rediculous.

Win Ben Stein's Money was the greatest game show on television.

Eh, I'd rather have his money.

/

edit,
ridiculous.

Damn. Ebert actually HAS a brain.

I'd rather have Ben Stein's money.

"it filled you with hatred"..."it fills me with contempt"? really? this guy sounds like a radical hate-monger

re: #6 6pat6

I'd rather have Ben Stein's money.

GTMA!

I wish I had $1 for every ID/Darwin post.
/just sayin'

re: #7 stretch

"it filled you with hatred"..."it fills me with contempt"? really? this guy sounds like a radical hate-monger

Ah, I thought you had left us after you threw a temper tantrum on the last evolution thread. But alas, you are still here, still being our "pinata, spitting out stupid every time we hit you," as Neil Stevens says.

Darwinism inspired and advanced Nazism

Yes, and the earth is only 6,000 years old

/

re: #9 VegasRick
Wouldn't be as much as you think.

re: #9 VegasRick

I wish I had $1 for every ID/Darwin post.
/just sayin'

Yeah. You'd get about $18 every 60 days.

Don't spend it all in one place.

re: #10 gclaghorn

Ah, I thought you had left us after you threw a temper tantrum on the last evolution thread. But alas, you are still here, still being our "pinata, spitting out stupid every time we hit you," as Neil Stevens says.

Pinatas have candy in them, right? Heh.

re: #7 stretch

"it filled you with hatred"..."it fills me with contempt"? really? this guy sounds like a radical hate-monger

Adding to your karma count I see.

re: #14 Wyatt Earp

Pinatas have candy in them, right? Heh.

Fine. You may have a piece of candy now.

He refers to advocates of eugenics as liberal.

That's because they were. Eugenics was a "progressive" ideal. The modern outgrowth of it is Planned Parenthood, founded by progressive Margaret Sanger. 1/3 of black babies who are conceived are aborted.

But, where would I put it if I won it? Next to the X's left testicle over my mantle?

This seems to be a polarizing subject.

Win Ben Stein's mind? What kind of a prize is that?

re: #16 gclaghorn

Fine. You may have a piece of candy now.

Whoo hoo! Sorry. Candy on the brain.

re: #13 Charles

Yeah. You'd get about $18 every 60 days.

Don't spend it all in one place.

2 + per week..jaysus! heh

re: #17 tntb

That's because they were. Eugenics was a "progressive" ideal. The modern outgrowth of it is Planned Parenthood, founded by progressive Margaret Sanger. 1/3 of black babies who are conceived are aborted.

Is that statistic true today? Do you have a link?

re: #15 jorline

Adding to your Earl Hickey bad karma count I see.

Slight edit requirement

re: #13 Charles

Yeah. You'd get about $18 every 60 days.

Don't spend it all in one place.

I did say post and not thread. And I was alluding (as a joke) to the # of posts these kind of threads usually generate. And I was just kidding.

Hi, Mandy, howzit going?

re: #24 A Kiwi Infidel

Slight edit requirement

ding

re: #17 tntb

That's because they were. Eugenics was a "progressive" ideal. The modern outgrowth of it is Planned Parenthood, founded by progressive Margaret Sanger. 1/3 of black babies who are conceived are aborted.

Mind you, I know about Sanger and her eugenicism. I'm just wondering if the statistic about African-American terminations is correct today, as in, within the past five years.

The arguments on both sides seem to be ridiculous. Those who attempt to use evolution to "prove" the religion of atheism are just as bad as those who attempt to "disprove" the theory of evolution because of their belief in G-d.

Just because G-d may have decided to use evolution as part of the laws of this universe does not mean that He does not exist. In fact, given the definition of G-d as all-powerful and all-knowing, we cannot prove that the Universe was or was not created 5 minutes, 5 years, 5,769 years or 5,769,000 years ago.

As a result, the entire argument seems to be silly and not really appropriate. One should not use evolution or any other aspect of science to attempt to set up a system of laws and morality.

re: #18 MandyManners

But, where would I put it if I won it? Next to the X's left testicle over my mantle?

one wonders what made ya decide on the left one..or just the left one, perhaps

re: #5 6pat6

He also has excellent taste in furniture, and has a lot of gorgeous Art Deco pieces. And it sounds like after all his medical problems, he has a pretty nice wife, too.

I like him twice as much, now, for shaking out the nuances of Stein's idiotic film and hanging them out for all to see, like so much laundry. He could have simply said the film sucked in 300 words or less, but he put his teeth into it.

re: #7 stretch
I really don't think Ebert is a "radical hate monger? Do you? Really?

Hola, Mandy!

re: #32 pingjockey

I really don't think Ebert is a "radical hate monger? Do you? Really?

I sometimes think so when he trashes a movie I like, but about this? Not at all. :)

re: #17 tntb

That's because they were. Eugenics was a "progressive" ideal. The modern outgrowth of it is Planned Parenthood, founded by progressive Margaret Sanger. 1/3 of black babies who are conceived are aborted.

And who was the biggest supporter of eugenics (a president) and is progressive the same then as it is now?

Wow. Read the whole thing. I was expecting "just" a film review. Ebert does a great job with this.

re: #5 6pat6

Damn. Ebert actually HAS a brain.

/he even wrote screenplays for/with with the King of Titsploitation movies, Russ Meyers

re: #17 tntb

That's because they were. Eugenics was a "progressive" ideal. The modern outgrowth of it is Planned Parenthood, founded by progressive Margaret Sanger. 1/3 of black babies who are conceived are aborted.

Eugenics is the antithesis of evolutionary theory. Whereas evolutionary theorists would prefer to leave environmental selection alone to do its work unhindered, eugenicists can't seem to resist imposing their own pet 'intelligent' design. Darwin's books were banned in the Third Reich.

Eugenics, or the application of animal husbandry - selective breeding and herd-culling - to humans, is an idea as old as Plato.

re: #32 pingjockey

I really don't think Ebert is a "radical hate monger? Do you? Really?

I think Stretch just crawls out from under the troll bridge every Evolution thread and goes back when the thread is over and everyone has moved on.

Oh, and abortion was illegal under the Third Reich, too. Instead, they had lebensborns, where women chosen for Aryan Characteristics were forcibly bred to selected SS officers, in order to increase the ranks of the Volk.

re: #10 gclaghorn

nope, sorry to disappoint - still here. Are there any evolutionists out there who are honest enough to face their history in eugenics (slaughtering African pygmies and whatnot)? It could be quite therapeutic. Deep down inside, don't you think that you ARE more evolved that some other races?

re: #34 Wyatt Earp
I pay no attention to film reviews. I do pay more attention now as to who is in the movie. I will not see a flic with Sean Penn, Mr. Susan Sarandon, Jane Fonda(not to relevant), and a few others.

Did the humans kill the dinosaurs or did the humans like the dinosaurs?

re: #42 stretch

nope, sorry to disappoint - still here. Are there any evolutionists out there who are honest enough to face their history in eugenics (slaughtering African pygmies and whatnot)? It could be quite therapeutic. Deep down inside, don't you think that you ARE more evolved that some other races?

I, for one, do not slaughter African pygmies, and never have, thank you.

He refers to advocates of eugenics as liberal. I would not call Hitler liberal.

That's a shame.

Especially since Hitler's beliefs were more in line with liberals, than with conservatism: [Link: www.danielpipes.org...]
[Link: constitutionalistnc.tripod.com...]

re: #30 joecitizen

one wonders what made ya decide on the left one..or just the left one, perhaps

Arbitrary decisions are sometimes made.

re: #41 Salamantis

Oh, and abortion was illegal under the Third Reich, too. Instead, they had lebensborns, where women chosen for Aryan Characteristics were forcibly bred to RAPED BY selected SS officers, in order to increase the ranks of the Volk.

another slight edit requirement

re: #39 Salamantis

Eugenics is the antithesis of evolutionary theory. Whereas evolutionary theorists would prefer to leave environmental selection alone to do its work unhindered, eugenicists can't seem to resist imposing their own pet 'intelligent' design. Darwin's books were banned in the Third Reich.

