #63 Boondock St. Bender

damn,beat me to it....but i got video.neener,neener

Meh...I was the narrator. Don't believe me? How about this: "Oh, the humanity!" Neener back at ya.

re: #66 MandyManners

What?

To be more precise and succint: What the fuck?!

re: #66 MandyManners

"I know from my childhood soup experience that I was a writer in Sumeria, where the word for writer, (transliterated to english) was Glaahtung."

Critical Mass demostration melts down.

SEATTLE – A demonstration turned violent Friday night after a group of cyclists taking part in the Critical Mass demonstration got into an argument with a driver on Seattle's Capitol Hill.

The story soft pedals these turkeys, they are very provocative blocking traffic, pounding on cars, hurling epithets etc... the couple times I've seen 'em in action they've been looking for trouble.

re: #73 nemoparticularis

To be more precise and succint: What the fuck?!

I just want what he's been smoking.

re: #74 jaunte

"I know from my childhood soup experience that I was a writer in Sumeria, where the word for writer, (transliterated to english) was Glaahtung."

Looks like German.

And on the 7th day there is an evolution post. Awesome!

re: #70 Boondock St. Bender

"*yes I am aware of the aluminum oxide and iron oxide dope theory*"
whats with the name calling?
/

LOL! All early planes and airships where doped, that's why the tour de farce is on bicycles.

re: #77 MandyManners

Don't get him started on all his German lifetimes.

re: #71 humanliberty

It's interesting though that those who "believe" in "intelligent design" do oppose state intervention in other areas. Somehow they don't believe the economy requires an "intelligent designer" i.e. a State to direct things around. I wonder if that's just because it's not THEIR kind of state that is intervening.

No...it's because anyone with a brain who has ever studied both economics and history can tell you that whenever the State attempts to direct or control what should be a free market, chaos and misery often result (see: Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea).

re: #75 jcm

Critical Mass demostration melts down.

The story soft pedals these turkeys, they are very provocative blocking traffic, pounding on cars, hurling epithets etc... the couple times I've seen 'em in action they've been looking for trouble.

I hate those Critical Mass jerks.

re: #75 jcm

aren't those the characters who have monthly illegal bike races?(through traffic jammed city streets)

re: #76 MandyManners

I just want what he's been smoking.

No, you do not. In his case, it most likely would be his own dried feces.

#69 MandyManners

re: #45 ladycatnip

All I could think of when watching that first video was one day that school board room will be full of islamic parents demanding their ideology be taught - all because the Christian fundamentalists got their demands met.

To me, that's the most important point.

I'm reminded of all the ME rage fests when the islamists don't get their way or their delicate sensibilities have been offended. Translate that pandemonium to the school boardroom and what do you wanna bet there'd be immediate capitulation out of fear alone.

There was a post or comment here at LGF explaining the theory BS in plain English. Anyone know where it is? I am talking about the one that explains that theory does not mean a guess.

re: #75 jcm

re: #82 Charles

I've taken to calling 'em "Critical Massholes". On the whole, they are weak minded individuals that give into mob rule and harass and terrorize carloads of women and children.

re: #83 Boondock St. Bender

aren't those the characters who have monthly illegal bike races?(through traffic jammed city streets)

I've seen the NY Messengers doing that. CM in Seattle will circle in an intersection, blocking both streets. Then bait the drivers. Seattle being Seattle let's 'em get away with it.

re: #80 jaunte

Don't get him started on all his German lifetimes.

He might be fun at a dinner party.

re: #71 humanliberty

I fear that we won't be defeating radical Islam anytime soon with an army of atheists.

This quote I once read is a great response to that:

"If there were a proposal to impose Sharia law in your town, who would you rather see riding to your aid: Christopher Hitchens, or Bishop Muskens?"

[Link: pajamasmedia.com...]

re: #84 nemoparticularis

No, you do not. In his case, it most likely would be his own dried feces.

Oh, the image in my mind.

re: #89 MandyManners

Table set only with spoons.

re: #89 MandyManners

He might be fun at a dinner party.

One hosted by Barack Obama, of course.

re: #82 Charles

I hate those Critical Mass jerks.

They attacked a car with a pregnant woman in it?!

I would run the fuckers over. Sorry.

re: #85 ladycatnip

#69 MandyManners

I'm reminded of all the ME rage fests when the islamists don't get their way or their delicate sensibilities have been offended. Translate that pandemonium to the school boardroom and what do you wanna bet there'd be immediate capitulation out of fear alone.

Not around here. Bubba and Earlene wouldn't put up with that crap for one minute.

re: #92 jaunte

Table set only with spoons.

Sporks would be dangerous.

re: #93 nemoparticularis

One hosted by Barack Obama, of course.

This guy's outta' BHO's range.

re: #66 MandyManners

What?

The first writings were ghostlike incantations consisting of long lines of Cheerios.

re: #94 Occasional Reader

They attacked a car with a pregnant woman in it?!

I would run the fuckers over. Sorry.

Crticial Mass are some of the worst road hazards and complete assholes out there.

re: #94 Occasional Reader

They attacked a car with a pregnant woman in it?!

I would run the fuckers over. Sorry.

You'd get moonbat all over it.

re: #90 Basho

This quote I once read is a great response to that: "If there were a proposal to impose Sharia law in your town, who would you rather see riding to your aid: Christopher Hitchens, or Bishop Muskens?"

In my town neither will be desired, as the last thing we need is either a militant English atheist or a militant clergyman. And, if the second amendment has not been nullified, neither of them will be necessary.

re: #98 debutaunt

The first writings were ghostlike incantations consisting of long lines of Cheerios.

I'd expect Lucky Charms from him.

Love Penn and Teller. Huge Fan.

Check out their show on Peta:

It's hard hitting reporting and they aren't reporters. Just a couple of magicians.

re: #94 Occasional Reader

They attacked a car with a pregnant woman in it?!

I would run the fuckers over. Sorry.

I just about did. They came blowing through a red light just I was entering the intersection. Damn close, came to a stop in the middle of the intersection without hitting one. They pounded on my truck cussing me out. The whole time I had the green.

Almost wish I wasn't that good of a driver.

re: #100 MandyManners

You'd get moonbat all over it.

That's why God created the carwash.

(Or maybe it evolved from simple sponges... I'm not sure)

re: #94 Occasional Reader

I'd have the urge to do the same, but realize that once my car was incapacitated due to punctured tires and many bike frames jammed in the undercarriage, I'd be dead meat.

re: #100 MandyManners

That's OK moonbats wash away real easy with soap and water. I believe their allergic to the two.

re: #45 ladycatnip

All I could think of when watching that first video was one day that school board room will be full of islamic parents demanding their ideology be taught - all because the Christian fundamentalists got their demands met.

I've always wondered what would happen if a Biology teacher in one of these districs decided, after teaching the unit on Intelligent Design, to spend a week teaching all about, say, Mayan creation myths just for spite.

re: #97 MandyManners

This guy's outta' BHO's range.

Perhaps he might exceed Obamessiah's reach, but surely not his grasp.

re: #104 jcm

They pounded on my truck cussing me out.

If they pound on my car, I'll be stepping out to discuss it. Of course, to illuminate the discussion, the MagLite is coming out with me.

re: #74 jaunte

"I know from my childhood soup experience that I was a writer in Sumeria, where the word for writer, (transliterated to english) was Glaahtung."

Glaahtung? Isn't that what one says when Klaatu sneezes?

re: #110 Occasional Reader

If they pound on my car, I'll be stepping out to discuss it. Of course, to illuminate the discussion, the MagLite is coming out with me.

I decided 1 v. 80 or was wasn't a good idea.... I only had 25 rounds.

re: #112 jcm

I decided 1 v. 80 or was wasn't a good idea.... I only had 25 rounds.

Yeah, but that leaves 55 pall bearers.

re: #112 jcm

I decided 1 v. 80 or was wasn't a good idea.... I only had 25 rounds.

Yeah, fair enough.

That's a nice thing about living in heavily-policed DC. We have plenty of moonbats, but the local and Federal cops would not put up with this kind of crap.

re: #75 jcm
Seattle has those ELF eco terrorists that burned down a housing development last Spring too. Crazy but scary when violence is the method used to make a point.

re: #112 jcm

I decided 1 v. 80 or was wasn't a good idea.... I only had 25 rounds.

What were you carrying, if you don't mind saying?

re: #115 snowcrash

Crazy but scary when violence is the method used to make a point.

*watching a newsvideo of the collapse of the WTC* Ya think?

Or for sheer magic, they are brilliant.

The Magic Bullet trick:

One thing Penn & Teller did very well in this video - they gave the creationist representatives plenty of time to make their points. The creationists can't complain that their views were selectively quoted or misrepresented.

And it's fascinating that every time an "intelligent design" proponent tries to argue their case for "teaching the controversy," they just can't help revealing that it is very much a religious movement.

Gish wants to teach the "possibility" of "theistic supernatural" causes.

_snort

re: #114 Occasional Reader

Yeah, fair enough.

That's a nice thing about living in heavily-policed DC. We have plenty of moonbats, but the local and Federal cops would not put up with this kind of crap.

That's the whole thing in Seattle they get away with it.
WTO, police held back till it was out of hand.
Mardi Gras, SPD had specific orders not to enter the crowd, that would be too provocative. Christopher Kime was beat to death with in sight of the cops.

If I don't really blame the cop, most of 'em would like to do their job. If they did step up the Mayor, City Clowncil and papers would be all over the cops.

Not sure if this has been mentioned but the second 2 videos have been removed from YouTube.

re: #119 Charles

One thing Penn & Teller did very well in this video - they gave the creationist representatives plenty of time to make their points. The creationists can't complain that their views were selectively quoted or misrepresented.

And it's fascinating that every time an "intelligent design" proponent tries to argue their case for "teaching the controversy," they just can't help revealing that it is very much a religious movement.

Gish wants to teach the "possibility" of "theistic supernatural" causes.

_snort

Best way for someone to loose an arguement is talk too much. The more I hear from them, the crazier they sound.

re: #116 Occasional Reader

What were you carrying, if you don't mind saying?

Sig 2340 (.40), 1 in the pipe 2, 12 rd mags.
I've down sized my carry to a S&W MP Compact .40, 1 in pipe, 2 10 rd mags.

re: #120 jcm

WTO, police held back till it was out of hand.

DC police leave a lot to be desired in many areas (e.g., disturbingly low homicide clearance rate); but they are excellent at crowd control. Of course, they get a lot of practice.

re: #121 Neo Con since 9-11

Really? I'm watching the 3rd one now, but I guess that is still possible.

re: #13 Capitalist Tool

This tired old thing again?

One never tires of trying to wring the stupidity out of the public.

re: #119 Charles

Gish wants to teach the "possibility" of "theistic supernatural" causes.

No problem here: as long as he does it in a philosophy or comparative religion classroom.

Honestly, how much longer must we suffer the disingenuous perorations of these clowns? They divide us more than they unite us and this is not the time to be divided.

re: #123 jcm

I've down sized my carry

Because of the new Great Depression! Damn you, Bush!

re: #128 Occasional Reader

Because of the new Great Depression! Damn you, Bush!

Wait just a second. Hold on. A certain measure of decorum is called for here at LGF. In deference to any moonbats who may lurking under internet bridges, the president is properly addressed as McChimpy Bushitler.

re: #128 Occasional Reader

Because of the new Great Depression! Damn you, Bush!

ROFL! The Sig is full sized and not a comfortable concealed carry. The S&W is perfect.

I believe in both here. Why can't we all just get along?

re: #129 nemoparticularis

Wait just a second. Hold on. A certain measure of decorum is called for here at LGF. In deference to any moonbats who may lurking under internet bridges, the president is properly addressed as McChimpy Bushitler.

Hey now! Just a darned minute! That's Chimpy McHilterburton, pal.

;^)

re: #124 Occasional Reader

DC police leave a lot to be desired in many areas (e.g., disturbingly low homicide clearance rate); but they are excellent at crowd control. Of course, they get a lot of practice.

SPD gets little backing from the City. Few years ago news cameras caught SPD shooting fatally a guy with a knife. The bad guy had a gun and fired at a security guard, SPD followed him on foot for blocks trying to get him to surrender. He finally lunged with the knife and one cop fired one round.

The way the media and city handled you'd have thought it was an execution.

re: #75 jcm

Critical Mass demostration melts down.

The story soft pedals these turkeys, they are very provocative blocking traffic, pounding on cars, hurling epithets etc... the couple times I've seen 'em in action they've been looking for trouble.

I totally understand the driver trying to get away. It's scary as hell when you are trapped in traffic and someone threatens you. It happened to me once - a lunatic started banging on my window and swearing at me. I thought the guy was pulling a gun and took off like a rabbit (scraping his bumper in the process). Luckily, there were two state troopers at the 7-Eleven parking lot a block away.

And I see the passenger in the incident may have been a pregnant woman, which just tremendously ups the ante.

P&T are flaming Obamaniacs aren't they, or am I mistaken. Not that that makes any difference re their ID views, but side by side it's a little incongruous.

OT =Anyone noticed snopes.com seemingly going out of its way to 'debunk' Obama 'myths'?

re: #132 Spiny Norman

Hey now! Just a darned minute! That's Chimpy McHilterburton, pal.;^)

Bunch of preening, pseudo-pedants. The correct formal designation is:

Chimpy McBushitlerburton, Chief Idiot of the U. S. of KKK A.

Does Dwayne Gish realize that he’s essentially arguing for belief in the previous existence of Dinotopia?

Has Disney gotten wind of this? Don’t mess with the Mouse.

re: #130 jcm

ROFL! The Sig is full sized and not a comfortable concealed carry. The S&W is perfect.

A friend of mine who has a CCW downsized from a Sig P228 to a Walther PPK/S (the new one made by S&W).

Videos no longer available. Dang it!

re: #139 Wilderstad

Videos no longer available. Dang it!

They're playing for me...

re: #137 Arbalest

Does Dwayne Gish realize that he’s essentially arguing for belief in the previous existence of Dinotopia?

Knock, knock.

Who's there?

Dwayne.

Dwayne who?

Dwayne the bathtub, I'm dwowning in cweationist effwontewy.

Penn and Teller both have a long association with the CSI(COP) going back to Zetetic days. (original name for the Skeptical Inquirer in the 70's or 80's... alzheimers setting in here.)

Now there's also Skeptic

Trivia: my buddy Gary Stockdale wrote that insanely catchy jingle for their show.

Ok, now that's just strange. NOW they're playing for me.

re: #143 wordwarp

Trivia: my buddy Gary Stockdale wrote that insanely catchy jingle for their show.

More trivia: My buddy Admiral Stockdale still doesn't know who or where he is.

re: #135 wii42

P&T are flaming Obamaniacs aren't they, or am I mistaken. Not that that makes any difference re their ID views, but side by side it's a little incongruous.

OT =Anyone noticed snopes.com seemingly going out of its way to 'debunk' Obama 'myths'?

Penn and Teller are big proponents of both Liberty and Capitalism, I don't know where they stand on Obama, and that's there business, but they do really really really like the constitution.

Gary doesn't know either, most of the time....

re: #146 Thanos

Penn and Teller are big proponents of both Liberty and Capitalism, I don't know where they stand on Obama, and that's there business, but they do really really really like the constitution.

P&T are pretty libertarian IIRC, not RP types the sane version libertarian.

re: #148 jcm

P&T are pretty libertarian IIRC, not RP types the sane version libertarian.

Yep, they are like South Park Republicans/ Republican Party Reptiles....

Also, Lizards in the Pasadena area might want to hit this in Oct:

[Link: www.skeptic.com...]

Origins : The Big Questions

Shermer will be there along with Ken Miller.

I used to really enjoy these two but when they start talking faith their bile, especially toward Christians, starts to show.
I'm not a fan of ignorance, regardless of its origins, and I find hatred appalling, regardless of its "justifications". These guys hate and hate deeply. They as often as not show profound ignorance of the Bible while they're dissing it but at the same time assume the cloak of intellectual superiority. It's a shame when talented people turn out to be complete asses.
These entertainers (and that is all they are), my friends, are NOT people you want to use as examples of conservative or libertarian thought and they are very far from being the best to argue "creationism" vs. evolution if you intend to enlighten people and change minds.