Eugenics, or the application of animal husbandry - selective breeding and herd-culling - to humans, is an idea as old as Plato.

Correct... but TNTB, who doesn't understand the subject, is using the simple-minded argument and trying to connect eugenics and all this to "liberals" and scary evolutionist.

Good one, Ebert. The last three paragraphs of the review are very strong.

"This film is cheerfully ignorant, manipulative, slanted, cherry-picks quotations, draws unwarranted conclusions, makes outrageous juxtapositions (Soviet marching troops representing opponents of ID), pussy-foots around religion (not a single identified believer among the ID people), segues between quotes that are not about the same thing, tells bald-faced lies, and makes a completely baseless association between freedom of speech and freedom to teach religion in a university class that is not about religion."

...and the closing:
"It is not difficult for me to describe how you made me feel by exploiting the deaths of millions of Jews in support of your argument for a peripheral Christian belief. It fills me with contempt."

re: #42 stretch

I don't usually get involved in the ID/evolution threads, but who is this idiot?

re: #40 gclaghorn
...don't mind being the only one, and not like 'everyone'. thanks for the encouragement

re: #51 Noam Sayin'

I don't usually get involved in the ID/evolution threads, but who is this idiot?

See my #40.

re: #41 Salamantis

Oh, and abortion was illegal under the Third Reich, too. Instead, they had lebensborns, where women chosen for Aryan Characteristics were forcibly bred to selected SS officers, in order to increase the ranks of the Volk.

/too lazy to link

re: #29 Sabba Hillel

The arguments on both sides seem to be ridiculous. Those who attempt to use evolution to "prove" the religion of atheism are just as bad as those who attempt to "disprove" the theory of evolution because of their belief in G-d.

Just because G-d may have decided to use evolution as part of the laws of this universe does not mean that He does not exist. In fact, given the definition of G-d as all-powerful and all-knowing, we cannot prove that the Universe was or was not created 5 minutes, 5 years, 5,769 years or 5,769,000 years ago.

As a result, the entire argument seems to be silly and not really appropriate. One should not use evolution or any other aspect of science to attempt to set up a system of laws and morality.

Yeah...an omnipotent God who would inscribe lies in the Book of Nature just so he can deceive human beings...sounds like a deity I could really reverence...

/

re: #42 stretch
Hello, would you please share, with those who partake, whatever killer weed you are smoking.

re: #44 experiencedtraveller

Did the humans kill the dinosaurs or did the humans like the dinosaurs?

Well, according to The Flintstones, they lived in equal harmony . . .

It fills me with contempt.

Indeed.

re: #56 pingjockey

Hello, would you please share, with those who partake, whatever killer weed you are smoking.

truly it is loco weed..

re: #52 stretch

...don't mind being the only one, and not like 'everyone'. thanks for the encouragement

Oh, bravo, you brave, brave soul.

/

I liked it when Ben Stein wrote for Penthouse. He was smart informative and witty. And of course being surrounded by other boobs, he didnt look quite the pussy that he is.

re: #25 VegasRick

I did say post and not thread. And I was alluding (as a joke) to the # of posts these kind of threads usually generate. And I was just kidding.

I guess I am not going to get any response after gettin down dinged for my comment. See you all later. No harm, no foul, hopefully

re: #42 stretch

nope, sorry to disappoint - still here. Are there any evolutionists out there who are honest enough to face their history in eugenics (slaughtering African pygmies and whatnot)? It could be quite therapeutic. Deep down inside, don't you think that you ARE more evolved that some other races?

See posts #39 and 41, and remember that it was by means of evolutionary genetics that it was proven that we're all members of the same race - the human race.

Heh. Open reg followed by ID thread!

S. Beaumont channels Jebediah Nightlinger:

I regret trifling with married women. I'm thoroughly ashamed at cheating at cards. I deplore my occasional departures from the truth. Forgive me for taking your name in vain, my Saturday drunkenness, my Sunday sloth. Above all, forgive me for the men hatchlings I've killed in anger...

[eyes shifting to Asa Watts fresh-yet-gamey-hatchling hindquarters]

... and those I am about to.

/gotta go fix some popcorn.

re: #56 pingjockey

Hello, would you please share, with those who partake, whatever killer weed you are smoking.

I was about to call for the stick, but if he's got herb...

re: #52 stretch

...don't mind being the only one, and not like 'everyone'. thanks for the encouragement

You don't mind being the only idiot? Go for it if that's what yanks your crank.

Please provide a link to your pygmy remark.

And please provide links to any of your statements. I have noticed in previous threads where you were making a fool of yourself, you lack the ability to cut and paste a link.

Egad --- Stein makes such a huge leap from Darwin's evolution to Nazi selective breeding - it scales the missing link by chasms

re: #56 pingjockey

Hello, would you please share, with those who partake, whatever killer weed you are smoking.

Ancient killer hemp .. from an old tomb .. it has that extra dead guy buzz to it.

re: #13 Charles

Yeah. You'd get about $18 every 60 days.

Don't spend it all in one place.

I'd prefer $1 for every deleted post and ban hammer deployment generated by these posts. I always enjoy the discussions and meltdowns that occur. I for one hope they keep coming. Keep the discussion and focus going and keep up the great work Charles.

re: #66 Walter L. Newton

You don't mind being the only idiot? Go for it if that's what yanks your crank.

Please provide a link to your pygmy remark.

And please provide links to any of your statements. I have noticed in previous threads where you were making a fool of yourself, you lack the ability to cut and paste a link.

To link requires a functioning brain and an IQ higher than that of a box of Froot Loops, both of which {stretch} clearly lacks.

What a time to drop in for an evening chat......
An ID thread.

*rolls up sleeves, picks up clue bat*

I'm only going to say this once.

IT'S Turtles all the way down!

re: #67 Right mind left

Egad --- Stein makes such a huge leap from Darwin's evolution to Nazi selective breeding - it scales the missing link by chasms

He puts the "eaps" and "ounds" in "leaps" and "bounds".

re: #69 CynicalConservative

I'd prefer $1 for every deleted post and ban hammer deployment generated by these posts. I always enjoy the discussions and meltdowns that occur. I for one hope they keep coming. Keep the discussion and focus going and keep up the great work Charles.

I enjoy the extra pairs of sock puppets i get to wear.

"Fahrenheit 9/11" is a compelling, persuasive film, at odds with the White House effort to present Bush as a strong leader. He comes across as a shallow, inarticulate man, simplistic in speech and inauthentic in manner. If the film is not quite as electrifying as Moore's "Bowling for Columbine," that may be because Moore has toned down his usual exuberance and was sobered by attacks on the factual accuracy of elements of "Columbine"; playing with larger stakes, he is more cautious here, and we get an op-ed piece, not a stand-up routine. But he remains one of the most valuable figures on the political landscape, a populist rabble-rouser, humorous and effective; the outrage and incredulity in his film are an exhilarating response to Bush's determined repetition of the same stubborn sound bites.

--Roger Ebert, arbiter of all that is right and proper in film documentaries.

IOW... watch out for fleas

re: #51 Noam Sayin'

wow! - hitting some nerves on this thread. I guess eugenics does come close to home for some of you guys. Check your meds next time before you post.

Hitler was the missing link between an obscure population of sub-humans and the SS: sub-sub human. Darwinism in reverse.

re: #71 JCM

What a time to drop in for an evening chat......
An ID thread.