"Creationism" (as it's now understood) is often silly, based on ignorance, and embarrassing to folks like me who have Faith in God and faith in science as a path to understanding His creation.
BTW, that idea is why some of the oldest and best universities were founded by, Christians and not just by Christian individuals but by Christian churches. (Oh, and as to what I'd ask my priest as opposed to a "scientists", one of the Fathers at the church I attended in my younger years had a PhD in physics and another in sociology. So, if I had ever thought about it, I guess he would have been a good source for information on those things. ;-))
But the fact that modern "creationism" is silly doesn't justify bashing people of faith.

Mark

I viewed the first half of the first video and bailed--I couldn't take listening to the creationists. I have to keep reminding myself that some of these people are really quite successful in life, running their own businesses and so on, and they are not as dumb as they sound. But they sure do sound stupid when they start thumping their wretched bibles...

re: #82 Charles

I hate those Critical Mass jerks.

Ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto, etc.

Replace "ID" with "Creationism" in my above post. I generally think of them as pretty much the same thing!

Mark

#95 MandyManners

re: #85 ladycatnip

#69 MandyManners

I'm reminded of all the ME rage fests when the islamists don't get their way or their delicate sensibilities have been offended. Translate that pandemonium to the school boardroom and what do you wanna bet there'd be immediate capitulation out of fear alone.

Not around here. Bubba and Earlene wouldn't put up with that crap for one minute.

Thanks - I needed to hear that. I forgot we're talking about a part of the U.S. who also loves the Second Amendment!

re: #150 Rule303

Can you please point out a section of these videos that seems to be "deep hatred" to you?

Because I don't see it. Penn specifically says he has no problem with anyone's beliefs. The issue is the attempt to push ID pseudo-science into public schools. I thought he was very clear. What did I miss?

re: #45 ladycatnip

All I could think of when watching that first video was one day that school board room will be full of islamic parents demanding their ideology be taught - all because the Christian fundamentalists got their demands met.

and i'm thinking that an opening like this, for islam to creep into the public school system, means that it won't be long until islamic creation is ALL that is being taught.
they are not here to co-exist.

re: #150 Rule303

Watch P&T and the Bible segment. Take notes. That's what you'll have to deal with to effectively spread the gospel. We won't get anywhere by getting offended and lashing back.

I didn't take offense, it was still funny, and a great learning tool.

re: #31 jcm

Just more of those undeniable scientific findings which of course are always right......even if they keep changing every few years of decade.

re: #62 rlevitin

You shouldcould demand royalties, or at the very least, get the names of all the productions your work is used in, and add a section to zombietime listing them.

I know I'd be interested. Or do you already have something like that?

Money/royalties might be limited, it varies. After the fact, trying to collect on royalties, especially something broadcast nationally can be a full time job and often an expensive legal adventure.

However, at the very minimum, I would advise zombie to ask for specific credit and or mention in the show/movie/etc. and have that included as part of the contract or release. Your work is valuable, even if you let someone use it, the terms should be dictated by you. Maybe draw up a little watermark or text phase (could just even be your url), that is your standard credit. You can always vary it on a project by project basis. Shouldn't be a big deal, happens all the time in the biz. However without a formal written agreement, verbal promises of a credit can fail to materialize.

Zombie's photos & work are so unique, I think most seeking him out are excited to use that reputation as well. However it would be sad to see those photos out there, without our favorite corpse-reporter getting a little love back his way.

re: #158 Scorch

Just more of those undeniable scientific findings which of course are always right......even if they keep changing every few years of decade.

You must pay penance to the Goracle for you blasphemy!
/

Maybe we could get some more words of wisdom from Jillette's daughter, Moxie Crimefighter Jillette.

Nobody believes we were created by God as much as I do, but this "intelligent design" stuff is as wrong to me as Muslims wanting their beliefs taught in school. I feel that as the being that actually created the laws of science and nature, wouldnt it be foolish for God not to use them? Why dont we just ask Obama, since he was a witness to creation at God's right hand.

Too long to post directly, I present the Reverse Wedge strategy.

re: #14 Jonas Parker

You do? In questions on science I usually check with my son, a PhD and college prof myself...

Someone's job does not necessarily exclude them from knowledge outside the realm of their career. Nor does it exclude the intelligence it takes to critically analyze a subject.

If your Doctor son or you offered some advice on what type of loan I should take out on my house, or offered criticism on a particular law being proposed...I'd listen without thinking, "He's a college professor, what does he know about THIS?"

Mind you...if I'm writing an essay I'm going to cite authorities on the subject rather than "my one friend across the road" or "some guy I heard at a bar".

#156 nyc redneck

re: #45 ladycatnip

All I could think of when watching that first video was one day that school board room will be full of islamic parents demanding their ideology be taught - all because the Christian fundamentalists got their demands met.

and i'm thinking that an opening like this, for islam to creep into the public school system, means that it won't be long until islamic creation is ALL that is being taught.
they are not here to co-exist.

Creationism not only makes strange bedfellows, but very dangerous ones. The fable of the scorpion wanting to ride a frog across the river comes to mind. If ever there were a scorpion in this situation, it would be islam.

re: #155 Charles

Can you please point out a section of these videos that seems to be "deep hatred" to you?

Because I don't see it. Penn specifically says he has no problem with anyone's beliefs. The issue is the attempt to push ID pseudo-science into public schools. I thought he was very clear. What did I miss?

Well, for one, the show is called "Bullshit". They should change the name to "Everyone has a right to their own opinion and no ones view is anymore wrong or right than someone else's."

Hi all and I hope you have enjoyed a good Shabbat (i am talking to the jews of course).
So the last trent at LGF is carrying on a crusade against what you call "creationists"? Basically, people who don't believe we're descended from apes or are just here because of some crazy random luck?

re: #18 Bobibutu

Now - that, was very, very funny!

I'm waiting for them to do the wafer to body thing, wine to blood being easy.

re: #163 George guy

Too long to post directly, I present the Reverse Wedge strategy.

Read it and took issue with this glittering little gem of historical ignorance: "Someone once tried to create a unified Christianity, and that led to the Church of Rome, the Inquisition, and the Crusades. All generally well-intentioned, but the Jews suffered along with Christians not in league with Rome, with bad results."

Thick tar and a broad brush do not make for a intellectually nuanced understanding of the history of Christianity and its impact on Western civilization.

re: #167 Basho

Well, for one, the show is called "Bullshit". They should change the name to "Everyone has a right to their own opinion and no ones view is anymore wrong or right than someone else's."

They could, but it wouldn't be an accurate statement.
The first clause ("Everyone has a right to their own opinion") is spot on.
The second one is Bullshit.

To me the primary reason for the success of the theory of evolution is that it provides a fig leaf for people to use to hide behind in their denial of God. As someone who has observed the misery that life can be I suggest its not foolish to long for the care and redemption of an all powerful and loving God, but I digress.

I choose to not argue over points of fundamental creationism, instead I strongly prefer to focus on the believability of the evolutionists core and primary argument, namely that complex organic systems can be created through the chance occurrence of random genetic mutation. This has not been proven and has apparently been disproved through the use of standard statistical models.

You may respond by asking about the 500 generations of bacteria that learned to eat citrate? My answer to that is to ask how the change to eating citrate represents an advance to a higher level of existence? My guess is that the mutations required were simple, did not occur simultaneously, and caused no inter-adaptive crippling which would render the species unable to survive through the course of time required to achieve the needed "next step" mutations.

The trick of course, to give evolutionists the easier task, is to postulate the existence of a broken sub-system with a single missing part and ask them to find a way to prove that random genetic mutation will transpire in such a way as to recreate the missing part over a short enough period of time such that the higher level system doesn't die-off, or devolve to the point where the remaining sub-system parts settle into a lower level functioning arrangement (separtely or together), during the time required for the system as a whole to mutationally re-invent and re-integrate the part back into the previously described sub-system.

My belief on the subject is that non integrated and malfunctioning sub-systems will at the very least perform the function of uncontrolled ballast yielding nothing but load to the higher level system, at the worst they are the very mutaitions which put the organism on the path to its own extenction.

In conclusion, the argument hypothesized by evolutionists that a single celled organism together with its constituent sub-system parts locked together in an apparently well ordered, interrelated, and integrated manner, will evolve to higher levels given enough time under ever evolving inter, extra and intra environmental system conditions, while necessarily creating, supporting and carrying forward all the needed in-between stages of all the soon and in-the-future to be needed sub-system component parts, in their not yet fully functioning or integrated stages, while avoiding any single mutational mis-step resulting in self extinction or devolution back down the life complex path, strains credibility to the highest degree.