*rolls up sleeves, picks up clue bat*

I'm only going to say this once.

IT'S Turtles all the way down!

I thought it was CLITONITES ALL THE WAY DOWN.

re: #65 Noam Sayin'
It has got to be some really good shit! That's some whacked smack he/she/it is posting! Last thing I heard we were all one race.

re: #42 stretch

nope, sorry to disappoint - still here. Are there any evolutionists out there who are honest enough to face their history in eugenics (slaughtering African pygmies and whatnot)? It could be quite therapeutic. Deep down inside, don't you think that you ARE more evolved that some other races?

GAZE

re: #73 Buster Bunny

I enjoy the extra pairs of sock puppets i get to wear.

I'll file that under "Things that make you go hmmmmmm?"

re: #75 stretch

wow! - hitting some nerves on this thread. I guess eugenics does come close to home for some of you guys. Check your meds next time before you post.

I'll check my meds when you put down the weed.

re: #75 stretch

I put the meds away, thinking you'd share your weed.

Stingy bastard.

re: #76 DistantThunder

Hitler was the missing link between an obscure population of sub-humans and the SS: sub-sub human. Darwinism in reverse.

*scratching head*

Are you saying Schickelgruber was more evolved than his minions?

re: #42 stretch

Are there any evolutionists out there who are honest enough to face their history in eugenics

Some Christians have been and still are supporters of eugenics....
Catholicism and Eugenics in the Weimar Republic and in the Third Reich

"Christian" Eugenics

You can google it and learn more if you're interessted.

re: #81 gclaghorn

I'll check my meds when you put down the weed.

Give the guy a break. It's medicinal for his glaucoma. He can't see common sense.

re: #77 MandyManners

I thought it was CLITONITES ALL THE WAY DOWN.

Clintonites are like cockroaches - they will always be with us.

re: #77 MandyManners

I thought it was CLITONITES ALL THE WAY DOWN.

the endless evolving clit? I like it...

re: #71 JCM

What a time to drop in for an evening chat......
An ID thread.*rolls up sleeves, picks up clue bat*I'm only going to say this once. IT'S Turtles all the way down!

You keep touting that old theory, over and over, yet you never post any info supporting your contention.

re: #54 Killian Bundy

|Here ya go:

[Link: www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...]

re: #49 Walter L. Newton

"Liberal" and "Conservative" appear to be the only political terms people want to use in describing historical events and trends. Today's liberals love to call every negative, tyrannical movement in the world "conservative" no matter what the ideology. It would be nice, in a way, to lay every negative trend at the doorstep of Democrats; but maybe a bit tendentious.

re: #41 Salamantis

Oh, and abortion was illegal under the Third Reich, too. Instead, they had lebensborns, where women chosen for Aryan Characteristics were forcibly bred to selected SS officers, in order to increase the ranks of the Volk.

Are you trying to say that a person who is anti-abortion must "instead" be a supporter of forced breeding?

re: #83 MandyManners

*scratching head*

Are you saying Schickelgruber was more evolved than his minions?

They were his spawn after all.

re: #77 MandyManners

I thought it was CLITONITES ALL THE WAY DOWN.

That's in DC, different universe. Where not really sure what happened there, but it went horrible wrong.

re: #71 JCM
IS NOT! There's an aardvark in there. Did you see the Goddamn bullshit in Olympia in the Capitol Rotunda? It made O'Reilly last night.

re: #63 Salamantis

See posts #39 and 41, and remember that it was by means of evolutionary genetics that it was proven that we're all members of the same race - the human race.

Bravo, Salamantis! Well spoken and concise: Perfect for a troll smackdown!

re: #75 stretch

wow! - hitting some nerves on this thread. I guess eugenics does come close to home for some of you guys. Check your meds next time before you post.

FUCK YOU!

You leave Noam alone.

re: #72 MandyManners

He puts the "eaps" and "ounds" in "leaps" and "bounds".

(not to incite things any, but...)
HA - a lot like our stretttchh upthread, too?!?///

eugenics is the ultimate tool for genocidal pre-emption. The possiblity that 'we are better than you therefore you SHOULDNT EXIST' has been successfully used at least six times SINCE the holocaust.

Darfur .. Kashmir .. Pakistan (Pure State) Bangladesh Algeria .. not to mention Sudan.

Every reason to be scared of the principle.

re: #96 MandyManners

That's my girl...

*peck*

re: #57 Wyatt Earp

Well, according to The Flintstones, they lived in equal harmony . . .

Damn, so Uncle Fred WAS yanking my chain when he said he had a pet Brontosaurus!

/damn, do I really need to?

re: #86 DistantThunder

Clintonites are like cockroaches - they will always be with us.

Even after global, thermonuclear war.

re: #96 MandyManners

FUCK YOU!

You leave Noam alone.

F**K {STRETCH} AND THE HORSE HE RODE IN ON!

Margaret Sanger attended and spoke at a KKK rally in NJ.

re: #87 joecitizen

Dagnabit.

re: #96 MandyManners

FUCK YOU!

You leave Noam alone.

Yea..Noam is cool

re: #92 DistantThunder

They were his spawn after all.

*scratching head*

Gonna' hafta' think on that for a bit.

re: #90 Joan

"Liberal" and "Conservative" appear to be the only political terms people want to use in describing historical events and trends. Today's liberals love to call every negative, tyrannical movement in the world "conservative" no matter what the ideology. It would be nice, in a way, to lay every negative trend at the doorstep of Democrats; but maybe a bit tendentious.

I think you are trying to make my point. Progressive meant a real different thing when Roosevelt started the Progressive Party (Bull Moose). Posters like "stretch" miss these fact, over and over. And Roosevelt was a big supporter of eugenics.

re: #88 Walter L. Newton

You keep touting that old theory, over and over, yet you never post any info supporting your contention.

I have PROOF!.

A suppressed NASA Hubble image, I got from a friend who knows a guy that knew someone who was married to someone who's was a 3rd cousin to a janitor at NASA.

re: #75 stretch

wow! - hitting some nerves on this thread. I guess eugenics does come close to home for some of you guys. Check your meds next time before you post.

Smack! Then back to GAZE.

re: #74 Zimriel

Ebert definitely had his head firmly in Michael Moore's gigantic ass when he reviewed F9/11.

re: #46 Piecemaker

That's a shame.

Especially since Hitler's beliefs were more in line with liberals, than with conservatism: [Link: www.danielpipes.org...]
[Link: constitutionalistnc.tripod.com...]

I don't know many classic liberals who would burn copies of Origin of Species...Stalinistic leftists, maybe, since it contradicted Malenkoism...

I liked Ben Stein too. This asshattery from him bites.

Ying and Yang. Nutsies and Nazis.

re: #93 JCM

That's in DC, different universe. Where not really sure what happened there, but it went horrible wrong.

It's the swamp gasses.

re: #77 MandyManners

I thought it was CLITONITES ALL THE WAY DOWN.

Couldn't just make it into a boob thread and leave it at that, eh?

The trolls are crawling out of the wordwork, everyone...set your phasers on GAZE...

The cartoon at the bottom sums up the "teach both theories" argument so well.

re: #98 Buster Bunny

and Rwanda. and the Baltics,

re: #103 DistantThunder

Margaret Sanger attended and spoke at a KKK rally in NJ.

LINK

Given Margaret Sanger's preoccupation with race (see previous article), it should come as no surprise to anyone that Sanger would accept an invitation to give a speech to an organization that also has a preoccupation with race - the Ku Klux Klan. Not only did Sanger accept the invitation, but the excerpt below from her own 1938 autobiography indicates the she got along quite well with members of a New Jersey branch of the Ku Klux Klan, eventually getting a "dozen invitations to speak to similar groups."

Perhaps this is because the KKK's ideas and Margaret Sanger's ideas concerning race are so similar. No doubt the KKK must have been happy with Sanger's "Negro Project" which was designed to cut down on the number of black babies being born. In a December 10, 1939 letter, Margaret Sanger wrote to Dr. Clarence Gamble about her "Negro Project," saying, "We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten that idea out if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." (See Blessed Are The Barren The Social Policy of Planned Parenthood by Robert Marshall and Charles Donovan, Ignatius Press, 1991, pages 17-18.)

Here is Sanger's account of her trip to talk to the Ku Klux Klan from pages 366-367 of Margaret Sanger An Autobiography (1971 reprint by Dover Publications, Inc. of the 1938 original published by W.W. Norton & Company).

re: #97 Right mind left

(not to incite things any, but...)
HA - a lot like our stretttchh upthread, too?!?///

See my No. 96, please.

re: #99 Noam Sayin'

That's my girl...

*peck*

*giggle*

*smooch*

re: #103 DistantThunder

Margaret Sanger attended and spoke at a KKK rally in NJ.

Linky?

re: #108 JCM

I have PROOF!.

A suppressed NASA Hubble image, I got from a friend who knows a guy that knew someone who was married to someone who's was a 3rd cousin to a janitor at NASA.

Just checking. Ok, well, that explains a lot of things. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Now I know where the Island in LOST went to.

re: #99 Noam Sayin'

That's my girl...

*peck*

re: #121 MandyManners

*giggle*

*smooch*

OH! For Pete's sake!
Get a room!
/ ;-P

re: #23 MandyManners

Is that statistic true today? Do you have a link?

That's a good question.

In the 41 areas for which race was adequately reported, approximately 55% of women who obtained legal induced abortions were known to be white, 35% were black, and 7% were of other races; for 3% of the women, race was unknown. (Table 9). The abortion ratio for black women (503 per 1,000 live births) was 3.0 times the ratio for white women (167 per 1,000 live births). Additionally, the abortion ratio for women of other races (329 per 1,000 live births) was 2.0 times the ratio for white women. The abortion rate for black women (30 per 1,000 women) was 3.1 times the rate for white women (10 per 1,000 women), whereas the abortion rate for women of other races (22 per 1,000 women) was 2.2 times the rate for white women.

Blacks make up what, about 12 to 14 percent of the population?

re: #105 HoosierHoops

Yea..Noam is cool

Oh, you know it.

re: #119 DistantThunder

So what? Margaret Sanger has been dead for 42 years, and her ideas had nothing to do with Darwin's theory of evolution. The issue is a creationist red herring.

re: #122 MandyManners

Linky?

See my 119

re: #75 stretch

wow! - hitting some nerves on this thread. I guess eugenics does come close to home for some of you guys. Check your meds next time before you post.

No, people just hate to see empirical science illegitimately accused of political insanity.

re: #115 Clemente

Couldn't just make it into a boob thread and leave it at that, eh?

Dagnabit II.

re: #118 mich-again

and Rwanda. and the Baltics,

No .. i deliberately left out the Baltics. Thats been a Saudi inspired war of hate waged against the Russians. You go look up the leaders of the operations in the Baltics. You'll find that they are all ex-Saudi princes. Its a proxy war not a eugenics war.

re: #123 Walter L. Newton

Just checking. Ok, well, that explains a lot of things. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Now I know where the Island in LOST went to.

Can't help you on that one. I'm still struggle with the 3 hour cruise......

re: #115 Clemente

Couldn't just make it into a boob thread and leave it at that, eh?

Ahhhh, boobs...mmmmmmmmmm!

re: #121 MandyManners

*giggle*

*smooch*

I'm leaving......
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

re: #124 JCM

*blush*

re: #121 MandyManners

*pinch*

re: #130 MandyManners

Dagnabit II.

Did somebody say "boobs?"

re: #134 A Kiwi Infidel

I'm leaving......
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

TTFN, Kiwi! See you later.

re: #120 MandyManners

See my No. 96, please.

I did - that was GREAT!

There should be a mandatory corner we can send him to (he/she/it)

re: #111 Salamantis

I don't know many classic liberals who would burn copies of Origin of Species...

But we shouldn't confuse classic liberalism with the modern version of the L-word.

re: #132 JCM

Can't help you on that one. I'm still struggle with the 3 hour cruise......

Yeah, what's with that? Plus, they took everything they owned on that damn boat! Except batteries!

re: #44 experiencedtraveller

Surely, you've seen the the first Dino Rodeo at the Creation Museum, haven't you? Heck, they rode 'em!

They also used dino doo in their gardens, the ones where the little girls are playing.

Ebert was ebullient over Moore's Fahrenheit 911. Stein is a putz. Stein and Moore both made stuff up. I can't stand either of them. I can't stand Ebert either. He's as left as you can get.

re: #89 Salamantis

|Here ya go:

[Link: www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...]

There ya go, was that so hard? Always link assertions.

/even if the point is obvious, your memory isn't common knowledge and a lot of LGF readers shouldn't have to take your word for history, besides it keeps you busy for a while

re: #85 Wyatt Earp
that's a good one - there are only a few lingering effects, honest!

re: #74 Zimriel

I was thinking about going and trying to dig that up. A stopped watch is right twice a day, and all that. I'm not sure I'd put too much stock in what Ebert says on, well, any subject.

re: #143 HelloDare

I can't stand any of the three, either.

re: #145 stretch

Suck-up.

re: #140 mich-again

But we shouldn't confuse classic liberalism with the modern version of the L-word.

Lesbian?

re: #91 reine.de.tout

Are you trying to say that a person who is anti-abortion must "instead" be a supporter of forced breeding?

No, I'm saying that the opposite of anti-abortion is forced abortion, as in China, not reproductive choice, as in the US. No one is legally forcing women to end pregnancies against their wills here.

re: #127 Charles

So what? Margaret Sanger has been dead for 42 years, and her ideas had nothing to do with Darwin's theory of evolution. The issue is a creationist red herring.

There were all kinds of people supporting some form of eugenics, and even certain laws existed right through the 20th century. Eugenics was not a conservative versus liberal issue.

Read this article and see how many people supported it in some form. Also noticed how little eugenics has to do with evolution.

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

Intelligent Design "scientists" in "Expelled" are offended by being called ignorant. When Stein points out that "Catholics and mainstream Protestant groups" have no problem with the theory of Evolution, he is informed by an ID advocate, "liberal Christians side with anybody against Creationists." Now we have the smoking gun. It is the word liberal. What is the word liberal doing here? The Theory of Evolution is neither liberal nor conservative. It is simply provable or not.

Unlike beliefs.

re: #30 joecitizen

It hangs lower (at least mine does)

re: #42 stretch

nope, sorry to disappoint - still here. Are there any evolutionists out there who are honest enough to face their history in eugenics (slaughtering African pygmies and whatnot)? It could be quite therapeutic. Deep down inside, don't you think that you ARE more evolved that some other races?

How many Pygmies?
How did they manage to debone all those poor souls?
Who paid the shipping costs for all those skeletons?
Where are they now? There should be stacks of them, somewhere.

The story is bogus. A fake.

re: #149 Buster Bunny

Lesbian?

Lactose?

re: #125 razorbacker

That's a good question.

In the 41 areas for which race was adequately reported, approximately 55% of women who obtained legal induced abortions were known to be white, 35% were black, and 7% were of other races; for 3% of the women, race was unknown. (Table 9). The abortion ratio for black women (503 per 1,000 live births) was 3.0 times the ratio for white women (167 per 1,000 live births). Additionally, the abortion ratio for women of other races (329 per 1,000 live births) was 2.0 times the ratio for white women. The abortion rate for black women (30 per 1,000 women) was 3.1 times the rate for white women (10 per 1,000 women), whereas the abortion rate for women of other races (22 per 1,000 women) was 2.2 times the rate for white women.