Note: Irreducibly Complex Sub Systems (ICSS) are those from which no component part may be subtracted or substantially altered without rendering the remaining parts incapable of performing the functionality required of it by the containing system. Should one of the parts be removed the higher level system, now lacking the functionality the ICSS provided, is forced to adapt downward in the tree of life by shedding higher level functionality, subsist in conditions for which it is inadequately adapted, or become extinct.

re: #169 Annar

I'm waiting for them to do the wafer to body thing, wine to blood being easy.

Simply hysterical. That whole Bullshit episode on the Bible...priceless.

So, Penn & Teller, please give us a heads up on your upcoming episode that targets Islam and the Koran as utter Bullshit and Mohammedans as idiotic dupes of the first order.

Gentlemen?

Hello? Is this mike on?

Where are they?

Penn?

*crickets chirping*

re: #167 Basho

They should change the name to "Everyone has a right to their own opinion and no ones view is anymore wrong or right than someone else's."

Aside from the grammatical and punctuation errors in the above statement, it's simply ridiculous and untrue. Some views ARE more right than others. For example, I could take the "view" that the moon is made of green cheese; does that mean that my "view" should be accorded the same respect as that of a NASA scientist who can definitively state, based on scientific evidence, that the moon is not made of green cheese? I may have a "right" to my idiotic "view" about the composition of the moon, but does that mean that I can demand that my "view" be taught in schools alongside the results of geological research done on the moon?

As one of the scientists in the video said, science is not democratic. It's not a matter of voting for your favorite theory.

As far as I am concerned, it IS bullshit to argue that creationism has any scientific basis whatsoever. Keep religion in churches and synagogues, and keep it out of our schools.

Alright, just gonna put my questions out there in one of these all-too-often threads and see what I get. Keep responses short and please try to reference the number so everyone knows about what you are speaking. Here are some of my starter questions meant with no hostility. These would be asked toward the evolutionary crowd.

#1 Where did matter come from? Did it create itself, was it created, did it always exist? Since it is present it must have one of those sources.

#2 Since there were no starter forms when matter began evolving, did it start with the necessary genetic information or did it have to teach itself the necessary genetic information? If it taught itself, how did it first add that creative and original information?

#3 Given the infinite ratio of nonviable evolutions to an extremely minor ratio of viable evolutions, how do we explain the variety of flora and fauna evident? Paired with that, why is the body such a tight system with little extraneous construction and yet built so efficiently as to also function when necessity removes portions?

#4 Given that the intention of evolution is to take forms present and to alter them in beneficial ways, how did it know what things were beneficial so as not to remove them? How did it know HOW to change? This cannot be answered with a statement about mating pairs looking for appealing traits as that assumes progress that this question seeks to answer. Please answer it from the earliest stages.

#5 How long did all this take? How do you know?

Thanks in advance! Given the atmosphere around here lately I can't help but feel I'm stepping into a lion's den where everyone presumes I can only be educated by a pulpit...let's see I guess.

re: #67 ladycatnip

#53 nemoparticularis

re: #45 ladycatnip

All I could think of when watching that first video was one day that school board room will be full of islamic parents demanding their ideology be taught - all because whether or not the Christian fundamentalists got their demands met.

That's better.

Yep. That'll no doubt be the case.

Well, the last thing we need to be doing is helping them by handing them friggin' precedents...

re: #174 Amy

Heh... I meant it as a joke. As in the whole point in a show called Bullshit is to insult bad ideas. Forgot to put the sarc tag. Sorry 'bout that :)

re: #65 Boondock St. Bender

wait ... squirtle is evolving .... into ... Wartortle!

re: #90 Basho

This quote I once read is a great response to that:

"If there were a proposal to impose Sharia law in your town, who would you rather see riding to your aid: Christopher Hitchens, or Bishop Muskens?"

[Link: pajamasmedia.com...]

I liked the previous sentence in that article:

"...the secularists, with all their Christophobia, are a better bet for standing and fighting against jihadism than Christians are."

And the present Bishop of Canterbury proves the point.

re: #105 Occasional Reader

That's why God created the carwash.

(Or maybe it evolved from simple sponges... I'm not sure)

Scientologists maintain that it evolved from squirting clams...

re: #177 Basho

Whew! With some of the stuff that shows up here, one never knows when someone is seriously proposing BS as a "view" worthy of respect. This kind of stuff sends my blood pressure soaring. It's getting to the point where anyone who wants his or her kid to get a halfway decent education has to go the private school route.

re: #175 J6

Alright, just gonna put my questions out there in one of these all-too-often threads and see what I get. Keep responses short and please try to reference the number so everyone knows about what you are speaking. Here are some of my starter questions meant with no hostility. These would be asked toward the evolutionary crowd.

#1 Where did matter come from? Did it create itself, was it created, did it always exist? Since it is present it must have one of those sources.

#2 Since there were no starter forms when matter began evolving, did it start with the necessary genetic information or did it have to teach itself the necessary genetic information? If it taught itself, how did it first add that creative and original information?

#3 Given the infinite ratio of nonviable evolutions to an extremely minor ratio of viable evolutions, how do we explain the variety of flora and fauna evident? Paired with that, why is the body such a tight system with little extraneous construction and yet built so efficiently as to also function when necessity removes portions?

#4 Given that the intention of evolution is to take forms present and to alter them in beneficial ways, how did it know what things were beneficial so as not to remove them? How did it know HOW to change? This cannot be answered with a statement about mating pairs looking for appealing traits as that assumes progress that this question seeks to answer. Please answer it from the earliest stages.

#5 How long did all this take? How do you know?

Thanks in advance! Given the atmosphere around here lately I can't help but feel I'm stepping into a lion's den where everyone presumes I can only be educated by a pulpit...let's see I guess.

You really don't get it. These are all great points, and there is a lot science cannot explain. However, in the event that there is/was a creator, it is just as likely that the creator was either a giant robot, space alien, Ganesh or the Christian God. Accordingly, the discussion is fine for philosophy or religion class, but not for science class.

re: #174 Amy

As far as I am concerned, it IS bullshit to argue that creationism has any scientific basis whatsoever. Keep religion in churches and synagogues, and keep it out of our schools.

Agreed on all points. P&T lose my favor and interest when they turn their gunsights on purely religious targets and attack religion qua religion. The scientific enterprise has no proper business doing so, as it can neither verify nor disprove the existence of the supernatural. I could stomach their buffoonery a bit more if they attacked ALL religions equally. Yet, form what I have seen, they zero in on one religion in particular - and it isn't Zoroastrianism.

re: #127 nemoparticularis

re: #119 Charles

Gish wants to teach the "possibility" of "theistic supernatural" causes.

NP: No problem here: as long as he does it in a philosophy or comparative religion classroom.

Honestly, how much longer must we suffer the disingenuous perorations of these clowns? They divide us more than they unite us and this is not the time to be divided.>/blockquote>

Actually, it doesn't belong in a philosophy class, since the conclusion is a priori dogmatically assumed, rather than deduced from a minimum number of minimalist postulates. Plus, the content is metaphysical (beyond the physical), and philosophy stopped working there quite a while ago, since no logical argument that was grounded on a priori apodictically self-evident premises could ever be profferred there, preferring instead to pursue ontology (beneath the physical), which peruses the foundations and underpinnings of empirical reality in order to ascertain why it is as it is instead of otherwise.

Rather, it belongs in either a comp. rel. class or a theology class.

re: #181 Amy

Whew! With some of the stuff that shows up here, one never knows when someone is seriously proposing BS as a "view" worthy of respect. This kind of stuff sends my blood pressure soaring. It's getting to the point where anyone who wants his or her kid to get a halfway decent education has to go the private school route.

Yeah. I just got that same feeling when I read a comment just now mentioning irreducible complexity.

Well, I'm new here, but I won't be making that same mistake :D

This will be fun as well!
Environmental Hysteria 1/3: "Penn & Teller: Bullshit!"

re: #179 Salamantis

I liked the previous sentence in that article:

"...the secularists, with all their Christophobia, are a better bet for standing and fighting against jihadism than Christians are."

And the present Bishop of Canterbury proves the point.