Blacks make up what, about 12 to 14 percent of the population?

That's a long read but, does it take into account the higher numbers of African-American single women over the past 20 years? I mean, 1969-2000 is the time-frame.

re: #145 stretch

that's a good one - there are only a few lingering effects, honest!

I am still waiting for your "killing pygmies" link?

re: #127 Charles

So what? Margaret Sanger has been dead for 42 years, and her ideas had nothing to do with Darwin's theory of evolution. The issue is a creationist red herring.

I didn't know it was a creationist talking point - I only posted it because her name came up and I thought it was a little known fact. I posted the same article on a feminist news site and the women were apoplectic having worshipped Sanger for her birth control revolution - but unaware of her eugenics bent.

Ebert doesn't sound especially friendly to Michael Moore in this review: "Smug and disengenuous..."

"...Spurlock has been called the poor man's Michael Moore, an assessment that's neither fair nor accurate. His filmmaking may be comparably poor, and he does present himself as the first-person star of his essay-showcase movies, but Spurlock's gags don't depend on stupid, insufferably self-serving set-ups designed to place himself in a superior position to whoever's on camera. For that reason, and because his agit-prop presentation is strictly anecdotal, Spurlock's approach feels less smug and disingenuous than Moore's."

[Link: rogerebert.suntimes.com...]

Speaking as someone who believes the Bible to be the word of God, and who does not also believe that dinosaurs were dragons, (?), I just have one comment to make:

It's a really bad idea to take a Bible verse and try to build a scientific idea out of it. They hung a guy back in 1600 for postulating that there were more planets than this one, because they were basing their science on the Bible. Bad idea, because it's bad logic.

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

That doesn't make the Bible untrue, or full of bad ideas. It just means it was never meant to be a science textbook. If God meant for us to be ignorant schlumps, he never would have sent us Isaac Newton or Benjamin Franklin.

re: #128 DistantThunder

See my 119

Thanks!

My home-town STILL has a statue of Forrest. Unfuckingbelievable.

re: #149 Buster Bunny

Nope.

re: #148 gclaghorn

Suck-up.

Will you marry me? :)

re: #134 A Kiwi Infidel

I'm leaving......
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Have a good day!

re: #163 Wyatt Earp

Will you marry me? :)

No, no, no, you're doing it all wrong -- now, get down on one knee...

re: #136 Noam Sayin'

*WHACK*

re: #29 Sabba Hillel

The arguments on both sides seem to be ridiculous. Those who attempt to use evolution to "prove" the religion of atheism are just as bad as those who attempt to "disprove" the theory of evolution because of their belief in G-d.

Just because G-d may have decided to use evolution as part of the laws of this universe does not mean that He does not exist. In fact, given the definition of G-d as all-powerful and all-knowing, we cannot prove that the Universe was or was not created 5 minutes, 5 years, 5,769 years or 5,769,000 years ago.

As a result, the entire argument seems to be silly and not really appropriate. One should not use evolution or any other aspect of science to attempt to set up a system of laws and morality.

Hey, tell it to Aristotle, upon whose works some of our laws are based.
Or Plato
Or Marcus Aurelius etc. etc. etc.

re: #156 MandyManners

That's a long read but, does it take into account the higher numbers of African-American single women over the past 20 years? I mean, 1969-2000 is the time-frame.

Who knows? I got MEGO long before the end.

But the abortion rate is declining. Or was when the paper was published.

re: #139 Right mind left

I did - that was GREAT!

There should be a mandatory corner we can send him to (he/she/it)

Up to Charles.

re: #165 gclaghorn

No, no, no, you're doing it all wrong -- now, get down on one knee...

I said, "marry," not . . . Oh, never mind.

re: #160 EmmmieG

Speaking as someone who believes the Bible to be the word of God, and who does not also believe that dinosaurs were dragons, (?), I just have one comment to make:

It's a really bad idea to take a Bible verse and try to build a scientific idea out of it. They hung a guy back in 1600 for postulating that there were more planets than this one, because they were basing their science on the Bible. Bad idea, because it's bad logic.

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

That doesn't make the Bible untrue, or full of bad ideas. It just means it was never meant to be a science textbook. If God meant for us to be ignorant schlumps, he never would have sent us Isaac Newton or Benjamin Franklin.

Actually .. i'm a believer in the idea that God works in 'Whammys' i.e. big steering events that modulate the existing show in progress. Think Nazis .. think Amalek, think Volcanos that change history. It seems to be that he lets things boulder along and then when he needs to step in its quick and sharp.

re: #169 MandyManners

Up to Charles.

Why do we need to make a corner for people like {stretch}? We already have insane asylums...

/

re: #171 Buster Bunny

Actually .. i'm a believer in the idea that God works in 'Whammys' i.e. big steering events that modulate the existing show in progress. Think Nazis .. think Amalek, think Volcanos that change history. It seems to be that he lets things boulder along and then when he needs to step in its quick and sharp.

Think Vogons!

Stretch's karma total doesn't even equal annefrance's (sp) one comment down ding total of over 300. Remember that?

re: #144 Killian Bundy

There ya go, was that so hard? Always link assertions.

/even if the point is obvious, your memory isn't common knowledge and a lot of LGF readers shouldn't have to take your word for history, besides it keeps you busy for a while

Don't worry...I eventually get around to replying to all the posts I wanna reply to anyway...

Here is the last paragraph of Ebert review of "Fahrenheit 9/11"

"Fahrenheit 9/11" is a compelling, persuasive film, at odds with the White House effort to present Bush as a strong leader. He comes across as a shallow, inarticulate man, simplistic in speech and inauthentic in manner. If the film is not quite as electrifying as Moore's "Bowling for Columbine," that may be because Moore has toned down his usual exuberance and was sobered by attacks on the factual accuracy of elements of "Columbine"; playing with larger stakes, he is more cautious here, and we get an op-ed piece, not a stand-up routine. But he remains one of the most valuable figures on the political landscape, a populist rabble-rouser, humorous and effective; the outrage and incredulity in his film are an exhilarating response to Bush's determined repetition of the same stubborn sound bites.

When an articulate, well-respected, media-savvy conservative, libertarian, conservative-libertarian, etc. makes a real and entertaining documentary about the benefits of limited government, more freedom, more personal responsibility, etc. and leaves out all the pseudo-scientific nonsense that tries to pass bronze-age myths off as legitimate scientific theories, then – and only then – will a documentary help Republicans start to win more elections. Stein did far more harm to Republicans by preaching to "Creationists" than he or "Creationists" realize. Only "Creationists" went to see that movie. Rational moderate voters who saw any advertisements or news stories about it kept that in the back of their minds at the voting booth. We all know the result.

And should such a documentary ever really be made, once those future Republicans get in office, they need to publicly ignore every "Creationist" and "Intelligent Design" advocate that tries to get them to pass legislation in order to force their religion disguised as science down the throats of other people's children in government schools.

re: #42 stretch

nope, sorry to disappoint - still here. Are there any evolutionists out there who are honest enough to face their history in eugenics (slaughtering African pygmies and whatnot)? It could be quite therapeutic. Deep down inside, don't you think that you ARE more evolved that some other races?

No because most evolutionists do not base their identity or their self upon their race. Most racists tend to do so however.

re: #133 6pat6

Ahhhh, boobs...mmmmmmmmmm!

Speaking of boobs: "I've now been in 57 states -- I think one left to go." --at The Dear Leader at a campaign event in Beaverton, Oregon

re: #174 jorline

Stretch's karma total doesn't even equal annefrance's (sp) one comment down ding total of over 300. Remember that?