Indeed. Like most his liberal theologian ilk, he is little more than a milquetoast secular humanist in mitre and chasuble drag. Unfortunately for those of us who are united in the cause of conservatism and opposed to the ongoing predations of Mohammedanism, the rising tide of dhimmitude appears to be coming from the ocean of...secular humanist liberals, many of whom still labor under the Christophobic delusion that Pastor Goober and his flock at the Mayberry Baptist Church preset a more dire and immediate threat to Western civilization than do the ululating hordes of barbarian Mohammedans.

Good evening, Mr. Salamantis. A pleasure to see you again, sir. As you can see, I have finally chosen an avatar.

re: #175 J6

I don't really have time to type out an essay but on point #4, which is actually not a bad question, Evolution doesn't actually "know" anything. Evolution is brainless, thoughtless, purposeless. It's a theory which explains how something got from point A to point E or F, and what the steps (b, c, d etc...) were in between. Evolution isn't a person, or a thing. It is a theory which describes a set of facts, or occurrences. It's like saying "How does light know it can't break a certain speed?" The answer is, of course, light doesn't actually know anything. It happens to follow certain dictates which our theories explain as...dictates.

re: #183 NemoParticularis

I don't recall ever seeing P&T attack religion "qua religion," as you say, but even if they have, it's the price we pay for having that pesky First Amendment. The marketplace will ultimately decide the issue, anyway, particularly if enough offended people stop watching their shows. I wouldn't want to see our society emulate the Muslims, whose response to any ridicule of Islam or Mohammed (defined by Muslims, of course, as inclusive of any criticism whatsoever) is "Off with their heads!"

re: #142 Thanos

Penn and Teller both have a long association with the CSI(COP) going back to Zetetic days. (original name for the Skeptical Inquirer in the 70's or 80's... alzheimers setting in here.)

Now there's also Skeptic

There's also Free Inquiry magazine.

re: #190 Salamantis

Free Inquiry also has an amazingly great weekly podcast which I listen to. =)

Also, The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe is a great and fun show which I also listen to every week as well.

re: #189 Amy

I wouldn't want to see our society emulate the Muslims, whose response to any ridicule of Islam or Mohammed (defined by Muslims, of course, as inclusive of any criticism whatsoever) is "Off with their heads!"

Agreed. But I would LOVE to see P&T grow a pair and take on the Mohammedans. But they won't - and if they did, the dhimmis at the networkwho run their shows will certainly not. Remember what happened to the creators of South Park.

re: #192 NemoParticularis

I'm not sure that P&T wouldn't, actually. They seem like the kind of guys who probably don't give a rat's ass about political correctness when it comes to Islam, and would probably love to rip it apart.

Why don't you suggest it to them?

re: #175 J6

#1 Where did matter come from? Did it create itself, was it created, did it always exist? Since it is present it must have one of those sources.

Science, as it stands, does not claim to know the answer to this.

I guess "Rule303" didn't feel like giving any examples of that "deep hatred" he's so ready to accuse people of.

re: #149 Thanos

Yep, they are like South Park Republicans/ Republican Party Reptiles....

Also, Lizards in the Pasadena area might want to hit this in Oct:

[Link: www.skeptic.com...]

Origins : The Big Questions

Shermer will be there along with Ken Miller.

Victor Stenger is the real sleeper there. He's not just an atheist in the sense of not believing in God's presence; he actively proclaims God's absence (if, that is, the God in question possesses the Judeo-Christian-Islamic attributes).

Here is his website:

[Link: www.colorado.edu...]

re: #172 palarson

Tell me what the latest example of "ICSS" is ?

How does ID theory explain all of the transitional fossils? ( To be valid a scientific theory must have supporting reasonable hypothesis/ test/ studies that demonstrate what is, as well as what is not.)

How does ID theory explain the retroviral DNA enmeshed in same order in our genome as well as those of the primates -- viral bits and pieces that came externally?

How does ID theory explain the fossil whales with pelvis' and double pulley ankle bones like gazelles and Cows? How does it explain why extant species of whales don't have those?

Please do hold forth.

re: #192 NemoParticularis

But I would LOVE to see P&T grow a pair and take on the Mohammedans.

I'm wondering what, in particular, about the Muslims P&T could/should take on, since it isn't P&T's thing to attack religion "qua religion." Maybe they could debunk the "religion of peace" nonsense, but you're probably right that the network wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.

re: #193 Summer

I'm not sure that P&T wouldn't, actually. They seem like the kind of guys who probably don't give a rat's ass about political correctness when it comes to Islam, and would probably love to rip it apart. Why don't you suggest it to them?

I an a student of both human nature and history. I know enough about the entertainment industry in general and Penn & Teller in particular to tell you with confidence that they very likely considered doing so the September 11 attack. After entertaining themselves briefly with the concept, they soberly reflected on the mental images of their homes burning to the ground, the decapitated bodies of their loved ones nearby, and concluded that it's always safer to pick on those who generally have not vowed to destroy you if you do so. In the entertainment industry one should ALWAYS go after the low-lying fruit.

On Origin of Species.

Both sides of the debate need to come to an agreement on one thing:

WE. DON'T. KNOW.

It's true. That's the only certainty we have here.

As far as P&T are concerned: tone is everything. Their tone is lousy re: Christianity.

The ID'ers have a rotten tone as well: deceit in the name of God is contradiction and confusion. It makes me wonder: did they actually read the Book, or did they just memorize passages from the pulpit?

For both sides: Study. Study the Bible. Study evolution and the sciences. Know for yourself; inform yourself. Then you'll be properly informed of both, and have an educated view.

/ "...lean not unto thine own understanding."

re: #150 Rule303

I used to really enjoy these two but when they start talking faith their bile, especially toward Christians, starts to show.
I'm not a fan of ignorance, regardless of its origins, and I find hatred appalling, regardless of its "justifications". These guys hate and hate deeply. They as often as not show profound ignorance of the Bible while they're dissing it but at the same time assume the cloak of intellectual superiority. It's a shame when talented people turn out to be complete asses.
These entertainers (and that is all they are), my friends, are NOT people you want to use as examples of conservative or libertarian thought and they are very far from being the best to argue "creationism" vs. evolution if you intend to enlighten people and change minds.

"Creationism" (as it's now understood) is often silly, based on ignorance, and embarrassing to folks like me who have Faith in God and faith in science as a path to understanding His creation.
BTW, that idea is why some of the oldest and best universities were founded by, Christians and not just by Christian individuals but by Christian churches. (Oh, and as to what I'd ask my priest as opposed to a "scientists", one of the Fathers at the church I attended in my younger years had a PhD in physics and another in sociology. So, if I had ever thought about it, I guess he would have been a good source for information on those things. ;-))
But the fact that modern "creationism" is silly doesn't justify bashing people of faith.

Mark

I just see Penn & Teller as being living, brathing South Park-ers, and harboring utter contempt for ignorance, intolerance, hypocrisy and stupidity. They are anti-idiotarians par excellence.

re: #198 Amy

I'm wondering what, in particular, about the Muslims P&T could/should take on, since it isn't P&T's thing to attack religion "qua religion." Maybe they could debunk the "religion of peace" nonsense, but you're probably right that the network wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.

Actually they did bash them a bit, IIRC they did a special on terrorism and hit the terrorists as well as the troofers during that.

re: #198 Amy

I'm wondering what, in particular, about the Muslims P&T could/should take on, since it isn't P&T's thing to attack religion "qua religion." Maybe they could debunk the "religion of peace" nonsense, but you're probably right that the network wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.

My dear Miss Amy, they had a field day with the Bible as "Bullshit." Have you ever read the Koran? It makes the Bible look like a science textbook. And I am right: no network would bother, not when Christianity makes such a deliciously easy target.

re: #200 anubis_soundwave

I don't think that P&T's tone was directed at Christianity per se. It was directed at Christianity masquerading as science and demanding that public school students be forced to study religious doctrine in the guise of scientific theory.

re: #172 palarson

Could you at least go through the trouble of reading the rebuttals to these tired arguments that have already been posted and referenced dozens of times.

Plenty of folks have already responded to this crap. Why not address these instead of simply repeating the same old tired talking DI talking points?

re: #166 johnny_t

Oh Charles....so many better axes to grind than this.

Methinks that you are only objecting because it is your sacred ox getting gored this time.

re: #202 Thanos

Actually they did bash them a bit, IIRC they did a special on terrorism and hit the terrorists as well as the troofers during that.

Perhaps I missed that, Mr. Thanos. I'm not sure about the abbreviation "IIRC". Are you referring to P&T?

Penn and Teller on Troofers

Penn and Teller

Fuck you terrorists

re: #207 NemoParticularis

IIRC == if I recall correctly

So Nemo, your assumption is wrong,.

re: #203 NemoParticularis

My dear Miss Amy, they had a field day with the Bible as "Bullshit."

My dear Mr. No One in Particular, I must have missed the part where they called the Bible bullshit. What I thought they were saying, and I may be wrong, is that presenting the Bible as a valid basis for an allegedly scientific theory of creationism is bullshit.

re: #208 Thanos

Thanks for the links! I'm gonna watch right now. :)

re: #211 Amy

In fairness to Nemo, I think s/he is referring to an episodes of bullshit called "Bible: Fact or Fiction." I saw it on the wikipedia entry someone linked.

re: #167 Basho

Well, for one, the show is called "Bullshit". They should change the name to "Everyone has a right to their own opinion and no ones view is anymore wrong or right than someone else's."

People may have the right to their own opinions, but they do not have a right to their own facts, like the Creation Museum is trying to do. Certainly, considering the empirically proven facts of the matter, the views of such creationists regarding human coexistence with dinosaurs, common ancestry with great apes, and earth age issues are extremely more wrong than are the views of geologists, paleontologists, biologists, botanists, geneticists, and evolutionary theorists in general.

Comments telling me I shouldn't post on this subject will be deleted, as I've posted at least a dozen times. Combine it with an insult, and account goes bye bye.

ruhlmcu could never be used for radiometric dating, it's half life is only one day.

re: #212 ruhlmcu

Charles has said many times: it's an important issue. And I totally agree. I'm tired of apologizing for our side of the political spectrum when it comes to Creationism. This war of terrorism falls into a war of rational people against irrational dogmatic idiots. This also applies to Evolution versus Creationism.

re: #215 Salamantis

Gah! I forgot to put the sarc tag on that post. This is going to haunt me for a while, isn't it? :(

re: #168 Gambini

Hi all and I hope you have enjoyed a good Shabbat (i am talking to the jews of course).
So the last trent at LGF is carrying on a crusade against what you call "creationists"? Basically, people who don't believe we're descended from apes or are just here because of some crazy random luck?

Basically, people who turn their noses up at empirical science as though it's week-old tuna, while believing that their particular dogmas smell like roses.

re: #199 NemoParticularis

I don't know. I think that they would love to lay into islam, but the producers of the show and the station heads always get final say on what's aired. Just speculation on my part.

They don't seem to be afraid of terrorist retaliation, though.

NSFW, of course.

re: #208 Thanos

Penn and Teller on Troofers
[Link: www.youtube.com...]
Penn and Teller [on new WTC]
Fuck you terrorists

The first one pretty much addresses the "troofers." The second - while funny and actually very inspirational (I agree with their final proposal, by the way) never really attacks ISLAM but, rather indirectly attacks the fanaticism of the hijackers. I did like the idea of twin towers of pork.

Why don't they skewer Mohammedan taxi drivers who refuse to ferryblind people with seeing-eye dogs or folks carrying alcohol? Why don't they skewer the barbaric practice of honor killings? Why don't they burrow into all the manifest absurdities of the so-called Religion of Peace? Simple: they make more money with far less risk by attacking people they know will not decapitate them.

Real bravery. Bravo, P&T.

re: #208 Thanos

Penn and Teller on Troofers

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

Penn and Teller

Fuck you terrorists

Aw, ya beat me to it.

Note to self: hit "new comments" before posting.

re: #211 Amy

My dear Mr. No One in Particular, I must have missed the part where they called the Bible bullshit. What I thought they were saying, and I may be wrong, is that presenting the Bible as a valid basis for an allegedly scientific theory of creationism is bullshit.

No offense, Miss Amy. I address you as such out of respect, but I am pleased that you deciphered my nom-de-petit foozball verde. I was referring to a different episode.

re: #222 NemoParticularis

It skewers the fundamentalist asshole terrorists and is direct and true to target. They dont' attack all of Islam for the same reason that they don't attack all of Christianity.

re: #214 Basho

In fairness to Nemo, I think s/he is referring to an episodes of bullshit called "Bible: Fact or Fiction." I saw it on the wikipedia entry someone linked.

Precisely, Mr. Basho. And Nemo is a male - just click on the avatar next to my name.

re: #175 J6

#1 Where did matter come from? Did it create itself, was it created, did it always exist? Since it is present it must have one of those sources.

That's what the astrophysics is attempting to learn. Considering that the ability to detect the background "noise" in all directions that provides the best indication of the "big bang" only happened within the last several decades, it's logical that there's much that we don't yet know. In science, "I don't know" is a valid answer, inspiring the search for answers to the question.

Also, that last sentence is presumptuous. As the understanding of the nature of matter (and anti-matter, for that matter...) deepens, we may discover that those aren't the only options available. Bottom line: The answer and the discoveries that lead to that answer are still being sought and discovered.

#2 Since there were no starter forms when matter began evolving, did it start with the necessary genetic information or did it have to teach itself the necessary genetic information? If it taught itself, how did it first add that creative and original information?

Another "I don't know", and something that evolution doesn't even pretend to explain. Evolutionary theory says nothing about the origin of life. It only seeks to explain the process by which living things, whatever their original source, adapt over time to their environment.

#3 Given the infinite ratio of nonviable evolutions to an extremely minor ratio of viable evolutions, how do we explain the variety of flora and fauna evident? Paired with that, why is the body such a tight system with little extraneous construction and yet built so efficiently as to also function when necessity removes portions?

When you say "body", I assume you're referring to the human body. There are many pats of the human body that indicate old functions minimized because of reduced need: The appendix and the vestiges of a tail in the coxxyx for example.
The variety of flora and fauna? Billions of years growing and reproducing under different conditions and locations resulting untold generations later in forms better suited to those environments.

#4 Given that the intention of evolution is to take forms present and to alter them in beneficial ways, how did it know what things were beneficial so as not to remove them? How did it know HOW to change? This cannot be answered with a statement about mating pairs looking for appealing traits as that assumes progress that this question seeks to answer. Please answer it from the earliest stages.

Here, I believe, you make a fundamentally invalid assumption: That evolution has intent. Evolution is not a being, it is a word to describe a process by which adaptations occur over long periods of time. It has no intent, does not know anything, and takes no active role in determining whether a mutation is beneficial or harmful, or in removing the harmful ones from the mix (they do that by themselves by not surviving over time). It is simply a process.
Another fallacy here is that "progress" or a more advanced form of life is necessarily going to be the result.
The traits that predominate have less to do with being "appealing", and more to do with being more successful in surviving and reproducing under the conditions present. If, for example, the atmosphere were to become more acidic, those that had the trait of being able to survive and thrive in an acidic environment would be the ones to predominate with those unable to adapt to an acidic environment eventually becoming extinct. If a byproduct is that intelligence of the species diminished, so be it.

#5 How long did all this take? How do you know?

Probably billions of years. Many factors such as the vastness and rate of expansion of the universe, and the rate of radioactive decay, point to this

re: #1 zombie

Penn & Teller are formidable opponents! Mockery is the cruelest weapon!

And it's well-deserved mockery at that. I find myself wondering how creationists/iders can actually take themselves seriously. I mean, what's the colour of the sky in their world? Honestly, these people sound like freaks. Social freaks. I think my lucky stars I never had to deal with people like this. Heck, I'm damn glad I was never indoctrinated with this garbage. And they want to force this BS into the public schools? What a vile bunch of people.

re: #225 Thanos

It skewers the fundamentalist asshole terrorists and is direct and true to target. They dont' attack all of Islam for the same reason that they don't attack all of Christianity.

Perhaps you missed their "Bible: Fact or Fiction" episode of Bullshit.

Guess how the verdict went on this one.

re: #214 Basho

I think s/he is referring to an episodes of bullshit called "Bible: Fact or Fiction."

If someone can give me a link, I'll be happy to watch it.

re: #24 mbruce

Their show on recycling is also chock-full of moonbat-battling goodness.

That was a good show. I especially liked the part where they had something close to 1 dozen special recycling cans for each kind of waste. Hilarious.

re: #230 Amy

re: #228 eclectic infidel

Honestly, these people sound like freaks. Social freaks. I think my lucky stars I never had to deal with people like this. Heck, I'm damn glad I was never indoctrinated with this garbage. And they want to force this BS into the public schools? What a vile bunch of people.

Thick tar and a broad brush, Mr. Infidel, are hardly the tools of diplomacy. I have had the pleasure and privilege of traveling thoughout this nation and have had occasion to sup with many of these folks - oftentimes in their homes - and I can tell you that, while their zeal may be misdirected, they are hardly freaks and not a one of them have ever treated me in such a fashion as I would them "vile."

And I am NO creationist.

re: #229 NemoParticularis

Watch again, do they attack organized religion and the problems with the bible, or do they attack all of christianity? Are you being thin skinned, are you seething?

re: #182 GORDON MAROCK

You really don't get it. These are all great points, and there is a lot science cannot explain. However, in the event that there is/was a creator, it is just as likely that the creator was either a giant robot, space alien, Ganesh or the Christian God. Accordingly, the discussion is fine for philosophy or religion class, but not for science class.

Don't worry about whether or not I get it, I'll leave those kinds of elitist assumptions of my intelligence to the liberals. I'd love to hear answers to the questions.

re: #188 Summer

I don't really have time to type out an essay but on point #4, which is actually not a bad question, Evolution doesn't actually "know" anything. Evolution is brainless, thoughtless, purposeless. It's a theory which explains how something got from point A to point E or F, and what the steps (b, c, d etc...) were in between. Evolution isn't a person, or a thing. It is a theory which describes a set of facts, or occurrences. It's like saying "How does light know it can't break a certain speed?" The answer is, of course, light doesn't actually know anything. It happens to follow certain dictates which our theories explain as...dictates.

I didn't want essays so your response was dandy :) Light is visible presently and thus also subject to empirical research. The comparison to a study of historical events for which there was no impartial observer doesn't work. I wonder from your response, do I sense that you realize the infinite odds one must hit (repeatedly I'll add) in order for random chaos to pull off the results that are obviously present today?

re: #194 Jim D

(about #1)

Science, as it stands, does not claim to know the answer to this.

For all three responses, I guess I didn't realize how much faith it takes to believe in science.

Found it:

Bible: Fact or Fiction?

re: #234 Thanos

Watch again, do they attack organized religion and the problems with the bible, or do they attack all of christianity? Are you being thin skinned, are you seething?

I shall watch again, Mr. Thanos. If you are correct, then I shall apologize for my erroneous characterization and thank you for your correction.

re: #98 debutaunt

The first writings were ghostlike incantations consisting of long lines of Cheerios.

LOL, that's good.

re: #237 NemoParticularis

I haven't watched but feel safe in the statement from reading them for years - they tend to respect freedom of belief, but they attack extremists who try to force beliefs on others through law or other means. It's somewhat their hallmark.

re: #229 NemoParticularis

Perhaps you missed their "Bible: Fact or Fiction" episode of Bullshit.

Guess how the verdict went on this one.

As I posted up thread, take notes, and thing how to answer the questions they pose.

They think about how you'd share the gospel with those questions being asked.

re: #194 Jim D

Science, as it stands, does not claim to know the answer to this.

Nonetheless there are hypotheses like that of the multiverse put forward by Sir Martin Rees. What makes a lot of this hard to imagine is that ths the big bank scenario is played backwards not only does all matter get crunched into the singularity but so does our time axis! So it becomes ridiculuous to ask the 'before' question from our temporal viewpoint.

Currently the most viable hypothesis has us in an 11 dimensional space so if our little four dimensional plot were to shrink to a point it would not mean all that was there really disappeared with all its contents.

re: #235 J6

I didn't want essays so your response was dandy :) Light is visible presently and thus also subject to empirical research. The comparison to a study of historical events for which there was no impartial observer doesn't work. I wonder from your response, do I sense that you realize the infinite odds one must hit (repeatedly I'll add) in order for random chaos to pull off the results that are obviously present today?

Actually, no. Look up Richard Dawkins on Youtube explaining his presentation of "Mount Improbable" from the early 1980's lecture series. =)

You're falling into the fallacy of looking at ourselves and saying "We are the final result", when we actually aren't. There are billions of results all around us - some have failed, some stopped after getting someplace like a dead end, and some became other things - some of which became us. Some even backtrack as well. We're the lucky ones who are the products of a process which has killed off trillions of things to refine us into what we are today - and it isn't finished yet. But that's just it: we are the lucky ones.

re: #172 palarson

To me the primary reason for the success of the theory of evolution is that it provides a fig leaf for people to use to hide behind in their denial of God. As someone who has observed the misery that life can be I suggest its not foolish to long for the care and redemption of an all powerful and loving God, but I digress.

Your opening paragraph, which endeavors to morph and divert the discussion away from evolutionary theory's testability and empirical evidence support vs. creationism's untestability and lack of empirical evidence support to a slagging match condemning Bad Old Athiests while defending Good Old God, is precisely the main point that is pushed in the Disco Institute's Wedge Strategy document.

I choose to not argue over points of fundamental creationism, instead I strongly prefer to focus on the believability of the evolutionists core and primary argument, namely that complex organic systems can be created through the chance occurrence of random genetic mutation. This has not been proven and has apparently been disproved through the use of standard statistical models.

The Irreduceable Complexity argument, proferred by the Disco Institute shill Behe, has been irretriveably refuted, by Ken Miller among many others, and the argument from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics falls to the fact of an external planetary energy source called the Sun. Other arguments regarding the likelihood of the universe being as it is, with its present parameters allowing life, vs. other ways it might have been, are instances of the Observer Selection Effect Fallacy, which is related to the Anthropic Principle.

You may respond by asking about the 500 generations of bacteria that learned to eat citrate? My answer to that is to ask how the change to eating citrate represents an advance to a higher level of existence? My guess is that the mutations required were simple, did not occur simultaneously, and caused no inter-adaptive crippling which would render the species unable to survive through the course of time required to achieve the needed "next step" mutations.

For you to ask questions based upon the mistaken idea of a 'higher level of existence' is for you to demonstrate your lack of understanding of evolutionary theory. Evolution is not in any cosmically 'higher' direction, but merely in the direction of better accommodation of an organism population with its exological niche. No other species of e. coli on the planet can metabolize citric acid; that would seem to be an essential difference. And when two populations cannot interbreed, we are on solid ground in declaring that they are examples of differing species. Microevolutionary differences accumulate over time and generations until this macroevolutionary threshhold is breached. We have fruit flies like that, too, btw.

To be continued...

Nemo:

They say right up front that if your belief in the Bible is based on faith, then "nothing can touch you." In other words, they have no problem with those who have a faith-based belief in the Bible. What they are saying is that the Bible is not a factually or historically accurate description and that any claim to the contrary is bullshit. Thus, I don't see it as an attack on Christianity (or, actually, on Judaism, since they are referring to the Jewish Bible) per se, but on claims that what the Bible says must be considered the literal, objective truth.

re: #195 Charles

I guess "Rule303" didn't feel like giving any examples of that "deep hatred" he's so ready to accuse people of.

Now that's just a cheap shot and undeserving. Though I visit often I don't spend all day here, especially a Saturday.
Do a web search. I suspect you'll find enough examples on your own.

Mark

re: #175 J6

Alright, just gonna put my questions out there in one of these all-too-often threads and see what I get.

Just to clarify... remember there are two distinct conversations we often have in these threads:

A - the civics discussion (the establishment of religion, in these cases meaning particular beliefs of particular sects.)

B - science and religions questions

When P&T and others discuss school boards, etc., the discussion really going on is A above, even though people like to throw in B.

So, on to your science questions:

#1 Where did matter come from? Did it create itself, was it created, did it always exist? Since it is present it must have one of those sources.

Those are not questions for biology or evolution, but rather for cosmology.

#2 Since there were no starter forms when matter began evolving, did it start with the necessary genetic information or did it have to teach itself the necessary genetic information? If it taught itself, how did it first add that creative and original information?

This is the Origin of Life question, which is also distinct from speciation (evolution.) Amino acids form where you have carbon on nitrogen. There are many resources on the web which discuss OoL... needless to say, life would not have started with DNA as we now have it.

#3 Given the infinite ratio of nonviable evolutions to an extremely minor ratio of viable evolutions, how do we explain the variety of flora and fauna evident? Paired with that, why is the body such a tight system with little extraneous construction and yet built so efficiently as to also function when necessity removes portions?

Technically not "infinite"... just rather large. What you are doing here (and your following point) is just a sophisticated version of the "Anthropic Principal". Also, you are making more of the differences between life forms than there really are. We are after all not that much different than salamanders or fish! We animals are essentially variations on the same theme; similarly with flowering plants which are pretty much all alike.

#5 How long did all this take? How do you know?

Microscopic fossils in old rock would lead us to believe that simple life forms have been on earth for a very long time. Do a search for "precambrian" paleontology.

re: #172 palarson

The trick of course, to give evolutionists the easier task, is to postulate the existence of a broken sub-system with a single missing part and ask them to find a way to prove that random genetic mutation will transpire in such a way as to recreate the missing part over a short enough period of time such that the higher level system doesn't die-off, or devolve to the point where the remaining sub-system parts settle into a lower level functioning arrangement (separtely or together), during the time required for the system as a whole to mutationally re-invent and re-integrate the part back into the previously described sub-system.

My belief on the subject is that non integrated and malfunctioning sub-systems will at the very least perform the function of uncontrolled ballast yielding nothing but load to the higher level system, at the worst they are the very mutations which put the organism on the path to its own extinction.

The basic conceptual mistake here, willful or otherwise, is to maintain that these components must evolve in some sort of lockstep chronological order. Actually, many different components of a particular whole, either alone or in many different combinations, can subserve their own beneficial and selectable functions. In fact, what is now perceived as a whole may in the future itself be subsumed as a part of another whole, after another beneficial mutation is linked with it.

In conclusion, the argument hypothesized by evolutionists that a single celled organism together with its constituent sub-system parts locked together in an apparently well ordered, interrelated, and integrated manner, will evolve to higher levels given enough time under ever evolving inter, extra and intra environmental system conditions, while necessarily creating, supporting and carrying forward all the needed in-between stages of all the soon and in-the-future to be needed sub-system component parts, in their not yet fully functioning or integrated stages, while avoiding any single mutational mis-step resulting in self extinction or devolution back down the life complex path, strains credibility to the highest degree.

You must have missed the latest work done in this field:

New Evidence That Ancient Choanoflagellates' Form Evolutionary Link Between Single-celled And Multi-celled Organisms
[Link: www.sciencedaily.com...]

Note: Irreducibly Complex Sub Systems (ICSS) are those from which no component part may be subtracted or substantially altered without rendering the remaining parts incapable of performing the functionality required of it by the containing system. Should one of the parts be removed the higher level system, now lacking the functionality the ICSS provided, is forced to adapt downward in the tree of life by shedding higher level functionality, subsist in conditions for which it is inadequately adapted, or become extinct.

Note: every prospective candidate that Behe has put forward to fill such a definition - the eye, the flagellum, etc., has been conclusively debunked. As the matter now stands, there are no "Irreduceable Complex Sub Systems."

re: #246 freetoken

The problem with arguing either two conversations is that they invariably turn into one. The reason they turn into one conversation is because the Creationist side view their mythology as reality and that, to them, is science. It explains everything they want to know. And if anyone ever says that one single thing is wrong, especially their view about how we got here, then everything they know is attacked and discredited.

For instance, say that Joshua really didn't stop the sun moving...and they accuse you of being the cause of Nazi atrocities, drugs, crime, prostitution, the decline of morality, death and torment, and the very existence of evil in the world.

They're not rational people.

re: #233 NemoParticularis

I hear you that the ones you've met are good folk. However, insisting that their faith be taught as science, that it's up to a superstitious bunch of religious folk to decide what is and is not science based on a whim, well, that just strikes me a slimy. And you know, it is vile of them to push their RELIGIOUS agenda as if it's "proven" & "scientific". They are being deceitful. Period.

re: #174 Amy

Aside from the grammatical and punctuation errors in the above statement, it's simply ridiculous and untrue. Some views ARE more right than others. For example, I could take the "view" that the moon is made of green cheese; does that mean that my "view" should be accorded the same respect as that of a NASA scientist who can definitively state, based on scientific evidence, that the moon is not made of green cheese? I may have a "right" to my idiotic "view" about the composition of the moon, but does that mean that I can demand that my "view" be taught in schools alongside the results of geological research done on the moon?

As one of the scientists in the video said, science is not democratic. It's not a matter of voting for your favorite theory.

As far as I am concerned, it IS bullshit to argue that creationism has any scientific basis whatsoever. Keep religion in churches and synagogues, and keep it out of our schools.

In fact, the definition comes dangerously close to the "everybody has their own truth" mantra that the hippie moonbats were chanting back in the psychedilic era, that led to imbecilies following such characters as the Ramtha-channeling JZ Knight, the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, the Process Church of the Final Judgment, the Flirty Fishing Children of God, the Solar Temple, and Heaven's Gate.

re: #239 Thanos

I haven't watched but feel safe in the statement from reading them for years - they tend to respect freedom of belief, but they attack extremists who try to force beliefs on others through law or other means. It's somewhat their hallmark.

Watch it. Fortunately, I have a sense of humor and found a lot of it quite funny, actually. However, they are attacking both the Bible and Christianity. And the tone is often condescendingly mocking. They are mocking my religion, Mr. Thanos.

But that's okay. *shrug* This is the Unitesd States of America. And I can take it.

But they're not attacking the Bible and Christianity in the context of the creationist debate or the efforts of Christians to say that science somehow "proves" their religion. They are attacking it because they think it's all bullshit.

Still...they are attacking what they perceive to be bullshit. Fair enough. Now let's see them grow a set of balls do the same to the Koran.

re: #244 Amy

Nemo:

They say right up front that if your belief in the Bible is based on faith, then "nothing can touch you." In other words, they have no problem with those who have a faith-based belief in the Bible. What they are saying is that the Bible is not a factually or historically accurate description and that any claim to the contrary is bullshit. Thus, I don't see it as an attack on Christianity (or, actually, on Judaism, since they are referring to the Jewish Bible) per se, but on claims that what the Bible says must be considered the literal, objective truth.

In that case, they would have a field day with both Isalm and the Koran, madam, as followers of the former regard the latter with a slavish literalism that transcends the most devout Christian Campbellite.

Please don't hold your breath waiting for the next episode of P&T titled: "The Koran: Fact or Fiction?"

re: #250 Salamantis

The irony is that the creationists are using the same weapons introduced by the moral relativists to impose the Judeo-Christian theory of how the universe and life on Earth began on schoolchildren. It's a clear case of co-optation.

re: #249 eclectic infidel

I hear you that the ones you've met are good folk. However, insisting that their faith be taught as science, that it's up to a superstitious bunch of religious folk to decide what is and is not science based on a whim, well, that just strikes me a slimy. And you know, it is vile of them to push their RELIGIOUS agenda as if it's "proven" & "scientific". They are being deceitful. Period.

All that most of these people want is that their children not be turned into good little socialist, secularist, liberal drones. A great many of tem have simply chosen to educate their children at home - and have suffered terrible at the hands to state agencies for making a decision that is rightfully theirs.

This is not to justify their erroneous agenda. On many occasions I have sat with them until the wee hours of the morning debating this issue (beer and whisky do make the debate go so much more smoothly) and while we still disagree later in the morning, we nevertheless agree on the fact that we love our country and that liberty must always prevail if we are to be a free people.

Perhaps you might consider doing some traveling, Mr. Infidel.

re: #248 Summer

They're not rational people.

I've wondered about that... If they are truly irrational, does that mean we are saying they have a mental disorder? Would that be too hard of a conclusion (I think it may be so...). If they were members of a trial jury, and the prosecution presented some hard evidence (e.g., genetic evidence) would they accept it, or would it just be ignored? This is a thorny issue... but when one presents overwhelming physical evidence to somebody and that person outright rejects it, what are we to think?

Regardless... I push them back into thinking about the two conversations as I feel it is the right thing to do in the long run to continually remind everyone that our essential (constitutional) agreement is that government is beyond the bray of sectarian strife.

re: #251 NemoParticularis

You know what it still is a free country, why don't you grow a set of balls and attack the Koran if you think it's a measure of character?

You don't like that they destroy fundamentalism creationism in their vid, so you are going the ad hominem route. Can't refute the argument, attack the orator.