I think he wants to be the Barry Bonds of bad karma. Actually, that's kind of redundant.

re: #174 jorline

Stretch's karma total doesn't even equal annefrance's (sp) one comment down ding total of over 300. Remember that?

He really does refuse to provide links to his grade-school level pronouncements, doesn't he?

Can you say Edgar?

re: #166 MandyManners

*WHACK*

♥ ^♥ _♥ ♥

re: #181 Walter L. Newton

He really does refuse to provide links to his grade-school level pronouncements, doesn't he?

Can you say Edgar?

Still got cans of Edgar-Off?

re: #173 Walter L. Newton

Think Vogons!

WTF does the Restaurant at The End of The Universe have to do with serious theology? I mean .. take a look at a timeline of ANYTHING .. it seems to peter along for an extended period and then there is a Whammy which throws the whole event / society into chaos or deletion. Is it a G-d inspired hand? who knows? but it seems to be consistant throughout history. Sure there could be sociological influences, but .. a LOT of them seem inspired.

re: #151 Walter L. Newton

There were all kinds of people supporting some form of eugenics, and even certain laws existed right through the 20th century. Eugenics was not a conservative versus liberal issue.

Read this article and see how many people supported it in some form. Also noticed how little eugenics has to do with evolution.

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

Anybody want to write a book about scientism and the political abuse of science? Or, steer me to a good title, so I can stop obsessing.

re: #166 MandyManners

*WHACK*

That's gonna leave a mark...

Shake... shake... shake... press... press... pppsssttt... pppsssttt... pppsssttt...

Stretch-off (as seens on TV) formely Edgar-off.

(I'm waiting for a troll to sign up on LFG with a name like "piss")

re: #171 Buster Bunny

I do have a big of trouble not believing in God when there is chocolate in the world.

So this creep doesn't like this silly movie. BFD. Ebert is still an arrogant POS.

re: #188 EmmmieG

I do have a big of trouble not believing in God when there is chocolate in the world.

Beer....
Beer is proof God wants us to be happy!

re: #185 Joan

Anybody want to write a book about scientism and the political abuse of science?

The political abuse of science is as old as history itself. "Scientism" is a fictional belief system invented by creationists. It doesn't exist.

"It is not difficult for me to describe how you made me feel by exploiting the deaths of millions of Jews in support of your argument for a peripheral Christian belief. It fills me with contempt."

It is not a peripheral Christian belief to believe God made man, earth, stars and sun. It is the truth. I feel sorry for all the people who have heard the truth and turn their back on God and His Word. Evolution is the secular liberal excuse to take God out of everything.

re: #177 Steve Rogers

When an articulate, well-respected, media-savvy conservative, libertarian, conservative-libertarian, etc. makes a real and entertaining documentary about the benefits of limited government, more freedom, more personal responsibility, etc. and leaves out all the pseudo-scientific nonsense that tries to pass bronze-age myths off as legitimate scientific theories, then – and only then – will a documentary help Republicans start to win more elections. Stein did far more harm to Republicans by preaching to "Creationists" than he or "Creationists" realize. Only "Creationists" went to see that movie. Rational moderate voters who saw any advertisements or news stories about it kept that in the back of their minds at the voting booth. We all know the result.

And should such a documentary ever really be made, once those future Republicans get in office, they need to publicly ignore every "Creationist" and "Intelligent Design" advocate that tries to get them to pass legislation in order to force their religion disguised as science down the throats of other people's children in government schools.

Check out Indoctrinate U.

[Link: indoctrinate-u.com...]

re: #187 Walter L. Newton

Shake... shake... shake... press... press... pppsssttt... pppsssttt... pppsssttt...

Stretch-off (as seens on TV) formely Edgar-off.

(I'm waiting for a troll to sign up on LFG with a name like "piss")

Alas that I have but one up-ding to give...

Oh dear. Typo. Bit of trouble. Not big of trouble. Too much chocolate in the system.

re: #184 Buster Bunny

WTF does the Restaurant at The End of The Universe have to do with serious theology? I mean .. take a look at a timeline of ANYTHING .. it seems to peter along for an extended period and then there is a Whammy which throws the whole event / society into chaos or deletion. Is it a G-d inspired hand? who knows? but it seems to be consistant throughout history. Sure there could be sociological influences, but .. a LOT of them seem inspired.

Ah, look cuddles, I was making a little joke. And unless you are being just as snarky, then I would recommend that you up your meds a bit.

re: #168 razorbacker

One hundred percent of aborted women do not, themselves, go on to have an abortion. Taranto at WSJ calls it the "Roe Effect". It would predict that Conservatives are more likely to bear a child (as opposed to abort it), and thus that Conservatism would be somewhat self-reinforcing as those children, when raised by conservatives, themselves turned out to bear their children in turn.

It's a plausible, if somewhat over simplistic, line of reasoning.

re: #17 tntb

That's because they were. Eugenics was a "progressive" ideal. The modern outgrowth of it is Planned Parenthood, founded by progressive Margaret Sanger. 1/3 of black babies who are conceived are aborted.

Where are there any advocates of eugenics? None, openly. But eugenics of a sort is implicit in our laws against incest. When a very closely related couple (parent/child, brother/sister, or, not quite as extreme, cousin/cousine), have a child, chances are much higher than normal that that child will be burdened with some major genetic defect that will ruin or stunt its life. This is why we have laws against incest. It's also why most people have no interest in such an arrangement. It's a built in feature of human nature that most of us find it repellent.

Those who didn't, tended to breed themselves out of the gene pool.

A mindset favorable to eugenics was implicit in the furious disgust of the left with Sarah Palin. What had she done? Carried a Down syndrome baby to term.

Eugenics was perverted, and inverted, by Hitler. His hatred of Jews was hardly founded in their inability to get through school and learn a trade. Hitler and the Nazis were just out to kill off everybody different from them, and it was convenient to that project to paste the label of "inferior" on all those who were different.

Apart from those who had hopelessly bad luck in the lottery of life and got stuck with bona-fide drastic genetic defects that make them mentally incapable of any sort of independent living, we don't deny anyone the right to have children.

Today's society either just shudders with horror at the whole enterprise of "eugenics" as a proxy for getting rid of so-called inferior peoples, or it takes a more analytical view and arrives at the same conclusion. Every extant race and people is a race of survivors. We are the ones who didn't get voted off the island. We all have some sort of genetic superiority. One in one realm, another in another, perhaps; there is no denying that some people resist sunburn better than others, while others acclimate to high altitude better than still others. But here we are, and nature is still whittling away at all of us. Some live, others die, and it's not always just blind chance. The faster draw wins, the meek (prudent) guy avoids the gunfight altogether, and either way, the wild west becomes the home of the survivor and the burial ground of the loser.

It's not the job of government to embark upon a program of mass murder and call it eugenics. Nature will take care of that.

re: #177 Steve Rogers

When an articulate, well-respected, media-savvy conservative, libertarian, conservative-libertarian, etc. makes a real and entertaining documentary about the benefits of limited government, more freedom, more personal responsibility, etc. and leaves out all the pseudo-scientific nonsense that tries to pass bronze-age myths off as legitimate scientific theories, then – and only then – will a documentary help Republicans start to win more elections.

All you need to do is sit there and read quotes from Thomas Jefferson.

re: #196 Walter L. Newton

Ah, look cuddles, I was making a little joke. And unless you are being just as snarky, then I would recommend that you up your meds a bit.

42

Nuff said.

Now go off and look for the question.

I've never ventured into the comments on an ID thread before.

Interesting stuff.

So, I'm mildly curious to see if there are any "creationists" who are willing to entertain the concept of Darwin's theories as how God built the world?

Personally, and FTR, I am a Christian, I have always giggled at the rigid creationists, but not as much as those who insist that only Darwin's concepts are right.

re: #159 jaunte

Ebert doesn't sound especially friendly to Michael Moore in this review: "Smug and disengenuous..."

[Link: rogerebert.suntimes.com...]

jaunte: thank you for that link. Roger Ebert's views re: Moore seem to have evolved (I guess he didn't like Sicko). But - what are Ebert's current views re: Fahrenheit 9/11? As far as I can tell, Ebert still believes that F9/11 was what Bush's first administration, 2001-2004, deserves. I don't see where Ebert retracted that opinion.

I've never seen Expelled. I don't want to see it. I'm not a creationist (and have a paper trail on this site to prove it). But given Ebert's treatment of F9/11, I have to suspect Ebert's treatment of any other movie which touch up against his prejudices.

re: #185 Joan

Anybody want to write a book about scientism and the political abuse of science? Or, steer me to a good title, so I can stop obsessing.

Any book attacking The Church of Climate Change could be considered a book about pseudo-scientism.

Eugenics was, of course, initially a 'leftist', socialist invention. adopted by racists of all colors, ethnicity, and political persuasion. The great genocides of the 20th Century have been promulgated by atheists in the Western World , China, and Cambodia. But the Japanese were no slouches here as were not the Muslims from the beginning. Ebert's generalization about eugenics is simply wrong. As wrong as Stein's conclusion.

re: #174 jorline

Annefrance was a more unifying troll. Still, I only remember her in the abstract. I can't really recall what it was that she posted, just that it was long and, not to put too fine a point on it, stupid.

re: #196 Walter L. Newton
"Logic, the man's talking logic!"
"We're talking about universal Armeggedon. You green blooded, inhuman..."

re: #150 Salamantis

Thanks for the clarification; I thought the juxtaposition in your original post seemed odd.

re: #176 HelloDare

Ebert displays SCS* every few years.

/*Stopped-Clock Syndrome

re: #192 bitterclinger_in_PA

"It is not difficult for me to describe how you made me feel by exploiting the deaths of millions of Jews in support of your argument for a peripheral Christian belief. It fills me with contempt."

It is not a peripheral Christian belief to believe God made man, earth, stars and sun. It is the truth. I feel sorry for all the people who have heard the truth and turn their back on God and His Word. Evolution is the secular liberal excuse to take God out of everything.

And a hoary old Disco Dewde Wedge strategy talking point once again re-emerges: try to divert the discussion from empirical science vs. religious dogma to atheists vs. God.

re: #176 HelloDare

Here is the last paragraph of Ebert review of "Fahrenheit 9/11"

"Fahrenheit 9/11" is a compelling, persuasive film, at odds with the White House effort to present Bush as a strong leader. He comes across as a shallow, inarticulate man, simplistic in speech and inauthentic in manner. If the film is not quite as electrifying as Moore's "Bowling for Columbine," that may be because Moore has toned down his usual exuberance and was sobered by attacks on the factual accuracy of elements of "Columbine"; playing with larger stakes, he is more cautious here, and we get an op-ed piece, not a stand-up routine. But he remains one of the most valuable figures on the political landscape, a populist rabble-rouser, humorous and effective; the outrage and incredulity in his film are an exhilarating response to Bush's determined repetition of the same stubborn sound bites.

Bringing up an old movie review to reveal that Ebert is "Left" doesn't make anything that he said in the "Expelled" review untrue. You're going to have to attack his "Expelled" review with specific examples.

So, Ben Stein, when you were researching this movie, how much of Ernst Haeckel's, William Sumner's and/or Vladmir Ulyanov's work did you read?

Surely, anyone who wants to be taken seriously on the matter of Darwin's discoveries applied to philosophy would have done at least that much.

re: #197 Iron Fist

One hundred percent of aborted women do not, themselves, go on to have an abortion. Taranto at WSJ calls it the "Roe Effect". It would predict that Conservatives are more likely to bear a child (as opposed to abort it), and thus that Conservatism would be somewhat self-reinforcing as those children, when raised by conservatives, themselves turned out to bear their children in turn.

It's a plausible, if somewhat over simplistic, line of reasoning.

Additionally conservatives are more likely to have children, and have more of them.

I find myself agreeing with Ben on many points....this, however, is not one of them. So sad.

No science is immune to the infection of politics and the corruption of power.
- Jacob Bronowski

From Wikipedia -Jacob Bronowski (18 January 1908 – 22 August 1974) was a British mathematician and biologist of Polish-Jewish origin. He is best remembered as the presenter and writer of the 1973 BBC television documentary series, The Ascent of Man.

Anyone hear of this guy or the series?

re: #201 Piecemaker

I've never ventured into the comments on an ID thread before.

Interesting stuff.

So, I'm mildly curious to see if there are any "creationists" who are willing to entertain the concept of Darwin's theories as how God built the world?

Personally, and FTR, I am a Christian, I have always giggled at the rigid creationists, but not as much as those who insist that only Darwin's concepts are right.

Darwin's theories on how God built the world are probably close to yours. He was a Christian you know.

re: #206 pingjockey

"Logic, the man's talking logic!"
"We're talking about universal Armeggedon. You green blooded, inhuman..."

Thanks, Bones. Get back to sick bay.

re: #197 Iron Fist

That assumes the parents pass on their value system to their children. Which is kind of iffy.

but Annefrace was a good soul
/

re: #166 MandyManners

*WHACK*

(182) scary, looks like noam likes it! Do we have to have an evolution discussion about THIS?
/

re: #204 pat

Eugenics was, of course, initially a 'leftist', socialist invention. adopted by racists of all colors, ethnicity, and political persuasion. The great genocides of the 20th Century have been promulgated by atheists in the Western World , China, and Cambodia. But the Japanese were no slouches here as were not the Muslims from the beginning. Ebert's generalization about eugenics is simply wrong. As wrong as Stein's conclusion.

Ah, left, right, progressive, conservative, all rally had different meaning a hundred years ago...

"The modern field and term were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883,[3] drawing on the recent work of his cousin Charles Darwin. From its inception eugenics was supported by prominent people, including H. G. Wells, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, William Keith Kellogg, Margaret Sanger, Winston Churchill, and Sidney Webb.[4][5][6] G. K. Chesterton was an early critic of the philosophy of eugenics, expressing this opinion in his book, Eugenics and Other Evils. Eugenics became an academic discipline at many colleges and universities, and received funding from many sources"

re: #213 hurricane567

I find myself agreeing with Ben on many points....this, however, is not one of them. So sad.

Its a common way of brainwashing a person .. you tell them three truths and sell them one lie. After the last three being truths .. the fourth MUST be true.

I thank my advanced course in business sales for teaching me that one :)

re: #217 mich-again

That assumes the parents pass on their value system to their children. Which is kind of iffy.

Yeah, but if you have no children you're certain not to pass on the value system.

re: #207 reine.de.tout

Thanks for the clarification; I thought the juxtaposition in your original post seemed odd.

Juxtaposition - "I went to the employment office, and they gave me juxtaposition I was looking for!"

re: #209 Salamantis

And a hoary old Disco Dewde Wedge strategy talking point once again re-emerges: try to divert the discussion from empirical science vs. religious dogma to atheists vs. God.

Kind of hits home there salamander

Okay, I think we can all agree that Ben Stein has way too much money and has gone off the deep end.

Economically too, although he means well.

That said, compare the box office for Expelleed $7,598,071 with Bill Maher's atheist film, Religulous $12,889,735 .

/they're both bombs that no one saw, but one's twice the bomb, what does that tell you?

re: #154 swamprat

How many Pygmies?
How did they manage to debone all those poor souls?
Who paid the shipping costs for all those skeletons?
Where are they now? There should be stacks of them, somewhere.

The story is bogus. A fake.

Here you go:

One of the most fascinating historical accounts about the fallout of biological evolution theory on human relations is the story of Ota Benga, a pygmy who was put on display in an American zoo as an example of an evolutionarily inferior race. The incident clearly reveals the racism of evolutionary theory and the extent that the theory gripped the hearts and minds of scientists and journalists in the late 1800s. As humans move away from this time in history, we can more objectively look back at the horrors that evolutionary theory has brought to society of which this story is a poignant example.

and your link:

[Link: www.rae.org...]

re: #201 Piecemaker

I've never ventured into the comments on an ID thread before.

Interesting stuff.

So, I'm mildly curious to see if there are any "creationists" who are willing to entertain the concept of Darwin's theories as how God built the world?

Personally, and FTR, I am a Christian, I have always giggled at the rigid creationists, but not as much as those who insist that only Darwin's concepts are right.

No, the Roman Catholic monk Gregor Mendel's concepts were right, too.

One of these days I'll head off to work and my job just wont be there anymore. It will have either evolved to a higher level or been rendered extinct. At which point I will take my retirement funds and migrate south to do some mating over the border.

re: #212 JCM

Yeah. Over time the Left may wind up culling themselves out of the herd. "Teach your children well" ceases to matter when you don't have them. Of course, the Left have made great headway in monopolizing primary education, so they get to teach your children what they want them to believe, at least if you use the Socialized school system.

re: #202 Zimriel

Based on the review that HelloDare linked, Ebert has his share of BDS.
Still, I agree with him that Moore is a populist rabble-rouser. I think he gives him too much of a pass for lying by calling it "exuberance."

In any case, he is deadly accurate in his criticism of Expelled.

re: #226 stretch

Link don't work Einstein.

re: #223 Wyatt Earp

Juxtaposition - "I went to the employment office, and they gave me juxtaposition I was looking for!"

And our word of the day is...

re: #217 mich-again

So what are you doing to teach your children your values?

My daughter had to memorize the Declaration of Independence.

I challenged a bunch of boys in our homeschool group to read the correspondence of Jefferson and Adams before they are 16.

Conservative values don't happen on their own.

re: #214 DistantThunder

No science is immune to the infection of politics and the corruption of power.
- Jacob Bronowski

Anyone hear of this guy or the series?

I own the book, read it cover to cover and back in my teens, but haven't read from it in many years. Maybe time to dust it off.

re: #232 gclaghorn

And our word of the day is...

Dumb joke my Uncle Ray always gets me laughing with.

re: #175 Salamantis

Don't worry...I eventually get around to replying to all the posts I wanna reply to anyway...

/yeah, that's a bit creepy, after everyone's gone, hours or days later

re: #210 gman

Bringing up an old movie review to reveal that Ebert is "Left" doesn't make anything that he said in the "Expelled" review untrue. You're going to have to attack his "Expelled" review with specific examples.

Yeah...ad hominem is a 2500 year old greek logical fallacy, and nothing deduced in the interim has rendered it any more legitimate.

re: #214 DistantThunder

No science is immune to the infection of politics and the corruption of power.
- Jacob Bronowski

From Wikipedia -Jacob Bronowski (18 January 1908 – 22 August 1974) was a British mathematician and biologist of Polish-Jewish origin. He is best remembered as the presenter and writer of the 1973 BBC television documentary series, The Ascent of Man.

Anyone hear of this guy or the series?

Yes, and I've read some of his books

re: #235 Wyatt Earp

Dumb joke my Uncle Ray always gets me laughing with.

I challenge all wizards to use the word "indubitably" in context before the end of the thread.

And by the way folks, I just looked over the site that Stretch tried to link to...

[Link: www.rae.org...]

FULL of the typical pseudo-science and phony research.

re: #239 gclaghorn

I challenge all wizards to use the word "indubitably" in context before the end of the thread.

Wizards? Whatever. I meant lizards.

re: #161 MandyManners

Thanks!

My home-town STILL has a statue of Forrest. Unfuckingbelievable.

If you mean Memphis, the statue is likely still there because that's where Forrest and his wife are buried.

re: #181 Walter L. Newton

He really does refuse to provide links to his grade-school level pronouncements, doesn't he?

Can you say Edgar?

GMTA Walter

re: #211 gmsc

So, Ben Stein, when you were researching this movie, how much of Ernst Haeckel's, William Sumner's and/or Vladmir Ulyanov's work did you read?

Surely, anyone who wants to be taken seriously on the matter of Darwin's discoveries applied to philosophy would have done at least that much.

Haeckel lived more than a hundred years ago, and it was evolutionary scientists - embryologists - who exposed his duplicity.

re: #231 Walter L. Newton

Link don't work Einstein.

trying again...

[Link: www.rae.org...]

the hote from the site said "website addresses are automatically converted to hyperlinks." dunno

re: #230 jaunte

The most Leftist person I've ever known thought that F9/11 was pure bullshit. And we're talking about someone who did move to the East Block at the height of the Cold War.

re: #229 Iron Fist

Yeah. Over time the Left may wind up culling themselves out of the herd. "Teach your children well" ceases to matter when you don't have them. Of course, the Left have made great headway in monopolizing primary education, so they get to teach your children what they want them to believe, at least if you use the Socialized school system.

That's the SPAMMer theory of values transmission. You don't transmit your values to every student, but since they all have to listen you're bound to get some of them. Then they tell a friend, and they tell a friend, and before you know it, something really stupid happens.

re: #226 stretch

Here you go:

One of the most fascinating historical accounts about the fallout of biological evolution theory on human relations is the story of Ota Benga, a pygmy who was put on display in an American zoo as an example of an evolutionarily inferior race. The incident clearly reveals the racism of evolutionary theory and the extent that the theory gripped the hearts and minds of scientists and journalists in the late 1800s. As humans move away from this time in history, we can more objectively look back at the horrors that evolutionary theory has brought to society of which this story is a poignant example.

and your link:

[Link: www.rae.org...]

It didn't take long to look over that link of yours, Einstein. It's broken. Try again.

re: #241 gclaghorn

Wizards? Whatever. I meant lizards.

I can only do it by quoting, "Lolly, Lolly, Lolly, Get Your Adverbs Here."

re: #229 Iron Fist

Yeah. Over time the Left may wind up culling themselves out of the herd. "Teach your children well" ceases to matter when you don't have them. Of course, the Left have made great headway in monopolizing primary education, so they get to teach your children what they want them to believe, at least if you use the Socialized school system.

Aye, there in lies rub.

Recapturing eduction is critical. And pushing creationism as science doesn't help in the least bit.

Indubitably, the dinosaurs would have stuck around if they had known we were going to invent chocolate chip cookies.

I can say that after 25 years of marriage I have brought Mr DT from a near-neanderthal being to a more highly evolved and enlightened life form - who still occasionally devolves into rudimentary survival behaviors.

re: #210 gman

Bringing up an old movie review to reveal that Ebert is "Left" doesn't make anything that he said in the "Expelled" review untrue. You're going to have to attack his "Expelled" review with specific examples.

I am not defending "Expelled". I think the movie is crap. I was going after Ebert. I wish he had used the same critical eye when reviewing Moore's film. See my comment #143.

re: #178 Thanos

Stretch sounds trollish to me. Like he is projecting his inner racist that consumes his identity and wants to project that out onto a group of people. S**t colored glasses.

re: #226 stretch

It does no such thing. It exhibits the racism of the time, the same racism that existed before Darwin's book was written, or have you forgotten slavery?

re: #226 stretch

and your link:

[Link: www.rae.org...]

Oh, most impressive!

AHH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH (breathe) HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH ... hah ... heh...
.
.
.
.
AHH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH....