On Charles Darwin’s birthday, the Chairman of Virginia’s Republican Party stammers out, “Darwin is best known for the theory of evolution, arguing that men are not only, quote, are, are only, not, not created, but they are not equal, as more, as some are more evolved. Whereas Darwin’s theory was used by atheists to explain away the belief in God….”
Good grief. Why are they always Republicans?
3 |
Ben G. Hazi Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:04:15pm |
Congratlations, Mr. Frederick....you're a certified dipshit!
Enjoy!
| 5 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:04:29pm |
And here is where he got that... it's by William Federer at...
[Link: www.amerisearch.net...]
| 6 |
Kragar Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:05:10pm |
Jeff Frederick, you ignorant slut!
/point-counterpoint mode
| 7 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:05:13pm |
More on William Federer...
[Link: www.amerisearch.net...]
| 8 |
Miles Smit Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:05:27pm |
Good point, in a way. It would be better to SEPARATE Darwin's indisputable significance as a scientist, from the political or cultural influence the popularized notions have had.
| 9 |
winston06 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:05:40pm |
What a moron! Could he just not open his mouth about things he has no clue about?
| 10 |
Sharmuta Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:05:41pm |
First- the guy's a piss poor speaker.
Second- he completely mischaracterized Charles Darwin.
What a putz.
| 13 |
rawmuse Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:07:43pm |
Ah, in the age of teh intrawebs, you can rest assured that someone, somewhere is making an utter dork of himself.
| 14 |
Gus Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:07:57pm |
Chairman of Virginia's Republican Party no less. And I gave to the GOP last year to have to hear this?
| 15 |
Tigger2005 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:08:19pm |
Charles! You're obsessed! Why do you hate Christians? The hostility beats upon me like the rays of the desert sun!
| 17 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:08:29pm |
re: #12 Sharmuta
BTW- this guy's a republican. The only one I've thus far been able to locate who opposed ID in the classrooms.
And did you see my link above? He's getting his material from William Federer... and so is a lot of other politicians.
[Link: www.amerisearch.net...]
This is like talking points.
| 18 |
BryanS Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:08:46pm |
re: #15 Tigger2005
Charles! You're obsessed! Why do you hate Christians? The hostility beats upon me like the rays of the desert sun!
3, 2, 1 ...
| 19 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:08:50pm |
re: #11 Killer Tomato
His speech: Red meat to his constituents.
Charles's posting it: My guess, to further demonstrate that the current Republican leadership have their priorities screwed up.
| 23 |
Mostly sane, most of the time. Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:10:02pm |
re: #12 Sharmuta
BTW- this guy's a republican. The only one I've thus far been able to locate who opposed ID in the classrooms.
So, to get it out on the table now--both the guy talking about ID in the classroom, and the governor saying no are LDS.
| 24 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:10:05pm |
Alas,
We know why they are always Republicans. The Republican high command has wed itself to the Pat Robertsons of the world.
IMHO this is a tactical blunder of the highest magnitude. Most conservatives are not going to steam about evolution like they would steam about things like defense and the economy. In fact, I think that most conservatives are a little fed up with the Religious Right's attempts to destroy the Establishment Clause, but put up with the bones thrown them because the do not see the Dems doing as well on other issues that they care about more.
The problem of course is, I have a very very hard time voting for someone who says such anti-scientific crap. If they actually believe what they are saying, then they are stupid, and I do not want them in office. If they are just cravenly throwing bones to the religious right at the expense of the Constitution and science for political reasons, then I realize that they have done their math wrong in terms of what matters in serving the people best - and do not care for political reasons.
| 25 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:10:24pm |
He's reading this shit right off the internet. Right off of the site I posted. He didn't write this, or think of this, he's using his laptop as a teleprompter.
| 26 |
Occasional Reader Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:10:53pm |
| 27 |
Basho Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:11:04pm |
Aw... Darwin's bday is over for me. I had fun. Thanks LGF =) Guess I'll stay ten minutes on this thread before calling it a night...
| 28 |
Tigger2005 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:11:08pm |
Sarc sarc sarc!
Good thing Charles knows me ...
| 29 |
BignJames Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:11:26pm |
Wow....I saw it that time. Stink's backhand be bad.
| 30 |
palarson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:11:30pm |
Hate to say it but it looks like the author of this article from this week's U.S.News And World Report has been observing the Darwinists in this community:
Over the years, Darwinists have evolved a variety of strategies to accomplish these goals. We see each of these strategies in play in the op-eds and comments by Darwinists in this present forum on U.S. News and World Report. I'll discuss how my opponents on this forum use the strategies of (1) Ridicule, Demonization, and Character Assassination; (2) Equating Darwin-Skeptics with Religion; (3) Persecute Darwin-Skeptics; and (4) Pretend There Is No Scientific Controversy Over Evolution in order to try to dissuade you, the reader, from thinking for yourself on this subject.
| 32 |
BryanS Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:12:24pm |
re: #28 Tigger2005
Sarc sarc sarc!
Good thing Charles knows me ...
I undid my down ding...definitely sarc tags are your friend :)
| 33 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:12:36pm |
re: #28 Tigger2005
Sarc sarc sarc!
Good thing Charles knows me ...
That's been you plan all the time, hasn't it. You come here, make out like you are just a furry, fluffy, cuddly friendly tiger, and then, when no one is looking, you bite the hand that RSS feeds ya.
Fiend.
:)
| 35 |
Kragar Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:13:26pm |
re: #28 Tigger2005
Sarc sarc sarc!
Good thing Charles knows me ...
Does this mean we wont be throwing anyone to the lions later?
WHAT A RIP OFF!
/// (throwing in a an extra one for tig / )
| 36 |
Tigger2005 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:13:40pm |
I had fun on Darwin's birthday too. Ate a little cake, drank a little punch, evolved a set of gills. If I had a girlfriend and a hot tub, I might never come to the surface.
| 37 |
Charles Johnson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:13:42pm |
re: #30 palarson
Casey Luskin - the dimmest bulb in the Discovery Institute's roster of burned out pseudo-scientists.
| 38 |
unclassifiable Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:14:03pm |
I haven't seen so much "disappointment" expressed since New Coke.
| 39 |
Charles Johnson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:14:35pm |
Here's the idiotic article palarson thinks is genius:
[Link: www.usnews.com...]
| 40 |
Gus Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:14:41pm |
re: #37 Charles
Casey Luskin - the dimmest bulb in the Discovery Institute's roster of burned out pseudo-scientists.
Hey, light bulbs deserve more respect than that.
/s
| 42 |
jaunte Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:15:12pm |
re: #12 Sharmuta
BTW- this guy's a republican. The only one I've thus far been able to locate who opposed ID in the classrooms.
[Link: deseretnews.com...]
Sounds like someone worth keeping track of.
| 44 |
Gus Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:15:34pm |
Is he one of those guys that own his very own petrified brains?
| 45 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:15:36pm |
re: #24 LudwigVanQuixote
Conservatives have a lot of evidence from recent history that the religious right are not on our side. Observe how they reacted to the Terry Schiavo case (when what they truly value was at stake), versus how they've handled 1) the prescription drug benefit (healthcare) 2) the first "stimulus" etc... They have priorities other than what they'll agree to in public to keep the conservatives voting for them, and when push comes to shove, if their core values aren't at stake, they'll waver like they did with the first "stimulus" bill instead of standing firm like they did in the Sciavo case.
P.S. for the record, I HIGHLY disapprove of what they did in the Schiavo case; their values, not mine.
| 47 |
yesandno Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:15:48pm |
Was more fun when politicians were concerned only with a chicken in every pot, getting garbage trucks to pick up the garbage on a regular schedule, and took money under the table.
Now everyone is an expert and fools rush in where angel's dare to tread.....
/or is that where they fear to thread?
| 48 |
Randall Gross Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:16:01pm |
re: #25 Walter L. Newton
He's reading this shit right off the internet. Right off of the site I posted. He didn't write this, or think of this, he's using his laptop as a teleprompter.
So he's a plagiarist as well.
| 49 |
MandyManners Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:16:15pm |
| 50 |
WindHorse Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:16:17pm |
This guy reminds me of a guy I know who can't hold a job, who thinks of himself as a trend setter...
| 51 |
palarson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:16:23pm |
That's "1":
(2) Equating Darwin-Skeptics with Religion;
| 52 |
pat Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:16:26pm |
OT
I am so over gay movies. The gay/ transvestite crap is a one line joke. Knock knock. Sorry to interrupt. Going through HBO. These movies must make someone money, but it is not on ticket sales.
| 53 |
Charles Johnson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:17:04pm |
| 54 |
palarson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:17:08pm |
That's "2":
Casey Luskin - the dimmest bulb in the Discovery Institute's roster of burned out pseudo-scientists.
| 55 |
BlueCanuck Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:17:24pm |
re: #20 Charles
He was just beating you to the punch. Speed is not your friend sometimes.
| 56 |
MandyManners Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:17:25pm |
C'mon, someone post something idiotic so I, too, can watch Mr. Beaumont's wrench come down as it happens.
| 57 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:17:31pm |
re: #34 Sharmuta
You didn't read my link, did you?
I did. What did it have to do with my link. The only reason I put two and two together on where the congress guy in the above video got his material from, was because WIlliam Federer was on a radio talk show I was listening to an hour ago, and he started off reading this little column of his.
And when I heard the guy above, I realized he was reading this off a web site.
| 58 |
Randall Gross Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:17:46pm |
Btw: RS showed up to try to refute one of my comments at HA.
| 59 |
palarson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:18:27pm |
That's "3":
(3) Persecute Darwin-Skeptics; and
| 60 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:18:27pm |
| 62 |
NJDhockeyfan Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:19:25pm |
Fox News just reported a small plane crashed into a house in Buffalo.
| 63 |
Mostly sane, most of the time. Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:19:29pm |
re: #56 MandyManners
C'mon, someone post something idiotic so I, too, can watch Mr. Beaumont's wrench come down as it happens.
It's awesome, like watching lightening streak across the sky...like watching my boys race to the cookies...like Obama's unicorn in flight...
Okay, too many chocolate covered raisins for me, but you get my point.
| 65 |
jcw46 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:19:35pm |
re: #38 unclassifiable
In case you don't go back to the previous thread, I corrected my down dinged. (you quoted the one I down dinged) sorry, my bad.
| 66 |
Charles Johnson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:19:39pm |
re: #59 palarson
Aw. Is palarson feeling persecuted again by the evil Darwinian atheists? Here, have a martyr cookie.
| 67 |
unclassifiable Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:20:02pm |
| 68 |
Sharmuta Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:20:09pm |
re: #57 Walter L. Newton
It just seemed to be confusing the two men, is all. No biggie.
| 69 |
BlueCanuck Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:20:16pm |
re: #56 MandyManners
C'mon, someone post something idiotic so I, too, can watch Mr. Beaumont's wrench come down as it happens.
Nope, won't do it. Not at all. I like my scales pristine and shiny.
| 70 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:20:33pm |
Let me reiterate to the one who dinged me...
Upholding the Establishment Clause is and should continue to be a conservative value. You would not want me coming into your school to teach your kids doctrine - unless they were Jewish - and you certainly would not want me using my credentials as a scientist to use the authority of science to back my faith based arguments no matter what your faith - if you are an honest intellectual.
I am personally very tired of the hypocritical rant about "Liberals adjudicating from the bench, uphold the Constitution!" coming out of the same mouths that would tear down the Establishment Clause.
| 71 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:20:39pm |
| 73 |
Kragar Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:20:50pm |
I thought the chief weapon of the Darwinists was suprise.
or was it suprise and fear?
| 74 |
BlueCanuck Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:21:13pm |
re: #66 Charles
I thought you were all out of martyr points today?
/oh wait, that was a cookie. My bad.
| 76 |
palarson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:22:57pm |
Okay, its been well over two minutes now. We'll all have to just "remember" that some of you don't believe there's any cause for skepticism...
That's "4"
(4) Pretend There Is No Scientific Controversy Over Evolution in order to try to dissuade you, the reader, from thinking for yourself on this subject.
Its like shooting fish in a barrel.
| 77 |
BlueCanuck Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:23:00pm |
re: #71 Walter L. Newton
How old are you? Really? Can you answer that ONE question for me?
In my experience a sign of immaturity, or guilt, is answering a question with a question. Or a statement that they aren't doing what is wrong at that moment.
| 78 |
WindHorse Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:23:12pm |
eee-lec-trical banana.... is going to be the very next craze.....
| 79 |
Gus Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:23:35pm |
Liz Dole pulled some stunt regarding atheists during the election.
| 80 |
Sharmuta Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:23:51pm |
re: #76 palarson
We'll all have to just "remember" that some of you don't believe there's any cause for skepticism.
Cite an example.
| 81 |
Charles Johnson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:24:01pm |
re: #76 palarson
Okay, its been well over two minutes now. We'll all have to just "remember" that some of you don't believe there's any cause for skepticism...
That's "4"
Its like shooting fish in a barrel.
You'll have to excuse the delay in responding to your crushing arguments. We are all stunned by your brilliance.
| 82 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:24:54pm |
re: #81 Charles
You'll have to excuse the delay in responding to your crushing arguments. We are all stunned by your brilliance.
Er, I'm not.
| 83 |
unclassifiable Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:25:11pm |
| 84 |
MandyManners Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:25:12pm |
I feel a fresh dose of crankiness coming on so I'll bid you all a good night.
| 85 |
BignJames Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:25:13pm |
re: #76 palarson
Okay, its been well over two minutes now. We'll all have to just "remember" that some of you don't believe there's any cause for skepticism...
That's "4"
Its like shooting fish in a barrel.
Like what?
| 86 |
palarson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:25:15pm |
| 87 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:25:26pm |
re: #76 palarson
The key word is Scientific. There are a lot of religious types trying to bring people to Jesus and throwing hand fulls of fallacies at the Theory of Evolution.
| 88 |
BlueCanuck Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:25:31pm |
re: #76 palarson
Okay, its been well over two minutes now. We'll all have to just "remember" that some of you don't believe there's any cause for skepticism...
That's "4"
Its like shooting fish in a barrel.
The only "controversy" over evolution is what the DI, IDers, and creationists say is controversy. All true scientists have the proof backing up there statements on evolution. Be it genetic, fossil, or on going research. You sir are a troll.
/I hereby toss the green smoke and await a fire solution from all those qualified.
| 90 |
Charles Johnson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:25:38pm |
First down-dinger: johnny_t.
What do we have for him, Don Pardo?
| 91 |
Randall Gross Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:25:53pm |
re: #76 palarson
Nobody's pretending there's zero controversy in evolution, if you don't believe there is go to a conference sometime. We all know however that "ID" is not the controversy since there's zero science behind the Discovery institute's weak hypothesis.
| 92 |
MandyManners Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:25:58pm |
re: #79 Gus 802
Liz Dole pulled some stunt regarding atheists during the election.
Her campaign accused her opponent of being "a godless atheist". IRRC, her opponent taught Sunday school.
Now, to bed for sure.
| 93 |
Syrah Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:25:58pm |
| 94 |
johnny_t Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:26:02pm |
Let me ask you this: If you believe in the theory of natural selection, how do you explain homosexuality? Are they breeding asexually somewhere? Total bunk.
| 96 |
Charles Johnson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:26:33pm |
re: #94 johnny_t
Let me ask you this: If you believe in the theory of natural selection, how do you explain homosexuality? Are they breeding asexually somewhere? Total bunk.
Clearly, they've been possessed by little demons dressed in purple.
| 97 |
BlueCanuck Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:26:39pm |
re: #84 MandyManners
Night Mandy, just leave the whacking stick by the door. We will probably need it tonight.
| 98 |
rawmuse Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:26:49pm |
re: #90 Charles
A fine dining room set made from the hides of many wild Naugas, in avocado green.
| 99 |
Sharmuta Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:26:55pm |
re: #90 Charles
You've given the downdingers quite a workout today- their fingers are sore.
You're so mean. ////
| 100 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:26:59pm |
re: #45 Dan G.
Conservatives have a lot of evidence from recent history that the religious right are not on our side. Observe how they reacted to the Terry Schiavo case (when what they truly value was at stake), versus how they've handled 1) the prescription drug benefit (healthcare) 2) the first "stimulus" etc... They have priorities other than what they'll agree to in public to keep the conservatives voting for them, and when push comes to shove, if their core values aren't at stake, they'll waver like they did with the first "stimulus" bill instead of standing firm like they did in the Sciavo case.
P.S. for the record, I HIGHLY disapprove of what they did in the Schiavo case; their values, not mine.
I hear you
| 101 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:27:14pm |
re: #94 johnny_t
Wow! Stunning logic. Are you saying that homosexuals are a different species from humans?
| 103 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:27:27pm |
| 104 |
Rob with a mind Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:27:28pm |
So many people on both sides bloviating poand making "mortal enemies("Exaggeration") of people they like and otherwise respect.. We should think about only celebrating the anniversary's of people we know something about like Abraham Lincoln. God bless all who care enough to walk a mile in their brother(or sisters) boots
| 107 |
BlueCanuck Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:28:13pm |
re: #93 Syrah
What is your point?
Do you have a point?
Yeah, on top of it's pointy little head.
/sorry, don't mean to get so juvenile. I blame work.
//and the booze.
| 108 |
BryanS Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:28:46pm |
re: #94 johnny_t
Let me ask you this: If you believe in the theory of natural selection, how do you explain homosexuality? Are they breeding asexually somewhere? Total bunk.
Heh. Sure they are...in vitro...turkey baster...lots of options.
| 109 |
Randall Gross Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:28:54pm |
Yeah, at the tail end of the Spencer thread they were saying how they had to come over and ding down posts... and they call Charles obsessed. heh.
| 110 |
palarson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:28:58pm |
| 111 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:29:02pm |
re: #104 Rob with a mind
I neither like nor respect those you are referring to. And check your pronouns, I know plenty about Darwin.
| 112 |
Sharmuta Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:29:29pm |
re: #110 palarson
Do you have an example to cite for me or what?
| 113 |
Syrah Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:29:35pm |
| 114 |
unclassifiable Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:29:37pm |
re: #76 palarson
Okay, its been well over two minutes now. We'll all have to just "remember" that some of you don't believe there's any cause for skepticism...
That's "4"
Its like shooting fish in a barrel.
So palarson please explain the perfect non-controversial thing that you believe in.
We are all ears at this point with your brilliant repartee.
| 115 |
johnny_t Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:29:42pm |
re: #101 Dan G.
Come now, don't play dumb. Leave that to the liberals.
| 116 |
Charles Johnson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:30:15pm |
| 117 |
BlueCanuck Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:30:28pm |
re: #106 Charles
It's a creationist invasion!
Well what do you expect? That's all you blog about these days anyway. What about more important issues like...
/tongue planted firmly in cheek.
| 118 |
jcw46 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:30:31pm |
re: #70 LudwigVanQuixote
I almost down dinged you myself because I don't believe the "republican high command" is catering to the "religious right" (that btw is a left wing buzzword). In fact, I'd be willing to bet that if McCain had sucked up to a few more "religious right" folks, he might have won the election. I'm not saying they should go along with any daydreams of the PTL Club or the 700 Club but most conservative christians are mostly conservative fiscally and contrary to what some might believe (because of a few liberal catholic priests) conservative christians believe in defending the United States and Israel (and not just the apocalyptics). Whereas the Northeast Liberal wing of the GOP (you know who I mean) are mainly fiscal conservatives and care little to nothing about the social issues (you know like abortion and euthanasia) and lukewarm about Foreign policy issues as long as business is up and running.
Anytime a Republican goes conservative they win. Proven fact.
| 119 |
Gus Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:30:44pm |
Homosexuality and evolution? Let me postulate for second. Perhaps to lower the birth rate to cull the species thus lowering the number of American citizens requiring Federal entitlement programs thus increasing an already astronomically high Federal deficit.
/part sarcasm
| 120 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:30:49pm |
re: #110 palarson
Um. No. You claimed someone was doing "X". You got called to indicate who said "X". Do it, or you forfeit any claim to relevance.
| 121 |
Sharmuta Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:30:57pm |
re: #104 Rob with a mind
We should think about only celebrating the anniversary's of people we know something about
Right- because nobody knows anything about Darwin's life. [eye roll]
| 122 |
Gella Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:31:00pm |
hmm, thanks google for this info
"Homosexuals Reproduce Sexually by Molesting Children”
[Link: www.rightwingwatch.org...]
| 123 |
johnny_t Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:31:54pm |
re: #106 Charles
Hey, it's your show Charles. You gonna set up some re-education camps for those of us who choose to believe that God created the earth? Wow, such diversity, such tolerance.
| 124 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:32:18pm |
re: #115 johnny_t
What's wrong with freedom? And now, answer the question. You clearly cast homosexual's in a genetic "dead-end" role as though they're a different species. Confirm your stance or deny it, don't dodge it. Its a sin to be dishonest (unless you're Muslim).
| 125 |
BlueCanuck Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:32:28pm |
re: #122 Gella
Not even going to click on that link. Alarm bells are ringing here in my head. Something sounds wrong about that statement.
| 126 |
Gella Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:32:28pm |
re: #123 johnny_t
Hey, it's your show Charles. You gonna set up some re-education camps for those of us who choose to believe that God created the earth? Wow, such diversity, such tolerance.
quick question: what century do you live on? just wondering
| 127 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:32:32pm |
re: #104 Rob with a mind
Can someone translate that paragraph to me. I didn't know they had internet access in the Appalachians Mountains.
| 128 |
Charles Johnson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:32:34pm |
re: #123 johnny_t
Hey, it's your show Charles. You gonna set up some re-education camps for those of us who choose to believe that God created the earth? Wow, such diversity, such tolerance.
Yep. I'm building them right now.
Hey, Stinky! Where's that razor wire I ordered?
| 129 |
Sharmuta Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:32:42pm |
re: #115 johnny_t
Um- a minority of homosexuals in any species doesn't prevent the majority of the species from reproducing, so your "argument" is fallacious.
| 130 |
Gella Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:33:03pm |
re: #125 BlueCanuck
Not even going to click on that link. Alarm bells are ringing here in my head. Something sounds wrong about that statement.
ya, i puked in my mouth a little bit
| 132 |
Charles Johnson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:33:35pm |
These creationists come pre-martyred.
| 133 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:33:46pm |
re: #123 johnny_t
Where does Darwin talk about Evolution creating the Earth? I must of missed that chapter...
| 134 |
Mardukhai Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:34:25pm |
Charles -- Why do you think I'm not a Repub? It's because all ideologies fail when tested by reality.
They may fail at different things, but a round world can't fit inside a square idea. You can quote me on that.
| 136 |
jaunte Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:34:38pm |
re: #118 jcw46
Anytime a Republican goes conservative they win. Proven fact.
What do you mean by conservative?
| 137 |
Killer Tomato Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:34:53pm |
re: #131 Sharmuta
I just checked Mrs. Fields' website. They seem to be out.
| 138 |
johnny_t Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:34:55pm |
re: #124 Dan G.
Wow! Now I'm a muslim? Sheesh!
I'll answer your question with a question....do you believe homosexuality to be a choice or a genetic trait?
| 140 |
unclassifiable Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:35:37pm |
Woe is me.
Can't be a dem.
Can't be a repub.
Guess I'll have to join the 60% who are independent.
I weep little tears of rejection.
| 141 |
BlueCanuck Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:35:48pm |
Karma: -297
palarson
(Logged in)
Registered since: Feb 14, 2008 at 7:29 pm
No. of comments posted: 66
No. of links posted: 0
Karma: 4
johnny_t
(Logged in)
Registered since: May 28, 2007 at 7:13 pm
No. of comments posted: 30
No. of links posted: 1
Hmmm, I smell two more sets of buttocks for the fridge. Brine these suckers for better flavour?
/meat is back on the menu boys.
| 142 |
Gella Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:35:52pm |
re: #138 johnny_t
Wow! Now I'm a muslim? Sheesh!
I'll answer your question with a question....do you believe homosexuality to be a choice or a genetic trait?
as far as i remember in most cases its genetic trait, i was wondering how can u choose who u are?
| 143 |
Kragar Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:35:54pm |
re: #129 Sharmuta
Um- a minority of homosexuals in any species doesn't prevent the majority of the species from reproducing, so your "argument" is fallacious.
Very true
List of animals displaying homosexual behavior
Animal sexual behavior takes many different forms, even within the same species and the motivations for and implications of their behaviors have yet to be fully understood. Bagemihl's research shows that homosexual behavior, not necessarily sex, has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.[5][6]
| 144 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:36:08pm |
re: #138 johnny_t
Wow! Now I'm a muslim? Sheesh!
I'll answer your question with a question....do you believe homosexuality to be a choice or a genetic trait?
Oh what the fuck does it matter? What are you afraid of?
| 145 |
CorruptedSynapses Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:36:15pm |
re: #133 Dan G.
Where does Darwin talk about Evolution creating the Earth? I must of missed that chapter...
Chapter XVI of The Origin of Species.
(sorry, bad joke)
| 147 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:36:34pm |
re: #134 Mardukhai
Nah, only bad ideas fail. And ideologies are composed of distinct ideas, some of which can be fallacious and therefore introduce instability into the whole; leading to eventual collapse. But that doesn't negate the possibility of aggregating a set of good, in tune with reality, ideas and integrating them into a good ideology.
| 148 |
pat Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:36:48pm |
re: #129 Sharmuta
And if learned or due to a hormonal wash, it would have nothing to do with evolution.
| 149 |
Gella Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:36:56pm |
re: #144 Walter L. Newton
Oh what the fuck does it matter? What are you afraid of?
his kids can be homosexuals?
| 150 |
Sharmuta Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:37:09pm |
re: #138 johnny_t
Any response to #129, or would that get in the way of you earning your martyr points?
| 151 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:37:18pm |
re: #94 johnny_t
Let me ask you this: If you believe in the theory of natural selection, how do you explain homosexuality? Are they breeding asexually somewhere? Total bunk.
OK, here is a thought for you, actually two. First your argument assumes a genetic basis for homosexuality. I am inclined to believe that it is more nature than nurture, but that is a secondary argument - and not one that I am getting into here. Your argument depends on it being nature.
Suppose that there are certain common things that come up genetically that are a little less likely than average, but common, like being left handed.
This does not confer a survival disadvantage. There is no predator that preys on "normal right handed parents" who nonetheless sometimes produce lefty kids. In fact they may have several kids who are not lefty also.
No suppose being lefty were something that took you out of the gene pool. Say all women hated you for it or that there was a nasty lefty eating tiger infestation. Guess what, your righty brothers and sisters still have a chance of making a lefty baby. In fact, so do people who have no lefty relatives they know of.
That means that there will pretty much always be some lefties in the population. Get it?
| 152 |
Abu Maven Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:37:23pm |
Horrible plane crash just happened in Buffalo. All 48 passengers reported dead.
| 153 |
johnny_t Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:37:31pm |
re: #128 Charles
At least you still have a sense of humor about it. Really though, I'm not marching up and down the streets, nor am I demanding the theory of evolution be taught in the schools, so I'm not quite sure why you are so anxious to burn us all at the stake. Let's get back to the stuff that matters...I'm getting really bored by all the anti-creationist posts...there is so much more stuff going on that could be talked about.....but again, this is your show, not mine.
| 154 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:37:36pm |
re: #138 johnny_t
Nice red herring. Answer my question first, you don't get to dodge it. You threw it out into the public arena, now stand up for it you coward!
| 156 |
Gus Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:38:08pm |
re: #152 Abu Maven
Horrible plane crash just happened in Buffalo. All 48 passengers reported dead.
48? Sheesh, that's bad.
| 157 |
Charles Johnson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:38:13pm |
re: #153 johnny_t
At least you still have a sense of humor about it. Really though, I'm not marching up and down the streets, nor am I demanding the theory of evolution be taught in the schools, so I'm not quite sure why you are so anxious to burn us all at the stake. Let's get back to the stuff that matters...I'm getting really bored by all the anti-creationist posts...there is so much more stuff going on that could be talked about.....but again, this is your show, not mine.
Hey, Stinky! Bring me some more kindling!
| 158 |
Gella Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:38:30pm |
re: #152 Abu Maven
Horrible plane crash just happened in Buffalo. All 48 passengers reported dead.
here is more info on this
[Link: www.airliners.net...]
:(
| 159 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:38:36pm |
re: #153 johnny_t
And do you know what happens to people who tell Charles what to post?
| 160 |
johnny_t Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:39:03pm |
re: #142 Gella
Ok, then if it is a genetic trait, and homosexuality (in the past folks, in the past) couldn't reproduce, wouldn't natural selection wipe out that genetic trait? If you want to think scientifically, then let's do it.
| 161 |
Catttt Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:39:09pm |
I'm not going to play the video - he just looks too goofy in the screencap. Kinda like how some of those cwazy imams going on and on about Valentine's Day being evil look. Hmmmmm.
| 163 |
Charles Johnson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:39:25pm |
re: #155 Sharmuta
And where's 'palarson' with that example?
He don't got to show us no steenking examples.
| 164 |
Mardukhai Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:39:41pm |
re: #147 Dan G.
Name one ideology that unifies everything.
| 165 |
Neo Con since 9-11 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:39:44pm |
re: #127 Walter L. Newton
Can someone translate that paragraph to me. I didn't know they had internet access in the Appalachians Mountains.
I didn't know they even had electricity to run computers in the rocky mountains. Turns around and moons Walter from the (proudly) Appalachian Mountains.
| 166 |
Sharmuta Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:39:50pm |
re: #153 johnny_t
But if Charles didn't post about evolution, how would you be justified in your persecution complex? It's a dirty job, persecuting people with facts and reality, but someone's got to do it.
| 167 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:40:08pm |
| 168 |
jcw46 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:40:10pm |
re: #90 Charles
Weelll Charles, for johnny_t WE HAVE AN ALL EXPENSE PAID VACATION!
That's right an all expenses paid vacation from LGF. No more having to sustain the lie that you know what you're talking about. No more having to face withering logic and critical thought. No more belief shattering SCIENTIFIC discoveries that cause you to cry in frustration.
You'll be free to enjoy your own particular self-induced fantasies WITHOUT any outside interference just see stinky at the door and he'll send you on your way.
| 171 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:40:41pm |
re: #30 palarson
Hate to say it but it looks like the author of this article from this week's U.S.News And World Report has been observing the Darwinists in this community:
The author of that piece is a Disco shill named Casey Luskin, who has been well ad thoroughly busted concerning his massive errors of fact and science.
| 172 |
Charles Johnson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:40:44pm |
re: #160 johnny_t
If you want to think scientifically, then let's do it.
Irony meter's needle just wrapped around the pin. This thing must be broken.
| 173 |
unclassifiable Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:40:51pm |
| 174 |
Randall Gross Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:41:01pm |
re: #153 johnny_t
nor am I demanding the theory of evolution be taught in the schools,
simply freudian.
| 175 |
Sharmuta Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:41:21pm |
re: #166 Sharmuta
It's a dirty job, persecuting people with facts and reality, but someone's got to do it.
That was good, even if I say so myself.
| 176 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:41:27pm |
re: #118 jcw46
I almost down dinged you myself because I don't believe the "republican high command" is catering to the "religious right" (that btw is a left wing buzzword). In fact, I'd be willing to bet that if McCain had sucked up to a few more "religious right" folks, he might have won the election. I'm not saying they should go along with any daydreams of the PTL Club or the 700 Club but most conservative christians are mostly conservative fiscally and contrary to what some might believe (because of a few liberal catholic priests) conservative christians believe in defending the United States and Israel (and not just the apocalyptics). Whereas the Northeast Liberal wing of the GOP (you know who I mean) are mainly fiscal conservatives and care little to nothing about the social issues (you know like abortion and euthanasia) and lukewarm about Foreign policy issues as long as business is up and running.
Anytime a Republican goes conservative they win. Proven fact.
Respectfully, your post contains the assumption that catering to the religious right equals being conservative. My entire point is that conservative American values, from a political and economic point of view, going back to the founding fathers are not about some one's personal, private (as in out of the public sector) views of Jesus.
| 177 |
Gella Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:41:46pm |
re: #160 johnny_t
Ok, then if it is a genetic trait, and homosexuality (in the past folks, in the past) couldn't reproduce, wouldn't natural selection wipe out that genetic trait? If you want to think scientifically, then let's do it.
i guess u are too young, if u remember correctly homosexuals couldn't live open "happy" life they live now, in 50th in USA man went to jail, so they have to adopt, therefore marry or be with opposite sex, therefor they reproduced
| 178 |
Ojoe Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:41:51pm |
Need big centrist party and abandon the Democrats to the left crazies and the Republicans to the right crazies.
Need three parties, the number two has no center.
There is the modern whig party, I'll find out more.
www dot modernwhig dot org
Not that I'm pushing the Whigs, but I'm checking them out & if they make sense I'll report back.
Good night all.
| 179 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:41:53pm |
re: #160 johnny_t
Ok, then if it is a genetic trait, and homosexuality (in the past folks, in the past) couldn't reproduce, wouldn't natural selection wipe out that genetic trait? If you want to think scientifically, then let's do it.
Yea, but natural selection takes much longer than what you can see in your life time, or in recorded history up to this point. You are talking about billions of units of a species and in comparison, a handful of genetic traits (currently) that does not support the continuation of that race.
But, it's a long why off before natural selection will cull that trait out.
| 180 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:42:00pm |
re: #164 Mardukhai
Personally, I'm an Objectivist; think its got a very stable foundation. That said, you are acting like ideologies are a fixed thing in nature and not something that humans had to learn (meaning that it is an iterative learning process).
| 181 |
Kosh's Shadow Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:42:14pm |
re: #138 johnny_t
Wow! Now I'm a muslim? Sheesh!
I'll answer your question with a question....do you believe homosexuality to be a choice or a genetic trait?
I'll give my answer - both.
I think that some complicated genetics, as well as environment while developing, predisposes people in some way. Depending on the exact details, each person will be predisposed to heterosexuality or homosexuality, but on a continuous scale.
As each person grows, he or she absorbs society's attitudes, which gets combined with the innate predisposition to produce that person's sexual image.
Some people are hopelessly heterosexual; some homosexual, and it would take quite a bit to change that, but most people are somewhere in the middle. If a man grew up in ancient Greece, he'd probably end up bi- or homosexual, as that is what society approved. In a more restrictive environment, he'd be perfectly happy as a heterosexual.
Human behavior is too complex to say it is based purely on genetics OR environment.
| 182 |
unclassifiable Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:42:33pm |
re: #174 Thanos
I'm demanding that everybody know about supply and demand curves before they are allowed to graduate high school.
| 183 |
BlueCanuck Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:42:49pm |
re: #153 johnny_t
Evolution is taught in schools because it's real provable science. Anything else is just mysticism and unicorns. And no, he's not wanting to burn the unbelievers at the stake, he is just wanting to reveal the idiocy behind some of these beliefs and how they want to idiotize the rest of the education system. The education system has enough problems as it is without adding this garbage to the classroom.
/I have said before and I will say it again, I was RAISED in a creationist household, it still don't wash with me.
| 184 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:42:52pm |
re: #165 Neo Con since 9-11
I didn't know they even had electricity to run computers in the rocky mountains. Turns around and moons Walter from the (proudly) Appalachian Mountains.
We have green wind powered computers. Ha! Touche'/
| 185 |
johnny_t Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:43:17pm |
re: #159 Walter L. Newton
Let me guess....terminated? Hey, I don't post that much (look at the stats), but I do like reading about the other stuff that Charles posts. I am a strong supporter of Israel and love the like minded people that are here...but if my beliefs can't be tolerated....I seem to remember a group of people whose views and religious beliefs weren't tolerated either.....they were killed by the millions.
| 186 |
Killgore Trout Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:43:45pm |
re: #94 johnny_t
Let me ask you this: If you believe in the theory of natural selection, how do you explain homosexuality? Are they breeding asexually somewhere? Total bunk.
God created gays to give bigots someone to hate.
/
| 187 |
Charles Johnson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:44:09pm |
re: #185 johnny_t
Let me guess....terminated? Hey, I don't post that much (look at the stats), but I do like reading about the other stuff that Charles posts. I am a strong supporter of Israel and love the like minded people that are here...but if my beliefs can't be tolerated....I seem to remember a group of people whose views and religious beliefs weren't tolerated either.....they were killed by the millions.
Ding! Ding! Ding!
We have a winner in tonight's Martyrdom Sweepstakes! What do we have for him, Stinky?
| 188 |
Spar Kling Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:44:18pm |
Religious, political, and scientific convictions, opinions, and theories should stay out of each other's domains and classrooms. This is not to say, for example, that a scientist should not have a political opinion, or a politician have religious convictions and so on.
So, I guess there's no choice but to make sure that an intelligent, doctrinaire Democrat gets elected in place of Jeffrey Frederick. Obviously, Frederick is a shill for the Discovery Institute and this is part of a "wedge" strategy to replace religion-neutral laws with a Christian Taliban government and must be replaced.
Or maybe unquestioning belief in Evolution should be a requirement for joining the Republican party. All "junk" intellectual DNA must be selected out of the Republican Meme pool to maintain a pure, homozygous path to political extinction!
-sk
| 189 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:44:37pm |
re: #178 Ojoe
I think a third party is an absolultely viable option, if people open their eyes and quite the pragmatic endorsement of the two devils we have now. Look at the effect Perot had... or Lieberman, who was elected as an Independent, right?
| 190 |
Ojoe Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:44:51pm |
re: #186 Killgore Trout
Gays are created to do a lot of the art that humanity needs.
| 191 |
Charles Johnson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:44:54pm |
And here comes the relentless, shameless liar, for the trifecta!
| 192 |
Sharmuta Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:44:57pm |
re: #185 johnny_t
You're comparing this to the Holocaust?! You are disgusting, and that is a complete and utter lack of respect for not only those who died, but for those suffering real religious persecution throughout the world.
Shame on you!
| 193 |
Randall Gross Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:45:08pm |
re: #182 unclassifiable
I'm demanding that everybody know about supply and demand curves before they are allowed to graduate high school.
I further demand that they know how to read as well! Why not get realllly radical after all?
| 195 |
Kragar Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:45:28pm |
re: #185 johnny_t
Let me guess....terminated? Hey, I don't post that much (look at the stats), but I do like reading about the other stuff that Charles posts. I am a strong supporter of Israel and love the like minded people that are here...but if my beliefs can't be tolerated....I seem to remember a group of people whose views and religious beliefs weren't tolerated either.....they were killed by the millions.
God, you're a stuck up little prick
| 196 |
Syrah Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:45:29pm |
re: #189 Dan G.
I think a third party is an absolultely viable option, if people open their eyes and quite the pragmatic endorsement of the two devils we have now. Look at the effect Perot had... or Lieberman, who was elected as an Independent, right?
| 197 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:45:36pm |
| 198 |
Killgore Trout Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:45:51pm |
Will we hit 30 martyrs before midnight?
| 199 |
BlueCanuck Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:45:52pm |
re: #160 johnny_t
Ok, then if it is a genetic trait, and homosexuality (in the past folks, in the past) couldn't reproduce, wouldn't natural selection wipe out that genetic trait? If you want to think scientifically, then let's do it.
Okay, so homosexuality is a genetic trait. Where is the advantage of it surviving? It has survived for over 4000 years at the least. With out the capability of it being passed on. So therefore homosexuality has to be something other than genetic. But I don't believe that it is a learned trait. One suggestion is that it may be hormonaly caused in the womb.
/have no links so I can't stand by this statement.
| 200 |
Catttt Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:46:07pm |
re: #94 johnny_t
Let me ask you this: If you believe in the theory of natural selection, how do you explain homosexuality? Are they breeding asexually somewhere? Total bunk.
This was written with you in mind:
“It is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
Do yourself a favor - google "genetic marker."
Not that I think homosexuality is genetic - or not. It's not proven. Plus I really don't care - some people are gay, some straight, and some bi. Fine with me.
| 201 |
jcw46 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:46:12pm |
re: #136 jaunte
What do you mean by conservative?
I confess, I'm too snockered to attempt to answer that besides it would take too long. I'll leave at the old "I know it when I see it" for now. I know that's a cop out and I agree but I think trying to define "conservative" would result in an argument I'm not in the mood or equipped to have.
| 203 |
johnny_t Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:46:31pm |
re: #183 BlueCanuck
A provable science? Then why is it called a 'theory'?
| 204 |
Charles Johnson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:46:33pm |
re: #198 Killgore Trout
Will we hit 30 martyrs before midnight?
Well, it's never been done before, but if anyone can do it, this fresh-faced group of creationists will be the ones.
| 205 |
Ojoe Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:46:41pm |
re: #197 Walter L. Newton
No, seriously. I like beauty. Gays contribute more than their share.
| 206 |
unclassifiable Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:46:42pm |
| 207 |
WindHorse Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:46:59pm |
re: #200 Catttt
Abraham Lincoln said that - how very appropriate!
| 208 |
Mardukhai Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:47:02pm |
re: #178 Ojoe
Amen, brother, we need a Centrist Party. Most people are more moderate than the leadership of both existing parties.
Just hope it doesn't go the way of Kadima!
| 209 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:47:26pm |
re: #199 BlueCanuck
PEOPLE, quit taking his bait/red herrings! Keep him pegged to one line of bullshit at a time; it'll hang itself much more quickly.
| 211 |
Ojoe Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:47:50pm |
| 212 |
Charles Johnson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:47:50pm |
re: #203 johnny_t
A provable science? Then why is it called a 'theory'?
Because scientists really love to take wild-ass guesses based on nothing at all, just to get creationists pissed off -- of course!
That's when they're not busy slaughtering little kids or having homosexual intercourse.
| 213 |
Killgore Trout Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:48:12pm |
It's a fascinating phenomenon, I'm watching it over at Hot Air tonight too. People like websites created by non-creationsists but they don't want to discuss evolution. There are plenty of creationist sites out there but they don't seem to be any fun. What a dilemma!
| 214 |
slokat Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:48:12pm |
re: #199 BlueCanuck
"...hormonaly caused in the womb" - would also be a genetic trait (of the mother)
| 215 |
Randall Gross Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:48:14pm |
re: #188 Spar Kling
Catch up with the times. In Overland Park the Republicans do vote for the Democrat for exactly that reason, opposition to the Brownback wing. Thus they've turned a Red state purple, and they just keep going.
| 216 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:48:16pm |
re: #203 johnny_t
Dictionaries are your friend. Now that you've had time to think about it, are you going to answer my question about your opening statement?
| 217 |
Gella Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:48:19pm |
re: #200 Catttt
This was written with you in mind:
“It is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
Do yourself a favor - google "genetic marker."
Not that I think homosexuality is genetic - or not. It's not proven. Plus I really don't care - some people are gay, some straight, and some bi. Fine with me.
so, does it mean ancient Greeks were just experimenting?
| 218 |
Gus Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:48:19pm |
Well, I strongly disapprove of President Obama and liberalism as well as leftism. However, I refuse to join your anti-gay posse.
| 220 |
Killgore Trout Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:48:55pm |
re: #204 Charles
Well, it's never been done before, but if anyone can do it, this fresh-faced group of creationists will be the ones.
I'm praying for their success.
| 221 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:48:55pm |
re: #205 Ojoe
No, seriously. I like beauty. Gays contribute more than their share.
No, seriously, that sounds like a bigoted stereotype, and take that from someone who has been in the arts since I was 14. Hell, I know artistic straights, gays, transgendered and on and on and on...
What the fuck does someone's sexual preference has to do with good art, bad art, ... whoa, you just frogged me.
Walter not happy.
| 223 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:49:07pm |
| 224 |
Ojoe Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:49:21pm |
Ah, I have to put in some rack time.
Good Night All, again.
| 225 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:49:45pm |
re: #94 johnny_t
Let me ask you this: If you believe in the theory of natural selection, how do you explain homosexuality? Are they breeding asexually somewhere? Total bunk.
Actually, it has been found that women who undergo great stress during a critical period in fetal development subject their embryos to a differential hormone bath and subsequently give birth to homosexuals a much greater percentage of the time than the baseline rate. In times of scarce resources, it would be a survival trait for a family's gene pool if some siblings didn't have children and could devote their time and resources towards caring for the children of their fecund sister or sister-in-law. Plus, it has been found that the female sibling of male homosexuals have more children than average.
| 226 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:49:52pm |
| 227 |
Sharmuta Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:50:06pm |
re: #199 BlueCanuck
Okay, so homosexuality is a genetic trait. Where is the advantage of it surviving? It has survived for over 4000 years at the least. With out the capability of it being passed on. So therefore homosexuality has to be something other than genetic. But I don't believe that it is a learned trait. One suggestion is that it may be hormonaly caused in the womb.
/have no links so I can't stand by this statement.
There are plenty of homosexuals who do reproduce by either "living in both worlds" or these days via modern scientific reproduction alternatives like surrogates and sperm donors.
| 228 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:50:29pm |
re: #214 slokat
No, it would be epigentic. The genetics are already "set" at that point (actually, they were set a little bit after conception ;) ).
| 230 |
Ojoe Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:50:39pm |
re: #221 Walter L. Newton
Tends to be more gays in the art world, that's all.
Plus Michaelangelo ...
Night again ...
| 231 |
horse Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:50:52pm |
Why are they always Republicans?
Their party evolved to fill that niche. Unfortunately for them, it is an unsustainable niche under duress from external factual forces.
| 232 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:51:03pm |
re: #230 Ojoe
Tends to be more gays in the art world, that's all.
Plus Michaelangelo ...
Night again ...
FUCK YOU.
| 233 |
johnny_t Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:51:16pm |
| 234 |
Sharmuta Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:51:22pm |
re: #229 Killgore Trout
This is the best Darwinmas ever!
I'm kind of bummed it only comes once a year.
| 235 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:51:40pm |
re: #104 Rob with a mind
So many people on both sides bloviating poand making "mortal enemies("Exaggeration") of people they like and otherwise respect.. We should think about only celebrating the anniversary's of people we know something about like Abraham Lincoln. God bless all who care enough to walk a mile in their brother(or sisters) boots
I know quite a lot about not only Charles Darwin's theory, but also his life, and find much to admire in both.
| 236 |
BlueCanuck Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:51:45pm |
| 237 |
laxmatt1984 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:51:50pm |
re: #188 Spar Kling
Really, dude? Really?
Jeff Frederick prevented the GOP from taking control of the State Senate when he blabbed about a wavering Democrat on Twitter.
Don't take it from me, ask that commie rage National Review.
AN 'UH-OH' UPDATE: From a Richmond source: "We're hearing that it was the premature release of this info from Chairman Frederick via Twitter that scuttled the deal."A PERFECT SUMMARY: A reader suggests the headline, "Loose Twits Sink Shifts."
[Link: campaignspot.nationalreview.com...]
Va voted for Obama under Frederick's leadership and lost the special election for the Fairfax BOCS by less than 20 votes. We also lost Tom Davis' seat. He is driving the state party into the ground.
I wish I had saved this for you.
| 239 |
Gus Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:52:31pm |
Here I thought it was about the EPA, AICP, Zoning, and the IRS. But it always comes down to some primitive "opinion" about "those damn homosexuals."
| 240 |
johnny_t Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:52:43pm |
re: #204 Charles
Charles, would you rather not have anyone who believes in creation on your board? Let me know now, please.
| 241 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:52:48pm |
re: #229 Killgore Trout
I was thinking about that term earlier, didn't want to debase Darwin though.
| 242 |
Charles Johnson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:53:14pm |
re: #233 johnny_t
re: #195 Kragar (proud to be kafir)
I'd say I'm being civil, but if you want to start the name calling, then be my guest.
I know when I'm trying to be civil, the first thing I try is comparing myself to the millions of people slaughtered in the Holocaust.
What? Something wrong with that?
| 243 |
CynicalConservative Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:53:22pm |
| 244 |
Mardukhai Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:53:29pm |
Anybody want to claim that Relativity is "just a theory"?
Kaboom!
| 245 |
unclassifiable Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:53:34pm |
re: #223 Dan G.
Why do they call it a tube?
/Old enough to know ;)
Hey!
I still has one with a tube. And it was top rated in Consumer reports...
... 15 years ago.
| 246 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:53:47pm |
re: #230 Ojoe
Tends to be more gays in the art world, that's all.
Plus Michaelangelo ...
Night again ...
This is a PRIME example of a post I made earlier tonight. You go on and on, and suddenly, someone drops their mask and suddenly lumps some group into some stereotype and the next thing you know, the bigotry shows up bright as a bulb.
Where do you get your figures? Where did you hear that, read that, and so on...
I have been in the arts since I was 14 years old (I'm 56) and I can tell you by actual experience that you are full of shit.
| 247 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:53:58pm |
re: #229 Killgore Trout
Hmmm.... we are living in interesting times... we can chose the nature of the traditions of Darwinmas. What would be appropriate? Turtle soup? Buying finches?
| 248 |
BlueCanuck Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:53:59pm |
re: #203 johnny_t
A provable science? Then why is it called a 'theory'?
Study on the term first before you pull that old canard.
/PULLLL
| 249 |
Syrah Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:54:03pm |
re: #189 Dan G.
I think a third party is an absolultely viable option, if people open their eyes and quite the pragmatic endorsement of the two devils we have now. Look at the effect Perot had... or Lieberman, who was elected as an Independent, right?
uh. I will try that again.
"Winner take all district elections" such as our system is based on, favors broad coalition Parties. It is not a clean system.
Third parties are too often too narrow in their appeal to be able to garner more than third place in any large general election.
Right now, the Republican party is a mess. They have trashed their credibility when they had the majority in the House and the Senate. There is no real center in the Party at the moment. It is available for the taking. We can concede it to the kooks, or take it ourselves.
| 250 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:54:22pm |
re: #123 johnny_t
Hey, it's your show Charles. You gonna set up some re-education camps for those of us who choose to believe that God created the earth? Wow, such diversity, such tolerance.
RE-education? For that, you would have had to have been educated in the first place.
| 251 |
Charles Johnson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:55:04pm |
re: #240 johnny_t
Charles, would you rather not have anyone who believes in creation on your board? Let me know now, please.
Martyr me! Martyr me! Please! Do I have to beg?
| 252 |
Tigger2005 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:55:05pm |
re: #185 johnny_t
Let me guess....terminated? Hey, I don't post that much (look at the stats), but I do like reading about the other stuff that Charles posts. I am a strong supporter of Israel and love the like minded people that are here...but if my beliefs can't be tolerated....I seem to remember a group of people whose views and religious beliefs weren't tolerated either.....they were killed by the millions.
Judaism and willful stupidity are not the same.
| 253 |
Catttt Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:55:35pm |
re: #207 WindHorse
Abraham Lincoln said that - how very appropriate!
Attributed. I couldn't find a definitive source. It does, however, totally sound like him. Happy birthday! :D
| 254 |
winston06 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:55:47pm |
re: #62 NJDhockeyfan
we get to watch Upstate NY tv channels here in Canada. They're all over this
| 255 |
johnny_t Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:56:37pm |
That's right folks, line up and put in your best shot. I didn't realize that I had stepped under the bridge.
| 257 |
unclassifiable Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:57:24pm |
re: #244 Mardukhai
Or quantum mechanics.
Hell no they don't want to because they use those things.
But this evolution stuff is not immediately necessary to their lives so they will argue that all day long.
| 258 |
CynicalConservative Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:57:41pm |
re: #255 johnny_t
That's right folks, line up and put in your best shot. I didn't realize that I had stepped under the bridge.
zzzzzzzzzzz, snorg, snort.... did you say something?
| 259 |
Charles Johnson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:58:13pm |
re: #240 johnny_t
Charles, would you rather not have anyone who believes in creation on your board? Let me know now, please.
No, no! Please stick around.
(Get the re-education camp ready for him, Stinky...)
| 261 |
Gella Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:58:29pm |
re: #257 unclassifiable
Or quantum mechanics.
Hell no they don't want to because they use those things.
But this evolution stuff is not immediately necessary to their lives so they will argue that all day long.
lets also discuss string theory
| 263 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:58:35pm |
re: #212 Charles
Because scientists really love to take wild-ass guesses based on nothing at all, just to get creationists pissed off -- of course!
That's when they're not busy slaughtering little kids or having homosexual intercourse.
Charles, you let out our secret. I was just playing with my gimp and about to posit my theory that ingesting plutonium makes you handsome and disproves the existence of Hashem, when I read your post! How did you know!
//// sarc
| 265 |
BlueCanuck Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:58:50pm |
re: #255 johnny_t
That's right folks, line up and put in your best shot. I didn't realize that I had stepped under the bridge.
More like off the cliff. Thank you for removing yourself from our gene pool.
| 266 |
Charles Johnson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:58:56pm |
re: #262 johnny_t
That's the best argument you've made all night.
| 267 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:58:59pm |
re: #138 johnny_t
Wow! Now I'm a muslim? Sheesh!
I'll answer your question with a question....do you believe homosexuality to be a choice or a genetic trait?
Apparently, if you'll check my # 225, many cases are determined by the fetal hormonal environment during a critical period in cognitive development. As homosexuality has physiological characteristics - the CAT scan measureable difference in size of some limbic system structures in the midbrain - I would say that the proclivity happens to be not a choice, but a developmental exigency.
| 268 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:59:01pm |
re: #249 Syrah
But to do so, the leadership will have to be willing to splinter the group, there are those who are irreconcilable and have no place in the Republican party. If they're against the Constitution, GONE. If they're against Individual Rights, GONE. etc...
It will take a hell of a backbone to reform the party into something respectable.
| 269 |
Killian Bundy Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:59:05pm |
Microsoft hires Wal-Mart veteran to lead retail effort
MSFT 19.27, +0.06, +0.3%) said in a statement that David Porter will serve as corporate vice president of retail stores and will be responsible for "defining the time frame, locations and specifics for planned Microsoft-branded retail stores."
. . .
Microsoft said it intends to use its new retail outlets to "improve the articulation and demonstration of the Microsoft innovation and value proposition." Porter will work together with leaders of "existing retail programs" in the company's entertainment and devices division, which includes products such as the Xbox video game console and the Zune media player.
/ooh, just think, entire stores dedicated to Microsoft products!
| 270 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:59:11pm |
| 271 |
pink freud Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:59:55pm |
re: #255 johnny_t
That's right folks, line up and put in your best shot. I didn't realize that I had stepped out from under the bridge.
| 273 |
Ben G. Hazi Thu, Feb 12, 2009 9:59:59pm |
re: #255 johnny_t
You stroll into your hosts' living room, screaming gobbledygook and nonsense, take a dump on the carpet, and expect people not to call you on it? As some large gentlemen from New Jersey would say, "Getthefuckouttahere!"
| 274 |
BlueCanuck Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:00:06pm |
re: #264 jaunte
Is it sadism not to hit a masochist?
Tough choice. What would give me more pleasure?
| 275 |
realwest Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:00:24pm |
re: #195 Kragar (proud to be kafir) Yes, and I don't see where religious beliefs are not being tolerated; they are simply not being accepted in lieu of scientific evidence to the contrary.
| 276 |
Ben G. Hazi Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:00:27pm |
| 277 |
capitalist piglet Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:00:29pm |
I suddenly cannot post on the Spencer thread on HotAir...either that, or I've been screened for some reason.
All I did was tell some woman who was accusing me (and you all) of an "attempted lynching" that she needed a dictionary and possibly a Xanax, and I've got x's on my eyes. LOL
| 278 |
Killgore Trout Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:00:29pm |
re: #247 Dan G.
I celebrated with a nicely evolved salmon and an intelligently design homemade pesto. It's a well balanced meal.
Deep fried finches sounds nice. Maybe I'll try that next year.
| 279 |
unclassifiable Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:00:31pm |
| 280 |
jcw46 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:00:33pm |
re: #176 LudwigVanQuixote
jcw46 wrote:
I almost down dinged you myself because I don't believe the "republican high command" is catering to the "religious right" (that btw is a left wing buzzword). In fact, I'd be willing to bet that if McCain had sucked up to a few more "religious right" folks, he might have won the election. I'm not saying they should go along with any daydreams of the PTL Club or the 700 Club but most conservative christians are mostly conservative fiscally and contrary to what some might believe (because of a few liberal catholic priests) conservative christians believe in defending the United States and Israel (and not just the apocalyptics). Whereas the Northeast Liberal wing of the GOP (you know who I mean) are mainly fiscal conservatives and care little to nothing about the social issues (you know like abortion and euthanasia) and lukewarm about Foreign policy issues as long as business is up and running.
Anytime a Republican goes conservative they win. Proven fact.
LudwigVanQuixote wrote:
Respectfully, your post contains the assumption that catering to the religious right equals being conservative. My entire point is that conservative American values, from a political and economic point of view, going back to the founding fathers are not about some one's personal, private (as in out of the public sector) views of Jesus.
Um, no it does not. I believe I equated some christians with being conservative and that by not catering a little bit to them McCain may have lost the election (note the quotes around "religious right" what exactly does "religious right" mean?). Nowhere did I say that catering to the "religious right" equals being conservative. The "religious right" as described by the liberals is equal to being a conservative however you can cater to the "religious right" without being a conservative. Get it?
| 281 |
johnny_t Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:00:34pm |
re: #259 Charles
No worries man, I respect your beliefs. I think you do good work, I just get tired of the axe grinding sometimes. After all, if I didn't like it, I could just go, right? Stinky, don't block the door, dude...hey, stop chewing on my leg!
| 282 |
Kosh's Shadow Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:00:58pm |
re: #244 Mardukhai
Anybody want to claim that Relativity is "just a theory"?
Kaboom!
Well, it is. Rarely, nowadays, is a theory called a "law". Historically, Newtonian gravitation was called a "law" (the Law of Universal Gravitation), but we've found limitations of Newtonian mechanics. Relativity works better, but is still called a "theory".
We don't have a theory that fully combines relativity and quantum mechanics.
But for all experiments where quantum effects are small, relativity works very well. It also works very well where we can combine the two, but not so well at extremely small scales and high energy, at the same time.
| 284 |
Mardukhai Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:01:03pm |
re: #257 unclassifiable
Gravity is just a theory.
Maybe a creationist might want to test that one, too!
I can think of a few experiments...
; - ))
| 286 |
johnny_t Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:01:10pm |
re: #266 Charles
Sometimes the best defense is to say nothing....
| 287 |
Sharmuta Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:01:21pm |
re: #262 johnny_t
Do you have another fallacious argument to posit, or did you blow your wad on the homosexuality?
| 289 |
Kosh's Shadow Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:01:30pm |
| 290 |
Syrah Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:01:35pm |
| 291 |
CynicalConservative Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:02:04pm |
| 293 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:02:14pm |
re: #278 Killgore Trout
How about telling "End Times" jokes over the fried finch and turtle soup?
| 294 |
Gella Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:02:15pm |
re: #279 unclassifiable
Nothing harder than pushing string theory.
true, but after u'll ready few dozen scifi fiction books, ull understand it much better :))
| 295 |
BlueCanuck Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:02:24pm |
| 296 |
Charles Johnson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:02:36pm |
re: #286 johnny_t
Sometimes the best defense is to say nothing....
Then your defense is impenetrable.
| 298 |
Kragar Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:03:17pm |
re: #275 realwest
Yes, and I don't see where religious beliefs are not being tolerated; they are simply not being accepted in lieu of scientific evidence to the contrary.
I still think its quite sad that they can't look at the evidence of evolution and say "AHA! Another of God's Miracles!" instead of a mindless devotion to parables
| 302 |
Timbre Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:03:59pm |
Midland, Tx Republicans are full of Bible-thumping Darwin-haters. It's going to be the downfall of the Party.
| 303 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:04:02pm |
re: #153 johnny_t
At least you still have a sense of humor about it. Really though, I'm not marching up and down the streets, nor am I demanding the theory of evolution be taught in the schools, so I'm not quite sure why you are so anxious to burn us all at the stake. Let's get back to the stuff that matters...I'm getting really bored by all the anti-creationist posts...there is so much more stuff going on that could be talked about.....but again, this is your show, not mine.
And since it is HIS show, it is not YOUR place to tell him how to run it.
And this stuff matters, to the future military and economic security of our nation, which depends upon a supply of competent scientists - a supply that would be direly threatened by the fallacious and illegitimate indoctrination of of the naive and pliable minds of America's youth in religious dogmas as if they were empirical facts in public high school science classes.
| 304 |
NY Nana Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:04:19pm |
| 305 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:04:22pm |
re: #273 talon_262
You stroll into your hosts' living room, screaming gobbledygook and nonsense, take a dump on the carpet, and expect people not to call you on it? As some large gentlemen from New Jersey would say, "Getthefuckouttahere!"
Actually Tony Soprano and La Cosa Nostra would probably give the tool ruining the party a tuneup, with cluebats of course.
/kidding
| 306 |
johnny_t Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:05:03pm |
I have to say I haven't been this entertained by a bunch of Darwinist in quite a long time. The theory of evolution has definitely been debunked with a few of you....de-evolution might be plausible.
| 307 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:05:15pm |
re: #302 Timbre
Not if the leadership chooses a principle splintering instead of tolerating, and catering to, such craven groups.
| 308 |
Clemente Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:05:15pm |
re: #247 Dan G.
Hmmm.... we are living in interesting times... we can chose the nature of the traditions of Darwinmas. What would be appropriate? Turtle soup? Buying finches?
Trimming trees?
| 309 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:05:19pm |
| 310 |
Gella Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:05:42pm |
re: #306 johnny_t
I have to say I haven't been this entertained by a bunch of Darwinist in quite a long time. The theory of evolution has definitely been debunked with a few of you....de-evolution might be plausible.
so as G-D, next
| 311 |
Charles Johnson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:05:46pm |
re: #306 johnny_t
I have to say I haven't been this entertained by a bunch of Darwinist in quite a long time. The theory of evolution has definitely been debunked with a few of you....de-evolution might be plausible.
Hey. Now don't make me have to pray for you.
| 312 |
johnny_t Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:05:50pm |
re: #303 Salamantis
...and since it is HIS show, it isn't your place to tell me it is HIS show. Oops, open mouth, insert foot.
| 313 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:05:57pm |
Let me guess....terminated? Hey, I don't post that much (look at the stats), but I do like reading about the other stuff that Charles posts. I am a strong supporter of Israel and love the like minded people that are here...but if my beliefs can't be tolerated....I seem to remember a group of people whose views and religious beliefs weren't tolerated either.....they were killed by the millions.
Ok that is just offensive. Listen to me very carefully. A large portion of my family was part of those killed by the millions. They did not die so that someone can use them as cheap points in a stupid debate. They did not die because of scientific truths. They were murdered for any number of age old reasons. They were not murdered by Darwin. They were not Murdered by the thousands of doctors who save lives using the knowledge we gained from Darwin.
Most importantly, you do not get to show such disrespect to the dead. If you are a Jew yourself, you need to be ashamed.
Further, as to being a believer, I am Yeshiva educated and observant. I am on these boards. I know the science and I am a believer. What does that do to your persecution mentality that no believers can understand and be convinced by the science?
| 314 |
Kragar Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:06:20pm |
re: #306 johnny_t
I have to say I haven't been this entertained by a bunch of Darwinist in quite a long time. The theory of evolution has definitely been debunked with a few of you....de-evolution might be plausible.
Obviously the T is for twit
| 315 |
Tigger2005 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:06:32pm |
re: #199 BlueCanuck
Okay, so homosexuality is a genetic trait. Where is the advantage of it surviving? It has survived for over 4000 years at the least. With out the capability of it being passed on. So therefore homosexuality has to be something other than genetic. But I don't believe that it is a learned trait. One suggestion is that it may be hormonaly caused in the womb.
/have no links so I can't stand by this statement.
Evidently you don't need a homosexual reproducing to pass on homosexuality.
It may be partially the result of both (heterosexual) parents contributing a particular pair of genes.
People with perfect 20/20 vision give birth to blind children all the time. They continued to do so for thousands and thousands of years, even when most blind children probably didn't live long enough to reproduce. You don't need blind people reproducing to have blind babies. No population, no species, ever becomes 100% perfect, and evolution doesn't claim that they will. Sharks come pretty close for their environment and what they are, but I'm sure even sharks occasionally give birth to "imperfect" young. It's just that, say, blind baby sharks don't live more than a minute or two, if that.
This is such a dumb, weak, essentially empty argument against evolution, but of course the creationists think it's bloody brilliant.
| 316 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:06:33pm |
re: #308 Clemente
Perhaps with modern Molecular Biology we could clone some transition species and gobble them up. THAT WOULD BE COOL.
/NERD
| 318 |
johnny_t Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:06:42pm |
re: #311 Charles
If you do, can you pray for me to be taller and have a better job? Maybe there is room on the wheel for one more? Move over stinky...
| 319 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:06:47pm |
re: #306 johnny_t
I have to say I haven't been this entertained by a bunch of Darwinist in quite a long time. The theory of evolution has definitely been debunked with a few of you....de-evolution might be plausible.
Ah, the perfect creationist troll: Snarky, graceless, and obnoxious.
GAZE
| 320 |
Sharmuta Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:06:55pm |
re: #306 johnny_t
Do you have palarson's example for him? Are you hiding it from him? He still hasn't cited an example for me.
| 321 |
jcw46 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:07:00pm |
re: #200 Catttt
This was written with you in mind:
“It is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
Do yourself a favor - google "genetic marker."
Not that I think homosexuality is genetic - or not. It's not proven. Plus I really don't care - some people are gay, some straight, and some bi. Fine with me.
It would make sense that if homosexuality is genetic then they all were/are bi at one point or another to pass on their genes. Otherwise there would be no homosexuals except the first ones. (last I heard it took two to create an embryo. Egg meet sperm. If they only did it once are they considered bi? I'm just askin'. :>
| 322 |
unclassifiable Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:07:25pm |
Good night lizards.
I guess the kamikazes will just keep splattering on the flight deck because they forgot to load up on smart bombs.
| 323 |
Charles Johnson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:07:29pm |
re: #318 johnny_t
If you do, can you pray for me to be taller and have a better job? Maybe there is room on the wheel for one more? Move over stinky...
Well, that would be more likely to get results than praying for you to get smarter.
| 324 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:07:34pm |
re: #160 johnny_t
Ok, then if it is a genetic trait, and homosexuality (in the past folks, in the past) couldn't reproduce, wouldn't natural selection wipe out that genetic trait? If you want to think scientifically, then let's do it.
Nope. Because, assuming that homosexuality were a recessive trait, and remembering our Gergor Mendel, 2/3 of the siblings of the homosexual (who would have inherited it from both sides) would carry at least one gene of the trait, too, and they would reproduce. This ain't rocket science (well maybe it is to you).
| 325 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:07:36pm |
Oh my, this is just gut-busting funny tonight. The trolls are so utterly oblivious to sarcasm.
Charles, you are in fine fettle tonight!
| 326 |
Gus Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:08:04pm |
Yep, the Earth is flat and people get sick because they're sinners.
| 328 |
Kragar Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:08:23pm |
re: #325 FurryOldGuyJeans
Oh my, this is just gut-busting funny tonight. The trolls are so utterly oblivious to sarcasm.
Charles, you are in fine fettle tonight!
What is this....Sarcasm you speak of?
/
| 329 |
Syrah Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:08:36pm |
re: #306 johnny_t
I have to say I haven't been this entertained by a bunch of Darwinist in quite a long time. The theory of evolution has definitely been debunked with a few of you....de-evolution might be plausible.
What is your goal?
Are you getting the response that you desire?
| 330 |
johnny_t Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:08:48pm |
re: #313 LudwigVanQuixote
Oh really? Because you don't like being compared in that light? Doesn't taste too good when you realize the hypocrisy, does it? Some people never learn from the past. Intolerance breeds genocide.
| 331 |
Catttt Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:08:49pm |
re: #321 jcw46
It would make sense that if homosexuality is genetic then they all were/are bi at one point or another to pass on their genes. Otherwise there would be no homosexuals except the first ones. (last I heard it took two to create an embryo. Egg meet sperm. If they only did it once are they considered bi? I'm just askin'. :>
And how about gay animals? Huh? Huh? Huh? /
Ouch - my head!
| 332 |
BlueCanuck Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:08:59pm |
re: #141 BlueCanuck
Just doing a quick check here. This is johnny_t's current score.
Karma: -82
johnny_t
(Logged in)
Registered since: May 28, 2007 at 7:13 pm
No. of comments posted: 44
No. of links posted: 1
Compared to the post I checked on this that I have replied to. He's dropped by 86 Karma at the minimum from me checking on it.
| 333 |
Gus Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:09:38pm |
"If we can perform an exorcism perhaps we can rid her of the cancer."
| 334 |
Kragar Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:09:39pm |
I get the distinct impression that Johnny_t has been on the receiving end of more that a few swirlies in his life time
| 335 |
Timbre Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:10:05pm |
CNN is reporting a crash of a Continental regional jet just outside of Buffalo, NY, maybe 48 killed. Several homes seriously damaged.
| 336 |
Charles Johnson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:10:13pm |
re: #330 johnny_t
Oh really? Because you don't like being compared in that light? Doesn't taste too good when you realize the hypocrisy, does it? Some people never learn from the past. Intolerance breeds genocide.
OK, you're not funny any more. In fact, you suck. Get off my site.
| 337 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:10:26pm |
re: #324 Salamantis
Nope. Because, assuming that homosexuality were a recessive trait, and remembering our Gregor Mendel, 2/3 of the siblings of the homosexual (who would have inherited it from both sides) would carry at least one gene of the trait, too, and they would reproduce. This ain't rocket science (well maybe it is to you).
Minor error on the first name, Sal, but it was still a great post. Thank you yet again for presenting the science of evolution. You are the hammer to creationist trolls.
| 338 |
Sharmuta Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:10:27pm |
re: #333 Gus 802
"If we can perform an exorcism perhaps we can rid her of the cancer."
Bobby Jindal, right?
| 339 |
BlueCanuck Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:10:52pm |
re: #315 Tigger2005
Haven't studied it, have no scientific conclusions about it. So from this point on I will say nothing about the science of it at all. :)
| 340 |
Gus Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:10:56pm |
| 341 |
Kosh's Shadow Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:11:18pm |
Can we do this all over again on July 20 - Gregor Mendel's birthday?
For all those who believe religion and evolution are incompatible, remember Mendel was a monk.
| 342 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:11:20pm |
re: #185 johnny_t
Let me guess....terminated? Hey, I don't post that much (look at the stats), but I do like reading about the other stuff that Charles posts. I am a strong supporter of Israel and love the like minded people that are here...but if my beliefs can't be tolerated....I seem to remember a group of people whose views and religious beliefs weren't tolerated either.....they were killed by the millions.
Hitler didn't have the Jews mass murdered because of what they believed so much as for who they WERE; it was a racist thing, not an ideological one.
| 343 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:11:41pm |
re: #336 Charles
OK, you're not funny any more. In fact, you suck. Get off my site.
How many creationist meltdowns have we had today?
| 345 |
Charles Johnson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:12:57pm |
Isn't it lovely when creationists let the mask drop all the way?
| 346 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:13:25pm |
re: #188 Spar Kling
Religious, political, and scientific convictions, opinions, and theories should stay out of each other's domains and classrooms. This is not to say, for example, that a scientist should not have a political opinion, or a politician have religious convictions and so on.
So, I guess there's no choice but to make sure that an intelligent, doctrinaire Democrat gets elected in place of Jeffrey Frederick. Obviously, Frederick is a shill for the Discovery Institute and this is part of a "wedge" strategy to replace religion-neutral laws with a Christian Taliban government and must be replaced.
Or maybe unquestioning belief in Evolution should be a requirement for joining the Republican party. All "junk" intellectual DNA must be selected out of the Republican Meme pool to maintain a pure, homozygous path to political extinction!
-sk
Maybe the electorate ought to do a better job of voting for the bright and knowledgeable candidate rather than the one who best panders to their ignorant prejudices.
| 348 |
Sharmuta Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:13:34pm |
re: #313 LudwigVanQuixote
There was a troll last weekend who linked an article he mistook as backing up his notion that evolution is atheistic, but the article made the point that non-Christian societies had piety because of the understanding in respecting the dead.
That johnny t showed none of that shows that he lacks piety despite the fact he thinks he has it in spades by misunderstanding faith.
| 349 |
palarson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:13:43pm |
re: #303 Salamantis
...
And this stuff matters, to the future military and economic security of our nation, which depends upon a supply of competent scientists - a supply that would be direly threatened by the fallacious and illegitimate indoctrination of of the naive and pliable minds of America's youth in religious dogmas as if they were empirical facts in public high school science classes.
No it doesn't. Belief in evolution could reduce a scientist's edge if evolution is in fact incorrect. And just because you teach creationism, ID, or simple scepticism doesn't mean you are not creating good scientists. Just ask Newton, Pascal, ...
| 350 |
jcw46 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:13:44pm |
re: #236 BlueCanuck
Congratulations for invoking Godwins Law.
/you lost a long time ago.
That needs to be updated to include "anti-christian", "anti-christ" (the Ultimate anti-christian), "Bush", "anti-creationist".
| 351 |
Gella Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:13:46pm |
re: #341 Kosh's Shadow
Can we do this all over again on July 20 - Gregor Mendel's birthday?
For all those who believe religion and evolution are incompatible, remember Mendel was a monk.
he kept religion and evolution separately, didnt mix them together, its different
| 352 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:13:53pm |
re: #280 jcw46
Um, no it does not. I believe I equated some christians with being conservative and that by not catering a little bit to them McCain may have lost the election (note the quotes around "religious right" what exactly does "religious right" mean?). Nowhere did I say that catering to the "religious right" equals being conservative. The "religious right" as described by the liberals is equal to being a conservative however you can cater to the "religious right" without being a conservative. Get it?
Let's say that I get your point. I will make a simple empirical distinction, I will define the Religious Right as that block of predominantly Christian voters whose primary political concerns revolve around religious issues above all else.
Specifically, they are more interested in things like abortion, gay marriage, faith based initiatives and discrediting evolution then they are about things like the economy, social spending, foreign policy, or upholding the separation between Church and State.
Now, I am not commenting on any of those issues, nor do I want to debate them. I am merely making my definitions clear. That many from the Religious Right also share more secular conservative political values is not the point. The point is that the religious ones take precedence for them.
| 353 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:13:55pm |
re: #345 Charles
Isn't it lovely when creationists let the mask drop all the way?
No. It's not nice, but necessary.
| 355 |
Alberta Oil Peon Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:14:35pm |
Man, if this dipshit wonders why Obama got elected, he need look no further than into his bathroom mirror.
| 356 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:14:50pm |
re: #349 palarson
Interesting that you pop up when johnny is gone and johnny is gone when you pop up...
| 357 |
BlueCanuck Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:15:05pm |
| 358 |
Tigger2005 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:15:06pm |
re: #318 johnny_t
If you do, can you pray for me to be taller and have a better job? Maybe there is room on the wheel for one more? Move over stinky...
Perhaps you could get a better job if you were willing to be educated. But the problem is, you think you already know it all.
| 359 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:15:18pm |
re: #355 Alberta Oil Peon
Did you get my package. I've asked on threads, and by email, and I haven't got an answer from you.
| 361 |
Clemente Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:15:45pm |
re: #314 Kragar (proud to be kafir)
Obviously the T is for twit
I was thinking "tool." But then, I've seen a better grade of tool in the dollar bin at Pep Boys, so that may not be it.
| 362 |
NY Nana Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:15:55pm |
re: #317 Catttt
Couldn't resist! And my youngest grandchild, almost 2 1/2, is more mature than he is. He adores the Muppets, and dances to that video. I have to get daughter or son in law to make a video of him doing it. The kid has rhythm!
And he always says 'please' and 'thank you'.
What he does to their cat, you might not be happy with! ;) But said cat studiously ignores him, and vanishes under the bed. Grandson can't quite reach him there.
| 363 |
Kragar Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:16:17pm |
re: #349 palarson
No it doesn't. Belief in evolution could reduce a scientist's edge if evolution is in fact incorrect. And just because you teach creationism, ID, or simple scepticism doesn't mean you are not creating good scientists. Just ask Newton, Pascal, ...
In what way does creationism or ID use the scientific method to prove its arguement?
| 364 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:16:33pm |
re: #330 johnny_t
Oh really? Because you don't like being compared in that light? Doesn't taste too good when you realize the hypocrisy, does it? Some people never learn from the past. Intolerance breeds genocide.
That was incoherent. If you make it into a complete thought, I am certain to be properly offended by you. Please try again.
| 366 |
Killian Bundy Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:17:06pm |
Australian brush fires: Police release suspect photo
Victorian police have released a composite photo of a man wanted for questioning over the Australian brush fires that killed at least 181 people and which authorities suspect may have been started by arsonists.
/it's a young Bobby Jindal!
| 367 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:17:09pm |
re: #203 johnny_t
A provable science? Then why is it called a 'theory'?
You fail to grasp the connotation of the word in the context of science; it's not the same as the huinch or guess that it means in common discourse:
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
According to the United States National Academy of Sciences,
"Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact."
| 368 |
Neo Con since 9-11 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:17:11pm |
re: #277 capitalist piglet
I suddenly cannot post on the Spencer thread on HotAir...either that, or I've been screened for some reason.
All I did was tell some woman who was accusing me (and you all) of an "attempted lynching" that she needed a dictionary and possibly a Xanax, and I've got x's on my eyes. LOL
Good grief, I hope you didn't get banned over that. You are one of my favorite commenters at both sites,
| 369 |
BlueCanuck Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:17:11pm |
re: #362 NY Nana
I love that rickroll. Even some of my friends that I have nailed with it say it's a good one.
| 371 |
piglet-u93 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:17:52pm |
If and when scientists create life from nothing will they still not refer to it as intelligent design?
| 372 |
Charles Johnson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:18:06pm |
Read Ludwig's post:
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
Then read johnny_t's reply:
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
And remember, this is a person who thinks he's doing the Lord's work. With one of the more vicious, ugly remarks I've seen posted in a creationism thread.
| 373 |
Sharmuta Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:19:26pm |
re: #371 piglet-u93
If and when scientists create life from nothing will they still not refer to it as intelligent design?
No- they'll refer to it as science.
| 374 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:19:52pm |
re: #371 piglet-u93
If and when scientists create life from nothing will they still not refer to it as intelligent design?
Second string.
| 376 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:20:25pm |
re: #372 Charles
Read Ludwig's post:
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
Then read johnny_t's post:
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
And remember, this is a person who thinks he's doing the Lord's work. With one of the more vicious, ugly remarks I've seen posted in a creationism thread.
The Antisemites, Neo-Nazis, and Fascists are getting bolder. Ugh.
| 377 |
solomonpanting Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:20:26pm |
re: #318 johnny_t
If you do, can you pray for me to be taller and have a better job?...
Well, now that you're gone from this site you'll have a better chance at that better job by attending an Obamathon. You now have the time since you're not here.
| 378 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:20:49pm |
re: #255 johnny_t
That's right folks, line up and put in your best shot. I didn't realize that I had stepped under the bridge.
You live there.
| 379 |
Rob with a mind Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:20:52pm |
| 380 |
NY Nana Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:20:58pm |
| 381 |
twincitiesgirl Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:21:30pm |
Haven't had a chance to read all the posts, but after listening to this guy one word comes to mind, E-L-O-C- U-T-I-O-N. Better yet, if you have nothing intelligent to say, just sit down.
OT-I don't know how to post this in the links section so here it is:
Suspect arrested in deadly Australia fires
It was the first time I saw a picture associated with the arsonist.
(Bottom picture on the left side, click on to enlarge)
| 382 |
patriote Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:21:36pm |
Echo #240. It's Charles' site, and it's a stunning success. However, not every fan of the site is a smarmy, snarky foul-mouthed agnostic/atheist Libertarian. I don't know what Charles is; I'd be hard-pressed to assume he's an atheist considering the unabashed support for Israel, which is a major feature of this site. But, I don't know. Israel happens to be the only Democracy in the region, so that's worthy of support on its own. It strikes me that quite a few Jews must still be creationists. Anyway, I didn't think the guy in the video sounded that ridiculous. He just stumbled a couple of times. Anybody who is surprised that a lot of Republicans are creationists is somewhat naive. Plenty of the founding fathers were Christians/creationists, and ignoring and discounting that in favor of the nouveau smart-ass cynical Libertarian agnostic bent is a bit unfair. I didn't care for Charles' disdain over Palin being a creationist, and I think he needs to realize that many conservatives still are Christians/creationsists. It's no threat, and teaching ID in schools will certainly not harm anything, and it will actually help. Let's not lump creationism with Al Gore's GW junk science.
| 383 |
palarson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:21:52pm |
re: #367 Salamantis
You fail to grasp the connotation of the word in the context of science; it's not the same as the huinch or guess that it means in common discourse:
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
According to the United States National Academy of Sciences,
"Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact."
Nice, but it doesn't change the fact that there are orders of magnitude of difference in the sensibility of evidence between the theories of gravity and evolution which therefore rightly requires distinction.
| 384 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:22:02pm |
re: #366 Killian Bundy
Australian brush fires: Police release suspect photo
/it's a young Bobby Jindal!
Not cool.
| 385 |
Charles Johnson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:22:26pm |
This place is lousy with creationists!
| 386 |
Sharmuta Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:22:28pm |
re: #379 Rob with a mind
Really? You like people who spout anti-Semitic crap?
| 387 |
Sloppy Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:22:44pm |
Speaking of tolerance and understanding reminds me of an old Lakota saying:
"Until you have walked a mile in another man's moccasins, you can't imagine the smell."
| 388 |
Gus Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:22:50pm |
Right. A God didn't create the fires. Neither did the other God: Global Warming. It was just another human.
| 389 |
Sharmuta Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:23:16pm |
re: #383 palarson
Are you going to cite an example or what?
| 390 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:23:17pm |
re: #380 NY Nana
Check the karma...final numbers, now!
/And he didn't even say goodby.
Final won't be until the rest of the lizard army has had a swing at him with the karma ax, but we have some preliminary figures for your perusal:
Karma: -111
johnny_t
This user is blocked.
Registered since: May 28, 2007 at 7:13 pm
No. of comments posted: 45
No. of links posted: 1
| 391 |
piglet-u93 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:23:20pm |
| 392 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:23:49pm |
re: #382 patriote
...Plenty of the founding fathers were Christians/creationists,
And what does that prove. They didn't have the science then.
| 393 |
Gella Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:24:03pm |
re: #388 Gus 802
Right. A God didn't create the fires. Neither did the other God: Global Warming. It was just another human.
hey I don't want to be sarcastic, but some humans consider themselves G-D, sad, really
| 394 |
Kragar Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:24:23pm |
re: #382 patriote
It's no threat, and teaching ID in schools will certainly not harm anything, and it will actually help. Let's not lump creationism with Al Gore's GW junk science.
Except for the fact it is junk science, and does harm by introducing the worst kind of shoddy logic to the classroom.
| 395 |
Catttt Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:24:28pm |
re: #366 Killian Bundy
Australian brush fires: Police release suspect photo
/it's a young Bobby Jindal!
With purple eyes!
| 396 |
Syrah Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:25:01pm |
re: #268 Dan G.
But to do so, the leadership will have to be willing to splinter the group, there are those who are irreconcilable and have no place in the Republican party. If they're against the Constitution, GONE. If they're against Individual Rights, GONE. etc...
It will take a hell of a backbone to reform the party into something respectable.
It won't be easy. Just a hell of a lot easier than trying to create a party from scratch.
Perot was a reaction, not a politician. His party was completely dependent on his moment in the sun. Once he was out of the picture, his Party fell apart, only to be consumed by Pat Pukecannon.
Neither the Whigs nor the Libertarians will ever amount to much more than "Entertainment Section" fodder for the local newspapers. They are too anachronistic or too pure to be able to be anything more than a political side shows.
Conceding the Republican Party to the johnny_t's would be a disaster for all of us.
| 397 |
Gus Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:25:02pm |
re: #393 Gella
hey I don't want to be sarcastic, but some humans consider themselves G-D, sad, really
Yeah but we just call them narcissists on the street.
| 398 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:25:03pm |
| 399 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:25:07pm |
re: #385 Charles
This place is lousy with creationists!
Need some anti-idiotarian spray?
*shukka-shukka-shukka*
*FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT*
*FFFFT* *FFFFFT*
| 400 |
realwest Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:25:18pm |
Well y'all - as I was reading down this thread, I was looking for a discussion/answer or rebuttal to Charles question at the beginning of the thread:
"Good grief. Why are they always Republicans?" But with the exception of one or two folks out here (Syra comes to mind) I didn't see any of that, really. Lot's of put downs and extraordinarily harsh language being used in the thread but precious little of it going towards responding to Charles' question regarding why is it always the Republicans. Walter also kindly tried to respond by directing us to William J. Federer but that is unsatisfactory in answering the question since I'd guess that maybe 90% or more of Republicans have ever heard his name or his beliefs before tonight.
It is, nonetheless, a truly intriguing question Charles has raised.
I am, however, medicated and over-tired right now to try to give anything resembling a responsible and intelligent response to that question or to even ask if the question itself is true.
So I will say good night to you all and hope you all have a GREAT EVENING/EARLY MORNING and that I get the chance to see you all down the road.
Good night, all.
| 401 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:25:28pm |
re: #392 Walter L. Newton
And even they kept their religion out of the Constitution and therefore our government.
| 402 |
Killgore Trout Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:25:46pm |
re: #392 Walter L. Newton
The nation was founded in 1776. Darwin didn't publish until 1853 (or so).
| 403 |
Charles Johnson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:25:48pm |
And that scumbag johnny_t sent a parting shot, of course:
Hey Charles, thanks for doing me a big favor by terminating my johnny_t account. I've read you for years, but your intolerance of certain beliefs puts you right in there with the Vlaams Belang. Keep up your other good work supporting Israel...they need all our support in these trying times; maybe someday we can find common ground on creation vs. evolution....just not today. Just think if we could all simply delete our opposition or those who have different viewpoints, or those with different skin color, or those with different religious beliefs....oh wait, that was already done once....
Now blocked at the IP level. Asshole.
| 404 |
x-wing Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:25:50pm |
re: #366 Killian Bundy
Australian brush fires: Police release suspect photo
/it's a young Bobby Jindal!
I was wondering why the press wasn't naming names to who the suspects were yesterday..My Spidey sense musta been working overtime.
| 405 |
Gella Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:25:54pm |
re: #397 Gus 802
Yeah but we just call them narcissists on the street.
or insane, put them in a crazy house and feed them nice pharmaceuticals
| 406 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:25:56pm |
re: #399 FurryOldGuyJeans
Need some anti-idiotarian spray?
*shukka-shukka-shukka*
*FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT*
*FFFFT* *FFFFFT*
That's called Edgar Off, and it's my trademark, and you can't use it here
/
| 407 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:26:09pm |
re: #306 johnny_t
I have to say I haven't been this entertained by a bunch of Darwinist in quite a long time. The theory of evolution has definitely been debunked with a few of you....de-evolution might be plausible.
You'd accept evolutionary theory yourself, if it could penetrate your Neanderthaline brow ridges and enter your primitive brain.
| 408 |
Kragar Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:26:21pm |
re: #383 palarson
Nice, but it doesn't change the fact that there are orders of magnitude of difference in the sensibility of evidence between the theories of gravity and evolution which therefore rightly requires distinction.
it doesn't change the fact that there are orders of magnitude of difference in the sensibility of evidence between the theories of evolution and creationism fucking magic which therefore rightly requires distinction
| 409 |
Catttt Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:26:26pm |
re: #382 patriote
You are lumping Christians and creationists in with a slash mark as if they are the same thing. Don't. They are not.
| 410 |
itellu3times Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:26:46pm |
Good grief. Why are they always Republicans?
Republicans run a big tent, and it takes a big tent to hold a brontasuarus.
| 411 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:26:54pm |
re: #402 Killgore Trout
The nation was founded in 1776. Darwin didn't publish until 1853 (or so).
Er, I know that. That was my point. Were you just backing up my point?
| 412 |
Gus Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:27:00pm |
re: #405 Gella
or insane, put them in a crazy house and feed them nice pharmaceuticals
Camp X-Ray would have been a good option.
| 413 |
Killgore Trout Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:28:03pm |
re: #385 Charles
It's kinda fun to let them run wild.
| 414 |
NY Nana Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:28:09pm |
re: #356 Dan G.
And today is his first birthday as a lizard rattlesnake....take a look at the karma..we are dealing with higher mathematics....hmmm, you may be onto something.
| 415 |
Gus Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:28:11pm |
Darwin was an agnostic no? Heck, they would have burned me at the stake in his time.
| 416 |
palarson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:28:22pm |
re: #408 Kragar (proud to be kafir)
it doesn't change the fact that there are orders of magnitude of difference in the sensibility of evidence between the theories of evolution and
creationismfucking magic which therefore rightly requires distinction
You are correct sir. But they are different arguments.
| 417 |
twincitiesgirl Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:28:22pm |
re: #366 Killian Bundy
Australian brush fires: Police release suspect photo
/it's a young Bobby Jindal!
GMMTA-(Great Minnesota Minds Think Alike)
| 418 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:28:42pm |
re: #312 johnny_t
...and since it is HIS show, it isn't your place to tell me it is HIS show. Oops, open mouth, insert foot.
Anyone in the circus should be able to identify the ringmaster. And I was trying to keep you from committing hari kiri. Why did I bother?
| 419 |
Killian Bundy Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:28:43pm |
| 420 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:28:51pm |
re: #396 Syrah
I agree that the proper order of operations should be to first attempt a recovery, but failing that; the alternative shouldn't be just give up. If the Bobby Jindal wing remains a dominant force in the Republican party, and they are not displaced; there will be a market for a third, non-comical, party that would, I think, not be so much be build from scratch as formed from those who chose to divorce themselves from the republican party... A major schism, if you will.
| 421 |
Killgore Trout Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:29:18pm |
| 422 |
Gus Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:29:56pm |
Non-comical? You mean non-UFO watcher TROOFER attractant...
Ron Paul!
| 423 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:30:14pm |
re: #318 johnny_t
If you do, can you pray for me to be taller and have a better job? Maybe there is room on the wheel for one more? Move over stinky...
I think it might be better to pray for you to be brighter and better informed, so you could KEEP a better job...
| 424 |
jcw46 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:30:17pm |
re: #331 Catttt
And how about gay animals? Huh? Huh? Huh? /
Ouch - my head!
isn't that dominance/displacement behaviour?
I've read some of what's been said about the hormonal possibilities and also that traits can get expressed that are deadly but Homosexuality (as practiced by humans) has been around for all of recorded history and at an incidence rate is fairly high. wouldn't the incidence of gays be less if it wasn't passed through male/female intercourse? I just think that it's more likely that "gays" have had "normal" male/female intercourse at least often enough to produce offspring with the tendency to homosexuality. That would make more sense and have a greater likelihood than random chance births. No?
| 425 |
Catttt Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:30:30pm |
Anyone ever wish a troll with a logical, rational mind would turn up once in a while? No?
| 426 |
Gus Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:30:40pm |
I bet somewhere in this world 1,320,014 people are discussing "Building 7."
| 427 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:31:05pm |
re: #421 Killgore Trout
yes.
Ok. Because I've felt a little lonely here tonight. And when I get to the theatre tomorrow afternoon, I'm going to check out the "gay" count. I may be surrounded by them and not even realize it. Scary.
/ :)
| 428 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:31:15pm |
re: #425 Catttt
Anyone ever wish a troll with a logical, rational mind would turn up once in a while? No?
Logic and rationality would flee the trollish mind.
| 429 |
Gella Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:31:40pm |
re: #425 Catttt
Anyone ever wish a troll with a logical, rational mind would turn up once in a while? No?
they never are, i think its an oxymoron
| 430 |
x-wing Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:31:50pm |
re: #385 Charles
This place is lousy with creationists!
Where did they all come from. I should've laid a bet this afternoon. How many got the stick so far tonight? I see there is still a few left with little chance of surviving another post or two.
/sheesh
| 431 |
Charles Johnson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:31:50pm |
re: #420 Dan G.
I agree that the proper order of operations should be to first attempt a recovery, but failing that; the alternative shouldn't be just give up. If the Bobby Jindal wing remains a dominant force in the Republican party, and they are not displaced; there will be a market for a third, non-comical, party that would, I think, not be so much be build from scratch as formed from those who chose to divorce themselves from the republican party... A major schism, if you will.
The GOP is pointing the car toward the cliff and flooring the gas pedal: Gov. Jindal gets GOP response slot to Obama's Feb. 24 Congress speech.
| 432 |
Killgore Trout Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:31:50pm |
re: #410 itellu3times
Creationism is in most of the State GOP Platforms. It's even mentioned in the national GOP Platform hidden the Discrimination/Equality section (Academic Freedom type stuff)
| 433 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:32:12pm |
re: #425 Catttt
Those with logic, troll other sites (i.e. non-logical ones) to stir the shit there.
| 434 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:32:29pm |
re: #425 Catttt
Anyone ever wish a troll with a logical, rational mind would turn up once in a while? No?
No. I'd prefer that they stayed away all together.
| 435 |
Catttt Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:32:48pm |
re: #433 Dan G.
Those with logic, troll other sites (i.e. non-logical ones) to stir the shit there.
Sigh.
| 436 |
Gella Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:33:09pm |
re: #434 Walter L. Newton
No. I'd prefer that they stayed away all together.
just remmber: dont feed the trolls
| 437 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:33:10pm |
re: #431 Charles
The GOP is pointing the car toward the cliff and flooring the gas pedal: Gov. Jindal gets GOP response slot to Obama's Feb. 24 Congress speech.
Glad I never had an inclination in registering as a GOP voter.
| 438 |
BlueCanuck Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:33:35pm |
re: #407 Salamantis
You'd accept evolutionary theory yourself, if it could penetrate your Neanderthaline brow ridges and enter your primitive brain.
But of course neanderthals were an evolutionary dead end...
/and I thought they died out years ago.
| 439 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:33:59pm |
re: #431 Charles
I know... The non-Jindal's are still sold on the "we need them to win" marketing ploy. This isn't going to be pretty.
| 440 |
Gus Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:34:05pm |
The "base" is dead. If they keep trying to attract the "base" they're going to keep on losing. If they don't evolve (yes I know more irony) the left will keep winning.
| 441 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:34:07pm |
re: #330 johnny_t
Oh really? Because you don't like being compared in that light? Doesn't taste too good when you realize the hypocrisy, does it? Some people never learn from the past. Intolerance breeds genocide.
Actually, the one thing that tolerance people cannot in all good conscience tolerate is the coercive intolerance of others. And the Disco Institute and its thralled minions are attempting to coerce public high schools into teaching their pet religious dogmas to other peoples' kids in science class as if they were empirical facts. Yer damn right I'm not a-gonna tolerate that!
| 442 |
capitalist piglet Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:34:21pm |
re: #368 Neo Con since 9-11
Good grief, I hope you didn't get banned over that. You are one of my favorite commenters at both sites,
That is very kind of you to say. Thank you. I enjoy your remarks as well.
I didn't think I said anything out-of-line, really. All I was trying to get was a straight answer out of Robert Spencer, but some of those people have deflection down to an art form. I haven't seen that much swarming since I last watched The Wizard of Oz.
| 443 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:34:34pm |
re: #438 BlueCanuck
But of course neanderthals were an evolutionary dead end...
/and I thought they died out years ago.
Hardly. I only occasionally drag my knuckles now. ;)
| 444 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:34:48pm |
re: #441 Salamantis
Sal, he's gone, about 45 minutes ago. Stop beating a dead troll.
| 445 |
Gus Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:34:52pm |
And hearing about "the first dude" for the 1000th time come 2012 isn't going to work.
| 446 |
Tigger2005 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:35:07pm |
re: #349 palarson
No it doesn't. Belief in evolution could reduce a scientist's edge if evolution is in fact incorrect. And just because you teach creationism, ID, or simple scepticism doesn't mean you are not creating good scientists. Just ask Newton, Pascal, ...
Evolution is not something a scientist 'believes,' it is something a scientist KNOWS is factually correct, because the evidence overwhelmingly supports it. Understand: evolution is not anthropogenic global warming. Evolution is solid science powerfully supported by 150 years of accumulated evidence, observation, and experimentation. Being "skeptical" that evolution occurs is like being skeptical that the Earth is round and revolves around the Sun. It's just a silly waste of time and energy. It's like being skeptical when your mechanic tells you that your car overheated because it's out of oil, and suggesting that a fire demon is the real cause.
And please, don't bring up that bullshit Newton, Pascal argument. It is fallacious. In the first place, you have no idea what beliefs these men would have if they lived today. In the second place, they practiced genuine science, attempting to expand the boundaries of existing knowledge--they did not deliberately limit their inquiries or refuse to ask certain questions. You cannot "create" a good scientist today by telling him that certain areas of inquiry are essentially "off limits" or forcing him to work within a Middle Ages or even a Renaissance philosophical framework. Trying to make a modern scientist into a Newton or Pascal, a Kepler or Galileo, will in fact make him much less of a scientist than he might otherwise be.
| 447 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:35:30pm |
re: #437 FurryOldGuyJeans
I only recently did, to vote against Huckabilly in the primaries. I'm seriously considering ditching it again... we'll see what Mr. Steele does (but this Jindal thing's got me worried already).
| 448 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:36:00pm |
re: #442 capitalist piglet
That is very kind of you to say. Thank you. I enjoy your remarks as well.
I didn't think I said anything out-of-line, really. All I was trying to get was a straight answer out of Robert Spencer, but some of those people have deflection down to an art form. I haven't seen that much swarming since I last watched The Wizard of Oz.
Right now with the conspiracy jag RS is on that is a severely punishable offense.
| 449 |
laxmatt1984 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:36:12pm |
You anti-Jindal people are forgetting one very important thing.
The flip-flop.
This guy is a Rhodes scholar who majored in biology. C'mon, you don't think it's an act?
| 451 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:37:06pm |
re: #440 Gus 802
The only reason that they had any votes to begin with was The Contract with America, and they've forgone everything that was included in that. So they're done, unless they get their shit straight.
| 452 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:37:49pm |
re: #447 Dan G.
I only recently did, to vote against Huckabilly in the primaries. I'm seriously considering ditching it again... we'll see what Mr. Steele does (but this Jindal thing's got me worried already).
I have always voted for a particular person running and what their views are in relation to mine. I don't vote party, period.
| 453 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:37:49pm |
re: #444 Walter L. Newton
Its for others to see... like a tarred corpse on a gibet.
| 454 |
Charles Johnson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:38:05pm |
re: #449 laxmatt1984
You anti-Jindal people are forgetting one very important thing.
The flip-flop.
This guy is a Rhodes scholar who majored in biology. C'mon, you don't think it's an act?
Bobby Jindal's Creationism and Alliance with David Barton.
Who is David Barton?
In 1991 Barton addressed the Rocky Mountain Bible Retreat of Pastor Pete Peters' Scriptures for America, a group that espouses the racist "Christian Identity" theology. Advocates of this bizarre dogma insist that white Anglo-Saxons are the "true" chosen people of the Bible and charge that today's Jews are usurpers. Aside from being a virulent anti-Semite, Peters has advocated the death penalty for homosexuals. According to the Anti-Defamation League, other speakers at the event included white supremacist leader and 1992 presidential candidate James "Bo" Gritz, a leader of the radical and increasingly violent militia movement, and Malcolm Ross, a Holocaust denier from Canada. In November of that same year, Barton spoke at Kingdom Covenant College in Grants Pass, Oregon, another "Christian Identity" front group with ties to Peters.4
Asked to explain these actions, Barton's reply amounted to a not very creative "I didn't know they were Nazis" dodge. In a July 1993 letter, Barton assistant Kit Marshall wrote, "At the time we were contacted by Pete Peters, we had absolutely no idea that he was 'part of the Nazi movement.' He contacted us for David to speak for Scriptures for America. The title is quite innocuous. In all the conversations that I personally had with Pete Peters, never once was there a hint that they were part of a Nazi movement. I would also like to point out that simply because David Barton gives a presentation to a group of people does not mean that he endorses all their beliefs."5 An excuse like that might have washed one time, but it stretches the bounds of credulity to accept that Barton was twice duped by innocuous-sounding extremist organizations.
| 455 |
BlueCanuck Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:38:21pm |
re: #425 Catttt
Anyone ever wish a troll with a logical, rational mind would turn up once in a while? No?
Oxymoron, emphasis on the moron. Most trolls don't have a logical mind. They just reiterate standard talking points of whatever platform they are trying to defend. As well they tend to employ circular logic as well.
| 456 |
palarson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:38:23pm |
re: #446 Tigger2005
Evolution is not something a scientist 'believes,' it is something a scientist KNOWS is factually correct, because the evidence overwhelmingly supports it. Understand: evolution is not anthropogenic global warming. Evolution is solid science powerfully supported by 150 years of accumulated evidence, observation, and experimentation. Being "skeptical" that evolution occurs is like being skeptical that the Earth is round and revolves around the Sun. It's just a silly waste of time and energy. It's like being skeptical when your mechanic tells you that your car overheated because it's out of oil, and suggesting that a fire demon is the real cause.
And please, don't bring up that bullshit Newton, Pascal argument. It is fallacious. In the first place, you have no idea what beliefs these men would have if they lived today. In the second place, they practiced genuine science, attempting to expand the boundaries of existing knowledge--they did not deliberately limit their inquiries or refuse to ask certain questions. You cannot "create" a good scientist today by telling him that certain areas of inquiry are essentially "off limits" or forcing him to work within a Middle Ages or even a Renaissance philosophical framework. Trying to make a modern scientist into a Newton or Pascal, a Kepler or Galileo, will in fact make him much less of a scientist than he might otherwise be.
Wrong in so many ways.
| 457 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:38:31pm |
re: #349 palarson
No it doesn't. Belief in evolution could reduce a scientist's edge if evolution is in fact incorrect. And just because you teach creationism, ID, or simple scepticism doesn't mean you are not creating good scientists. Just ask Newton, Pascal, ...
But for 150 years, ALL of the empirical evidence supports evolution, and NONE of it contradicts evolution. So your 'if evolution is incorrect' is laughable on its face. Plus, Newton and Pascal were not bioscientists, and lived and died before Darwin was even born. They never had a chance to contemplate his theory or read his books.
| 458 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:38:40pm |
re: #452 FurryOldGuyJeans
You have to be party affiliated to vote in primaries. It was the only way I could act towards having the presidential candidate I wanted.
| 459 |
Syrah Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:38:55pm |
re: #431 Charles
The GOP is pointing the car toward the cliff and flooring the gas pedal: Gov. Jindal gets GOP response slot to Obama's Feb. 24 Congress speech.
Its a rally dumb move.
Jindal is a terrible embarrassment to the GOP.
| 460 |
itellu3times Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:39:01pm |
re: #432 Killgore Trout
Creationism is in most of the State GOP Platforms. It's even mentioned in the national GOP Platform hidden the Discrimination/Equality section (Academic Freedom type stuff)
Er, yeah?
[Link: www.google.com...]
Let's see, Indiana is for job creation.
Minnesota ... protect creation science, ugh.
Texas - no mention. 1873! You'd think they'd be all hot and bothered by it, hey?
Nebraska - no mention. 2004
| 461 |
Killian Bundy Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:39:05pm |
re: #450 dragondirt
I am investigating whether this could have been caused by Soros to get Obama elected.
/you're investigating in some really nutty places
| 462 |
laxmatt1984 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:39:24pm |
re: #454 Charles
Oh I'm well aware of Jindal's *current* position.
Who knows, I might be wrong, but Jindal strikes me as a clever man.
| 463 |
Charles Johnson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:39:26pm |
| 464 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:39:32pm |
| 465 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:40:21pm |
re: #449 laxmatt1984
...who believes in the healing powers of exorcism. Enough said.
| 466 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:40:26pm |
| 467 |
Killian Bundy Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:40:44pm |
| 468 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:40:46pm |
re: #462 laxmatt1984
Oh I'm well aware of Jindal's *current* position.
Who knows, I might be wrong, but Jindal strikes me as a clever man.
I prefer honest men. That's the problem, we have to many clever one. Can't trust them worth a shit. If that's the kind of man you like, go for it. I have a little higher expectations for my politicians.
| 469 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:41:05pm |
| 470 |
Tigger2005 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:41:22pm |
re: #371 piglet-u93
If and when scientists create life from nothing will they still not refer to it as intelligent design?
Scientists aren't trying to "create life" from "nothing." They're trying to recreate the conditions of the early Earth that led to the formation (from chemicals and energy, not "nothing") of the first imperfectly self-replicating whatever-it-was. Once you have an imperfectly self-replicating thing-a-ma-bob, given plenty of time, anything is possible!
| 471 |
Charles Johnson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:41:34pm |
re: #462 laxmatt1984
Oh I'm well aware of Jindal's *current* position.
Who knows, I might be wrong, but Jindal strikes me as a clever man.
How clever is to hang out with a fundamentalist fanatic who speaks at gatherings of neo-Nazis?
| 472 |
BlueCanuck Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:41:44pm |
re: #443 FurryOldGuyJeans
Hardly. I only occasionally drag my knuckles now. ;)
You too? My girlfriend says that when I am shaved down I actually look respectful in polite company.
/of course there's that whole red meat problem I have to deal with
| 473 |
palarson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:41:51pm |
re: #457 Salamantis
But for 150 years, ALL of the empirical evidence supports evolution, and NONE of it contradicts evolution. So your 'if evolution is incorrect' is laughable on its face. Plus, Newton and Pascal were not bioscientists, and lived and died before Darwin was even born. They never had a chance to contemplate his theory or read his books.
You can't get something from nothing, and unless the theory produces a benefit its not proven.
| 474 |
NY Nana Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:42:00pm |
| 475 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:42:04pm |
re: #371 piglet-u93
If and when scientists create life from nothing will they still not refer to it as intelligent design?
Not if all the design consists of is replicating the terrestrial conditions under which it arose and emerged the first time.
| 476 |
Tigger2005 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:42:15pm |
| 477 |
laxmatt1984 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:42:29pm |
re: #471 Charles
How clever is it to hang out at TUCC for 20 years?
The strange alliances one must make on the way to the White House.
| 478 |
Gus Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:42:30pm |
re: #451 Dan G.
The only reason that they had any votes to begin with was The Contract with America, and they've forgone everything that was included in that. So they're done, unless they get their shit straight.
Yep. Which was a long time. These are new times with a far different demographic as well. I'm not saying they should compromise to a great extent but just to be atuned to it. One could look at Collins, Snowe, and Specter as going against the basic principles. They don't even have a foothold on that. Not even with accepting a 10 trillion dollar deficit that was created thanks to the previous so called "conservative" administration.
| 479 |
Catttt Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:42:33pm |
re: #450 dragondirt
I heard something on the radio today about missing money - untraced transfers - very odd. I'm going to try to find out more about it tomorrow. It's too strange and heavy for tonight, after a loooooonggggg day. It sounded pretty weird, but you never know.
Speaking of a long day - I need to go to sleep. :D Goodnight, "minions." (heh)
| 480 |
Killian Bundy Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:42:54pm |
re: #469 Walter L. Newton
Link to Atlas.
/hence my original comment which you seem determined to try and explain to me
| 481 |
laxmatt1984 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:43:14pm |
I also want to make clear I'm not a huge Jindal fan. I'm just saying I think this guy - like him or not - will be president one day.
| 483 |
BlueCanuck Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:43:26pm |
re: #465 Dan G.
...who believes in the healing powers of exorcism. Enough said.
Been there, got the emotional scaring. I hate fad Christianity.
| 484 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:43:29pm |
re: #472 BlueCanuck
You too? My girlfriend says that when I am shaved down I actually look respectful in polite company.
/of course there's that whole red meat problem I have to deal with
Problem for me shaving all the hair is like painting the Golden Gate Bridge. It takes one full year to do and then I have to start all over again.
| 485 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:43:33pm |
re: #456 palarson
Wrong in so many ways.
Name three ways in which it is wrong. I won't down ding you, pending your response.
| 486 |
Charles Johnson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:43:40pm |
re: #477 laxmatt1984
How clever is it to hang out at TUCC for 20 years?
The strange alliances one must make on the way to the White House.
If you think Jindal has a chance at the White House, you're living in a dream world.
| 487 |
Tigger2005 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:43:46pm |
re: #473 palarson
You can't get something from nothing, and unless the theory produces a benefit its not proven.
Uh ... what? Where does evolution say you can get something from nothing?
And evolution has produced benefits out the wazoo. Not that a scientific theory has to produce a benefit to be "proven." Where do you GET this bullshit?
| 488 |
x-wing Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:43:50pm |
| 489 |
Syrah Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:44:03pm |
re: #462 laxmatt1984
Oh I'm well aware of Jindal's *current* position.
Who knows, I might be wrong, but Jindal strikes me as a clever man.
Signing the Discovery Institutes Creationist Bill was about as un-cleaver a thing a politician could do. When it gets tossed out by the Supremes, it will be used to smear the GOP as a party of Loons and Kooks. No. Not Clever at all.
| 490 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:44:18pm |
re: #474 NY Nana
Wash your mouth out with soap! Atlas? Feh.
Wash my mouth out. WHY. Killian asked me why a comment up thread, that he responded to was suddenly deleted by Charles. I was just fucking answering his question. And you give me a "feh."
I don't believe it.
| 491 |
Timbre Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:44:31pm |
I have to be honest; I'm more worried about an Al-Qaeda attack in the very near future than ID textbooks in Texas schools. I know, the principle of the matter is important and the damage to science is critical. But if 85 Al-Qaeda Jihadists can disappear from the Arabian Peninsula, not counting the probably hundreds more worldwide, I am apprehensive. Armed and loaded--but apprehensive. Thanks for listening (reading).
| 492 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:44:40pm |
re: #486 Charles
If you think Jindal has a chance at the White House, you're living in a dream world.
Less chance than McCain, you think?
| 493 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:44:47pm |
re: #489 Syrah
Not to mention, the LA taxpayers will have to foot the bill.
| 494 |
Charles Johnson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:45:28pm |
Everything the Democrats tried to pin on Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal actually did -- in reality.
He believes in exorcism, he's an intelligent design activist who promoted and signed legislation to sneak it into schools, he hangs out with one of the most notoriously fanatical far-right nutjobs in the country.
Not a chance.
| 495 |
dapperdave Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:45:33pm |
We'll I'm going to create myself a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and head off to bed, good night folks
| 496 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:45:36pm |
re: #491 Timbre
And you are short sighted. How is ignoring a threat to the minds of our young going to stave off an attack from terrorists? It won't.
| 497 |
Gus Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:45:52pm |
McCain actually did very well considering. Maybe I missed something.
| 498 |
BignJames Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:46:41pm |
re: #495 dapperdave
We'll I'm going to create myself a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and head off to bed, good night folks
Crunchy or smooth? Grape?
| 499 |
Kragar Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:46:49pm |
re: #487 Tigger2005
Uh ... what? Where does evolution say you can get something from nothing?
And evolution has produced benefits out the wazoo. Not that a scientific theory has to produce a benefit to be "proven." Where do you GET this bullshit?
Excuse me, but how many evolution museums have displays of animatronic dinosaurs and cavemen in the same display? I think I rest my case!
///
| 501 |
capitalist piglet Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:47:21pm |
re: #452 FurryOldGuyJeans
I have always voted for a particular person running and what their views are in relation to mine. I don't vote party, period.
I generally vote Republican, but when the state party ran that woman for governor a few elections back (what was her name again - do you remember?), I couldn't do it. I just could not go there. I felt like I was pulling the lever for Dana Carvey in support hose.
| 502 |
traderjoe9 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:47:25pm |
Well...tomorrow is Friday...also known as the beginning of the weekend.
If we're going to credit God with anything...let it be the weekend.
Amen!
| 503 |
BlueCanuck Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:47:35pm |
re: #491 Timbre
That is an honest worry. But if we don't look to the full future, then all is lost.
| 504 |
Killgore Trout Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:47:54pm |
re: #460 itellu3times
You can't just google "Republican platform Creationism" and expect to get results. You have to actually read the platforms. I think Sharmutra is compiling a list. It's time consuming.
| 506 |
Killian Bundy Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:48:28pm |
re: #490 Walter L. Newton
Killian asked me why a comment up thread, that he responded to was suddenly deleted by Charles.
/actually, I knew why it was deleted, it was a rhetorical question
| 507 |
Gus Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:48:48pm |
And on the Seventh Day. God created the Chicago Bears.
/kidding
| 508 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:49:23pm |
re: #497 Gus 802
Gus, try using the quote or reply links so people can get a clue what you are talking about. If you are actually saying things in response to what others here are saying.
As it stands you are just some guy standing in the corner muttering to yourself.
| 509 |
Haverwilde Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:49:46pm |
re: #372 Charles
Read Ludwig's post:
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
Then read johnny_t's reply:
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
And remember, this is a person who thinks he's doing the Lord's work. With one of the more vicious, ugly remarks I've seen posted in a creationism thread.
Thank you. I missed that interchange. That is obscene.
| 510 |
HelloDare Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:49:49pm |
re: #494 Charles
Everything the Democrats tried to pin on Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal actually did -- in reality.
He believes in exorcism, he's an intelligent design activist who promoted and signed legislation to sneak it into schools, he hangs out with one of the most notoriously fanatical far-right nutjobs in the country.
Not a chance.
He was pranked. He was suckered by a prank. /
| 511 |
palarson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:49:57pm |
re: #487 Tigger2005
Uh ... what? Where does evolution say you can get something from nothing?
And evolution has produced benefits out the wazoo. Not that a scientific theory has to produce a benefit to be "proven." Where do you GET this bullshit?
Evolution is the twelve inch ruler in the proverbial six inch bag.
| 512 |
BlueCanuck Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:49:58pm |
re: #504 Killgore Trout
You can't just google "Republican platform Creationism" and expect to get results. You have to actually read the platforms. I think Sharmutra is compiling a list. It's time consuming.
There must be some way we can reward her for that effort. Seeing what she is going through, and comments about how hard it is to find the information. An upding here or there just doesn't seem to do it for me. I wish I could do more for her.
| 513 |
Gus Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:50:00pm |
re: #508 FurryOldGuyJeans
Gus, try using the quote or reply links so people can get a clue what you are talking about. If you are actually saying things in response to what others here are saying.
As it stands you are just some guy standing in the corner muttering to yourself.
Ah, OK. Thanks for the tip.
| 514 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:50:36pm |
re: #506 Killian Bundy
/actually, I knew why it was deleted, it was a rhetorical question
Well, it's hard to tell with you Killian, since you use a slash in almost every one of your messages.
I thought your question was sincere, but, it doesn't matter. NY Nana told me to wash my mouth out and she DIDN'T use no sarcasm tag.
| 515 |
HelloDare Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:50:36pm |
Creationists have doubled down in this debate. If Darwin is correct, they are not simply wrong, their God does not exist. Why is that?
Talk about picking the wrong fight.
The Pope doesn't have a problem with evolution. But they do.
I don't get it.
| 516 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:50:49pm |
re: #382 patriote
Echo #240. It's Charles' site, and it's a stunning success. However, not every fan of the site is a smarmy, snarky foul-mouthed agnostic/atheist Libertarian. I don't know what Charles is; I'd be hard-pressed to assume he's an atheist considering the unabashed support for Israel, which is a major feature of this site. But, I don't know. Israel happens to be the only Democracy in the region, so that's worthy of support on its own. It strikes me that quite a few Jews must still be creationists. Anyway, I didn't think the guy in the video sounded that ridiculous. He just stumbled a couple of times.
It was the content of his statement that was ridiculous - and the fact that he transparently plagiarized it.
Anybody who is surprised that a lot of Republicans are creationists is somewhat naive. Plenty of the founding fathers were Christians/creationists, and ignoring and discounting that in favor of the nouveau smart-ass cynical Libertarian agnostic bent is a bit unfair.
What is unfair is to expect our founding fathers to have had the opportunity to embrace evolutionary theory, seeing as they died before Darwin published Origin of Species, in 1959. Or maybe it's just ignorant.
I didn't care for Charles' disdain over Palin being a creationist, and I think he needs to realize that many conservatives still are Christians/creationsists. It's no threat, and teaching ID in schools will certainly not harm anything, and it will actually help. Let's not lump creationism with Al Gore's GW junk science.
Actually, forcibly shoehorning some religious pressure group's pet religious dogma into the tender brains of America's youth in high school science class will cut their future bioscience opportuities off at the knees, and severely damage future US global economic competitiveness and biodefence national security. And it doesn't matter if many conservatives are still creationists, if creationism ain't science, which it ain't; a lot of conservatives used to be antisemitic, too, and it took a William F. Buckley to lance that horrid boil.
| 517 |
Alberta Oil Peon Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:50:52pm |
Apropos of this thread, and very much so, too: Chris Smither, "Origin of Species."
| 518 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:51:05pm |
re: #501 capitalist piglet
I generally vote Republican, but when the state party ran that woman for governor a few elections back (what was her name again - do you remember?), I couldn't do it. I just could not go there. I felt like I was pulling the lever for Dana Carvey in support hose.
Now did I say exactly how my vote distribution runs, did I? ;)
I don't see an R and mark the slot automatically is all I am saying. There used to be some Ds that actually did good things.
| 519 |
Timbre Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:51:11pm |
re: #496 Dan G.
And you are short sighted. How is ignoring a threat to the minds of our young going to stave off an attack from terrorists? It won't.
I completely disagree with your logic and timeline. The terrorist attack is much more imminent than the numbers of children who will be starry-eyed with creation stories. And the negative impact on the United States will be horrendous. Do you honestly believe United States elementary and high schools were teaching pure evolution from 1933-1945?
| 520 |
BlueCanuck Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:51:22pm |
re: #511 palarson
Evolution is the twelve inch ruler in the proverbial six inch bag.
Damn straight. Because it keeps on moving and is not restricted to one location or framework.
| 521 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:53:05pm |
re: #511 palarson
Evolution is the twelve inch ruler in the proverbial six inch bag.
And this is a scientific observation, easily reproducible and verifiable? Sounds more like Discovery Institute talking points.
| 522 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:53:11pm |
re: #483 BlueCanuck
Been there, got the emotional scaring. I hate fad Christianity.
Exorcism was be wrong-headed (though I am willing to entertain arguments in its favor), but it is not a fad. Its been around for a very long time.
| 523 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:53:12pm |
re: #383 palarson
Nice, but it doesn't change the fact that there are orders of magnitude of difference in the sensibility of evidence between the theories of gravity and evolution which therefore rightly requires distinction.
But the massive amount of empirical evidence for either is not in credible doubt, nor is the fact that there is no empirical evidence whatsoever that contradicts either. Evolution is one of the most solidly empirically grounded theories in all of empirical science.
| 524 |
palarson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:53:21pm |
re: #520 BlueCanuck
Damn straight. Because it keeps on moving and is not restricted to one location or framework.
No, because its broke. Evolution is the new alchemy.
| 525 |
Clemente Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:53:22pm |
| 526 |
jcw46 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:53:22pm |
re: #352 LudwigVanQuixote
Specifically, they are more interested in things like abortion, gay marriage, faith based initiatives and discrediting evolution then they are about things like the economy, social spending, foreign policy, or upholding the separation between Church and State.
I would have to respectfully disagree.
1. I believe that those christians who support, most in silence, the vocal, curriculum changing creationists, do so because of what they see as the onslaught of secularism and outright anti-religion taught in public school. They're wrong to do so but I understand why they do it.
2. Most Christians are VERY concerned about the separation between the Church and State (which is a misstatement of the amendment) due to the fear of INTERFERENCE by the government in the churches (which we have seen more and more and under the O we will see more. I.E. Christian hospitals forced to do abortions)
There is less to fear from the church interfering in government (who's got the guns and the agents?)
3. Faith based initiatives were bush's idea as he saw that though churches do some of the most and best charity work, they receive little assistance from the government (no assistance IS the correct position)
4. If a conservative christian was in charge of the economy and could prevent the shenanigans initiated by the secular liberal democrats, the economy would be doing just fine.
5. Foreign policy is a weaker reed among a lot of christians but those that understand the situation know that we must be strong to counteract the evil in the world and pacifism just invites slavery.
I believe you've judged Christians by what you have read in the left wing liberal O-sucking media and might be advised to do some reading outside those venues as they ABHOR Christians. Particularly Strong Christians who practice their faith. That's why they love to find a fallen one. It delights their inner demon and makes them feel all justified in their prejudice and hate.
| 527 |
Killian Bundy Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:53:31pm |
'Historic' Stimulus Is Egregious Waste
Economic Recovery: Congress is confident it will send President Obama a stimulus bill to sign by Monday's holiday. Unless something unforeseen happens, what lawmakers will put on his desk is a $789 billion waste.
The old quip that no one should watch while laws or sausages get made is true — especially with this Congress. America's legislative body has moved away from creating anything of value and instead habitually turns out things that belong in a landfill.
None have ever been more dump-worthy than the spending bill being sold as economic stimulus.
Harvard economist Robert Barro calls the legislation "probably the worst bill that has been put forward since the 1930s."
"I mean it's wasting a tremendous amount of money," he said in an interview with the Atlantic. "I don't think it will expand the economy. . . . I think it's garbage."
Rep. Tom Cole, Republican from Oklahoma, was a bit more refined but no less biting in his commentary. Borrowing from Winston Churchill, he wryly observed from the House floor Thursday morning that "Never have so few spent so much so quickly to do so little."
/ouch!
| 528 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:53:46pm |
re: #519 Timbre
Do you actually believe that we have to focus on one to the exclusion of the other?
| 529 |
BlueCanuck Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:54:15pm |
re: #515 HelloDare
Because most creationists are protestants. Most protestants are still fighting the battles from the 15th century. So therefore anything the Roman Catholic church says is wrong.
| 530 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:54:42pm |
re: #504 Killgore Trout
You can't just google "Republican platform Creationism" and expect to get results. You have to actually read the platforms. I think Sharmutra is compiling a list. It's time consuming.
Makes you wonder why they are so intent on hiding the platform documents from the voters, doesn't it.
| 531 |
palarson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:54:52pm |
re: #523 Salamantis
... Evolution is one of the most solidly empirically grounded theories in all of empirical science.
Outrageous on its face.
| 532 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:55:11pm |
re: #511 palarson
Evolution is the twelve inch ruler in the proverbial six inch bag.
Intelligent Design is the proverbial empty bag.
| 533 |
HelloDare Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:55:12pm |
Imagine Darwin and Lincoln coming back today and visiting Congress and the Creation Museum. They'd probably run for their graves and pull the sod over their faces.
| 534 |
laxmatt1984 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:55:34pm |
re: #494 Charles
Yea, who knows. Jindal certainly has undeniable demographic appeal, whether or not he can finesse the jesus freak thing or people just simply won't care remains to be seen. The fact is, though, the GOPer who wins 2 out of the first three contests wins the nomination. I think Jindal could win Iowa and SC.
If I had my way David Patraeus would be President, but that's not bloody likely.
| 535 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:56:10pm |
re: #531 palarson
Similes aside. State one claim of The Theory of Evolution.
| 536 |
Charles Johnson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:56:44pm |
| 537 |
traderjoe9 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:56:55pm |
re: #515 HelloDare
Creationists have doubled down in this debate. If Darwin is correct, they are not simply wrong, their God does not exist. Why is that?
Talk about picking the wrong fight.
The Pope doesn't have a problem with evolution. But they do.
I don't get it.
I've recently been reading many books that analyze the Old Testament, and it is without a doubt one of the most complex and intriguing things to read about.
I consider myself religious, but I certainly have no problem with evolution. What I draw from all of these books I've read is that an innumerable amount of interpretations exist...and obviously, the literal interpretation is the most ridiculous. I don't think many of these things are meant to be taken literally.
For example...the parting of the sea. Perhaps the sea didn't part. but the Israelites trudged through a low marsh, and the chasing Egyptians were halted by a rising tide, with their wheels getting stuck in the muddy ground, etc. It's certainly not as dramatic as the sea parting...but it is still a miracle nevertheless. Perhaps it became dramatized as the story passed down subsequent generations through oral traditions, until it was finally written down.
Or not.
| 538 |
BlueCanuck Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:57:04pm |
re: #522 Dark_Falcon
Exorcism of demons is one thing. Exorcism of disease is another. Please trust me on this, I have an idea of what I am talking about. Besides even the Catholic church is very reluctant about preforming exorcisms. The church I was raised in wasn't. Apparently some people involved in my church even advertised in the classifieds.
| 539 |
BignJames Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:57:09pm |
re: #529 BlueCanuck
Some protestant sects (pentecostal) don't teach the Old Testament....why do they hang on to the creation story so fiercely?
| 540 |
esch Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:57:15pm |
re: #533 HelloDare
Imagine Darwin and Lincoln coming back today and visiting Congress and the Creation Museum. They'd probably run for their graves and pull the sod over their faces.
Actually, following that line of thought to it's logical conclusion makes me think they'd yell
BRRAAAAIIIINNSSSSS!
| 541 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:57:19pm |
| 542 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:57:21pm |
re: #416 palarson
You are correct sir. But they are different arguments.
Nope. Creationism/ID is magic perpetrated by a supernatural being. Evolution is a natural process.
| 543 |
HelloDare Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:57:28pm |
re: #536 Charles
Either I'm getting tired or you're getting stupider.
One does not exclude the other.
| 544 |
Charles Johnson Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:57:37pm |
re: #534 laxmatt1984
Yea, who knows. Jindal certainly has undeniable demographic appeal, whether or not he can finesse the jesus freak thing or people just simply won't care remains to be seen. The fact is, though, the GOPer who wins 2 out of the first three contests wins the nomination. I think Jindal could win Iowa and SC.
If I had my way David Patraeus would be President, but that's not bloody likely.
If the GOP puts Bobby Jindal up for election, get ready for Democrats in office for a long time.
| 545 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:57:44pm |
| 546 |
BlueCanuck Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:58:17pm |
re: #524 palarson
No, because its broke. Evolution is the new alchemy.
It is only broken in your mind. You have chosen to disbelieve the science and the truth as it has been uncovered. It is not alchemy because there is no magic involved in it's process.
| 547 |
itellu3times Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:58:49pm |
re: #504 Killgore Trout
You can't just google "Republican platform Creationism" and expect to get results. You have to actually read the platforms. I think Sharmutra is compiling a list. It's time consuming.
You have something against including the Texas 1873 platform? You question my scholarship? Ha!
I look forward to Sharmutra's list, I presume that's Sharmuta's Indian cousin.
/
| 548 |
Gus Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:59:08pm |
re: #544 Charles
If the GOP puts Bobby Jindal up for election, get ready for Democrats in office for a long time.
Agreed. And dare I say Sarah Palin.
| 549 |
laxmatt1984 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:59:36pm |
re: #544 Charles
Possibly. If this economy is a repeat of 1977-1980 then a lizard could beat Obama in 2012.
| 550 |
HelloDare Thu, Feb 12, 2009 10:59:39pm |
re: #540 esch
Actually, following that line of thought to it's logical conclusion makes me think they'd yell
BRRAAAAIIIINNSSSSS!
Now that's the film they should have made instead of An American Carol.
| 551 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:00:32pm |
re: #539 BignJames
Some protestant sects (pentecostal) don't teach the Old Testament....why do they hang on to the creation story so fiercely?
You have that totally wrong. They teach that Christians are not bound by any laws in the hebrew scriptures tat were given to the Jews, except those (mainly the first 10) that are mentioned in the greek scriptures.
| 552 |
Kragar Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:00:37pm |
re: #524 palarson
re: #520 BlueCanuck
Damn straight. Because it keeps on moving and is not restricted to one location or framework.
No, because its broke. Evolution is the new alchemy.
So for science to be valid, it must be set in stone? It can't adapt to new information?
| 553 |
HelloDare Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:00:52pm |
re: #548 Gus 802
Agreed. And dare I say Sarah Palin.
I thought Palin was not for teaching creationism or the controversy in schools. Has she, pardon the expression, waffled.
| 554 |
Syrah Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:01:25pm |
re: #534 laxmatt1984
Yea, who knows. Jindal certainly has undeniable demographic appeal, whether or not he can finesse the jesus freak thing or people just simply won't care remains to be seen. The fact is, though, the GOPer who wins 2 out of the first three contests wins the nomination. I think Jindal could win Iowa and SC.
If I had my way David Patraeus would be President, but that's not bloody likely.
That "demographic appeal" stuff is a trap. It never works for Republicans. It looks too much like shallow tokenism.
When Republicans run on small government, low taxes and strong defense, they win. When Republicans try to run as the Me-Too party to what ever the Democrats are doing, Republicans lose.
If Republicans think that Jindal will sell the party, they are right, he will sell it down the river.
| 556 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:01:44pm |
re: #449 laxmatt1984
You anti-Jindal people are forgetting one very important thing.
The flip-flop.
This guy is a Rhodes scholar who majored in biology. C'mon, you don't think it's an act?
His own genertics professor has spoken out in dismay when Bobby J signed the Disco shill sculpted stealth creationist bill into law in Louisiana. That was no act; that was real, with real and harmful consequences.
| 557 |
Ben G. Hazi Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:01:49pm |
| 558 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:01:57pm |
re: #531 palarson
Outrageous on its face.
Either back up these snarky statements of yours or shove off.
| 559 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:02:26pm |
re: #555 palarson
Good night Mr. Larson, Please have my answer by tomorrow.
| 560 |
BlueCanuck Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:02:56pm |
re: #539 BignJames
Well I don't know about the Pentecostals, but I was involved with several groups of protestants. All of them read and followed some form of the Old Testament. In my youth I was a member of the Christian Service Brigade.
| 561 |
Haverwilde Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:03:03pm |
re: #531 palarson
Outrageous on its face.
To you it may be outrageous. But it happens to be true. Truth has an odd aspect. It seems to stick around even when ignorant religious fanatic don't want it to.
| 562 |
Gus Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:03:13pm |
re: #553 HelloDare
I thought Palin was not for teaching creationism or the controversy in schools. Has she, pardon the expression, waffled.
She has. And she has shown some sensitivity towards benefits for homosexual couples. It's just that she's so tainted with so many Americans. I'm not saying it's justified. It's just that it would be like bringing back Bob Dole more or less.
| 563 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:03:21pm |
re: #550 HelloDare
Now that's the film they should have made instead of An American Carol.
I rather enjoyed An American Carol. Wasn't the best film, but it was rather humorous in its own little way.
| 564 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:03:44pm |
re: #462 laxmatt1984
Oh I'm well aware of Jindal's *current* position.
Who knows, I might be wrong, but Jindal strikes me as a clever man.
Yeah; clever enough to think an exorcism by a campus Christian group might cure cancer.
| 565 |
jcw46 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:03:51pm |
re: #507 Gus 802
And on the Seventh Day. God created the Chicago Bears.
/kidding
That was Satan. He is a Sadist you know.
| 566 |
esch Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:03:58pm |
re: #550 HelloDare
Now that's the film they should have made instead of An American Carol.
GMTA
So many possible great lines.
"Those who ignore history are doomed to be eated!"
"Come on down for some BBQ LIBS!"
/
| 567 |
Alberta Oil Peon Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:04:37pm |
re: #359 Walter L. Newton
Did you get my package. I've asked on threads, and by email, and I haven't got an answer from you.
I responded last night, but I guess you'd already hit the rack.
Still not arrived, but I'm sure it will eventually. Sometimes mail from the U.S.A. to Canada gets put on the slow boat to Patagonia for a tour, first.
| 568 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:04:52pm |
re: #562 Gus 802
She'd have had a chance in 10 years, after becoming more seasoned. They brought her forth too soon, and IMHO shot themselves in the foot (i.e. nullified their "Obama is inexperienced" argument).
| 570 |
HelloDare Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:04:59pm |
re: #563 FurryOldGuyJeans
I rather enjoyed An American Carol. Wasn't the best film, but it was rather humorous in its own little way.
The big problem was the lead actor. Other than looking like Moore, he brought nothing.
| 571 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:05:27pm |
re: #567 Alberta Oil Peon
I responded last night, but I guess you'd already hit the rack.
Still not arrived, but I'm sure it will eventually. Sometimes mail from the U.S.A. to Canada gets put on the slow boat to Patagonia for a tour, first.
I mailed it TWO weeks ago! I could have walked the 1300 miles in that time. Next time I will.
| 572 |
lostlakehiker Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:05:41pm |
Why is it always Republicans? The Democrats are busy trashing another sector of the biological sciences. According to them, it's always culture. The reason the Sherpas have had such success at high altitude climbing is their culture. The reason African athletes excel in Olympic running events, while the swimming events look different, cannot have anything to do with bone density or body fat layouts. It's culture. Evolution lead to man, and man evolved, but man evolved everywhere the same in every way, with the exact same distribution of all skills, knacks, or oddities. And if you say different, you're a Nazi. Or a racist.
No race is superior. Every race is superior to some other race with respect to the prevailing conditions in the evolutionary homeland of that race. That's what evolution does, in the short span it has had to act on modern humans since we exploded on the scene. It fine tunes populations, favoring variations that confer an advantage here, or there.
| 573 |
x-wing Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:06:29pm |
re: #531 palarson
Outrageous on its face.
Man, you're really laying the wood with all of your well thought out answers dude.
/
| 574 |
Timbre Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:07:19pm |
re: #528 Dan G.
Do you actually believe that we have to focus on one to the exclusion of the other?
For the time being, yes. Even if only 2% of all adult male Muslims, age 16 -50, worldwide believed in Islamic supremacy and the need for Jihad against Jews, Polytheists (which includes Trinitarian Christians to them), Disbelievers, and Apostates, that comes to about 10 million terrorists and their supporters.
| 575 |
Gus Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:07:40pm |
re: #568 Dan G.
She'd have had a chance in 10 years, after becoming more seasoned. They brought her forth too soon, and IMHO shot themselves in the foot (i.e. nullified their "Obama is inexperienced" argument).
I'll keep an open mind here. I did vote for her last November. I agree with many of her principles and would prefer to have seen her in the VP spot now rather than this debacle we are facing now with Obama and Biden.
| 576 |
Alberta Oil Peon Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:07:41pm |
re: #366 Killian Bundy
Australian brush fires: Police release suspect photo
/it's a young Bobby Jindal!
That wouldn't be a member of a broad strata of Australian society, would it, by any chance?
| 577 |
laxmatt1984 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:07:49pm |
re: #554 Syrah
Disagree. If the Republicans can get a minority who is authentically conservative, then I think he will trounce a democrat.
Minorities won't vote republican. It's stupid and it's lame, but they buy all the clap-trap about GOPers being, well, racist.
But, minorities have higher entrepreneurship rates than whites, strong nuclear family structures, and an aversion to isolationism (and it's cancerous offspring, moral equivalence). (Was that a racist statement?)
Combined with the fact that America will be majority minority within 40 years, probably less, Republicans need to start thinking seriously about reaching out to minorities. Not in a pandering, shallow way, but serious and committed. Yes, the first few election cycles might be rough, awkward even. But it's gotta be done.
Now I'll read you people (again!) tear me to pieces.
| 578 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:07:52pm |
re: #565 jcw46
The very concept of Competitive Sports is Turtle Stackian at its core.
| 579 |
NY Nana Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:08:10pm |
re: #490 Walter L. Newton
Lighten up, Walter! I guess that was a bad attempt at teasing you!
Seriously, seeing anyone link to her it really gets to me. You were here when she went spare, weren't you? BTW, saying 'feh' is not using a pejorative, an insult, and can actually be used as a joke, hand gesture included! ;)
Got to go to sleep! Even with the exact time on the computer, I forget to look!
Sweet dreams, all! G'nite.
| 580 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:08:11pm |
re: #473 palarson
You can't get something from nothing, and unless the theory produces a benefit its not proven.
Well, Darwin and mendel furnished the impetus that led Watson & Crick to discover and isolate DNA. Now, scientists have spliced a daffodil gene into a rice genome, producing a Vitamin A rich grain that prevents millions of poor southeast asian children from coming down with rickets. I'd call that pretty damn beneficial, and without darwin and Mendel, it wouldn't have happened - or at least not until someone else came up with evolution - and then you'd be slagging them.
| 581 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:08:58pm |
re: #570 HelloDare
I saw that as a deliberate choice by the creators.
| 582 |
Cato the Elder Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:09:08pm |
"The Gettyburg Address."
I seem to recall that.
Wasn't there something else, too?
Ah, yes. "The Emanipation Acclamation."
| 583 |
Timbre Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:09:13pm |
BTW, as Charles has pointed out on numerous threads, Jihadists are fanatical (obviously) creationists.
| 584 |
Rustler Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:09:44pm |
re: #267 Salamantis There is also the chance of errors in fertilization similar to what used to be called the Serial Killer gene i.e XYY. It was long postulated that the extra Y chromosome increased male Violence related traits. The theory has lost a lot of momentum due in part to the large environmental effect present in violent behavior. However their have been women found with XXX chromosomally and "males" with XXY. Males exibiting the XXY chromosomal anomaly often have more feminine features and higher than normal Estrogen counts.
| 585 |
freetoken Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:10:04pm |
re: #400 realwest
"Good grief. Why are they always Republicans?"
Have we come up with an answer yet?
| 586 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:10:12pm |
re: #579 NY Nana
Lighten up, Walter! I guess that was a bad attempt at teasing you!
Seriously, seeing anyone link to her it really gets to me. You were here when she went spare, weren't you? BTW, saying 'feh' is not using a pejorative, an insult, and can actually be used as a joke, hand gesture included! ;)
Got to go to sleep! Even with the exact time on the computer, I forget to look!
Sweet dreams, all! G'nite.
Now I can sleep too! Understood.
| 587 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:10:34pm |
re: #526 jcw46
I would have to respectfully disagree.
1. I believe that those christians who support, most in silence, the vocal, curriculum changing creationists, do so because of what they see as the onslaught of secularism and outright anti-religion taught in public school. They're wrong to do so but I understand why they do it.with you there
2. Most Christians are VERY concerned about the separation between the Church and State (which is a misstatement of the amendment) due to the fear of INTERFERENCE by the government in the churches (which we have seen more and more and under the O we will see more. I.E. Christian hospitals forced to do abortions)
There is less to fear from the church interfering in government (who's got the guns and the agents?)Actually, this is a two way street. They really hate the idea when it comes against them, but they are not opposed to forcing their religious views on others in schools themselves. I specifically referring to the Establishment Clause and in this context, it is a good thing going the other way. For example, a law that would force a Catholic private hospital to provide an abortion would also be wrong.
3. Faith based initiatives were bush's idea as he saw that though churches do some of the most and best charity work, they receive little assistance from the government (no assistance IS the correct position)
This was just one example from a list that I could have made much longer. Things like it have existed long before Bush. Again, the point is that I am referring to a group that will vote on fundamentally religious issues before voting on secular policy issues. I could also have listed wanting to ban porn, restricting the entertainment industry, wanting to put prayer in school etc...
4. If a conservative christian was in charge of the economy and could prevent the shenanigans initiated by the secular liberal democrats, the economy would be doing just fine.
It is not clear to me that religious affiliation makes one a good economist. Hoover was a religious Christian. So was Adam Smith. I see no correlation
5. Foreign policy is a weaker reed among a lot of christians but those that understand the situation know that we must be strong to counteract the evil in the world and pacifism just invites slavery.
I do not have any beef with Christians. I do not have any beef with people who vote based on their heartfelt beliefs either. Believe it or don't, I hang out with some very devout Christians and we agree on lots of things.
I believe you've judged Christians by what you have read in the left wing liberal O-sucking media and might be advised to do some reading outside those venues as they ABHOR Christians. Particularly Strong Christians who practice their faith. That's why they love to find a fallen one. It delights their inner demon and makes them feel all justified in their prejudice and hate.
Respectfully no. I am not judging anyone. I am not infected by Left Wing anything. Nothing I wrote contains judgment of good or bad in a moral sense. I made a definition which I think accurately reflects a certain voting block. To deny the existence of such a voting block, or to deny that there are people who vote this way seems kind of odd given that they crop up quite a lot in the politics of the GOP.
Now I do believe, tactically, following the dictates of this voting block is a blunder politically. I can not see that block voting Democrat under almost any circumstances, but I can see throngs of secular voters being driven away by all of the religious overtones.
| 589 |
Killian Bundy Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:11:00pm |
re: #576 Alberta Oil Peon
That wouldn't be a member of a broad strata of Australian society, would it, by any chance?
/we'll see, still looks like Jindal
| 590 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:11:06pm |
re: #574 Timbre
And we have a military and other agencies to deal with that. So, are you saying that science teachers should just shut their traps, and take the bullshit given to them because there are jihadis? WTF? How is my NOT talking about the creationists attack on the Constitution (i.e. fomenting civil war) going to prevent these imagined hordes from attacking us?
| 592 |
Clemente Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:11:30pm |
re: #565 jcw46
That was Satan. He is a Sadist you know.
And then made the Cubs from the tailings and dross...
| 593 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:11:44pm |
re: #491 Timbre
I have to be honest; I'm more worried about an Al-Qaeda attack in the very near future than ID textbooks in Texas schools. I know, the principle of the matter is important and the damage to science is critical. But if 85 Al-Qaeda Jihadists can disappear from the Arabian Peninsula, not counting the probably hundreds more worldwide, I am apprehensive. Armed and loaded--but apprehensive. Thanks for listening (reading).
It's not an either/or thing. We need to walk and chew gum simultaneously.
| 594 |
Alberta Oil Peon Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:11:50pm |
re: #382 patriote
Echo #240. It's Charles' site, and it's a stunning success. However, not every fan of the site is a smarmy, snarky foul-mouthed agnostic/atheist Libertarian. I don't know what Charles is; I'd be hard-pressed to assume he's an atheist considering the unabashed support for Israel, which is a major feature of this site. But, I don't know. Israel happens to be the only Democracy in the region, so that's worthy of support on its own. It strikes me that quite a few Jews must still be creationists. Anyway, I didn't think the guy in the video sounded that ridiculous. He just stumbled a couple of times. Anybody who is surprised that a lot of Republicans are creationists is somewhat naive. Plenty of the founding fathers were Christians/creationists, and ignoring and discounting that in favor of the nouveau smart-ass cynical Libertarian agnostic bent is a bit unfair. I didn't care for Charles' disdain over Palin being a creationist, and I think he needs to realize that many conservatives still are Christians/creationsists. It's no threat, and teaching ID in schools will certainly not harm anything, and it will actually help. Let's not lump creationism with Al Gore's GW junk science.
Damn! What sloppy thinking; and equally sloppy writing. Are you in breach of the Iron Fist rule, or does it come to you naturally?
| 595 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:11:56pm |
re: #585 freetoken
Have we come up with an answer yet?
I don't think anyone will like the answer if it was found.
| 596 |
lostlakehiker Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:13:31pm |
re: #537 traderjoe9
I've recently been reading many books that analyze the Old Testament, and it is without a doubt one of the most complex and intriguing things to read about.
I consider myself religious, but I certainly have no problem with evolution. What I draw from all of these books I've read is that an innumerable amount of interpretations exist...and obviously, the literal interpretation is the most ridiculous. I don't think many of these things are meant to be taken literally.
For example...the parting of the sea. Perhaps the sea didn't part. but the Israelites trudged through a low marsh, and the chasing Egyptians were halted by a rising tide, with their wheels getting stuck in the muddy ground, etc. It's certainly not as dramatic as the sea parting...but it is still a miracle nevertheless. Perhaps it became dramatized as the story passed down subsequent generations through oral traditions, until it was finally written down.
Or not.
Or maybe it really did part. A careful reading reveals that it wasn't a matter of Moses commanding the waves to part, just like in the movie. The writtten account has a strong wind, sustained over days.
It'd have been like a hurricane storm surge, but in reverse. Now that, of itself, wouldn't begin to clear any sort of path over any modern part of the Red Sea. But remember: climate changes over time. We find port cities buried under today's ocean. This suggests that sea levels were lower then. Put it all together, and there isn't any scientific reason why it couldn't have occurred pretty much as written.
The writers cannot have known which direction the wind would have had to come from, or for long, to make their account something that can be squared with the normal operation of the laws of nature. This suggests that they didn't make it up.
| 597 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:13:35pm |
re: #511 palarson
Evolution is the twelve inch ruler in the proverbial six inch bag.
Evolution is the only credible empirical explanation for the profusion of genetically related biospheric life.
| 598 |
pagey Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:13:59pm |
What's with this persistent fetish with creationism vs. evolution. It's like LGF thinks the Scopes trial happened yesterday. In the meantime Islam threatens the world (And LGF is bashing Spencer instead of addressing the issue.) and we spend a new 800 billion bankrupting America. Time and effort better spent on these subjects please. Once loved this site but now wonder if it isn't evolving its way to extinction.
| 599 |
HelloDare Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:14:22pm |
re: #562 Gus 802
She has. And she has shown some sensitivity towards benefits for homosexual couples. It's just that she's so tainted with so many Americans. I'm not saying it's justified. It's just that it would be like bringing back Bob Dole more or less.
Thank the press for the taint. I think she's been damaged, too. I saw a poll, don't know how accurate it was, that showed something like 60% of the democrats that voted for Obama thought she said, "I can see Russia from my house." Well, it wasn't really a poll. Just some guys with a camera interviewing people. But I've asked a couple people and they thought she really said that.
It's all about the press. Look at all the nonsense Biden got away with during his debate with Palin. He was not making any sense. He was making stuff up or just plain lying. They let him get away with it.
And because the press got away with it without suffering any consequences, they will probably be even worse in the next presidential election.
| 600 |
Gus Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:14:23pm |
re: #595 FurryOldGuyJeans
I don't think anyone will like the answer if it was found.
I have a partial answer. He was probably conditioned for that comment as a result of his environment. He probably half believed his own ideology but thought it would be a good thing to say in order to satisfy his voter base.
| 601 |
itellu3times Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:14:56pm |
re: #473 palarson
You can't get something from nothing, and unless the theory produces a benefit its not proven.
Who's getting something from nothing? Evolution is exactly how you get something from something. Sheesh. And the theory has benefits in every aspect of biological science, understanding what we see, developing all of modern medical technology. Sheesh again.
I know he just said he's off for the night, but I just saw this silly message. Sheesh. Just shows yet again, the first requirement to be for ID, is to completely misunderstand any and all of what evolution does claim to be about. Let me say again, for the point can be fuzzy in some comic-book abbreviations of evolutionary theory, that what it is about, is how nature can work with really minimal - as in zero - supernatural influences. That's the whole friggin' point! The theory at large is hugely elegant, and if you don't think so, you haven't really got it yet.
| 602 |
laxmatt1984 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:15:55pm |
re: #598 pagey
From the very start this has been one dude's blog and stuff he's interested in.
You don't see hoards of bicyclists clogging up the boards lamenting that it's all foreign policy.
| 603 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:15:58pm |
Interesting how the trolls appear in serial, not parallel, fashion. If the trolling were centrally coordinated, and they had limited resources, that would be the best way to get the most bang for their buck (i.e. not blow their whole load right away)... My $0.02.
| 604 |
Rustler Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:16:09pm |
Employed a false definition of ID that presumed that ID requires "supernatural creation"—a position that ID proponents who testified in court refuted during the trial;
So if nothing existed before creation how could ID be the result of anything but the super natural. Quote from the Casey Article? Just a question I'd like one of the IDers to answer.
| 605 |
Neutral President Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:16:09pm |
re: #598 pagey
Charles can post whatever he wants to post on his blog. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out troll.
| 606 |
freetoken Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:16:28pm |
re: #577 laxmatt1984
If the Republicans can get a minority who is authentically conservative, then I think he will trounce a democrat.
I don't know know what "authentically conservative" means.
| 607 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:16:54pm |
re: #598 pagey
You make one comment in the year you have been registered and all you do is to complain about the furniture in Charles' living room, vomit on his rug, and insult every guest in the room?
| 608 |
jcw46 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:16:59pm |
re: #583 Timbre
BTW, as Charles has pointed out on numerous threads, Jihadists are fanatical (obviously) creationists.
One of the things that made me sit up and think.
I was brought up in a Evangelical household and taught the bible. I was not necessarily anti-evolution just sorta vaguely ambivalent leaning towards a view somewhere in between darwin and yec.
Then, HERE at LGF, I read that all these suicidal nutjobs fervently believe in creationism. Wow, talk about some self-examination. Sorta like if the NYT came out for fiscal responsibility or something(fat chance. They STILL can't call frank and dodd corrupt thieves). So anyway I gotta rethink my position after I hear that.
| 609 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:16:59pm |
re: #524 palarson
No, because its broke. Evolution is the new alchemy.
We're still waiting for the first shred of credible empirical evidence contradicting evolution, and the first shred of credible empirical evidence supporting creationism/ID. Care to back up your bald assertion by supplying either one, or is that alligator mouth overloading your hummingbird posterior yet again?
| 610 |
BignJames Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:17:02pm |
re: #551 Walter L. Newton
Yep.....misunderstood what I was told.
| 611 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:18:53pm |
re: #592 Clemente
And then made the Cubs from the tailings and dross...
SMACK!
I'm a Cubs fan. Night all.
| 613 |
laxmatt1984 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:19:25pm |
re: #606 freetoken
low taxes, small government, respect for federalism, unapologetic freedom promotion.
In a word, Ronaldo Reyes.
| 614 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:19:51pm |
| 615 |
Syrah Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:19:55pm |
re: #577 laxmatt1984
It can't be done by running kooks and loons who are only being promoted because of their ethnicity. When they do things that will embarrass the party, like signing that lunatic bill, they should not be promoted at all.
Politics is about more than what looks good on the TV. It has to prove out in word and in deed. Jindal blew it.
Jindal is a loser for the GOP.
| 616 |
Fat Jolly Penguin Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:20:13pm |
Anyone have a link handy to that poll that shows belief in evolution by political party?
| 617 |
HelloDare Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:20:21pm |
re: #603 Dan G.
Interesting how the trolls appear in serial, not parallel, fashion. If the trolling were centrally coordinated, and they had limited resources, that would be the best way to get the most bang for their buck (i.e. not blow their whole load right away)... My $0.02.
| 618 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:20:23pm |
re: #531 palarson
Outrageous on its face.
What precisely is outrageous about it? The fact that it is supported by ALL of our empirical evidence, and contradicted by NONE of it?
Please prove me wrong on this; PLEEEEZE, with sprinkles on top...I triple dog dare yas. All you need is a single whit or iota, a solitary crumb, of credible empirical evidence contradicting evolution.
I'll wait, but I won't hold my breath.
| 619 |
Gus Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:20:57pm |
re: #599 HelloDare
Thank the press for the taint. I think she's been damaged, too. I saw a poll, don't know how accurate it was, that showed something like 60% of the democrats that voted for Obama thought she said, "I can see Russia from my house." Well, it wasn't really a poll. Just some guys with a camera interviewing people. But I've asked a couple people and they thought she really said that.
It's all about the press. Look at all the nonsense Biden got away with during his debate with Palin. He was not making any sense. He was making stuff up or just plain lying. They let him get away with it.
And because the press got away with it without suffering any consequences, they will probably be even worse in the next presidential election.
Or that the press attacks the bigger stereotype. It's surprising that Biden got less but you have to understand the liberal mindset which is already predisposed against someone like Palin simply because of her accent; that she wears lipstick (liberal women have this odd fascination about women wearing make-up); the hunting aspect.
| 620 |
Crux Australis Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:21:17pm |
re: #576 Alberta Oil Peon
That wouldn't be a member of a broad strata of Australian society, would it, by any chance?
Probably not, according to the 2006 census Australia is 90% White European, 8% Asian, 2% Aboriginal.
| 621 |
traderjoe9 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:21:21pm |
re: #596 lostlakehiker
Or maybe it really did part. A careful reading reveals that it wasn't a matter of Moses commanding the waves to part, just like in the movie. The writtten account has a strong wind, sustained over days.
It'd have been like a hurricane storm surge, but in reverse. Now that, of itself, wouldn't begin to clear any sort of path over any modern part of the Red Sea. But remember: climate changes over time. We find port cities buried under today's ocean. This suggests that sea levels were lower then. Put it all together, and there isn't any scientific reason why it couldn't have occurred pretty much as written.
The writers cannot have known which direction the wind would have had to come from, or for long, to make their account something that can be squared with the normal operation of the laws of nature. This suggests that they didn't make it up.
You're right, its very possible that what is written in the Old Testament as far as the sea parting could have happened just like that. I just presented a different interpretation I read somewhere.
I have absolutely no qualms or doubts about the writers making anything up. The Old Testament isn't something you make up. The Epic of Gilgamesh, or the Odyssey - is something you make up (something with an epic ending...a moral to the story, etc). The Old Testament, on the other hand, is the first of its kind. It is the first literally historical document...documenting the history of a people.
If the writers were simply making up a story...why did they give such great care to record the genealogy of all the patriarchs? Or the fact that Moshe (Moses) is an Egyptian name, even though the Old Testament claims it to be a Hebrew name. This suggests that the story of Moses being discovered by Pharaoh's daughter while bathing in the river is true, as she named him with an Egyptian name.
| 622 |
lostlakehiker Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:21:43pm |
re: #594 Alberta Oil Peon
Damn! What sloppy thinking; and equally sloppy writing. Are you in breach of the Iron Fist rule, or does it come to you naturally?
Why NOT lump creationism with Al Gore's junk science? Al Gore's "science" has the minimal merit of being only partly wrong. It's packed with half truth and outright lies, but at the core of it there's a little bit of truth. World CO2 levels really are rising, and are pushing 50% higher than they were a couple of centuries ago. And the Delaware river did freeze over back in the Revolutionary War, and it never does nowadays. The climate has changed, as reflected by migration patterns and glaciers retreating. So putting these things together, isn't it at least possible that these assorted phenomenon are linked?
With creationism, there simply isn't any evidence anywhere in support of its claims. But if it were merely wrong, it could still qualify as bad science. Instead, it's a doctrine that cannot lose, in its own mind, because for every devastating piece of evidence, there's always one last retort: it was put there as a joke, to test our faith. Faugh.
| 623 |
Rustler Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:21:55pm |
re: #537 traderjoe9 A strong wind accross a shallow body of water for a sustained period of time is capable of parting the water and allowing it to rush back in as in the biblical account. In the Bible it Specifically mentions the powerful winds and mentions that as the egyptian tryed crossinghte winds died. With the loss of the winds applying pressure to the shallow water it came rushing back with much greater force than those applied by the tides. You can repeat the experiment yourself at home with a shallow disk in front of a fan you will notice after a time the water will part if the fan blows hard enough and will rush back when the wind(fan) stops.
| 624 |
traderjoe9 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:22:16pm |
| 625 |
jcw46 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:22:19pm |
re: #599 HelloDare
Thank the press for the taint. I think she's been damaged, too. I saw a poll, don't know how accurate it was, that showed something like 60% of the democrats that voted for Obama thought she said, "I can see Russia from my house." Well, it wasn't really a poll. Just some guys with a camera interviewing people. But I've asked a couple people and they thought she really said that.
It's all about the press. Look at all the nonsense Biden got away with during his debate with Palin. He was not making any sense. He was making stuff up or just plain lying. They let him get away with it.
And because the press got away with it without suffering any consequences, they will probably be even worse in the next presidential election.
The first thing that any party wanting to counter the Dems will have to find a way to nullify, out-shout or make an end run around the MEDIA.
Look at Steele; He's not in a week and they're doing a hit job on him.
| 626 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:22:40pm |
re: #617 HelloDare
That picture is begging for some word-bubbles.
"Johnson is at it again... Trolls 12, 32, and 76; you're up first. This time, try these new talking points..."
| 627 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:23:11pm |
re: #620 Crux Australis
Probably not, according to the 2006 census Australia is 90% White European, 8% Asian, 2% Aboriginal.
Oooh, I like that 10% ;)
| 628 |
laxmatt1984 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:23:37pm |
re: #599 HelloDare
Four years is a long, long time. Who can remember that Barney Frank hired his male hooker to work in his congressional office (that hooker then ran a call service out of Frank's apartment - Frank was completely unaware, of course)?
Palin has name recognition. She'll be the first person to receive media coverage and if she comes off smart, no one will remember what Andrew Sullivan wrote four years ago.
| 629 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:23:57pm |
| 630 |
jcw46 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:24:01pm |
re: #611 Dark_Falcon
SMACK!
I'm a Cubs fan. Night all.
Hey! We're just kidding. I love the Cubs (and they've broke my little heart soooo many times!)
| 632 |
ladycatnip Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:24:51pm |
#539 Bign James
Some protestant sects (pentecostal) don't teach the Old Testament....why do they hang on to the creation story so fiercely?
I've never heard of a pentecostal church not teaching the OT - it's as important as the NT; without one you don't have the other. I cannot remember even one sermon on "creationism" ever taking place and I've been going to the same church for over 20 years - and both OT and NT are taught.
There's some gross generalizations taking place. Is there fuel for it? Absolutely (unfortunately). It's just too bad the only voices heard are those who are making idiots of themselves. I'm tired of the religious right being held up by the media as the gold standard of Christianity. I can't speak for Christians in the South or the Mid-West - maybe it is a regional thing, but here in So. California our church is filled with Blacks, Whites, Asians, Hispanics, Africans, Arab, Persians, etc., as well as democrats and republicans. It's hard for me to relate to Christians who are dogmatic and passionate about creationism. I also wonder if people like johnny_t love sticking their finger in people's eyes just to get a reaction. There's nothing "Christian" about their behavior.
| 636 |
BlueCanuck Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:26:23pm |
re: #598 pagey
The Gods of the Copy Book Headings. Read and be educated.
| 637 |
HelloDare Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:26:35pm |
re: #619 Gus 802
Or that the press attacks the bigger stereotype. It's surprising that Biden got less but you have to understand the liberal mindset which is already predisposed against someone like Palin simply because of her accent; that she wears lipstick (liberal women have this odd fascination about women wearing make-up); the hunting aspect.
I see that and I agree but it has more to do with ideology than the predisposed stereotype. For example, if Palin were as old and delusional as Biden, they would have seized on that. If Biden were a woman who wore Lipstick and hunted, the left would have found a way of making that a plus. They had an easier time they way things worked out, but the outcome would have been the same either way. It's all about ideology.
| 638 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:26:58pm |
re: #631 Dan G.
Huh?
As someone said earlier:
Probably not, according to the 2006 census Australia is 90% White European, 8% Asian, 2% Aboriginal.
What two figures add up to 10%? Love the exotic is all I'm saying.
| 640 |
x-wing Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:27:19pm |
| 641 |
traderjoe9 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:27:40pm |
re: #629 FurryOldGuyJeans
I'm only sorry I am laughing so hard. ;)
Heh.
I went to the Giants fan fest this weekend. I can proudly report that Sabean has managed to dramatically trim the age of our players. He replaced Omar Vizquel, the 40 year old, with the "youthful" Edgar Renteria, the 33 year old.
Way to go, dumbass.
| 643 |
Winslow Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:27:59pm |
Blog Damage
(with apologies to Pink Floyd)
The lunatics are here, alas.
The lunatics are here, alas.
Rehashing lines from ID threads long past;
Got to read the loony posts and laugh.
The lunatics have heard the call.
The lunatics have heard the call.
This topic brings the lurking loonies to the fore,
And every registration day brings more.
And if it seems as though you’ve heard it all before,
And if they just keep crawling through the door,
And if they always sing the same old loony tunes,
The blog is overrun with young-earth loons.
The lunatics are on the thread.
The lunatics are on the thread.
Young-earth creationists, like trolls, should not be fed;
Got to keep the loonies off the thread.
Sit back and GAZE, for they are crazy in the head;
Mustn’t let the loons derail the thread.
And if their talking points ring hollow in your ear,
And when you answer, they don’t seem to hear,
Well then, it’s clear that you’re debating young-earth loons;
You may as well be talking to the moon.
| 644 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:28:03pm |
re: #598 pagey
What's with this persistent fetish with creationism vs. evolution. It's like LGF thinks the Scopes trial happened yesterday. In the meantime Islam threatens the world (And LGF is bashing Spencer instead of addressing the issue.) and we spend a new 800 billion bankrupting America. Time and effort better spent on these subjects please. Once loved this site but now wonder if it isn't evolving its way to extinction.
This site is anti-idiotarian, and, if my guess is good, will continue to devote time and discussion to all manner of idiocies, including those of which you might be irrationally fond.
| 645 |
BatGuano Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:28:36pm |
re: #636 BlueCanuck
He is that John Derbyshire's web site?
| 646 |
freetoken Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:29:09pm |
re: #598 pagey
What's with this persistent fetish with creationism vs. evolution.
If Charles' posts on evolution is what you call a fetish... I wonder if you've ever dealt with true fetishes.
It's like LGF thinks the Scopes trial happened yesterday.
No, not Scopes, Dover. The Dover trial was only a couple of years ago, and there is a current movement afoot to try to get around the judge's decision in that case by passing various weakly worded state laws. This is a current issue.
In the meantime Islam threatens the world (And LGF is bashing Spencer instead of addressing the issue.)
In the meantime, every day, around the world, about a quarter of a million people die (of various causes), some of them due to violence and warfare, some of old age, many from disease and starvation. If you really cared about people, go do something about it.
and we spend a new 800 billion bankrupting America.
Pssst... this is a secret, so don't go spreading it... but the US is already trillions and trillions of dollars in debt, and even more so the individuals in their private debt.
Time and effort better spent on these subjects please.
You are running from something.... perhaps some existential angst?
| 647 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:29:10pm |
Good night all. Damn, that's a lot of troll corpses tonight!
| 648 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:29:14pm |
re: #641 traderjoe9
Heh.
I went to the Giants fan fest this weekend. I can proudly report that Sabean has managed to dramatically trim the age of our players. He replaced Omar Vizquel, the 40 year old, with the "youthful" Edgar Renteria, the 33 year old.
Way to go, dumbass.
I'm sorry, you must have me confused with someone else. I am a not an Athletic Supporter. Militant at that, even. ;)
| 650 |
pat Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:29:56pm |
I am sure this has been said before here. But the niche that new earthers grasp at is the word 'theory'. Darwin , of course, proposed a theory. On scant archeological evidence, but firm biologic evidence. Hence it became a 'theory'. In mathematics something of this firmity would be called a 'theorem' , something most are familiar with in geometry and complex algebra that are unquestionably true for the purposes that they are used. But it is simply nomenclature. Proven over and over again. It reminds me of students trying to disprove pi.
| 651 |
HelloDare Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:30:14pm |
re: #628 laxmatt1984
Four years is a long, long time. Who can remember that Barney Frank hired his male hooker to work in his congressional office (that hooker then ran a call service out of Frank's apartment - Frank was completely unaware, of course)?
Palin has name recognition. She'll be the first person to receive media coverage and if she comes off smart, no one will remember what Andrew Sullivan wrote four years ago.
I disagree. Barney Frank is a democrat. Democrats are allowed indiscretions. It just prove that they are human like everybody else. Or it's just an aberration. When republicans do wrong, on the other hand, it is just an example of how evil and hypocritical they are.
| 653 |
Gus Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:30:36pm |
re: #637 HelloDare
I see that and I agree but it has more to do with ideology than the predisposed stereotype. For example, if Palin were as old and delusional as Biden, they would have seized on that. If Biden were a woman who wore Lipstick and hunted, the left would have found a way of making that a plus. They had an easier time they way things worked out, but the outcome would have been the same either way. It's all about ideology.
Perhaps. All it would take is to counter the opposition as being a Republican is all it would take. However, I can't help but think that if Palin had a British accent or a man things would have been perceived differently. In the end I still think it was a foregone conclusion. Americans switch parties rather easily. The time was bad for the GOP.
| 654 |
lostlakehiker Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:30:54pm |
In defense of Jindal, when it comes to the nuts and bolts of governing, he's been a step up from Blanco. I know, that's a low bar. But really: grant that he's not fit to be president, because of his scientific ignorance or pandering.
The other governors of Louisiana have been unfit to be governor, because of their corruption and incompetence. Republicans have a lot of work ahead, just earning back a reputation for effective nuts-and-bolts governing. A democrat meltdown seems to be in the works at the national level, a prospect nobody can relish. But this meltdown, by itself, will not catapult Republicans back into power. We have to offer a credible alternative. It doesn't hurt to have several examples of states that are well governed. Say what you will about Jindal, he sure looks good compared to Spitzer or Blagoyevich.
| 655 |
traderjoe9 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:31:25pm |
re: #648 FurryOldGuyJeans
I'm sorry, you must have me confused with someone else. I am a not an Athletic Supporter. Militant at that, even. ;)
Well, you have me confused again! Why did you capitalize the "A" in "Athletic"? Because that would be a remark at the Giants cross-town rivals, the Oakland Athletics.
Its all very complicated.
| 656 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:32:43pm |
re: #655 traderjoe9
Again you persist! Sports. PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT! ;)
| 657 |
pat Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:33:53pm |
re: #654 lostlakehiker
Being a creationist does not make you an incompetent, IMHO. It merely makes you eccentric. I do not know if Jindal is a New Earther. That necessitates the disbelief in entire orders of science.
| 658 |
BlueCanuck Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:34:27pm |
re: #645 BatGuano
Don't know for sure. Just googled the poem and that's what I wanted to come up. Kipiling was a genius. Always was a fan of his writing, and always will be.
/for a real mind shocker read Kim and compare it to today in it's politics.
| 659 |
traderjoe9 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:34:40pm |
re: #656 FurryOldGuyJeans
Again you persist! Sports. PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT! ;)
:-)
Ok...ok...change of subject.
What do you think of the Israeli election results?
| 660 |
Killgore Trout Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:35:38pm |
re: #616 Fat Jolly Penguin
I'm actually getting a lot of mileage out of this link these days....
Evolution acceptance by political party
A few months ago I deleted it from my favorites because I thought I'd never need it again. Heh.
| 661 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:36:05pm |
re: #659 traderjoe9
:-)
Ok...ok...change of subject.
What do you think of the Israeli election results?
Has a winner been declared? Or is there still a fight ongoing?
| 662 |
Purre Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:37:16pm |
re: #527 Killian Bundy
This calls for editing Churchill speech to match spending bill:
"We shall go on to the end, we shall have partisan bickering, we shall borrow and beg, we shall spend with growing confidence and growing stupidity in the pork, we shall defend our wastrelness, whatever the cost may be, we shall spend on the..."
And so on. Sorry. Can't get around to finish it. :P
| 663 |
Killgore Trout Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:37:19pm |
re: #657 pat
I seem to recall that Jindal is a young earth creationist.
| 664 |
Racer X Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:37:24pm |
re: #651 HelloDare
I disagree. Barney Frank is a democrat. Democrats are allowed indiscretions. It just prove that they are human like everybody else. Or it's just an aberration. When republicans do wrong, on the other hand, it is just an example of how evil and hypocritical they are.
Its OK for Democrats to be totally corrupt, despicable, lying, cheating, thieving scumbags.
But a Republican who is a hypocrite?
*shudder*
| 665 |
BlueCanuck Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:38:44pm |
re: #661 FurryOldGuyJeans
Has a winner been declared? Or is there still a fight ongoing?
Think the American 2000 election, with a few other rules thrown in.
/proportional representation is a real bitch, just ask the germans and italians
| 666 |
traderjoe9 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:38:48pm |
re: #661 FurryOldGuyJeans
Has a winner been declared? Or is there still a fight ongoing?
Well, as it stands, Kadima has a 1 seat lead over Likud, but this could still change. Official results are not announced until February 18th, and many think that Likud still has a chance to pull above Kadima, since many of the uncounted votes are that of soldiers on leave...which are projected to support Netanyahu.
If the results remain, however, the right wing parties still have a 65-55 advantage over the leftists...so Peres would probably ask Netanyahu to form a coalition.
| 667 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:38:52pm |
re: #663 Killgore Trout
I seem to recall that Jindal is a young earth creationist.
He's a YEC? YUCK!
| 668 |
HelloDare Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:39:24pm |
re: #653 Gus 802
Perhaps. All it would take is to counter the opposition as being a Republican is all it would take. However, I can't help but think that if Palin had a British accent or a man things would have been perceived differently. In the end I still think it was a foregone conclusion. Americans switch parties rather easily. The time was bad for the GOP.
Yes, timing was bad in so many ways.
McCain was one point ahead in some polls when the economy turned down. And ironically if Iraq had still been on the table, polls showed that Obama would have lost. So because the Surge, which Obama opposed, was so successful, Obama won.
Obama's bill in 2007 called for all combat troops out of Iraq by March 31, 2008. If it had passed millions would have died and the U.S. would probably have gone back in.
Yet because Obama's bill failed, he is President today.
| 669 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:39:58pm |
re: #666 traderjoe9
Well, as it stands, Kadima has a 1 seat lead over Likud, but this could still change. Official results are not announced until February 18th, and many think that Likud still has a chance to pull above Kadima, since many of the uncounted votes are that of soldiers on leave...which are projected to support Netanyahu.
If the results remain, however, the right wing parties still have a 65-55 advantage over the leftists...so Peres would probably ask Netanyahu to form a coalition.
Sounds better than what we face then, at the very least.
| 670 |
BatGuano Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:40:28pm |
re: #658 BlueCanuck
I posted this stanza from a Kipling poem on a previous thread, It has stuck with me since 2001.
When you find yourself wounded on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Roll to your rifle and blow out your brains,
and go to your god like a soldier.
| 671 |
MrPaulRevere Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:40:35pm |
Robert Spenser is starting to sound like Marion Berry when he was busted smoking crack, you know...'*ich set me up'. Pathetic.
| 672 |
x-wing Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:40:49pm |
re: #656 FurryOldGuyJeans
Hey Furry how you doing tonight. You wouldn't have happened to bookmark that site someone posted the other night of those beautiful Ethiopian women would you? Good gravey, if they're not proof that there is a God, nothing is. ;>}
| 673 |
Sharmuta Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:41:56pm |
re: #454 Charles
Asked to explain these actions, Barton's reply amounted to a not very creative "I didn't know they were Nazis" dodge.
And that excuse is still quite popular- I think I heard it recently, in fact.
| 674 |
Sharmuta Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:42:28pm |
re: #671 MrPaulRevere
Robert Spenser is starting to sound like Marion Berry when he was busted smoking crack, you know...'*ich set me up'. Pathetic.
Really negates the "apology", imo.
| 675 |
Racer X Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:43:46pm |
re: #668 HelloDare
Yes, timing was bad in so many ways.
McCain was one point ahead in some polls when the economy turned down. And ironically if Iraq had still been on the table, polls showed that Obama would have lost. So because the Surge, which Obama opposed, was so successful, Obama won.
Obama's bill in 2007 called for all combat troops out of Iraq by March 31, 2008. If it had passed millions would have died and the U.S. would probably have gone back in.
Yet because Obama's bill failed, he is President today.
And the economy went bad because of the socialistic policies of Carter (CRA).
My head just exploded.
*darts back under my rock*
| 676 |
BatGuano Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:44:57pm |
re: #670 BatGuano
Sorry if it sounds like a downer, it's just that Afghanistan has always been tough.
| 677 |
Sharmuta Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:46:02pm |
re: #473 palarson
You can't get something from nothing, and unless the theory produces a benefit its not proven.
Evolution starts at the point of "something" already existing. The theory assumes life already is.
| 678 |
Alberta Oil Peon Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:46:37pm |
re: #620 Crux Australis
Probably not, according to the 2006 census Australia is 90% White European, 8% Asian, 2% Aboriginal.
I'm sorry, I made a joke based upon what is no doubt an obscure reference. A couple of years ago, 18 Canadians of Middle-Eastern or South Asian background (curiously, all cleaving to the same religious bent) were arrested and charged with plotting terrorist acts, including, but not limited to, capturing and beheading our Prime Minister.
The Canadian MSM, putting the blinders on as per usual, reported that the case was puzzling, and that the arrested persons represented a "broad strata" of Canadian society. If I'm not mistaken, the original source of the quote was a highly-placed police officer, no doubt O.D.'d on political correctness. In any case, since that time, when you see "broad strata" in the Canadian blogosphere, dollars to donuts it's a reference to jihadis.
/or maybe it was pure snark, reported by MSM reporters who wouldn't recognize the fact?
| 679 |
Gus Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:46:54pm |
re: #668 HelloDare
Yes, timing was bad in so many ways.
McCain was one point ahead in some polls when the economy turned down. And ironically if Iraq had still been on the table, polls showed that Obama would have lost. So because the Surge, which Obama opposed, was so successful, Obama won.
Obama's bill in 2007 called for all combat troops out of Iraq by March 31, 2008. If it had passed millions would have died and the U.S. would probably have gone back in.
Yet because Obama's bill failed, he is President today.
Yes. And ironically he, Obama, was for it before he was against it as we now see. He may in the end take credit for an Iraq victory in the eyes of the ignorant masses if polls are correct. Even though it is the result of the hard work of the Bush administration. Fools that they are they tend to think using linear logic and image response.
At the same time the public responded to an economic downturn which was announced by Hank Paulson in October. Thus all the cards were set for an Obama presidency -- without a doubt. I'm not saying it was a conspiracy of any sort but it did play into Obama's hands.
| 680 |
BlueCanuck Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:46:59pm |
re: #670 BatGuano
This poem here?
/I apologize for the website formating but it is what you mentioned.
| 681 |
capitalist piglet Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:48:04pm |
| 682 |
Killgore Trout Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:49:15pm |
re: #677 Sharmuta
Pamela has a post up about how the economic crisis is a terrorist attack and Obama is covering it up. The woman could not be more insane.
| 683 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:50:04pm |
re: #672 x-wing
Hey Furry how you doing tonight. You wouldn't have happened to bookmark that site someone posted the other night of those beautiful Ethiopian women would you? Good gravey, if they're not proof that there is a God, nothing is. ;>}
Um, I never saw the site you are referring to, I do believe.
I just checked my 365 day history files and couldn't find any links in the last week that even remotely had anything to do with Ethiopian women.
| 684 |
MrPaulRevere Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:50:16pm |
re: #674 Sharmuta
Between reading his half assed apology at JW and reading the comments at Hot Air, I feel like I'm in washing machine, with so much spinning going on.
| 685 |
BatGuano Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:50:51pm |
re: #680 BlueCanuck
Yes! I just bookmarked it. It was Kipling's advice to a young soldier.
| 686 |
Sharmuta Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:51:22pm |
re: #681 capitalist piglet
There was an apology?
/alwaysthelasttoknow
Actually- that's a good point- he didn't apologize, he just made an excuse for why he fell for a "hoax".
| 687 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:51:50pm |
re: #681 capitalist piglet
There was an apology?
/alwaysthelasttoknow
It was a "yeah I did it but Charles Johnson set up this elaborate scam to sucker me into doing it" apology.
| 688 |
MrPaulRevere Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:52:51pm |
re: #686 Sharmuta
Cato the Elder actually forced him to join that group, haven't you heard? /
| 689 |
HelloDare Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:52:57pm |
re: #679 Gus 802
Yes. And ironically he, Obama, was for it before he was against it as we now see. He may in the end take credit for an Iraq victory in the eyes of the ignorant masses if polls are correct. Even though it is the result of the hard work of the Bush administration. Fools that they are they tend to think using linear logic and image response.
At the same time the public responded to an economic downturn which was announced by Hank Paulson in October. Thus all the cards were set for an Obama presidency -- without a doubt. I'm not saying it was a conspiracy of any sort but it did play into Obama's hands.
And the press will do everything they can to help him succeed. In fact, Chris Matthews and Tavis Smiley said they consider it their job to help Obama succeed. How many others feel the same way.
| 690 |
BlueCanuck Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:53:14pm |
re: #685 BatGuano
My first introduction to that line was in a political cartoon. The word british was crossed out and russian written in.
/having some difficulties finding it since it was so long ago.
| 691 |
traderjoe9 Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:53:34pm |
Here's a question:
How different would the world be today if it wasn't for the Old Testament?
I'm reading this book, "The Gift of the Jews", by Thomas Cahill, and he brings up some interesting points.
Firstly, prior to the Old Testament, all other ancient civilizations, such as the Sumerians, the Babylonians, the Egyptians, etc. all believed that time was like a wheel, a wheel that kept turning. Basically, they believed that there was no past and there was no future, but that everything was predetermined. They would simply live, give birth, and die - and so that cycle would forever continue. The Old Testament, however, was the first document to present time as we perceive it today - a linear progression through history. For the first time, history was introduced; the past was irreversible, fixed, and the future was not yet written.
Secondly, the ten commandments are the first set of "codes" ever to be presented and accepted without any sort of justification. The ten commandments did not hinge on any circumstances..."thou shalt not kill" not need be justified. In addition, it also provided the world with the most basic and universal moral values there are.
Would the world be significantly different today if it weren't for things like this?
| 692 |
Neutral President Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:53:56pm |
re: #682 Killgore Trout
Perhaps if the "terrorists" she's referring to are all the Democrats who supported the Community Reinvestment Act and modifications to it to make it worse, ACORN, Fanny Mae, Freddie Mac, Hank Paulson, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and banks who thought fudging paperwork to give a loan for a million dollar home to someone working at McDonalds was a good idea, then she might be correct. I'm pretty sure that isn't what she means.
| 693 |
capitalist piglet Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:54:44pm |
Okay, thanks you guys. Today he said he was going to report Cato the Elder to Facebook. I'm trying to figure out what for...unless witnessing a man hit himself in the face with a feces pie is against some sort of rule on social networking sites.
| 694 |
MrPaulRevere Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:55:05pm |
Kudo's to capitalist piglet for trying to hold Spenser's feet to the fire over at Hot Air. And he never answered your questions. Fascinating.
| 695 |
Sharmuta Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:55:15pm |
re: #682 Killgore Trout
Pamela has a post up about how the economic crisis is a terrorist attack and Obama is covering it up. The woman could not be more insane.
We can think that now, but unfortunately, I have a feeling she'll show us wrong.
Let me guess what's next though- the stimulus is jizyah?
| 696 |
MandyManners Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:55:26pm |
re: #682 Killgore Trout
Pamela has a post up about how the economic crisis is a terrorist attack and Obama is covering it up. The woman could not be more insane.
Well, it was orchestrated by the enemies of freedom but, that's as far as I'll go.
| 697 |
Sharmuta Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:56:06pm |
re: #684 MrPaulRevere
Between reading his half assed apology at JW and reading the comments at Hot Air, I feel like I'm in washing machine, with so much spinning going on.
I believe I predicted we'd see nothing but spin.
| 698 |
MrPaulRevere Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:56:53pm |
re: #697 Sharmuta
Yes you did, and you were proven right, AGAIN.
| 699 |
BatGuano Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:57:00pm |
re: #690 BlueCanuck
The Russke's had some difficulty there from 1979 to 1989. kipling went through it 120 years earlier.
| 700 |
BlueCanuck Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:57:34pm |
re: #691 traderjoe9
Here's another factoid. The Hebrew alphabet and the Greek alphabet were the first written systems that employed a finite system of characters that anyone could learn. There are a few other things involved in both religions that changed human history but I think that I will save for a LJ post when I get around to it.
/once I dust off my text book and do a reread of the proper section.
| 701 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:57:34pm |
re: #697 Sharmuta
I believe I predicted we'd see nothing but spin.
You need to change your name to Sybil. ;)
| 702 |
Sharmuta Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:59:18pm |
re: #698 MrPaulRevere
Yes you did, and you were proven right, AGAIN.
I wonder where some of the people from last night are- they didn't came back to say what they thought of robert's excuse. That we were wrong, or anything. It's just *crickets*.
| 703 |
BlueCanuck Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:59:34pm |
re: #699 BatGuano
Read "Kim", it reads like a 1984 rehash of the same situation.
/rediscovered it in the 21st century.
| 704 |
Gus Thu, Feb 12, 2009 11:59:41pm |
re: #689 HelloDare
And the press will do everything they can to help him succeed. In fact, Chris Matthews and Tavis Smiley said they consider it their job to help Obama succeed. How many others feel the same way.
We would hope he would succeed but if the past few weeks are any indicator it's pointing to an abject failure. It also indicates that he is prosecuting the worst aspects of liberalism and leftism that will only lead to America's bankruptcy and eventual failure. Given that these two charlatans, Mathews and Smiley, have indicated their support should be a further indicator of the pathetic and affected or cultist nature of this administration.
| 705 |
BlueCanuck Fri, Feb 13, 2009 12:00:08am |
re: #702 Sharmuta
Or they could have gotten the wrench.
| 706 |
capitalist piglet Fri, Feb 13, 2009 12:00:19am |
re: #694 MrPaulRevere
Kudo's to capitalist piglet for trying to hold Spenser's feet to the fire over at Hot Air. And he never answered your questions. Fascinating.
Thank you, and no, though he came back after I asked (politely, I might add), he most definitely did not answer me.
Imagine that.
| 707 |
HelloDare Fri, Feb 13, 2009 12:00:26am |
re: #688 MrPaulRevere
Cato the Elder actually forced him to join that group, haven't you heard? /
Guilty or not, all Spencer had to do was say, I was duped, I'm sorry. I'm out of their. It's a terrible group.
Most of his supporters would have forgotten about it. Instead he goes on a stupid attack and fans the flames. At the very least, it's mind numbingly dumb. At the very least.
| 708 |
Sharmuta Fri, Feb 13, 2009 12:00:42am |
re: #692 ArchangelMichael
No- pamela is insane. She means jihadis, and I wouldn't be surprised if she does start calling the stimulus bill jizyah. Seriously- this woman thought Malcolm X was 0bama's love child.
| 711 |
Killgore Trout Fri, Feb 13, 2009 12:01:14am |
re: #691 traderjoe9
The world would certainly be different, just like if you change anything in history. The Old Testament was borrowed from Babylonian and Summerian religions, it wasn't really anything substantially new about it. The 10 commandments (the Code of Hammurabi), Noah's Ark (Gilgamesh), etc were all borrowed from other religions. They packaged it in their own unique way but the ideas and the stories were around long before the Jews showed up.
| 712 |
Sharmuta Fri, Feb 13, 2009 12:01:22am |
re: #705 BlueCanuck
I don't believe any of the "wait and see if he says it was an accident" people got the stick.
| 713 |
BlueCanuck Fri, Feb 13, 2009 12:01:45am |
| 714 |
Neutral President Fri, Feb 13, 2009 12:02:06am |
re: #708 Sharmuta
Seriously- this woman thought Malcolm X was 0bama's love child.
Other way around... or else she's stupid (or causality challenged) and crazy.
| 715 |
Sharmuta Fri, Feb 13, 2009 12:03:23am |
re: #706 capitalist piglet
Thanks for your efforts, though I haven't gone to Hot Air to look at what happened. It's just- I've read enough delusions about our host to last a lifetime and I don't feel the need to go looking for more.
| 716 |
BlueCanuck Fri, Feb 13, 2009 12:03:47am |
re: #712 Sharmuta
Sorry, just was some wishful thinking. They are probably back under their rocks or sitting on their toad stools waiting for the next opportunity to whine, whinge and complain.
| 717 |
MandyManners Fri, Feb 13, 2009 12:04:03am |
re: #708 Sharmuta
No- pamela is insane. She means jihadis, and I wouldn't be surprised if she does start calling the stimulus bill jizyah. Seriously- this woman thought Malcolm X was 0bama's love child.
Just how would jihadis do it?
| 718 |
MandyManners Fri, Feb 13, 2009 12:04:36am |
re: #716 BlueCanuck
Sorry, just was some wishful thinking. They are probably back under their rocks or sitting on their toad stools waiting for the next opportunity to whine, whinge and complain.
No bridges?
| 719 |
Sharmuta Fri, Feb 13, 2009 12:05:38am |
re: #714 ArchangelMichael
Yeah- oops. I made a mistake.
I mean- it was an elaborate hoax perpetrated upon me by that nefarious Charles Johnson to make me look incompetent! Yeah, yeah- that's the ticket! I was set up!
| 720 |
Neutral President Fri, Feb 13, 2009 12:05:49am |
re: #717 MandyManners
Just how would jihadis do it?
Ergo, she's crazy. I'm waiting for the Alien Overlord & 2012 moonbat stuff to start appearing at AS.
| 721 |
BlueCanuck Fri, Feb 13, 2009 12:06:34am |
re: #718 MandyManners
No bridges?
Nope, these trolls haven't evolved that far.
/besides their IQ has crippled them to even think about that approach.
| 722 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Fri, Feb 13, 2009 12:06:45am |
re: #716 BlueCanuck
Sorry, just was some wishful thinking. They are probably back under their rocks or sitting on their toad stools waiting for the next opportunity to whine, whinge and complain.
Ahh, poo' wittle twools.
| 723 |
HelloDare Fri, Feb 13, 2009 12:07:03am |
re: #704 Gus 802
We would hope he would succeed but if the past few weeks are any indicator it's pointing to an abject failure. It also indicates that he is prosecuting the worst aspects of liberalism and leftism that will only lead to America's bankruptcy and eventual failure. Given that these two charlatans, Mathews and Smiley, have indicated their support should be a further indicator of the pathetic and affected or cultist nature of this administration.
I don't hope Obama succeeds. I don't want this to be a socialist country. I don't want him to make too big a mess either.
This is in the Spinoffs upstairs.
Rogers Renews Bets U.S. Stocks Will Slump on Rescue
“He caused the problem all last year,” Rogers said on Bloomberg Television. “He came up with TARP, and he came up with all these absurd bailouts. Mr. Geithner has never known what he is doing. He doesn’t know what he is doing now and pretty soon everybody is going to find out, including Mr. Obama.”
| 724 |
MrPaulRevere Fri, Feb 13, 2009 12:07:37am |
Mandy is may very well have been a coordinated attack on our financial system, I don't discount that possibility. But I'm an evidence driven person.
| 725 |
Neutral President Fri, Feb 13, 2009 12:08:40am |
re: #724 MrPaulRevere
Mandy is may very well have been a coordinated attack on our financial system, I don't discount that possibility. But I'm an evidence driven person.
It was a coordinated attack on our financial system... by Marxists over 3 decades.
| 726 |
BlueCanuck Fri, Feb 13, 2009 12:09:13am |
re: #722 FurryOldGuyJeans
Ahh, poo' wittle twools.
The good news is that it takes less time on the BBQ to get to that mouth watering tenderness.
/I likes them young.
| 727 |
BlueCanuck Fri, Feb 13, 2009 12:10:05am |
Heading on up to the new fresh thread. → → →
| 728 |
Sharmuta Fri, Feb 13, 2009 12:10:20am |
re: #716 BlueCanuck
Sorry, just was some wishful thinking. They are probably back under their rocks or sitting on their toad stools waiting for the next opportunity to whine, whinge and complain.
I think what may be going on is they got the excuse they were looking for, but the elaborate hoax portion may have been too much for them to swallow, thus the excuse didn't serve to ease their minds like it would have had he just said, "opps".
| 729 |
traderjoe9 Fri, Feb 13, 2009 12:13:58am |
re: #711 Killgore Trout
The world would certainly be different, just like if you change anything in history. The Old Testament was borrowed from Babylonian and Summerian religions, it wasn't really anything substantially new about it. The 10 commandments (the Code of Hammurabi), Noah's Ark (Gilgamesh), etc were all borrowed from other religions. They packaged it in their own unique way but the ideas and the stories were around long before the Jews showed up.
Of course. Even things like the serpent were ideals found in other cultures. What was truly new and revolutionary in the Old Testament was that it was not a story with an ending that presented a moral point, but it was merely a documentation of a peoples history. Why would someone write something as extensive as this if there was no end...and accordingly no point?
Even more revolutionary was the fact that it first brought the idea of monotheism. In an era when believing in anything but an idol was considered extremely radical, the Old Testament did just that. This is an important point...in the epoch of idols, people simply carved out these little gods of theirs to serve the purpose of being a good luck charm. These idols satisfied their needs, whether it be bring about a good harvest, good rainfall...or whatever else consumed their attention. The Old Testament, on the other hand, was the opposite of that. God wasn't a "good-luck charm." It wasn't easy to just profess belief in the Hebrew God back then...He simply did not fit in with what they wanted. In the Old Testament, God even calls the Israelies a "stiffnecked (something, by the way, that is largely attributed to Jews in present day) when they worshiped the Golden Bull at Mount Sinai. In fact, God was so pissed with their yammering that he went them on a 40 year trek in the desert.
| 730 |
Tigger2005 Fri, Feb 13, 2009 12:13:59am |
re: #531 palarson
Outrageous on its face.
It's so easy to make assertions when you have no intention of backing them up.
| 731 |
Killgore Trout Fri, Feb 13, 2009 12:23:20am |
re: #729 traderjoe9
Even more revolutionary was the fact that it first brought the idea of monotheism.
Monotheism
The Egyptians, Greeks and Persians beat the Jews to that one. Maybe the Indians too. The real success of Western civilization was the Greeks. I'd also recommend Guns, Germs, and Steel. Europe would have been successful regardless of whatever pagan religion they would have stuck with if it weren't for the Old Testament.
| 732 |
Killgore Trout Fri, Feb 13, 2009 12:23:58am |
re: #729 traderjoe9
It is an interesting debate, we;ll have to continue some other time. I'm getting ready to check out here soon.
| 733 |
capitalist piglet Fri, Feb 13, 2009 12:35:43am |
re: #715 Sharmuta
Thanks for your efforts, though I haven't gone to Hot Air to look at what happened. It's just- I've read enough delusions about our host to last a lifetime and I don't feel the need to go looking for more.
Oh, no explanation required! I understand.
He addressed me, critical of Charles, so I took the opportunity to ask him what evidence he had that Charles and Cato had been part of the "setup" he said it "clearly" (I think that's the word he used) was. He made this "setup" claim not only on his own site, but on HotAir as well. He has yet to answer me.
I know I can be caustic at times, but honestly, I was very polite.
Then his supporters came along and accused me of participating in a "lynching", saying I wasn't a judge, it was my responsibility to provide evidence (of what, I'm not sure), it was time to decide who was right, blah, blah, blah. Probably exactly what you'd expect.
| 734 |
traderjoe9 Fri, Feb 13, 2009 12:36:11am |
re: #731 Killgore Trout
Monotheism
The Egyptians, Greeks and Persians beat the Jews to that one. Maybe the Indians too. The real success of Western civilization was the Greeks. I'd also recommend Guns, Germs, and Steel. Europe would have been successful regardless of whatever pagan religion they would have stuck with if it weren't for the Old Testament.
Zoroastrianism is more readily classified as a henotheistic religion, not as a monotheistic religion, as do the religions of the others mentioned.
For the Egyptians, wasn't the pharaoh considered the god, among other lesser gods? And the Greeks...they also have many gods. And...I'm pretty sure the Indians also have thousands of gods. Am I missing something?
| 735 |
traderjoe9 Fri, Feb 13, 2009 12:36:59am |
re: #732 Killgore Trout
It is an interesting debate, we;ll have to continue some other time. I'm getting ready to check out here soon.
I have to get going soon as well.
Good night!
| 736 |
traderjoe9 Fri, Feb 13, 2009 12:42:22am |
Another interesting point: If you claim that monotheism was no new concept and that it existed in great number well before the Jews...why was it that the Jews - who were by far - and still are - the most outnumbered of any peoples...who is Judaism the only monotheistic religion that survives to this day?
All interesting, intriguing questions.
| 737 |
Spare O'Lake Fri, Feb 13, 2009 1:52:58am |
Good grief. Why are they always Republicans?
When we look at all the crap that gets stuck to the inside of our skulls,
it's a wonder we can think at all...
| 738 |
Rustler Fri, Feb 13, 2009 2:22:22am |
re: #382 patriote
Plenty of the founding fathers were Christians/creationists, and ignoring and discounting that in favor of the nouveau smart-ass cynical Libertarian agnostic bent is a bit unfair.
Actually the vast majority of the founding Fathers were Dieists. While Dieists believe in an origional creation they also believe in scientific principles rather than superstitious nonsense.
| 739 |
Rustler Fri, Feb 13, 2009 2:28:43am |
re: #708 Sharmuta
You flipped Malcolm and Obama. She thought Obama was Malcolm's love child dear.
| 740 |
Rustler Fri, Feb 13, 2009 2:30:26am |
re: #736 traderjoe9 I wouldn't really call Zoroastrism Monotheism. It is more Elementalism than monotheism. It has 1 central god yes who created teh elements but the elements are respected as demigods.
| 741 |
Summer Seale Fri, Feb 13, 2009 2:37:49am |
Ok I'm just pretty much fed up reading the same Creationist lies and bullshit over and over again.
Evolution is "just a theory"? Haven't we covered that literally thousands of times by now? Do these people not read? I'm assuming that they don't, or they just love to lie, and lie, and lie again. It's like trying to talk to Arafat or something - a total waste of time. So either they're the biggest liars on the face of the earth, or they're the biggest fucking idiots - up there with illiterate assholes who claim that Allah wants people to blow themselves up because the Imam told them so.
Either way, ignorance or deliberate deception on that scale is egregiously fucking offensive.
Consider this my way of flipping the bird late at night at all the creationist assholes out there who repeatedly come back to spread more lies, time and time again.
| 742 |
unreconstructed rebel Fri, Feb 13, 2009 4:56:23am |
And now you why I won't give any money to the Virginia Republican Party.
| 743 |
elcaro Fri, Feb 13, 2009 4:59:58am |
Quick observation regarding this thread:
What did the Republican from my county of Virginia say that evolutionists would disagree with?
My only disappointment with what he said is that he assumes that men are equal... While they are "equal in the sight of God" and should be for legal purposes, that is pretty much where "equality" ends.
Atheists have used Darwin to reinforce their arguments, so that isn't a slap at Darwin... Maybe we should also be criticizing atheists for trying to mix science and religion as well. My thoughts are (and this probably isn't an original thought): When you mix science and religion, you get neither science nor religion. The problem with many Protestant Evangelicals (and atheists) is that they have to have their faith justified by science. Faith is given by revelation... Science by observation. Do you really need faith in something that is observed? "Blessed are those who have not seen, yet still believe"... What value is faith if it needs to be scientifically proven?
Regardless, I admit this Republican did a shabby job of presentation. However, his core argument wasn't exactly an argument, and he tried to make it sound like one. I think most people shouldn't fall into the trap of debating someone who actually had nothing at all to debate, just because he mentioned Darwin and didn't recognize his genius on his birthday. Anyway, we just gave this politician more air-time than he has probably had in his entire life.
Lastly, where the heck are my state tax dollars going if this guy and those listening to him have the time to sit around on their arse and talk about stuff like this?
| 744 |
unreconstructed rebel Fri, Feb 13, 2009 5:13:06am |
re: #743 elcaro
When you mix science and religion, you get neither science nor religion.
Exactly. Ding!
| 745 |
LoveOneAnother Fri, Feb 13, 2009 5:26:52am |
Seems like most people are missing the point because of a tongue-tied poor speaker. Whose birthday is more deserving of celebrating after 200 years, Darwin or Lincoln? The hoopla over Drawin's birthday seems downright cult-like.
| 746 |
LoveOneAnother Fri, Feb 13, 2009 5:34:28am |
re: #743 elcaro
When you mix science and religion, you get neither science nor religion. The problem with many Protestant Evangelicals (and atheists) is that they have to have their faith justified by science. Faith is given by revelation... Science by observation. Do you really need faith in something that is observed? "Blessed are those who have not seen, yet still believe"... What value is faith if it needs to be scientifically proven?
I think you misunderstand the issue here. Some people believe that truth comes ONLY through the physical world. That's what is generally touted as science these days. Others believe that truth comes through both the physical world AND through revelation. That includes a minority of scientists and plenty of religious people. I analyze empirical data because I consider it a source of truth just like sources of revelation, whether it be through faith and one's spirit, or from the study of documents based upon revelation, such as the Bible. It isn't about proving the Bible through science, it is about understanding our world through all the sources available to us, both physical observations and information from revelation.
| 748 |
Honorary Yooper Fri, Feb 13, 2009 6:08:37am |
re: #747 aimcifer
Hey, dingbat, you've only made a few comments here, and that's all you have to say? Less than 5% of posts here are about ID or YEC and exposing it for the moonbattic lunacy that it is.
| 749 |
funky chicken Fri, Feb 13, 2009 6:14:32am |
Bush and Rove used these people to defeat McCain in 2000, and made them a central power in the GOP. They had been around in isolated pockets like Kansas and South Carolina all along, but thank Bush and Rove for making them nationally powerful and prominent.
So now the GOP is stuck with these freaks. I really do think it's time for a third party. There are still lots of PUMAs out there who aren't on board the Hopey Changey Socialist Express, but those folks are never going to join the Creationist Party.
| 750 |
FrogMarch Fri, Feb 13, 2009 6:15:32am |
Tacky, unnecessary, embarrassing.
Please - shut up.
Let the left own the religious kooks - like Rev Wright. et al.
| 751 |
palarson Fri, Feb 13, 2009 6:21:17am |
re: #618 Salamantis
What precisely is outrageous about it? The fact that it is supported by ALL of our empirical evidence, and contradicted by NONE of it?
Please prove me wrong on this; PLEEEEZE, with sprinkles on top...I triple dog dare yas. All you need is a single whit or iota, a solitary crumb, of credible empirical evidence contradicting evolution.
I'll wait, but I won't hold my breath.
1.) The black box in evolution is the idea that already complicated genetic and cellular structure can suffer corruption and somehow morph into new relationships with higher levels of functionality. That's the 12 inch ruler in the six inch bag. No declaration changes that fundamental point of dispute.
2.) Do not confuse the benefits accruing to genetic theory with evolution.
| 752 |
Yashmak Fri, Feb 13, 2009 6:59:39am |
I'm still trying to untangle all the 'nots' in that statement.
"arguing that men are not only, quote, are, are only, not, not created, but they are not equal. . ."
re: #745 LoveOneAnother
Seems like most people are missing the point because of a tongue-tied poor speaker. Whose birthday is more deserving of celebrating after 200 years, Darwin or Lincoln? The hoopla over Drawin's birthday seems downright cult-like.
Both are important. Why the need to determine who 'deserves' celebration more, unless you have some need to somehow lessen Darwin?
| 753 |
beholden Fri, Feb 13, 2009 7:02:14am |
"Good grief. Why are they always Republicans?"
I don't know, because most democrats worship the God of self?
| 754 |
Yashmak Fri, Feb 13, 2009 7:04:33am |
re: #747 aimcifer
This used to be one of my favorite political blogs, but it's turned into nothing but a bashfest of creationism. What a disappointment.
I'm sure Charles is CRUSHED by your disappointment. Absolutely crushed. He might even cry. Or perhaps take down his entire website, and start a new one where this bunch of lying, shifty people who are trying to shove religion into public school science classrooms are never mentioned, just to salve your disappointment!
But probably not.
| 755 |
Yashmak Fri, Feb 13, 2009 7:15:25am |
re: #751 palarson
2.) Do not confuse the benefits accruing to genetic theory with evolution.
You've already demonstrated a problematic lack of understanding of evolutionary theory far up-thread, with an earlier comment about how evolutionary theory fails to explain the origins of life. It was never intended to. It describes how life (assumed to already be present) evolves, nothing more.
To try and argue for or against a thing, one should at least have a basic understanding of the thing.
| 756 |
Achilles Tang Fri, Feb 13, 2009 7:19:14am |
re: #94 johnny_t
Let me ask you this: If you believe in the theory of natural selection, how do you explain homosexuality? Are they breeding asexually somewhere? Total bunk.
There are really some gems here this morning. Only 650 more to scan.
Of course this genius has to conclude that the Intelligent Designer, alien or otherwise, had to make it so.....
| 757 |
Achilles Tang Fri, Feb 13, 2009 7:26:56am |
re: #751 palarson
1.) The black box in evolution is the idea that already complicated genetic and cellular structure can suffer corruption and somehow morph into new relationships with higher levels of functionality. That's the 12 inch ruler in the six inch bag. No declaration changes that fundamental point of dispute.
2.) Do not confuse the benefits accruing to genetic theory with evolution.
Your problem is that your brain is in the 6 inch bag and the 12 inches of evolution won't fit in it.
| 758 |
SecondComing Fri, Feb 13, 2009 8:08:46am |
re: #12 Sharmuta
BTW- this guy's a republican. The only one I've thus far been able to locate who opposed ID in the classrooms.
I'm pretty sure Charles has listed Sarah Palin's position on this very blog saying she is opposed to having it taught in classrooms.
| 759 |
Sharmuta Fri, Feb 13, 2009 8:09:52am |
re: #758 SecondComing
She also said she was in favor of it before she said she wasn't.
| 760 |
Achilles Tang Fri, Feb 13, 2009 8:17:52am |
And I believe she said she was in favor of "Teaching the Controversy", or words to that effect.
| 761 |
SecondComing Fri, Feb 13, 2009 8:29:51am |
re: #759 Sharmuta
She also said she was in favor of it before she said she wasn't.
So do you think she changed her position or was just paying lip service to get elected?
| 762 |
krisstingle Fri, Feb 13, 2009 8:31:27am |
Darwin aside, I believe that MY God knew an orderly world had to be created to survive. I do trust how he created EVERYTHING. For creationist's to limit God, and his knowledge is very presumptious. I believe MY GOD created a world through evolution for the survival of the universe. Without evolution , on day one the world would would have died.
| 763 |
Sharmuta Fri, Feb 13, 2009 8:33:15am |
re: #761 SecondComing
So do you think she changed her position or was just paying lip service to get elected?
How should I know? I'm not a mind reader. I'm just stating the facts- she's said both.
| 764 |
SecondComing Fri, Feb 13, 2009 8:34:06am |
wait, come to think of it wasn't McCain against it too?
| 765 |
SecondComing Fri, Feb 13, 2009 8:39:58am |
re: #763 Sharmuta
How should I know? I'm not a mind reader. I'm just stating the facts- she's said both.
I was just wondering what your thinking was because you don't seem to give much weight to her statements made during the campaign.
| 766 |
LoveOneAnother Fri, Feb 13, 2009 9:05:46am |
re: #618 Salamantis
> ... Evolution is one of the most solidly empirically
> grounded theories in all of empirical science.
> Outrageous on its face.What precisely is outrageous about it? The fact that it is supported by ALL of our empirical evidence, and contradicted by NONE of it?
Please prove me wrong on this; PLEEEEZE, with sprinkles on top...I triple dog dare yas. All you need is a single whit or iota, a solitary crumb, of credible empirical evidence contradicting evolution.
I'll wait, but I won't hold my breath.
Oh, please. Are you are going to pretend that there are no problems in evolutionary theory? Do you really mean to portray evolutionary theory as a nicely wrapped up airtight explanation of origins? There is not even one firmly accepted theory of evolution, only the widespread belief that generally speaking, it must be true. Stephen Jay Gould had it right when he said that Darwinists were so wrapped up into looking for transitionals that they were missing the obvious indication of the fossil record; namely, that most of it indicates no evolutionary changes. From thence came the concepts of Punctuated Equilibrium and the concepts of Genetic Drift to account for it. These evolutionary concepts became adjuncts to the General Theory of Evolution; namely, the concept of Natural Selection. These are theoretical frameworks attempting to explain the empirical data, but you want to pretend that none of it exists. You would rather change science into lazy one-sided dogma instead of considering alternative ways of looking at the same data.
I would post some evidence to the contrary, but I know what you will do. You will post a reference to a scientist that disagrees and think you have proved your case. Just because somebody somewhere in the universe has concocted some kind of response does not mean that ALL empirical evidence supports the General Theory of Evolution and is contradicted by NONE OF IT. Furthermore, relying upon statements from the AAAS is resorting to authority and dogma rather than science, which is more reminiscent of the way that religion works rather than science.
| 767 |
danrudy Fri, Feb 13, 2009 9:08:15am |
Long time reader and occasional contributer....
What is up with all this fascination with creationism? ...Charles and many people think they are dolts. I get it. But holy crap....with all the stuff going on in the world, economy etc you would think these people want to strap bombs on themselves and blow up our economy.
Are they really a threat to our civilization? Does it really matter that the French look down at us for this (another thread?).
AM I missing the danger posed by them and why they merit similar attention given to folks who would like to chop my head off or take away my 401k to give to unemployed drug addict with 15 kids to be fair?
Help me understand.
| 768 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Feb 13, 2009 9:09:07am |
re: #766 LoveOneAnother
You really are relentless. Carbon dating in one thread, intelligent design in another, distorted misrepresentations of Stephen Jay Gould in another. You're a one-person creationist quote mine. And since you're spouting the same nonsense in this thread as every other thread, I'll repost my comment to you:
Creationists really love this stupid "evolution is religion" argument, because they've failed utterly in trying to promote their religious pseudo-science to the status of real science, so instead they need to redefine science as religion so they can criticize it on the same level. Cognitive dissonance is inherent in this silliness; the only conclusion is that religion is somehow "less" than science, because when creationists do this it's always intended as a smear against science.
It's degrading to both science and religion, but it's to be expected since intelligence and logic aren't strong suits of creationists.
| 769 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Feb 13, 2009 9:12:05am |
If you want to understand why people like 'LoveOneAnother' are so persistent with these long-debunked creationist talking points, see:
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
| 770 |
LoveOneAnother Fri, Feb 13, 2009 9:19:48am |
re: #760 Naso Tang
And I believe she said she was in favor of "Teaching the Controversy", or words to that effect.
One thing this forum reinforces to me is the need to teach the Creation / Evolution controversy in public schools. I certainly do no support the "equal time" idea, because most of the scientific establishment ignores ID, but to try and pretend that there is no way to look at the empirical data from an Intelligent Design model of origins, and to try and pretend that the concept is purely mystical and religious, suggests a complete ignorance of facts. Education should be about knowledge, and if science is comfortable teaching how Lamarkian Evolution was falsified, they should be just as comfortable teaching how Creationism has been falsified. The only reason I can think why they are not comfortable with that idea, is that Creationism has NOT been falsified. It seems like their attitude is: "let's just pretend that ID has been falsified and convince the world of that through speading our favorite dogma. Let's use the federal courts and a twisted interpretation of the First Amendment to oppress religion in the public schools. This way we will be free to indoctrinate everyone toward our atheistic viewpoint."
| 771 |
LoveOneAnother Fri, Feb 13, 2009 9:24:04am |
re: #769 Charles
If you want to understand why people like 'LoveOneAnother' are so persistent with these long-debunked creationist talking points, see:
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
For what it's worth, I don't agree that this link adequately describes my motivations.
| 772 |
Dan G. Fri, Feb 13, 2009 9:28:50am |
re: #770 LoveOneAnother
Cdesign Proponetists. They've been exposed as frauds long enough, any action taken to defend them is to join the fraud.
| 773 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Feb 13, 2009 9:29:52am |
re: #770 LoveOneAnother
The only reason I can think why they are not comfortable with that idea, is that Creationism has NOT been falsified.
Another ridiculous distortion. Creationism CANNOT be falsified, because it is not a scientific theory. You can't falsify "God did it."
| 774 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Feb 13, 2009 9:30:32am |
And now you're advocating teaching creationism in science classes. Previously you said you didn't. At least try to keep your stories straight.
| 775 |
LoveOneAnother Fri, Feb 13, 2009 9:34:48am |
re: #768 Charles
... I'll repost my comment to you:
Creationists really love this stupid "evolution is religion" argument, because they've failed utterly in trying to promote their religious pseudo-science to the status of real science, so instead they need to redefine science as religion so they can criticize it on the same level. Cognitive dissonance is inherent in this silliness; the only conclusion is that religion is somehow "less" than science, because when creationists do this it's always intended as a smear against science.
It's degrading to both science and religion, but it's to be expected since intelligence and logic aren't strong suits of creationists.
I don't have a problem being in the minority in my scientific viewpoint. In fact, I have always welcomed it. I chose some of the strongest evolutionists to be on my Ph.D. committee. Furthermore, I have never supported using the legal system to promote creationism, neither do I support its use to promote science. Government should be neutral in this area. Unfortunately, it is not.
What I object to are arguments within science that has more appeal to authority and popularity, and using the legal system rather than rational discussions of the empirical data. I am interested in the truth and do not think that my belief in a spirit world and revelation should be used against me in arguing interpretations of empirical data. The bias against a Creator in science is what offends me, and the HYPOCRISY of claiming that the religious practice of using dogma and authority should not be allowed in science while at the same time invoking these same methods to expell creationists from careers in science. It is the hypocrisy that I am pointing out. I also am hoping that the true scientists among us, the true lovers of truth, will turn away from dangerous dogma and get back to discussing interpretations of the empirical data.
| 776 |
Sharmuta Fri, Feb 13, 2009 9:37:04am |
re: #770 LoveOneAnother
One thing this forum reinforces to me is the need to teach the Creation / Evolution controversy in public schools.
I think it shows the need to educate the adults first. Once more people take the time to study the facts, they will see ID for what it is as well as have a better understanding of evolution.
| 777 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Feb 13, 2009 9:38:01am |
re: #775 LoveOneAnother
I don't have a problem being in the minority in my scientific viewpoint.
You don't have a scientific viewpoint.
In fact, I have always welcomed it. I chose some of the strongest evolutionists to be on my Ph.D. committee.
Oh really? You have a Ph.D? In which field?
| 778 |
Sharmuta Fri, Feb 13, 2009 9:41:20am |
re: #775 LoveOneAnother
Furthermore, I have never supported using the legal system to promote creationism, neither do I support its use to promote science. Government should be neutral in this area. Unfortunately, it is not.
I think your ignorance of science is only trumped by your ignorance of the Constitution. The federal government is explicitly charged with promoting science:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries
| 779 |
LoveOneAnother Fri, Feb 13, 2009 9:41:52am |
re: #773 Charles
Another ridiculous distortion. Creationism CANNOT be falsified, because it is not a scientific theory. You can't falsify "God did it."
Claiming that creationism is "God did it" is a misrepresentation of the creationist position. You borrowed this understanding from scientists who misrepresent creationist views. You did not get this from a creationist. Relying on a staunch evolutionist to understand creationist theories is like relying on a Muslim to understand what terrorism is.
| 780 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Feb 13, 2009 9:43:25am |
re: #779 LoveOneAnother
Claiming that creationism is "God did it" is a misrepresentation of the creationist position.
No, it is not.
You borrowed this understanding from scientists who misrepresent creationist views. You did not get this from a creationist. Relying on a staunch evolutionist to understand creationist theories is like relying on a Muslim to understand what terrorism is.
Creationists do not have scientific theories.
| 782 |
gregmw Fri, Feb 13, 2009 9:45:28am |
The "Darwinism = Atheism" argument always seems so shallow to me, especially since I am an atheist and consider things like particle physics a much, much stronger reason to be an atheist than evolution.
Here's the thing: evolution just makes complete sense. "Change over time" fundamentally describes everything we perceive. Darwin's theory of natural selection put a mechanism behind the madness but in no way created the concept of evolution. And while Darwin didn't have the complete picture - how could he, there was no concept of genes and DNA or anything like it - much of his ideas have stood up remarkable well to scrutiny. Much like Newton's laws of Motion. They're not incorrect, they're just incomplete. You can get to the moon using Newton and Newton alone. It took Einstein to come along and explain some of the holes, but he never invalidated Newton in a single inertial reference frame.
Particle physics, however, doesn't make sense at all if you try to apply standard rules, like cause and effect, to it. It forces you to look at the Universe - and subsequently, the nature of human perception - in a completely different way. Not to get too deep into it, but for me, after accumulating all the knowledge I have about how the world actually works, atheism is just the only thing that makes a lick of sense.
But it's not Darwin. Blame Feynman and Pauli. Blame Einstein. And hell, blame the very concept of empirical evidence. It's not a good argument but at least it's arguing the right point.
| 783 |
LoveOneAnother Fri, Feb 13, 2009 9:47:46am |
re: #774 Charles
And now you're advocating teaching creationism in science classes. Previously you said you didn't. At least try to keep your stories straight.
You must have misunderstood what I said. Where do you think I said creationism should be excluded from the classroom?
I do remember saying that creationism should not be FORCED upon students, and I disagree with the Dover School Board forcing the reading of that silly statement. My position is that teachers should be free to deal with the subject as they see fit. I think they are the best ones to make the decision about what is appropriate and what is not. School boards should oversee what is being taught, and perhaps weigh in on the curriculum, but I would be hesitant to ban any particular viewpoints.
| 784 |
Basho Fri, Feb 13, 2009 9:48:03am |
re: #771 LoveOneAnother
For what it's worth, I don't agree that this link adequately describes my motivations.
Agreed. A hack like you isn't worth a grain of salt compared to CS Lewis.
| 785 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Fri, Feb 13, 2009 9:48:44am |
re: #160 johnny_t
Ok, then if it is a genetic trait, and homosexuality (in the past folks, in the past) couldn't reproduce, wouldn't natural selection wipe out that genetic trait? If you want to think scientifically, then let's do it.
Your absolutely right, johnny_t. It's obvious that nature could not have made homosexuals, yet homosexual animals and people do exist. Which leaves us with only one possibility - homosexuality is another miracle from God!
| 787 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Feb 13, 2009 9:49:36am |
re: #783 LoveOneAnother
Which field is your Ph.D in?
| 788 |
Sharmuta Fri, Feb 13, 2009 9:51:03am |
re: #781 Charles
So which field is your Ph.D. in?
Fascinating that the Gallup poll shows only 11% of post graduates don't accept evolution, but the number of doctorate holders rejecting the theory on these threads is so high, I have to wonder if the entirety of the 11% haven't registered at LGF.
| 789 |
danrudy Fri, Feb 13, 2009 10:01:53am |
Charles..
What I meant by help me understand was not the positions and issues.
I want to understand why this has become such a critical focus of this blog. Does this issue pose such a danger to me and my family that I need to be made aware of some hidden danger?
I am a physician who happened to have been a philosophy major in college (and a minor in Biochemistry) who had a particular interest in proving gods existence. I grew up in a religious environment and grew up with serious doubts if a god even existed . This spurred me to study this issue.
The bottom line IMO is that one either makes the leap of faith or one die or one doesn't. There will be no way to rationally prove something our mind cant comprehend. I always thought it was a decision that gives ones life a meaning and purpose or one where we are just an accident and our existence is meaningless in the scheme of things. (I am oversimplifying as I am at work having lunch and need to get back to work).
I understand peoples reasons and choice either way.
But, why has this issue become so important to this blog. Surely there are other issues that might be viewed and argued with similar implications that have more effect on our society. Abortion, death penalty, euthanasia etc. Why are we stuck on creationism when there are guys who are chopping off heads and a government forcing through a 1000 page bill that no one has a chance to read? Surely, our lives are much more influenced by these matters
| 790 |
LoveOneAnother Fri, Feb 13, 2009 10:03:08am |
re: #778 Sharmuta
You are quoting the Copyright clause, which is about Congress protecting the rights of authors. This is not the same thing as promoting science and secular humanism in a way that oppresses creationist philosophies and religions in public schools.
In any case, lifting my quote out of context makes it sound like I do not support teaching sicence in the classroom. On the contrary, I do. What I do not support is using the legal system to make what is popular in science the sole knowledge presented in the classroom. I do not support censoring philosophies in a way which respects the establishment of religions based upon atheism over religions based upon theism.
| 791 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Feb 13, 2009 10:06:03am |
re: #789 danrudy
Charles..
What I meant by help me understand was not the positions and issues.
I want to understand why this has become such a critical focus of this blog. Does this issue pose such a danger to me and my family that I need to be made aware of some hidden danger?
You could try reading what I've been posting about this, instead of asking me to repeat it all in a comment thread.
| 792 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Feb 13, 2009 10:07:15am |
re: #790 LoveOneAnother
What field is your Ph.D. in?
Come on, it takes only a few seconds to say "molecular biology," for example. It must have something to do with biology, because you "picked the strongest evolutionists" to evaluate your dissertation ... right?
| 793 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Feb 13, 2009 10:08:09am |
And yes, I'm noticing that you don't want to answer a question I've repeated several times now.
| 794 |
Yashmak Fri, Feb 13, 2009 10:08:23am |
re: #766 LoveOneAnother
Oh, please. Are you are going to pretend that there are no problems in evolutionary theory? Do you really mean to portray evolutionary theory as a nicely wrapped up airtight explanation of origins?
Are you really that dense? Have you not seen a single one of the literally HUNDREDS of comments clarifying this. . .that evolutionary theory doesn't even ADDRESS an origin, it addresses a process? I know for a fact that Salamantis has explained that dozens of times himself, and so have others (including myself) on this very thread of comments. So which is it. . .are you misrepresenting Sal, or willfully blind to what other commenters post here?
| 795 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Fri, Feb 13, 2009 10:09:05am |
| 796 |
Yashmak Fri, Feb 13, 2009 10:12:32am |
The only reason I can think why they are not comfortable with that idea, is that Creationism has NOT been falsified.
-LoveOneAnother
No, but one of the reasons we are not comfortable with it being taught in science classrooms is that Creationism CANNOT be either verified or falsified. It cannot be tested. It is, therefore, NOT SCIENCE. Is that plain enough?
| 797 |
Sharmuta Fri, Feb 13, 2009 10:13:52am |
re: #790 LoveOneAnother
I realize that Clause establishes the Patent Office. The federal government is mandated to protect scientific discoveries. No where in the Constitution is the government mandated to promote religion. They are prevented from doing so while also prevented from infringing upon the rights of individuals to practice the religion of their choice. Allowing ID into the classrooms would be promoting a religious belief system into the schools. If you let in one, you'll have to allow them all.
I say, let's start with Scientology first. After all, they have "science" in their name. Would that be acceptable to you?
| 798 |
Yashmak Fri, Feb 13, 2009 10:14:31am |
re: #775 LoveOneAnother
I don't have a problem being in the minority in my scientific viewpoint. In fact, I have always welcomed it. I chose some of the strongest evolutionists to be on my Ph.D. committee.
I didn't realize they gave Ph.D's in Intellectual Dishonesty.
| 799 |
Sharmuta Fri, Feb 13, 2009 10:15:57am |
re: #790 LoveOneAnother
On the contrary, I do. What I do not support is using the legal system to make what is popular in science the sole knowledge presented in the classroom.
You realize that if it weren't for creationists pushing the subject, it would never have ended up in the courts, right?
| 800 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Feb 13, 2009 10:16:09am |
re: #783 LoveOneAnother
You must have misunderstood what I said. Where do you think I said creationism should be excluded from the classroom?
I do not agree with mandating pet creationist dogma in public schools.
So which field is your Ph.D. in?
| 802 |
Yashmak Fri, Feb 13, 2009 10:18:08am |
The bias against a Creator in science is what offends me,
- LoveOneAnother
There is no such bias, there's just an utter lack of evidence suggesting a Creator. Science is supposed to be biased in favor of the preponderance of evidence. An individual holding a PhD should know that. And again, you're confusing evolutionary science with the issues surrounding the ORIGIN of life.
| 803 |
kafir Fri, Feb 13, 2009 10:19:17am |
I am annoyed that apart from good fiscal/financial policies and a muscular foreign policy, my fellow party travelers seem stuck on religious issues impeding their judgement.
I would like to see a republican party that addresses our needs without the religious dimension. All these attacks on Darwin and science bug the hell out of me.
But at least they are not going after physics too much ... the young earthers are a funny bunch though.
FWIW, my Ph.D is in physics, and I have been a professor type in a past life. Loved teaching, hated the pay. Lots of LLL there, turned my stomach.
| 805 |
LoveOneAnother Fri, Feb 13, 2009 10:22:01am |
re: #787 Charles
Which field is your Ph.D in?
I do not have a Ph.D. I am one of the "Expelled" victims that Ben Stein's movie attempted to talk about. I studied biology full time for 9 years at the university level. My area of specialty was ecology and evolution. I taught for five years at the university, but my creationist views created too many political problems for me to finish out the degree. I was actually asked about creationism on my Ph.D. written exams (which is a five day exam), and one professor said it was the best answer on the entire exam while another professor said it was the worse answer he had ever read. The professor that said it was the worse answer also claimed I had some factually incorrect statements in my essays about the evolution of vertebrates, which when I challenged him on it, he backed down and acknowledged that his information was incorrect, coming from a lecture he heard one of the other professor give (this professor was an invertebrate biologist while I was a vertebrate biologist). It was then that I realized that they would batter me about for years and probably never give me a Ph.D. degree. My major professor told me that one professor on the committee said I would never receive a Ph.D., while others were more supportive. I had finished all my course work and had enough graduate credit hours for a Ph.D., but realized that getting my dissertation signed would be an uphill battle that I probably would never win. As far as I was concerned at the time, it was only a piece of paper and these guys were not going to convey more knowledge to me, so I left the university and started working for a company in computer software development. I had a family by then and monetary needs for supporting my family took precedence over my desire for teaching and research in biology. Enough about me. I realize some here probably will shred me concerning all this personal information, but so be it. I don't want to ignore your question.
| 806 |
Sharmuta Fri, Feb 13, 2009 10:23:18am |
re: #805 LoveOneAnother
Perhaps you could help out Spar Kling. He needs links to your papers.
| 807 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Fri, Feb 13, 2009 10:24:15am |
re: #783 LoveOneAnother
but I would be hesitant to ban any particular viewpoints.
Including obviously invalid ones. If the teacher happens to think there is a controversy over phlogiston or the flat earth or creationism - then that is what will be taught. Screw the kids education - there's a principle of "the academic freedom to teach garbage" at stake here. /
| 808 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Feb 13, 2009 10:24:43am |
re: #805 LoveOneAnother
Oh, I see. You were persecuted by the evil scientific conspiracy. I feel for you.
| 809 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Fri, Feb 13, 2009 10:28:44am |
re: #804 Sharmuta
LoveOneAnother-
The bias against a Creator in science is what offends me
Way to sum up your complete failure to grasp the nature of science in one sentence.
| 810 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Fri, Feb 13, 2009 10:31:24am |
The professor that said it was the worse answer also claimed I had some factually incorrect statements in my essays about the evolution of vertebrates
What statements about the evolution of vertebrates?
| 811 |
Sharmuta Fri, Feb 13, 2009 10:32:12am |
re: #809 Jimmah
That one sentence is really the ID movement in a nut shell.
I wonder if it offends God when people like LoveOneAnother discount the natural processes He established.
| 812 |
Yashmak Fri, Feb 13, 2009 10:32:45am |
re: #808 Charles
Oh, I see. You were persecuted by the evil scientific conspiracy. I feel for you.
Indeed. Poor guy, being denied a PhD in a field of science, simply because his creationist views run opposed to all of the available evidence. Criminal .
| 813 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Fri, Feb 13, 2009 10:36:45am |
re: #812 Yashmak
You should see how they rough up phlogiston advocates in Chemistry departments these days. I hear Ben Steins next film "Burned" will expose the bad academic hurting that is going on there too.
| 814 |
LoveOneAnother Fri, Feb 13, 2009 10:38:17am |
re: #799 Sharmuta
You realize that if it weren't for creationists pushing the subject, it would never have ended up in the courts, right?
Yes, I do realize that. I am not a creationist in a religious sense. In other words, I am not part of their "club" so to speak. There are very few creationists that I have respect for. Most creationists, imo, do not understand science. They operate from a different way of thinking and a different way of processing data. I deeply regret that they pushed this issue the way that they did, because it is going to set back the freedom of inquiry for years, primarily because of the way Judge Jones handled the case. I agree with what they see, that censoring creationist views from the classroom is wrong, but the way they attempted to force it through the reading of some silly statement is wrong too.
| 815 |
Yashmak Fri, Feb 13, 2009 10:41:14am |
re: #813 Jimmah
You should see how they rough up phlogiston advocates in Chemistry departments these days. I hear Ben Steins next film "Burned" will expose the bad academic hurting that is going on there too.
Try as I might, I cannot think of a clever joke in response. Something about the band Earth, Wind, & Fire. . .but I just can't make it work. My brain must already be shutting down for the weekend.
| 816 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Feb 13, 2009 10:41:33am |
And here we go, right back into the propaganda.
| 817 |
Yashmak Fri, Feb 13, 2009 10:42:56am |
re: #814 LoveOneAnother
Most creationists, imo, do not understand science.
You've provided a prime example in this very commentary.
| 818 |
LoveOneAnother Fri, Feb 13, 2009 10:43:08am |
re: #813 Jimmah
You should see how they rough up phlogiston advocates in Chemistry departments these days. I hear Ben Steins next film "Burned" will expose the bad academic hurting that is going on there too.
LOL. I hope you understand that the phlogiston theory was a SCIENTIFIC theory not a religious theory. It is an example of how sometimes popular scientific theories can be wrong, even when they are held by the scientific establishment for more than one hundred years!
| 820 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Feb 13, 2009 10:43:54am |
re: #813 Jimmah
You should see how they rough up phlogiston advocates in Chemistry departments these days. I hear Ben Steins next film "Burned" will expose the bad academic hurting that is going on there too.
Not to mention the persecution suffered by those courageous souls who speak out about the scientific truth of luminiferous Ether.
| 821 |
Yashmak Fri, Feb 13, 2009 10:46:48am |
re: #818 LoveOneAnother
LOL. I hope you understand that the phlogiston theory was a SCIENTIFIC theory not a religious theory. It is an example of how sometimes popular scientific theories can be wrong, even when they are held by the scientific establishment for more than one hundred years!
Indeed. But it was eventually overturned by scientific evidence, not religious dogma gussied up to look like science.
| 822 |
Sharmuta Fri, Feb 13, 2009 10:47:00am |
re: #814 LoveOneAnother
I am not a creationist in a religious sense.
Seriously- please elaborate. I find it fascinating you're offended by the separation of God and science, but separating religion from creation poses no problem for you. The mental gymnastics required for this must be quite strenuous.
| 823 |
LoveOneAnother Fri, Feb 13, 2009 10:47:08am |
re: #807 Jimmah
Including obviously invalid ones. If the teacher happens to think there is a controversy over phlogiston or the flat earth or creationism - then that is what will be taught. Screw the kids education - there's a principle of "the academic freedom to teach garbage" at stake here. /
I think education would be incomplete if they did not teach about the phlogiston theory or flat earth in public schools. This is part of the history of knowledge. Why ban it from the classroom?
| 824 |
Achilles Tang Fri, Feb 13, 2009 10:47:23am |
re: #770 LoveOneAnother
You simply repeat the same mantra without the slightest understanding of what you are talking about. Some before you may be genuinely ignorant, but you sound like you are that and dishonest as well.
Ignorance like yours cannot be debated because you suffer from what is known as cognitive dissonance, and of course from your perspective so does everyone who contradicts you.
It is precisely because there are people like you who could conceivably reduce our education system to the level of, say, Saudi Arabia, if given the chance and that is what all the little creationist whiners here aren't smart enough to see.
| 825 |
Sharmuta Fri, Feb 13, 2009 10:49:44am |
re: #823 LoveOneAnother
I think education would be incomplete if they did not teach about the phlogiston theory or flat earth in public schools. This is part of the history of knowledge. Why ban it from the classroom?
So- you think teaching kids about rejected scientific notions leads to more knowledge and that's why you want ID in the classrooms? So the idea of creation can be taught as wrong? Isn't that.... counterproductive to your agenda?
| 826 |
Yashmak Fri, Feb 13, 2009 10:49:56am |
re: #823 LoveOneAnother
I think education would be incomplete if they did not teach about the phlogiston theory or flat earth in public schools. This is part of the history of knowledge. Why ban it from the classroom?
In fact, the existence and importance of those outdated theories IS taught, in history and sociology classes. But we're talking about science classes here. Stop trying to muddy the waters.
| 827 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Feb 13, 2009 10:50:39am |
re: #805 LoveOneAnother
I do not have a Ph.D. I am one of the "Expelled" victims that Ben Stein's movie attempted to talk about. I studied biology full time for 9 years at the university level. My area of specialty was ecology and evolution. I taught for five years at the university, but my creationist views created too many political problems for me to finish out the degree. I was actually asked about creationism on my Ph.D. written exams (which is a five day exam), and one professor said it was the best answer on the entire exam while another professor said it was the worse answer he had ever read. The professor that said it was the worse answer also claimed I had some factually incorrect statements in my essays about the evolution of vertebrates, which when I challenged him on it, he backed down and acknowledged that his information was incorrect, coming from a lecture he heard one of the other professor give (this professor was an invertebrate biologist while I was a vertebrate biologist). It was then that I realized that they would batter me about for years and probably never give me a Ph.D. degree. My major professor told me that one professor on the committee said I would never receive a Ph.D., while others were more supportive. I had finished all my course work and had enough graduate credit hours for a Ph.D., but realized that getting my dissertation signed would be an uphill battle that I probably would never win. As far as I was concerned at the time, it was only a piece of paper and these guys were not going to convey more knowledge to me, so I left the university and started working for a company in computer software development. I had a family by then and monetary needs for supporting my family took precedence over my desire for teaching and research in biology. Enough about me. I realize some here probably will shred me concerning all this personal information, but so be it. I don't want to ignore your question.
That's a lot of words to say the equivalent of, "The dog ate my homework."
| 828 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Fri, Feb 13, 2009 10:52:36am |
re: #818 LoveOneAnother
Um yes, point being it's a theory that's now known to be wrong and one that shouldn't be taught in class (except perhaps as a historical footnote).
| 829 |
Achilles Tang Fri, Feb 13, 2009 10:55:50am |
re: #805 LoveOneAnother
It just never, ever, occurred to you that you might not be cut out for this science stuff?
You do realize that there are plenty of people to whom that applies don't you? Most certainly the majority of the population in fact, but they gain other skills and to a large extent are thankful for the real scientists and all that they have created.
Above all, they do not see themselves as victims.
| 830 |
LoveOneAnother Fri, Feb 13, 2009 10:55:58am |
re: #822 Sharmuta
Seriously- please elaborate. I find it fascinating you're offended by the separation of God and science, but separating religion from creation poses no problem for you. The mental gymnastics required for this must be quite strenuous.
I would not agree that I separate "religion from creation." Clearly, creationist views arise primarily within religion. However, if those views are combined with knowledge from empirical data, we can construct theories which are testable by future observations of empirical data. Predictions can be made concerning what the data will show, just as evolutionary theory does. I am fascinated about the ways in which we might distinguish between the theories through empirical means, but some scientists are so biased against the idea of a Creator, that the mere mention of a Creator invalidates everything. They get so emotional and upset that they cannot look at the scientific aspects of the investigation. I still maintain that theories that arise in religion are testable by science as long as they make empirical predictions that are falsifiable. The more risky the predictions, the better for scientific investigation. The presence of a Creator within the theory has nothing to do with the ability of science to investigate the theory.
| 831 |
Sharmuta Fri, Feb 13, 2009 10:57:24am |
re: #830 LoveOneAnother
What branch of science allows for supernatural explanations?
| 832 |
LoveOneAnother Fri, Feb 13, 2009 10:57:31am |
re: #826 Yashmak
In fact, the existence and importance of those outdated theories IS taught, in history and sociology classes. But we're talking about science classes here. Stop trying to muddy the waters.
Excuse me, but the phlogiston theory is taught in science class too. I'm not muddying any waters here. You are.
| 833 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Fri, Feb 13, 2009 11:01:20am |
re: #832 LoveOneAnother
Excuse me, but the phlogiston theory is taught in science class too. I'm not muddying any waters here. You are.
garbage!
| 834 |
LoveOneAnother Fri, Feb 13, 2009 11:02:39am |
re: #821 Yashmak
Indeed. But it was eventually overturned by scientific evidence, not religious dogma gussied up to look like science.
Exactly, and right now we have the religion of Secular Humanism gussied up to look like science to try and exclude Intelligent Design theories from scientific consideration. The battle is being waged based upon popularity, the authority of the AAAS, and the dogma and doctrines of the AAAS rather than actual scientific evidence.
| 835 |
Sharmuta Fri, Feb 13, 2009 11:03:09am |
re: #834 LoveOneAnother
What branch of science allows for supernatural explanations?
| 836 |
Achilles Tang Fri, Feb 13, 2009 11:03:56am |
re: #830 LoveOneAnother
I still maintain that theories that arise in religion are testable by science as long as they make empirical predictions that are falsifiable.
What is preventing you from describing these? Conceivably that could be your ticket to that Phd, not to mention worldwide fame. On the other hand if you screw it up.........
| 837 |
Achilles Tang Fri, Feb 13, 2009 11:06:20am |
Just a thought here, what happened to LOA's buddies earlier today? Don't these people stick together and help back up claims by their fellows?
| 838 |
LoveOneAnother Fri, Feb 13, 2009 11:11:14am |
re: #831 Sharmuta
What branch of science allows for supernatural explanations?
It is not supernatural explanations that are being allowed in science. It is the empirical predictions made by a theory that make the theory testable by science.
For example, if I have a theory that this person named Bob killed this other person named Jack, and I present the theory of how this happened, a forensic scientist might be able to test certain aspects of the theory. For example, if my theory claims his fingerprints would be on the murder weapon, but instead another person's fingerprints were found, the scientist could falsify the theory. It does not matter who Bob is or even if the death was really an accident and not caused by a person at all.
One of the reasons why the concept of an "Intelligent Designer" was made was to help get minds away from the supernatural elements of creationist theories because from a scientific analysis, it does not really matter whether the Intelligent Designer is supernatural or not.
| 840 |
LoveOneAnother Fri, Feb 13, 2009 11:18:03am |
re: #836 Naso Tang
What is preventing you from describing these? Conceivably that could be your ticket to that Phd, not to mention worldwide fame. On the other hand if you screw it up.........
What is preventing me? Primarily my time, being stuck earning a living developing computer software rather than having a position that would allow me to put such together. Nevertheless, you may see a work from me in the years ahead titled, "A Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design" in which I will lay it all out, along with all the empirical data and what further tests need to be done to falsify it. My theory isn't perfect and I will not shy away from discussing empirical data which presents the greatest challenges to the theory.
| 841 |
Amer-I-Can Fri, Feb 13, 2009 11:19:27am |
Frederick is a buffoon.
I am a G*d fearing Christian, but some things need to be taken into consideration before launching into a tirade either for or against Mr. Darwin. Does anyone take into consideration that "religion" existed before the bible? Did the writing of "The Book" change the rules once it was on paper (papyrus)? The Bible was written as a controlling document, much like the Koran. The people with power write the books, and the writers put on paper EXACTLY what they are told to. We can have BOTH worlds, as G*d as done some miraculous things in my life, but the facts of evolution are too strong to ignore.
If the Bible is literal fact, what are the dinosaurs? I work with a guy who insists that they are just shaped rocks and that they are all part of an international scam to hurts Christians. Arguing with him is useless, his "faith" does not allow for logic to be inserted.
It's kind of sad if you look at it from a distance...
| 842 |
Sharmuta Fri, Feb 13, 2009 11:20:16am |
re: #838 LoveOneAnother
You didn't answer my question.
What brance of science allows for supernatural explanations?
| 844 |
Achilles Tang Fri, Feb 13, 2009 11:22:04am |
re: #840 LoveOneAnother
What is preventing me? Primarily my time, being stuck earning a living developing computer software rather than having a position that would allow me to put such together. Nevertheless, you may see a work from me in the years ahead titled, "A Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design" in which I will lay it all out, along with all the empirical data and what further tests need to be done to falsify it. My theory isn't perfect and I will not shy away from discussing empirical data which presents the greatest challenges to the theory.
You forgot the sarc tag; and here is where my valuable time stops being wasted by what is clearly an asshole.
| 845 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Feb 13, 2009 11:23:25am |
re: #840 LoveOneAnother
My theory isn't perfect and I will not shy away from discussing empirical data which presents the greatest challenges to the theory.
| 847 |
gregmw Fri, Feb 13, 2009 11:33:27am |
re: #830 LoveOneAnother
I am fascinated about the ways in which we might distinguish between the theories through empirical means, but some scientists are so biased against the idea of a Creator, that the mere mention of a Creator invalidates everything...The presence of a Creator within the theory has nothing to do with the ability of science to investigate the theory.
If the origins of your theory are not religious, why are you capitalizing "creator?" I thought that sort of reverence in print is only reserved for Judeo-Christian mythos, whereas you claim to not go that route.
| 848 |
LoveOneAnother Fri, Feb 13, 2009 11:34:59am |
re: #829 Naso Tang
It just never, ever, occurred to you that you might not be cut out for this science stuff?
You do realize that there are plenty of people to whom that applies don't you? Most certainly the majority of the population in fact, but they gain other skills and to a large extent are thankful for the real scientists and all that they have created.
Above all, they do not see themselves as victims.
Science is a love of mine. It is just part of who I am. In undergraduate school where testing is more objective, the University gave me several awards for my scholastic achievments. I consistently maintained the highest GPA in biology at the university. However, in graduate school, the evaluation becomes more political, and I learned that science is not as objective as our ideal of what science is. I was even chided for not going to the bars on Friday nights with the other biologists.
I do not see myself as a victim, but I am disappointed that I cannot make a career of my true passion in life. I am kind of in a no-man's land right now, where neither the creationists nor the scientists understand me. I'm not complaining, it is just the facts of life of the way things are. In the end, I can only hope that I will become a stronger person because of it.
| 849 |
LoveOneAnother Fri, Feb 13, 2009 11:46:45am |
re: #847 gregmw
If the origins of your theory are not religious, why are you capitalizing "creator?" I thought that sort of reverence in print is only reserved for Judeo-Christian mythos, whereas you claim to not go that route.
The ORIGINS of my theory *IS* religious. It comes from a theological consideration of the Bible as well as an examination of the available empirical evidence. I capitalize Creator, not out of reverence or respect, but because in context I was refering to a specific person. My background does include the Judeo-Christian religion. I did not mean to lead you to think otherwise. My formal training is in science, and I have never had a religion class at all, although I have applied myself to theology on my own. My circle of colleagues and fellow researchers have been scientists, primarily evolutionists, not creationists. I have published in scientific journals, but not in religious journals. Therefore, I have not been part of the "club" so-to-speak of creationists. I know of them only through cursory readings of their publications and a few times where I have met them when speaking at a university or nearby church. I hope these comments help you understand what I meant and where I am coming from a little bit better.
| 850 |
LoveOneAnother Fri, Feb 13, 2009 11:58:57am |
re: #842 Sharmuta
You didn't answer my question.
What brance of science allows for supernatural explanations?
I thought the answer was obvious. None. That is the problem. Such theories are being excluded by DEFINITION rather than by analysis of empirical data. Hence, all the arguments claiming that there is no empirical data supporting theories of Intelligent Design is a canard.
| 851 |
gregmw Fri, Feb 13, 2009 12:00:29pm |
re: #849 LoveOneAnother
I'll tell you why I don't believe your convictions are what you say they are. You say you have formal training in science, and use the Bible in combination with empirical evidence. Why the Bible? Why not the Bhagavad Gita? The Kojiki? The Daozang? Dianetics? What makes the Bible trump any of these or the multitude of other religious texts? Why aren't all of these parts of your consideration, and only the bible? If you're going to include supernatural causation in your toolbox, then you can't be intellectually honest and at the same time only choose the bible as your choice of descriptions of the supernatural entity.
| 852 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Feb 13, 2009 12:03:54pm |
re: #850 LoveOneAnother
I thought the answer was obvious. None. That is the problem. Such theories are being excluded by DEFINITION rather than by analysis of empirical data. Hence, all the arguments claiming that there is no empirical data supporting theories of Intelligent Design is a canard.
Name one piece of empirical data supporting "intelligent design" creationism.
| 853 |
Sharmuta Fri, Feb 13, 2009 12:06:45pm |
re: #850 LoveOneAnother
So you're trying to tell me that the supernatural can be empirical?
| 854 |
Yashmak Fri, Feb 13, 2009 12:13:00pm |
re: #830 LoveOneAnother
but some scientists are so biased against the idea of a Creator, that the mere mention of a Creator invalidates everything. They get so emotional and upset that they cannot look at the scientific aspects of the investigation.
Perhaps it's because there IS no scientific aspect, because there can be no investigation of something that is inherently untestable and unobservable. You have yet to explain how it is otherwise.
Excuse me, but the phlogiston theory is taught in science class too. I'm not muddying any waters here. You are.
Yes, but only in a historical sense, as background information, as an outdated theory that was supplanted by theories based on empirical data, not religious dogma. Again, stop trying to muddy the water.
It is not supernatural explanations that are being allowed in science. It is the empirical predictions made by a theory that make the theory testable by science.
For example, if I have a theory that this person named Bob killed this other person named Jack, and I present the theory of how this happened, a forensic scientist might be able to test certain aspects of the theory.
There are so many things wrong with this quote, I have a hard time figuring out where to start. . .but here goes.
A truly scientific theory need not be predictive, and it is not empirical predictions that make a theory testable by science. A theory can arise based on empirical evidence already available. For instance, you find Jack dead, and find Bob's license nearby, you can then form a theory that Bob killed Jack based on information already on-hand. It can also be further tested by gathering additional information. Creationism implies the existence of a creator. A theory predicting this cannot scientifically test, observe, prove, or disprove such an implication, rendering the theory unscientific on its face. I cannot, for the life of me, understand how someone who claims to have an higher education in a scientific field can possibly fail to understand this.
Science is a love of mine. It is just part of who I am.
You exhibit a marked lack of understanding of that which you claim to love. It sounds to me like you love the idea of science, and the idea that you can somehow alter what it is to suit you. You cannot.
However, in graduate school, the evaluation becomes more political, and I learned that science is not as objective as our ideal of what science is.
Why not? Because it refuses to acknowledge the non-scientific as the scientific? It sounds more to me as if it's you who is not as objective as what you're idea of yourself is.
| 855 |
Yashmak Fri, Feb 13, 2009 12:15:09pm |
re: #834 LoveOneAnother
Exactly, and right now we have the religion of Secular Humanism gussied up to look like science to try and exclude Intelligent Design theories from scientific consideration.
And here's the next example of the attempt to dress science as religion, when the lack of actual science behind I.D. becomes apparent. You are completely transparent.
| 856 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 13, 2009 12:18:04pm |
re: #743 elcaro
Quick observation regarding this thread:
What did the Republican from my county of Virginia say that evolutionists would disagree with?
My only disappointment with what he said is that he assumes that men are equal... While they are "equal in the sight of God" and should be for legal purposes, that is pretty much where "equality" ends.
Atheists have used Darwin to reinforce their arguments, so that isn't a slap at Darwin... Maybe we should also be criticizing atheists for trying to mix science and religion as well. My thoughts are (and this probably isn't an original thought): When you mix science and religion, you get neither science nor religion. The problem with many Protestant Evangelicals (and atheists) is that they have to have their faith justified by science. Faith is given by revelation... Science by observation. Do you really need faith in something that is observed? "Blessed are those who have not seen, yet still believe"... What value is faith if it needs to be scientifically proven?
Regardless, I admit this Republican did a shabby job of presentation. However, his core argument wasn't exactly an argument, and he tried to make it sound like one. I think most people shouldn't fall into the trap of debating someone who actually had nothing at all to debate, just because he mentioned Darwin and didn't recognize his genius on his birthday. Anyway, we just gave this politician more air-time than he has probably had in his entire life.
Lastly, where the heck are my state tax dollars going if this guy and those listening to him have the time to sit around on their arse and talk about stuff like this?
He plagiarized a ignoramus. End of story.
| 857 |
Yashmak Fri, Feb 13, 2009 12:19:50pm |
re: #850 LoveOneAnother
I thought the answer was obvious. None. That is the problem. Such theories are being excluded by DEFINITION rather than by analysis of empirical data. Hence, all the arguments claiming that there is no empirical data supporting theories of Intelligent Design is a canard.
This could well be the biggest load of nonsense you have yet to post. Supernatural theories are, by definition, characterized by a lack of empirical data. Given the absence of any supporting empirical data supporting such theories, how can there be any such analysis?
| 858 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 13, 2009 12:20:05pm |
re: #745 LoveOneAnother
Seems like most people are missing the point because of a tongue-tied poor speaker. Whose birthday is more deserving of celebrating after 200 years, Darwin or Lincoln? The hoopla over Drawin's birthday seems downright cult-like.
Actually, they BOTH deserve it. The only person who ranks with Lincoln in importance to our country is Washington; the only scientist who ranks with Darwin in importance to science is Einstein.
| 859 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 13, 2009 12:26:35pm |
re: #746 LoveOneAnother
I think you misunderstand the issue here. Some people believe that truth comes ONLY through the physical world. That's what is generally touted as science these days. Others believe that truth comes through both the physical world AND through revelation. That includes a minority of scientists and plenty of religious people. I analyze empirical data because I consider it a source of truth just like sources of revelation, whether it be through faith and one's spirit, or from the study of documents based upon revelation, such as the Bible. It isn't about proving the Bible through science, it is about understanding our world through all the sources available to us, both physical observations and information from revelation.
Empirical evidence cannot be provided for revelations, since they are subjective, private, psychological occurrences. In other words, they cannot be empirically verified - in fact, whether or not the claimer has actually had an authentic revelation, or is mistaken, or is lying about it, also cannot be experimentally demonstrated. And many different people have had them, and they contradict, and there is no objective means for preferring some revelations over others. Obviously, they are not in the same empirical class as intersubjectively observable phenomena that can be repeatedly checked under controlled conditions.
| 860 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 13, 2009 12:32:51pm |
re: #751 palarson
1.) The black box in evolution is the idea that already complicated genetic and cellular structure can suffer corruption and somehow morph into new relationships with higher levels of functionality. That's the 12 inch ruler in the six inch bag. No declaration changes that fundamental point of dispute.
2.) Do not confuse the benefits accruing to genetic theory with evolution.
Sorry, but the Behe 'irreduceable complexity' contention has been soundly debunked by Ken Miller, and the idea that the 2nd law of thermodynamics entails that entropy increases does not apply to the terrestrial biosphere, because it receives energy from an external source (the sun). Whixch means that there is no physical theoretical bar to a increase in genetic complexity.
In the absence of evolution, there would be no reason for the genes of different species to be similar to each other. And yet they are. And there's the whole matter of artifactual retroviral DNA sequences which you continue to pathologically ignore (and they add genetic complexity, too).
Epic fail. Try again.
| 861 |
gregmw Fri, Feb 13, 2009 12:37:13pm |
re: #858 Salamantis
Actually, they BOTH deserve it. The only person who ranks with Lincoln in importance to our country is Washington; the only scientist who ranks with Darwin in importance to science is Einstein.
Newton would like a word with you...
| 862 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Feb 13, 2009 12:45:14pm |
Here's a prediction based on empirical evidence: 'LoveOneAnother' will be back in the next evolution thread, parroting the exact same points as if we'd never had this discussion.
| 863 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 13, 2009 12:46:43pm |
re: #766 LoveOneAnother
Oh, please. Are you are going to pretend that there are no problems in evolutionary theory? Do you really mean to portray evolutionary theory as a nicely wrapped up airtight explanation of origins? There is not even one firmly accepted theory of evolution, only the widespread belief that generally speaking, it must be true. Stephen Jay Gould had it right when he said that Darwinists were so wrapped up into looking for transitionals that they were missing the obvious indication of the fossil record; namely, that most of it indicates no evolutionary changes. From thence came the concepts of Punctuated Equilibrium and the concepts of Genetic Drift to account for it. These evolutionary concepts became adjuncts to the General Theory of Evolution; namely, the concept of Natural Selection. These are theoretical frameworks attempting to explain the empirical data, but you want to pretend that none of it exists. You would rather change science into lazy one-sided dogma instead of considering alternative ways of looking at the same data.
Actually, gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are not mutually exclusive, but are poles on a continuum. Enough transitional sequences - involving whales returning to the sea and animals first leaving it, for instance - have been found to demonstrate gradualism. And humans have benefitted from both kinds of mutation. Hominids over millions of years gradually evolved precise and meticulous hand-eye coordination, then a metamutation suddenly placed that painstakingly elaborated module at the service of the mouth-ear nexus, allowing the production and parsing of speech.
I would post some evidence to the contrary, but I know what you will do. You will post a reference to a scientist that disagrees and think you have proved your case. Just because somebody somewhere in the universe has concocted some kind of response does not mean that ALL empirical evidence supports the General Theory of Evolution and is contradicted by NONE OF IT. Furthermore, relying upon statements from the AAAS is resorting to authority and dogma rather than science, which is more reminiscent of the way that religion works rather than science.
Now you have problems with the American Association for the Advancement of Science? I suppose they themselves might have problems with 'scientific' articles you might quote from the Disco Institute, the Institute for Creation Research, and Answers in Genesis.
All of this comes down to the brass tacks fact that you have NOT provided a single shred of credible empirical evidence contradicting evolutionary theory, and instead, have only made aggressively attacking excuses for doing so.
| 864 |
Yashmak Fri, Feb 13, 2009 12:47:03pm |
re: #861 gregmw
Newton would like a word with you...
I was going to mention a couple of names as well. . .but when you come right down to it, in life sciences it's hard to argue the pre-eminence of Darwin, and in physical sciences, it's hard to argue the pre-eminence of Einstein. Other names obviously deserve mention, but most of them I can think of either provided the background theories that helped build Evolution/Relativity, or have worked to expand the work of these two giants.
I think that I was just a bit hurt that my favorite scientist/engineer (Nikolai Tesla) wasn't mentioned. heheh
| 865 |
Yashmak Fri, Feb 13, 2009 12:50:08pm |
re: #862 Charles
Here's a prediction based on empirical evidence: 'LoveOneAnother' will be back in the next evolution thread, parroting the exact same points as if we'd never had this discussion.
Actually, I just spotted him on the Evolution poll thread. I think your prediction will almost certainly come to pass, but he's making some stops on earlier topics (parroting the exact same points as if we'd never had this discussion) first.
| 866 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 13, 2009 12:50:10pm |
re: #767 danrudy
Long time reader and occasional contributer....
What is up with all this fascination with creationism? ...Charles and many people think they are dolts. I get it. But holy crap....with all the stuff going on in the world, economy etc you would think these people want to strap bombs on themselves and blow up our economy.
Are they really a threat to our civilization? Does it really matter that the French look down at us for this (another thread?).
AM I missing the danger posed by them and why they merit similar attention given to folks who would like to chop my head off or take away my 401k to give to unemployed drug addict with 15 kids to be fair?Help me understand.
Yep, you're missing it. Toppling the empirical scientific edifice upon which our country's global position depends and erecting a dogmatic religious temple in its place would be an unmitigated disaster for our national security, our economy, and our way of life.
| 867 |
gregmw Fri, Feb 13, 2009 12:52:32pm |
re: #864 Yashmak
Oh, you won't get an argument from me about the importance of Einstein's and Darwin's work, and I like Tesla (although my soft spot has always been for Pauli) enough, but Newton was almost certainly the smartest person who ever lived. Certainly the smartest one who could prove it. He built the foundation by which all modern science stands on almost single handedly. If there's anyone whose importance cannot be ignored, it's Newton.
| 868 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 13, 2009 1:05:07pm |
re: #770 LoveOneAnother
One thing this forum reinforces to me is the need to teach the Creation / Evolution controversy in public schools. I certainly do no support the "equal time" idea, because most of the scientific establishment ignores ID, but to try and pretend that there is no way to look at the empirical data from an Intelligent Design model of origins, and to try and pretend that the concept is purely mystical and religious, suggests a complete ignorance of facts. Education should be about knowledge, and if science is comfortable teaching how Lamarkian Evolution was falsified, they should be just as comfortable teaching how Creationism has been falsified. The only reason I can think why they are not comfortable with that idea, is that Creationism has NOT been falsified. It seems like their attitude is: "let's just pretend that ID has been falsified and convince the world of that through speading our favorite dogma. Let's use the federal courts and a twisted interpretation of the First Amendment to oppress religion in the public schools. This way we will be free to indoctrinate everyone toward our atheistic viewpoint."
Yep. All the signs are here. The attempt to morph the conversation from the presence vs. the absence of empirical evidence to Good Old Atheists vs. Bad Old God, just like the Disco Institute Wedge Strategy advocates. Pointing out that creationism hasn't been falsified as if it's a feature instead of a bug, since it's a religious dogma, and being supernatural and metaphysical, cannot be falsified by empirical, natural, physical means (except for Young Earth creationism and Biblical Literalist creationism, which make empirical claims that have indeed been falsified). Failing in elevating religious dogma to the level of empirical science, resorting to trying to reduce empirical science to the level of religious dogmas, and also failing, because the bright line distinction of presence vs. absence of empirical evidence cannot be erased. Claiming that there is somehow some way to look at all the empirical evidence from a creationist perspective without postulating a lying God that plants false evidence in both soil and genes. The desperate effore to fabricate a faux 'scientific controversy', followed by the strident demand to 'teach' it to our children, as a way to shoehorn anti-scientific creationist claptrap into public high school science classes. Pitiful, pathetic, and utterly intellectually dishonest - just what we've grown to expect from such people.
| 870 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 13, 2009 1:22:49pm |
re: #775 LoveOneAnother
I don't have a problem being in the minority in my scientific viewpoint. In fact, I have always welcomed it. I chose some of the strongest evolutionists to be on my Ph.D. committee. Furthermore, I have never supported using the legal system to promote creationism, neither do I support its use to promote science. Government should be neutral in this area. Unfortunately, it is not.
What I object to are arguments within science that has more appeal to authority and popularity, and using the legal system rather than rational discussions of the empirical data. I am interested in the truth and do not think that my belief in a spirit world and revelation should be used against me in arguing interpretations of empirical data. The bias against a Creator in science is what offends me, and the HYPOCRISY of claiming that the religious practice of using dogma and authority should not be allowed in science while at the same time invoking these same methods to expell creationists from careers in science. It is the hypocrisy that I am pointing out. I also am hoping that the true scientists among us, the true lovers of truth, will turn away from dangerous dogma and get back to discussing interpretations of the empirical data.
The problem is when your beliefs in a spirit world and revelation cause you to 'interpret' the empirical evidence in bizarre and nonsensical ways, in an endeavor to justify your beliefs. For you to be considered irrational and unreasonable by empirical scientists as a result of such attempts is to be fully expected. Cosmic creators are not empirically demonstrable, and anyone who says that they are is inadvertantly advertizing their own crackpottedness. What is being employed against you is not dogma and authority, but logic and empirical evidence. I was particularly amused by your laughable attempt to employ the No True Scotsman fallacy in order to excise all scientists who insist upon sticking to only the empirical facts and the rational and reasonable conclusions that can be drawn from them from the scientific enterprise.
| 871 |
Spar Kling Fri, Feb 13, 2009 1:28:12pm |
re: #346 Salamantis
Maybe the electorate ought to do a better job of voting for the
bright and knowledgeable candidate rather than the one who best panders
to their ignorant prejudices.
For once I agree with you.
-sk
| 872 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 13, 2009 1:31:08pm |
re: #789 danrudy
Charles..
What I meant by help me understand was not the positions and issues.
I want to understand why this has become such a critical focus of this blog. Does this issue pose such a danger to me and my family that I need to be made aware of some hidden danger?I am a physician who happened to have been a philosophy major in college (and a minor in Biochemistry) who had a particular interest in proving gods existence. I grew up in a religious environment and grew up with serious doubts if a god even existed . This spurred me to study this issue.
The bottom line IMO is that one either makes the leap of faith or one die or one doesn't. There will be no way to rationally prove something our mind cant comprehend. I always thought it was a decision that gives ones life a meaning and purpose or one where we are just an accident and our existence is meaningless in the scheme of things. (I am oversimplifying as I am at work having lunch and need to get back to work).
I understand peoples reasons and choice either way.But, why has this issue become so important to this blog. Surely there are other issues that might be viewed and argued with similar implications that have more effect on our society. Abortion, death penalty, euthanasia etc. Why are we stuck on creationism when there are guys who are chopping off heads and a government forcing through a 1000 page bill that no one has a chance to read? Surely, our lives are much more influenced by these matters
Because to egregiously hamstring our public high school science education by demanding that it be poisoned and polluted via the illegitimate, fallacious and gratuitous insertion of sectarian religious dogmas where only empirical science belongs would be to severely damage our supply of future competent scientists, and to direly weaken both our economic (product innovation, manufacturing and trade) and our national security (military defence and weapons innovation) positions in tomorrow's world.
| 873 |
Lynn B. Fri, Feb 13, 2009 1:33:06pm |
re: #845 Charles
Reading LOA's comments after watching that video puts them in a whole new perspective.
Perfect!
| 874 |
Spar Kling Fri, Feb 13, 2009 1:37:29pm |
re: #215 Thanos
Catch up with the times. In Overland Park the Republicans do vote for the Democrat for exactly that reason, opposition to the Brownback wing. Thus they've turned a Red state purple, and they just keep going.
As I said, religious, political, and scientific convictions, opinions, and theories should stay out of each other's domains and classrooms. Seems like the Democrats have successfully split the Republican party in that state. So purple will become blue.
And that's what I was getting at.
-sk
| 875 |
Sharmuta Fri, Feb 13, 2009 1:38:11pm |
re: #874 Spar Kling
Hey! LoveOneAnother might have some rejected ID papers for you.
| 876 |
Lynn B. Fri, Feb 13, 2009 1:39:38pm |
re: #849 LoveOneAnother
The ORIGINS of my theory *IS* religious. It comes from a theological consideration of the Bible as well as an examination of the available empirical evidence. I capitalize Creator, not out of reverence or respect, but because in context I was refering to a specific person.
Excuse me. Did you just refer to God as "a specific
person
?"
My background does include the Judeo-Christian religion. I did not mean to lead you to think otherwise. My formal training is in science, and I have never had a religion class at all, although I have applied myself to theology on my own. My circle of colleagues and fellow researchers have been scientists, primarily evolutionists, not creationists. I have published in scientific journals, but not in religious journals.
I don't believe you.
Therefore, I have not been part of the "club" so-to-speak of creationists. I know of them only through cursory readings of their publications and a few times where I have met them when speaking at a university or nearby church. I hope these comments help you understand what I meant and where I am coming from a little bit better.
Yes, indeed they do. I think you're making this up as you go along.
| 877 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Fri, Feb 13, 2009 1:42:16pm |
re: #876 Lynn B.
It's easier to force a creationist through the eye of a needle than it is to force them to debate honestly.
| 878 |
Lynn B. Fri, Feb 13, 2009 1:42:31pm |
Trying the first part again...
re: #849 LoveOneAnother
The ORIGINS of my theory *IS* religious. It comes from a theological consideration of the Bible as well as an examination of the available empirical evidence. I capitalize Creator, not out of reverence or respect, but because in context I was refering to a specific person.
Excuse me. Did you just refer to God as "a specific person?"
/PIMF (wrong button)
| 879 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 13, 2009 1:43:00pm |
re: #790 LoveOneAnother
You are quoting the Copyright clause, which is about Congress protecting the rights of authors. This is not the same thing as promoting science and secular humanism in a way that oppresses creationist philosophies and religions in public schools.
Creationism isn't a philosophy; it's a religious dogma. And the fact that only empirical science belongs in public high school science class does not either 'oppress' religion nor 'promote' secular humanism. Neither of those belong in public high school science classes, as empirical science does not address whether or not a cosmic creator exists, because that is a metaphysical contention, and empirical science limits itself to the physical domain, where contentions are testable, phenomena are observable, and evidence may be produced.
In any case, lifting my quote out of context makes it sound like I do not support teaching sicence in the classroom. On the contrary, I do. What I do not support is using the legal system to make what is popular in science the sole knowledge presented in the classroom. I do not support censoring philosophies in a way which respects the establishment of religions based upon atheism over religions based upon theism.
Neither atheism nor theism belong in public high school science class, and neither are taught there. You would insist that an absence of public school indoctrination in your pet religious dogmas oppresses your faith. Such a contention would logically entail that a central tenet of your faith is the right to indoctrinate others with it, in inappropriate venues and against their will, with the assistance of the machinery of the State.
| 880 |
danrudy Fri, Feb 13, 2009 1:45:00pm |
#866
Look...As I pointed out. My scientific credentials will match anyone here. Even been to Galapagos and followed Darwins footsteps for a week on a diving expedition. I personally am against teaching ID in school . The scientifically accepted theory should be the one put forth in an institution of learning. However, I see no need to fear discussing that there re those who believe in creationism.
Supposedly, the accepted theory on global warming is Al Gore and his cohorts. There is supposedly a "consensus". I personally think it is a bunch of hooey and would like my kid aware that there are very intelligent people who feel otherwise. We are not going to burn up in a fireball in 10 years. SOme of the greatest minds in history were and are people of faith who accepted things that dont have empirical evidence as they found it made the world make more sense and appear more understandable to them. Were they crazy?
Remember....these are all theories. Even the theory of evolution can not adequately explain where it all began. The big bang/? what is that? where did this material that blew up come from? It always existed? how can something always exist. that makes no sense. Everything has to come into being. What causes it to come into being. these are questions no one will ever answer. Just because it makes sense doesn't make it a fact. It is still a theory.
| 881 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Feb 13, 2009 1:48:17pm |
re: #880 danrudy
I had the feeling your complaint about the "unimportance" of this issue wasn't really the whole story. Looks like I was right.
| 882 |
Spar Kling Fri, Feb 13, 2009 1:51:46pm |
re: #237 laxmatt1984
Really, dude? Really?
Jeff Frederick prevented the GOP from taking control of the State Senate when he blabbed about a wavering Democrat on Twitter.
Don't take it from me, ask that commie rage National Review.
[Link: campaignspot.nationalreview.com...]
Va voted for Obama under Frederick's leadership and lost the special
election for the Fairfax BOCS by less than 20 votes. We also lost Tom
Davis' seat. He is driving the state party into the ground.I wish I had saved this for you.
I'm very sorry to hear that, laxmatt. The Democrats protect their idiots, for a while at least (thinking of McKinney for example).
Again, my point still stands that when a person is "on stage" in a political, religious, or scientific position, they should do an excellent job and remain true to their convictions, but absolutely, positively not use their position to promote their convictions or opinions in the other domains.
If a person is a scientist, what use is it for him or her to promote Marxism, even though they might feel that punctuated equilibrium supports their Marxist worldview. A Pope has no business making pronouncements about science, and so on.
You can imagine my opinion on faith-based initiatives promoted both by George W. Bush and now Barak Obama.
-sk
| 883 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Fri, Feb 13, 2009 1:54:19pm |
re: #880 danrudy
Look...As I pointed out. My scientific credentials will match anyone here
Your posts read like the ramblings of a drunk on the bus, I'm afraid to say.
| 884 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Fri, Feb 13, 2009 1:55:23pm |
re: #877 Jimmah
That's both a joke and a testable hypothesis btw ;)
| 885 |
Sharmuta Fri, Feb 13, 2009 1:58:20pm |
I posted this video earlier on the France/Creationism thread because it was asked if The Flood could have been local. I said their was evidence the flood was local and not global. This video wasn't what I had gone looking to find to support my point, but it turned out to be better.
This is the documentary of the two geologists who proved a massive local flood happened in the Black Sea. Real science proving a Biblical story, yet it will not please the literalists because it's not global. Oh well. Hope you guys enjoy it as much as I did. Incredible story.
| 886 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 13, 2009 2:01:29pm |
re: #814 LoveOneAnother
Yes, I do realize that. I am not a creationist in a religious sense. In other words, I am not part of their "club" so to speak. There are very few creationists that I have respect for. Most creationists, imo, do not understand science. They operate from a different way of thinking and a different way of processing data. I deeply regret that they pushed this issue the way that they did, because it is going to set back the freedom of inquiry for years, primarily because of the way Judge Jones handled the case. I agree with what they see, that censoring creationist views from the classroom is wrong, but the way they attempted to force it through the reading of some silly statement is wrong too.
In order to be logically consistent, you would also have to condemn the censoring of alchemical and astrological views from science classrooms. Because they have as much empirical evidence support as creationist views do - that is, not a single credible shred. None of them is science, and therefore none of them belongs in public high school science class. Which is why Judge Jones' ruling was correct, and eminently deserves to be cited as stare decisis in future such cases.
| 887 |
Sharmuta Fri, Feb 13, 2009 2:01:46pm |
re: #885 Sharmuta
Double click to go to the youtube page- the other 4 of 5 parts are in the sidebar.
| 889 |
Sharmuta Fri, Feb 13, 2009 2:05:32pm |
re: #888 Jimmah
I watched all 5 clips off and on since this morning. What I love about it is it shows the Bible has truth and allegory- the flood did happen. But the "world" to Noah would have been limited to the world as he knew it, which was limited but indeed destroyed. I guess you could say I found this a case of real Biblical science.
| 890 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 13, 2009 2:11:44pm |
re: #818 LoveOneAnother
LOL. I hope you understand that the phlogiston theory was a SCIENTIFIC theory not a religious theory. It is an example of how sometimes popular scientific theories can be wrong, even when they are held by the scientific establishment for more than one hundred years!
Phlogiston theory was an outgrowth of the four elements theory that was replaced by the periodic table. It was falsified by Lavoisier in the 16th century. Empirical science ain't what it used to be back then; it's far better, with a lot more knowledge, much more refined principles, and amazingly better experiemental and observational technology.
| 891 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 13, 2009 2:13:56pm |
re: #823 LoveOneAnother
I think education would be incomplete if they did not teach about the phlogiston theory or flat earth in public schools. This is part of the history of knowledge. Why ban it from the classroom?
Such things belong in a class on the HISTORY of science, not one devoted to current scientific understandings.
| 892 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 13, 2009 2:20:05pm |
re: #830 LoveOneAnother
I would not agree that I separate "religion from creation." Clearly, creationist views arise primarily within religion. However, if those views are combined with knowledge from empirical data, we can construct theories which are testable by future observations of empirical data. Predictions can be made concerning what the data will show, just as evolutionary theory does. I am fascinated about the ways in which we might distinguish between the theories through empirical means, but some scientists are so biased against the idea of a Creator, that the mere mention of a Creator invalidates everything. They get so emotional and upset that they cannot look at the scientific aspects of the investigation. I still maintain that theories that arise in religion are testable by science as long as they make empirical predictions that are falsifiable. The more risky the predictions, the better for scientific investigation. The presence of a Creator within the theory has nothing to do with the ability of science to investigate the theory.
Our sciences, which proceed by induction according to the Verification Principle, are sciences of matter and energy. The sine qua non (condition in the absence of which they would not be what they are) of matter and energy is that they be sensorily perceivable phenomena. These immanent objects of perception are then measured by relating our perceptions of them to our perceptions of intersubjectively agreed-upon standards of measurement which are themselves physical. These quantified perceptions must then be amenable to repetition at will by means of any duplication of the conditions under which they appear. This method cannot be used to either verify or falsify the presence or absence of transcendent nonphysical Mind. Our sensuous perceptions, our technological augmentation of them, our devices of measurement, our method of repetition are all immanent and physical; they are categorically incapable of this task. We cannot prove God is anywhere, and neither can we prove that there is anywhere God is not. Induction is useless with respect to creationism; the basic premise must be believed in, rather than known, and conclusions must follow by means of deduction from the basic premise, not induction from empirically obtained data.
| 893 |
Sharmuta Fri, Feb 13, 2009 2:23:58pm |
re: #882 Spar Kling
So now scientists are marxists? Do you have some empirical data to support that assertion?
| 894 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 13, 2009 2:27:56pm |
re: #834 LoveOneAnother
Exactly, and right now we have the religion of Secular Humanism gussied up to look like science to try and exclude Intelligent Design theories from scientific consideration. The battle is being waged based upon popularity, the authority of the AAAS, and the dogma and doctrines of the AAAS rather than actual scientific evidence.
ID OFFERS NO theories - at least, none for which credible empirical evidence can be provided; it is content-free, as even Disco Institute fellows Micharl Medved and George Gilder acknowledge (and they should know, because they invented the term in order to circumvent judicial prohibitions ahainst teaching creationism in public high school classes - a dodge that Judge Jones put the quietus to). Its sole parasitic sine qua non is to try to criticize the genuine empirical science of evolution. And it has blatantly, abjectly and utterly failed in that endeavor.
Show Me The Science
by Daniel C. Dennett
[Link: ase.tufts.edu...]
| 895 |
danrudy Fri, Feb 13, 2009 2:32:15pm |
"re: #880 danrudy
I had the feeling your complaint about the "unimportance" of this issue wasn't really the whole story. Looks like I was right."
Charles...I love you and this site. I really do. But your "feeling" is incorrect. If I gave that impression simply by being commenting oin the issue then that wasnt my intention.
I really feel this issue is way overblown in this blog. I am certainly not a creationist but dont pretend that Darwins theory is perfect either. It is the best we have and should be taught. I prefer that alternative theories be taught in religious schools but i dont think there is anything wrong to referencing that they exist. But the tone here suggests that een folks who teach it in religious school must be knuckleheds.
My point in my above post (made poorly as i am still struggling at work) is that I dont really think the tone of deamonizing folks as "kooks" who happen to have a belief that is contrary to the accepted theory is doing anyone a service and diminishes those of us who disagree with them.
I personally think the science behind the accepted vision of Al Gore is silly and full of holes . Does that make me a nutand worthy of ridicule? i am just saying that I think the degree of ridicule and scorn is way overblown on this issue (and thus the enthusiasm in which it is reported). There are (to me at least) bigger issues then this.
| 896 |
Basho Fri, Feb 13, 2009 2:36:19pm |
It isn't "Darwins theory", it's a scientific theory first published by Charles Darwin.
| 897 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 13, 2009 2:38:40pm |
re: #838 LoveOneAnother
It is not supernatural explanations that are being allowed in science. It is the empirical predictions made by a theory that make the theory testable by science.
For example, if I have a theory that this person named Bob killed this other person named Jack, and I present the theory of how this happened, a forensic scientist might be able to test certain aspects of the theory. For example, if my theory claims his fingerprints would be on the murder weapon, but instead another person's fingerprints were found, the scientist could falsify the theory. It does not matter who Bob is or even if the death was really an accident and not caused by a person at all.
One of the reasons why the concept of an "Intelligent Designer" was made was to help get minds away from the supernatural elements of creationist theories because from a scientific analysis, it does not really matter whether the Intelligent Designer is supernatural or not.
William Paley-ish arguments from design have failed ever since Thomas Henry Huxley crushed Bishop Samuel Wilberforce when he endeavored to employ them in an Oxford debate in 1860, and subsequent scientific discoveries have only served to further discredit them. For instance, George H. Smith argues:
"Consider the idea that nature itself is the product of design. How could this be demonstrated? Nature, as we have seen, provides the basis of comparison by which we distinguish between designed objects and natural objects. We are able to infer the presence of design only to the extent that the characteristics of an object differ from natural characteristics. Therefore, to claim that nature as a whole was designed is to destroy the basis by which we differentiate between artifacts and natural objects. Evidences of design are those characteristics not found in nature, so it is impossible to produce evidence of design within the context of nature itself. Only if we first step beyond nature, and establish the existence of a supernatural designer, can we conclude that nature is the result of conscious planning."
In other words, if everything is designed, there is no nondesigned baseline by means of which to compare and contrast designed against nondesigned. In such a situation, one cannot proceed from examples of design to the claim of a necessary designer; one can only begin by postulating such a designer, then cherry-pick examples one supposes supports such a conjecture. In other words, it assumes the conclusion, then searches for premises. This is exactly the opposite from the way logic and empirical science operate, but it is precisely how religious dogmas do.
| 898 |
Sharmuta Fri, Feb 13, 2009 2:41:13pm |
re: #895 danrudy
Please start your own blog, so we can come over and tell you what issues you're overblowing on your own site.
| 899 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 13, 2009 2:41:37pm |
re: #840 LoveOneAnother
What is preventing me? Primarily my time, being stuck earning a living developing computer software rather than having a position that would allow me to put such together. Nevertheless, you may see a work from me in the years ahead titled, "A Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design" in which I will lay it all out, along with all the empirical data and what further tests need to be done to falsify it. My theory isn't perfect and I will not shy away from discussing empirical data which presents the greatest challenges to the theory.
When a theory is 'challenged' by the empirical data rather than being corroborated by it, this is known as empirical counterfactual falsification.
| 900 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 13, 2009 2:53:35pm |
re: #848 LoveOneAnother
Science is a love of mine. It is just part of who I am. In undergraduate school where testing is more objective, the University gave me several awards for my scholastic achievments. I consistently maintained the highest GPA in biology at the university. However, in graduate school, the evaluation becomes more political, and I learned that science is not as objective as our ideal of what science is. I was even chided for not going to the bars on Friday nights with the other biologists.
I do not see myself as a victim, but I am disappointed that I cannot make a career of my true passion in life. I am kind of in a no-man's land right now, where neither the creationists nor the scientists understand me. I'm not complaining, it is just the facts of life of the way things are. In the end, I can only hope that I will become a stronger person because of it.
It sounds to me like your problem is that your evaluational criteria are not empirical, but supernatural and metaphysical - which, of course, are not scientific.
| 901 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 13, 2009 2:58:50pm |
re: #849 LoveOneAnother
The ORIGINS of my theory *IS* religious. It comes from a theological consideration of the Bible as well as an examination of the available empirical evidence. I capitalize Creator, not out of reverence or respect, but because in context I was refering to a specific person. My background does include the Judeo-Christian religion. I did not mean to lead you to think otherwise. My formal training is in science, and I have never had a religion class at all, although I have applied myself to theology on my own. My circle of colleagues and fellow researchers have been scientists, primarily evolutionists, not creationists. I have published in scientific journals, but not in religious journals. Therefore, I have not been part of the "club" so-to-speak of creationists. I know of them only through cursory readings of their publications and a few times where I have met them when speaking at a university or nearby church. I hope these comments help you understand what I meant and where I am coming from a little bit better.
Do you have a name or address for this specific person? Perhaps a phone number or email addy? Do you have empirical proof for the existence of this supernatural being? If you don't, and I sincerely doubt that you do, what you are advocating is not empirical science, but speculative metaphysics, which has no place in a discipline circumscribed by the empirical observance of physical phenomena.
| 902 |
Spar Kling Fri, Feb 13, 2009 2:59:48pm |
re: #805 LoveOneAnother
I realize some here probably will shred me concerning all
this personal information, but so be it. I don't want to ignore your
question.
Yes, they will. For similar reasons, I chose not to reveal personal details about my scientific degree, and those same people attack me relentlessly for that. Even if I had the stellar scientific credentials of a Dr. Michael Behe, the cognitive dissonance this produces in their world view will not permit them to concede that a sane or truthful person can disagree with them regarding the theory of Evolution. You'll see.
-sk
| 903 |
Yashmak Fri, Feb 13, 2009 3:01:14pm |
re: #880 danrudy
#866
Supposedly, the accepted theory on global warming is Al Gore and his cohorts. There is supposedly a "consensus". I personally think it is a bunch of hooey and would like my kid aware that there are very intelligent people who feel otherwise.
Uh, you're aware that this topic isn't about global warming, right? At any rate, bringing it up is tantamount to bringing up apples in an argument about muscle cars. Global warming, or the lack thereof, can at least be empirically measured, and as such we can debate those results. As you know, the fundamental tenet of creationism/ID, a creator/designer, cannot be observed, tested, etc. . . as such these issues have nothing in common.
Remember....these are all theories.
Except for ID. . .which is not.
| 904 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 13, 2009 3:01:15pm |
re: #850 LoveOneAnother
I thought the answer was obvious. None. That is the problem. Such theories are being excluded by DEFINITION rather than by analysis of empirical data. Hence, all the arguments claiming that there is no empirical data supporting theories of Intelligent Design is a canard.
Please furnish empirical data supporting the ID hypothesis. Of course you cannot. Your problem is that empirical evidence cannot lead to extra-empirical conclusions.
| 905 |
Sharmuta Fri, Feb 13, 2009 3:02:44pm |
re: #902 Spar Kling
Hard to have "stellar scientific credentials" when you lack credibility.
| 906 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 13, 2009 3:03:36pm |
re: #902 Spar Kling
Yes, they will. For similar reasons, I chose not to reveal personal details about my scientific degree, and those same people attack me relentlessly for that. Even if I had the stellar scientific credentials of a Dr. Michael Behe, the cognitive dissonance this produces in their world view will not permit them to concede that a sane or truthful person can disagree with them regarding the theory of Evolution. You'll see.
-sk
The pseudoscientific contentions of Behe and Dembski have been refuted, discredited, and debunked until the cows have come home and laid down and died. They are not practicing scientists; they are failed creationist propagandists.
| 907 |
Yashmak Fri, Feb 13, 2009 3:05:16pm |
re: #902 Spar Kling
Yes, they will. For similar reasons, I chose not to reveal personal details about my scientific degree, and those same people attack me relentlessly for that. Even if I had the stellar scientific credentials of a Dr. Michael Behe, the cognitive dissonance this produces in their world view will not permit them to concede that a sane or truthful person can disagree with them regarding the theory of Evolution. You'll see.
-sk
He revealed nothing allowing verification of any of his claims. THAT is what he was shredded for, and THAT is what you have been shredded for as well.
Behe? stellar credentials? I was unaware that pushing religious dogma backed by exactly ZERO scientific evidence, and having your pet argument (irreducible complexity in the case of Behe) completely and utterly debunked qualified you as having 'stellar credentials'. And you claim WE have cognitive dissonance.
| 908 |
Sharmuta Fri, Feb 13, 2009 3:07:08pm |
re: #905 Sharmuta
Hard to have "stellar scientific credentials" when you lack credibility.
And what I mean by that is- Dr Behe can have all the pretty pieces of paper he wants in order to show he has credentials, but they mean little when his work is so utterly debunked yet he carries on with his notions of irreducible complexity oblivious to the fact his notion has been rejected.
| 909 |
Yashmak Fri, Feb 13, 2009 3:11:32pm |
their world view will not permit them to concede that a sane or truthful person can disagree with them regarding the theory of Evolution
- SparKing
Nah, you can disagree with us all you want. As soon as you can produce an actual alternative hypothesis backed by some empirical scientific data, or even a theory that can be tested but hasn't been tested yet, we'll even give your position due consideration.
But you haven't. We're ALL waiting.
| 910 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 13, 2009 3:16:14pm |
re: #880 danrudy
#866
Look...As I pointed out. My scientific credentials will match anyone here. Even been to Galapagos and followed Darwins footsteps for a week on a diving expedition. I personally am against teaching ID in school . The scientifically accepted theory should be the one put forth in an institution of learning. However, I see no need to fear discussing that there are those who believe in creationism.
The sociological fact that some folks embrace religious dogma is not germane to bioscience education, which deals with what can be empirically known, not with what some folks believe.
Supposedly, the accepted theory on global warming is Al Gore and his cohorts. There is supposedly a "consensus". I personally think it is a bunch of hooey and would like my kid aware that there are very intelligent people who feel otherwise. We are not going to burn up in a fireball in 10 years. SOme of the greatest minds in history were and are people of faith who accepted things that dont have empirical evidence as they found it made the world make more sense and appear more understandable to them. Were they crazy?
Arguing against evolution by invoking AGW is like trying to slime Abraham Lincoln with the spectre of Ron Paul. And the greatest minds to which you refer were either not practicing bioscientists, or lived before Darwin published Origin of Species, or both.
Remember....these are all theories. Even the theory of evolution can not adequately explain where it all began. The big bang/? what is that? where did this material that blew up come from? It always existed? how can something always exist. that makes no sense. Everything has to come into being. What causes it to come into being. these are questions no one will ever answer. Just because it makes sense doesn't make it a fact. It is still a theory.
It is also false to attempt to argue against evolution by invoking cosmology. And theories in science are much stronger than the conjectural connotation of the word found in lay discourse. According to the United States National Academy of Sciences:
"Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena"
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact."
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
| 911 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 13, 2009 3:22:48pm |
re: #895 danrudy
"re: #880 danrudy
I had the feeling your complaint about the "unimportance" of this issue wasn't really the whole story. Looks like I was right."
Charles...I love you and this site. I really do. But your "feeling" is incorrect. If I gave that impression simply by being commenting oin the issue then that wasnt my intention.
I really feel this issue is way overblown in this blog. I am certainly not a creationist but dont pretend that Darwins theory is perfect either. It is the best we have and should be taught. I prefer that alternative theories be taught in religious schools but i dont think there is anything wrong to referencing that they exist. But the tone here suggests that een folks who teach it in religious school must be knuckleheds.
My point in my above post (made poorly as i am still struggling at work) is that I dont really think the tone of deamonizing folks as "kooks" who happen to have a belief that is contrary to the accepted theory is doing anyone a service and diminishes those of us who disagree with them.
I personally think the science behind the accepted vision of Al Gore is silly and full of holes . Does that make me a nutand worthy of ridicule? i am just saying that I think the degree of ridicule and scorn is way overblown on this issue (and thus the enthusiasm in which it is reported). There are (to me at least) bigger issues then this.
The science education of our youth, and the ongoing attempts being made by religious pressure groups to subvert and suborn it via the politically coerced inclusion of religious dogma, is not only eminently relevant, but critically important to the future military and economic national security of our nation. And, once again, arguing against evolution by invoking AGW is like trying to slime Abraham Lincoln by tying him to Ron Paul.
| 912 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 13, 2009 3:24:58pm |
re: #902 Spar Kling
Yes, they will. For similar reasons, I chose not to reveal personal details about my scientific degree, and those same people attack me relentlessly for that. Even if I had the stellar scientific credentials of a Dr. Michael Behe, the cognitive dissonance this produces in their world view will not permit them to concede that a sane or truthful person can disagree with them regarding the theory of Evolution. You'll see.
-sk
You've already told me what you do; you make cheese for a living. That is certainly a praiseworthy vocation, but it can hardly lend you scientific credence concerning evolutionary theory.
| 913 |
gregmw Fri, Feb 13, 2009 3:41:11pm |
re: #912 Salamantis
You've already told me what you do; you make cheese for a living. That is certainly a praiseworthy vocation, but it can hardly lend you scientific credence concerning evolutionary theory.
Heck, I'd even argue the opposite. How could someone who makes a product that is so involved with fungi and fermentation not be aware of their incredible diversity, versatility and the spectacular ways in which they can adapt and evolve to take advantage of situations?
| 914 |
danrudy Fri, Feb 13, 2009 3:58:35pm |
Salamantis and gregmw
"re: #912 Salamantis
You've already told me what you do; you make cheese for a living. That is certainly a praiseworthy vocation, but it can hardly lend you scientific credence concerning evolutionary theory.
Heck, I'd even argue the opposite. How could someone who makes a product that is so involved with fungi and fermentation not be aware of their incredible diversity, versatility and the spectacular ways in which they can adapt and evolve to take advantage of situations?"
First off...I am not subscribing to the following but i would point out as someone who has been through medical school and spent more then a year dissecting the human body that it could also be argued that unless you have studied the complexity of the human body you could not possibly understand that this could not occur by mere chance but would have had to be designed by a superior intellect...LOL. Again, to clarify... I dont hold that view but it is just as a fair an argument.
Sal..."The sociological fact that some folks embrace religious dogma is not germane to bioscience education, which deals with what can be empirically known, not with what some folks believe."
I agree.
Its just that the sense I get lately on this board is that if you embrace religious dogma you are simply a Nutjob. I am trying to point out that this is certainly not the case.
| 915 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Feb 13, 2009 4:01:14pm |
re: #902 Spar Kling
Yes, they will. For similar reasons, I chose not to reveal personal details about my scientific degree, and those same people attack me relentlessly for that.
Ridiculous. If you really had a "scientific degree" you could say what discipline it was in, without revealing a single personal detail. But you're lying. You don't have a scientific degree.
| 916 |
Sharmuta Fri, Feb 13, 2009 4:02:17pm |
re: #914 danrudy
Explain hiccups, hernias, and the grasp reflex in the human infant foot.
| 917 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 13, 2009 4:04:46pm |
re: #914 danrudy
Salamantis and gregmw
"re: #912 Salamantis
You've already told me what you do; you make cheese for a living. That is certainly a praiseworthy vocation, but it can hardly lend you scientific credence concerning evolutionary theory.
Heck, I'd even argue the opposite. How could someone who makes a product that is so involved with fungi and fermentation not be aware of their incredible diversity, versatility and the spectacular ways in which they can adapt and evolve to take advantage of situations?"
First off...I am not subscribing to the following but i would point out as someone who has been through medical school and spent more then a year dissecting the human body that it could also be argued that unless you have studied the complexity of the human body you could not possibly understand that this could not occur by mere chance but would have had to be designed by a superior intellect...LOL. Again, to clarify... I dont hold that view but it is just as a fair an argument.
I had a doctor one tell me that he was like an auto mechanic, except that he had it easier; he only had to work on two basic models.
Sal..."The sociological fact that some folks embrace religious dogma is not germane to bioscience education, which deals with what can be empirically known, not with what some folks believe."
I agree.
Its just that the sense I get lately on this board is that if you embrace religious dogma you are simply a Nutjob. I am trying to point out that this is certainly not the case.
Embracing religious dogma is one thing; endeavoring to force one's pet religious dogmas to be shoehorned into the minds of other peoples' children in public high school science class is quite another. As is claiming that there is anything scientifically valid about it.
| 918 |
Sharmuta Fri, Feb 13, 2009 4:05:55pm |
re: #914 danrudy
Its just that the sense I get lately on this board is that if you embrace religious dogma you are simply a Nutjob. I am trying to point out that this is certainly not the case.
That's bullshit- most LGFers subscribe to one religion or another. Some subscribe to none, but none of us think people of faith are nutjobs just based on that.
| 919 |
jaunte Fri, Feb 13, 2009 4:07:18pm |
People who post complaints about subject matter like:
"I really feel this issue is way overblown in this blog."
"There are (to me at least) bigger issues then this."
in these threads are overlooking the fact that there are other threads to post in. They are also free to post stories they think are important, and comment on them. That's pretty luxurious for those of us who don't want to take the time or energy to set up our own blog. Anyone who makes this kind of complaint who has zero links posted has less than zero credibility.
| 921 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Feb 13, 2009 4:14:10pm |
Another creationist freaks out, spews insults, has his account blocked and his dramatic farewell message deleted. Too bad, so sad.
| 924 |
Sharmuta Fri, Feb 13, 2009 4:38:40pm |
re: #765 SecondComing
I was just wondering what your thinking was because you don't seem to give much weight to her statements made during the campaign.
OK- going over this thread again.... I've hardly said a word about Sarah since the election other than I think the former McCain staffers treated her unfairly, and she has every reason to flip republicans the bird after some of the treatment she's been given. I was happy to vote for the ticket because I believed her and John when they said they'd try to bring reform to Washington. So I have no idea where you got this idea that I haven't given her much weight.
What I have said is she's not electable because she's a woman. It's my belief that there is still too much sexism in our culture. But my position on this has nothing to do with Sarah herself, but rather it's a criticism of our society.
| 925 |
Spar Kling Fri, Feb 13, 2009 4:39:38pm |
re: #908 Sharmuta
And what I mean by that is- Dr Behe can have all the pretty pieces of paper he wants in order to show he has credentials, but they mean little when his work is so utterly debunked yet he carries on with his
notions of irreducible complexity oblivious to the fact his notion has
been rejected.
You really should read Dr. Behe's latest book, The Edge of Evolution, for yourself instead of simply accepting on faith the hysterical attacks against him. Same with the theory of Global Warming. Science thrives on skepticism.
Behe accepts two of the three legs of the theory of Evolution, namely Natural Selection and Common Descent. What he challenges is the efficacy of the third leg, Random Mutation, beyond just a few changes (substitutions, deletions, insertions, inversions, etc.).
Behe examines the specific evolutionary changes to malaria that allowed it to defeat the effect of chloroquine, an antimalarial drug similar to quinine, starting in the 1960s.
Behe writes
Malaria offers some of the best examples of Darwinian evolution, but that evidence points both to what it can, and more important what it cannot do. Similarly, changes in the human genome, in response to malaria, also point to radical limits to the efficacy of random mutation.
And then later he writes . . .
One difficulty in writing a book questioning the sufficiency of Darwin's theory is that some people mistakenly conclude you're rejecting it in toto. It is time to go beyond either or thinking. Random mutation is a completely adequate explanation for some features of life, but not for others.
To the High Priests of Darwin, this is Scientific Heresy, of course, and must be punished immediately!
A portion of Dr. Behe's "pretty pieces of paper" as you put it, attest to Dr. Behe's work in understanding and hopefully defeating one of humanity's most deadly killers. Of course, this is of no interest to people who do not live in the areas of the world infested with malaria, as Bill Gates recently pointed out. No, it's much easier to throw Behe under the bus to protect Darwinism from the imagined threat of Intelligent Design that will, it is assumed, of necessity be closely followed by Creationism (gasp), Exorcism (double gasp), and Holy Rollers (hyperventilation), not to mention the pollution of the "tender minds" of "impressionable" teenagers (ha!) with the possibility that the theory of Evolution might not, after all, explain all life on Earth.
All Behe does in this book is simply demonstrate why one of the three legs of the theory of Evolution, random mutation, is both mathematically, and, more importantly, OBSERVATIONALLY deficient (as can be seen in the malarial and human genomes). Anyone with any scientific curiosity would want to find out why.
Read the book.
-sk
| 926 |
Sharmuta Fri, Feb 13, 2009 4:40:05pm |
re: #925 Spar Kling
Why would I read the book of a known fraud?
| 927 |
Sharmuta Fri, Feb 13, 2009 4:41:31pm |
re: #925 Spar Kling
To the High Priests of Darwin
I love that! Will you promise to always address me as such from this point forward?
| 928 |
Achilles Tang Fri, Feb 13, 2009 4:43:49pm |
re: #921 Charles
Another creationist freaks out, spews insults, has his account blocked and his dramatic farewell message deleted. Too bad, so sad.
I'm curious, what is the average number of posts before that happens?
| 929 |
Sharmuta Fri, Feb 13, 2009 4:54:15pm |
re: #925 Spar Kling
A portion of Dr. Behe's "pretty pieces of paper" as you put it, attest to Dr. Behe's work in understanding and hopefully defeating one of humanity's most deadly killers. Of course, this is of no interest to people who do not live in the areas of the world infested with malaria, as Bill Gates recently pointed out. No, it's much easier to throw Behe under the bus to protect Darwinism from the imagined threat of Intelligent Design that will, it is assumed, of necessity be closely followed by Creationism (gasp), Exorcism (double gasp), and Holy Rollers (hyperventilation), not to mention the pollution of the "tender minds" of "impressionable" teenagers (ha!) with the possibility that the theory of Evolution might not, after all, explain all life on Earth.
You really have a lot of nerve! If you want to get indignant concerning the spread of malaria, take it up with radical environmentalists, who've caused more harm than good with their anti-insecticide crusade. Behe's no martyr on that front, but nice try.
As for Behe addressing the genome- how does he account for pseudo-genes in humans and ape relative being found in the same places, not to mention the retro-viral DNA?
Bah! I wouldn't give that man a cent of my money.
| 930 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Feb 13, 2009 4:56:48pm |
re: #928 Naso Tang
I'm curious, what is the average number of posts before that happens?
This one had 23 comments total. Waited almost 6 months before posting the freak-out.
| 931 |
Achilles Tang Fri, Feb 13, 2009 4:56:51pm |
re: #925 Spar Kling
You don't seem to realize that Behe is just another "god of the gaps" fan. His premises have been refuted by better people, yet the only thing you advocate reading is Behe.
When Behe finds a conceptual problem he doesn't ramp up his thinking to solve it; he automatically sees a flaw in the entire process.
When you say things like "What he challenges is the efficacy of the third leg, Random Mutation, beyond just a few changes (substitutions, deletions, insertions, inversions, etc.)."
Neither he nor you notice that substitutions, deletions, insertions, inversions, etc. are exactly what it takes for evolution to function. No more no less, and not all of it is caused by Random Mutation.
You on the other hand think you can negate all that with the words "beyond just a few changes". "Just a few changes" is exactly how evolution works.
If you actually understood what Behe says, you would conclude that the theory of evolution is correct.
| 932 |
Sharmuta Fri, Feb 13, 2009 4:58:54pm |
Hmmm- here I was thinking a med student who'd dissected a human cadaver, claiming he doesn't reject evolution per se, would finally be able tell me about hiccups, hernias and human baby feet.
| 933 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Feb 13, 2009 5:00:41pm |
Michael Behe is such a fraud and embarrassment that his own university has posted a notice explicitly distancing themselves from his wacky Disco Institute hooey: Lehigh University Department of Biological Sciences.
The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.
This is unprecedented. But in true creationist manner, Behe just keeps on spewing the hooey, because it sells books.
| 934 |
Sharmuta Fri, Feb 13, 2009 5:04:29pm |
The mathematics in Behe's book.... is he citing Dembski- another fraud whose work has been debunked, and the professors who taught him have even called wrong?
| 935 |
Achilles Tang Fri, Feb 13, 2009 5:07:36pm |
re: #914 danrudy
Its just that the sense I get lately on this board is that if you embrace religious dogma you are simply a Nutjob. I am trying to point out that this is certainly not the case.
You haven't been paying attention. You have made more than 23 posts, but don't seem to have read many.
To put it bluntly, even while one can have sympathy for them, when someone aggressively defends a position that denies clear and verifiable factual evidence in favor of a contradictory unprovable belief, then they are in the same category as, say, the church prosecuting Newton and others.
Nutjob does apply in many cases, although simple uneducated ignorance is more common.
| 936 |
Achilles Tang Fri, Feb 13, 2009 5:18:14pm |
re: #934 Sharmuta
The mathematics in Behe's book.... is he citing Dembski- another fraud whose work has been debunked, and the professors who taught him have even called wrong?
Dembski may have first started this. At least I recall first hearing of Dembski in that regard, and then I think Behe picked up the ball. Dembski claimed that information theory alone could somehow "prove" that any given construct could not be natural. That of course is a highly rarified mathematical area to begin with, but it has a certain conceptual appeal, similar to say deciphering a signal from the stars and determining that it has artificial information in it.
The problem though is that one doesn't know how to measure such things in living organisms, so as to make them into mathematical equations and there is plenty of fiddle room available. Also the whole concept falls down in an area where Behe has been shot down, namely that of unknown precursor constructs to what one is looking at. In simple terms, things like catalysts or scaffoldings that disappear after the construction is complete. RNA I think falls in that category too.
| 937 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 13, 2009 5:45:20pm |
re: #925 Spar Kling
To the High Priests of Darwin, this is Scientific Heresy, of course, and must be punished immediately!
A portion of Dr. Behe's "pretty pieces of paper" as you put it, attest to Dr. Behe's work in understanding and hopefully defeating one of humanity's most deadly killers. Of course, this is of no interest to people who do not live in the areas of the world infested with malaria, as Bill Gates recently pointed out. No, it's much easier to throw Behe under the bus to protect Darwinism from the imagined threat of Intelligent Design that will, it is assumed, of necessity be closely followed by Creationism (gasp), Exorcism (double gasp), and Holy Rollers (hyperventilation), not to mention the pollution of the "tender minds" of "impressionable" teenagers (ha!) with the possibility that the theory of Evolution might not, after all, explain all life on Earth.
All Behe does in this book is simply demonstrate why one of the three legs of the theory of Evolution, random mutation, is both mathematically, and, more importantly, OBSERVATIONALLY deficient (as can be seen in the malarial and human genomes). Anyone with any scientific curiosity would want to find out why.
Read the book.
-sk
Yeah, and I'm sure that in a past incarnation you would have recommended that people read Immanuel Velikovsky or Joseph Chilton Pierce.
Behe's pseudostatistical contentions have been roundly refuted by Dawkins, among others:
[Link: www.medicinenet.com...]
| 938 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 13, 2009 5:46:44pm |
| 939 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Feb 13, 2009 5:51:32pm |
re: #937 Salamantis
Yeah, and I'm sure that in a past incarnation you would have recommended that people read Immanuel Velikovsky or Joseph Chilton Pierce.
No need for Spar Kling to undergo past life regression on this one -- he's previously praised Velikovsky in this life, right here at LGF:
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
| 940 |
danrudy Fri, Feb 13, 2009 5:51:37pm |
re: #932 Sharmuta
re: #932 Sharmuta
Hmmm- here I was thinking a med student who'd dissected a human cadaver, claiming he doesn't reject evolution per se, would finally be able tell me about hiccups, hernias and human baby feet.
First off...am not a med student....I graduated16 years ago from med school.
Second..."reject evolution per se"? ....maybe you weren't paying attention....I I don't believe I ever claimed to believe or disbelieve. I merely pointed out that it is a theory (and one with many gaps in it). Heck, I still don't know how one gets from an inert substance to a living single cell organism. And then all the way to something that has something as marvelously complex and mysterious as a human brain. Someone mentioned that a body was easier to understand then a car.
I don't think so.... We have very little understanding of the human body and yet we can build a car from scratch.
hiccups, hernias and baby feet? I don't understand your point?
| 941 |
danrudy Fri, Feb 13, 2009 6:00:56pm |
re: #918 Sharmuta
That's bullshit- most LGFers subscribe to one religion or another. Some subscribe to none, but none of us think people of faith are nutjobs just based on that.
People of faith believe in a god they can neither see , hear, or prove. There is no demonstrable evidence of the existence of god to these people that they can show to you..
What do you call someone who believes in something that cannot be demonstrated, proven, observed or reproduced?
off to a small party...back later
| 942 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 13, 2009 6:09:56pm |
re: #940 danrudy
re: #932 Sharmuta
First off...am not a med student....I graduated16 years ago from med school.
Second..."reject evolution per se"? ....maybe you weren't paying attention....I I don't believe I ever claimed to believe or disbelieve. I merely pointed out that it is a theory (and one with many gaps in it).
At least you didn't say 'just a theory', when there's nothing 'just' about a scientific theory.
Heck, I still don't know how one gets from an inert substance to a living single cell organism. And then all the way to something that has something as marvelously complex and mysterious as a human brain.
These are two different questions; the first has to do with origins of life theory; only the second has to do with evolution. And complex and mysterious do not entail metaphysically created. I recommend a quite fascinsting book by Douglas R. Hofstadter (of Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid fame) titled I Am A Strange Loop. I also recommend you read about Nobel Prize Laureate Gerald Edelman's Theory of Neuronal Group Selection; a few lay titles I could recommend to you are Bright Air, Brilliant Fire: On The Matter Of The Mind, A Universe Of Consciousness: How Matter Becomes Imagination, Second Nature: Brain Science and Human Knowledge, and Wider Than the Sky: The Phenomenal Gift of Consciousness. His more technical books, such as Neural Darwinism, The Remembered Present: A Biological Theory Of Consciousness, and Topobiology: An Introduction To Molecular Embryology, are more specialized and abstruse.
Someone mentioned that a body was easier to understand then a car.
I don't think so.... We have very little understanding of the human body and yet we can build a car from scratch.
A fertile human couple can build a baby from scratch, given 9 months.
hiccups, hernias and baby feet? I don't understand your point?
The point is that there are evolutionary explanations for these things, but no creationist explanations.
| 943 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 13, 2009 6:11:56pm |
re: #941 danrudy
People of faith believe in a god they can neither see , hear, or prove. There is no demonstrable evidence of the existence of god to these people that they can show to you..
What do you call someone who believes in something that cannot be demonstrated, proven, observed or reproduced?off to a small party...back later
I know what I call a person who advocates teaching their dogmatic religious beliefs as empirical fact in public high school science class: constitution-violating theocrat.
| 944 |
Spar Kling Fri, Feb 13, 2009 6:30:48pm |
re: #926 Sharmuta
Why would I read the book of a known fraud?
A known fraud? Perhaps . . . a witch?
This exchange reminds me of the famous Monty Python skit . . .
VILLAGER #1: We have found a witch. May we burn her?
CROWD: Burn her! Burn! Burn her! Burn her!
BEDEVERE: How do you know she is a witch?
VILLAGER #2: She looks like one.
CROWD: Right! Yeah! Yeah!
BEDEVERE: Bring her forward.
WITCH: I'm not a witch. I'm not a witch.
BEDEVERE: Uh, but you are dressed as one.
WITCH: They dressed me up like this.
Monty Python and the Holy Grail (c) 1975
Dr. Behe challenged only part of the theory of evolution, the part that is OBSERVABLY falsifiable: a trillion malaria parasites in each of billions of people over the world through millions of generations can only produce evolutionary defenses against antimalarial drugs and human DNA changes that represent 2-3 point mutations maximum and no more. That's all he's really saying. It's observable.
For this heresy, he is "dressed" like a witch with demands that he be burned. And, naturally then, you don't even have to read his book to know that he's a witch. Right?
-sk
| 945 |
Spar Kling Fri, Feb 13, 2009 6:50:05pm |
re: #931 Naso Tang
You don't seem to realize that Behe is just another "god of the gaps" fan. His premises have been refuted by better people, yet the
only thing you advocate reading is Behe.
Not at all. I'm convinced that Dr. Behe would be perfectly happy with the theory of evolution if it could somehow be demonstrated that, for example, viral transmission rather than point mutation was the source of genetic change in organisms.
Neither he nor you notice that substitutions, deletions, insertions, inversions, etc. are exactly what it takes for evolution to function. No more no less, and not all of it is caused by Random Mutation.
It's my fault for not being clearer on this point, and obviously you haven't read his book. What he claims to be observable is that random mutation can only produce a TOTAL of 2-3 changes and then the evolutionary process stops dead. It's this part of evolution that he has challenged.
If you actually understood what Behe says, you would conclude that the theory of evolution is correct.
No. I do understand what he writes, and I have concluded the opposite of what you suggest. Again, what he writes about the limits to evolution regarding malaria is *directly observable*. His math roughly fits the observation.
-sk
| 946 |
jaunte Fri, Feb 13, 2009 6:53:31pm |
re: #944 Spar Kling
At the link below, Nick Matzke gives a fairly straightforward explanation of the faulty assumptions Behe used in his writing about the malaria parasite Plasmodium, and then suggests why it happened:
It is clear that Behe is driven not by a truly scientific investigation, but instead metaphysics. He is obsessed with “randomness,” which he incorrigibly associates with “Darwinism” and cosmic purposelessness. This is one of many incorrect but blindly-held assumptions common with creationists. But randomness in evolution is no more metaphysically significant than randomness in weather systems. If creationists realized this, we might finally see the edge of creationism, if not the end of it. But if Behe is any indication, that won’t be any time soon.
[Link: pandasthumb.org...]
| 947 |
Spar Kling Fri, Feb 13, 2009 7:22:05pm |
re: #929 Sharmuta
You really have a lot of nerve! If you want to get indignant
concerning the spread of malaria, take it up with radical
environmentalists, who've caused more harm than good with their
anti-insecticide crusade. Behe's no martyr on that front, but nice try.As for Behe addressing the genome- how does he account for
pseudo-genes in humans and ape relative being found in the same places,
not to mention the retro-viral DNA?Bah! I wouldn't give that man a cent of my money.
Please finish reading my posts before responding. What I said was:
Behe accepts two of the three legs of the theory of Evolution, namely Natural Selection and Common Descent. What he challenges is the efficacy of the third leg, Random Mutation, beyond just a few changes (substitutions, deletions, insertions, inversions, etc.).
The Common Descent leg covers your retro-viral DNA objection.
Behe accepts Common Descent as true.
What Behe challenges is the third leg, that Random Mutation creates the variation for more than 2-3 DNA changes TOTAL. He contends that Random Mutation fails with respect to the directly observable limits to changes in the malaria genome after trillions of generations, and those to humans that produced the sickle cell gene and others.
I agree with you about the DDT, although there is evidence of shell thinning in raptors with excessive use.
-sk
| 948 |
Spar Kling Fri, Feb 13, 2009 7:49:46pm |
re: #946 jaunte
At the link below, Nick Matzke gives a fairly straightforward
explanation of the faulty assumptions Behe used in his writing about
the malaria parasite Plasmodium, and then suggests why it happened:[Link: pandasthumb.org...]
Jaunte, I read the article you linked to. Matzke does a reasonable summary, and there are some interesting references to the evolutionary adjustments in snake venom, etc. but the conclusions that Nick Matzke makes in his last paragraph do not follow in my opinion. He's saying that Behe has a problem with random mutation being "just" random. I didn't get the impression that Behe did.
Of course, it's random and that's not a problem. It's like saying that the theory of evolution is "just" a theory. Unless, someone can show a mechanism for directed mutation, I think random mutation is fine. Yes, there are sites that are more vulnerable, but Behe is considering only the sites that affect malaria's resistance to chloroquine (and goes on to discuss similar examples with modern anti-malarial drugs).
Again, people have criticized Behe's math, but that's not really the point. The point is that the frequency of random mutation in malaria to counteract chloroquine and other drugs is directly observable, and roughly matches Behe's predictions. And "directly observable" is a pretty strong argument in my book.
Thanks for the post.
-sk
| 949 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 13, 2009 8:00:17pm |
re: #948 Spar Kling
Jaunte, I read the article you linked to. Matzke does a reasonable summary, and there are some interesting references to the evolutionary adjustments in snake venom, etc. but the conclusions that Nick Matzke makes in his last paragraph do not follow in my opinion. He's saying that Behe has a problem with random mutation being "just" random. I didn't get the impression that Behe did.
Of course, it's random and that's not a problem. It's like saying that the theory of evolution is "just" a theory. Unless, someone can show a mechanism for directed mutation, I think random mutation is fine. Yes, there are sites that are more vulnerable, but Behe is considering only the sites that affect malaria's resistance to chloroquine (and goes on to discuss similar examples with modern anti-malarial drugs).
Again, people have criticized Behe's math, but that's not really the point. The point is that the frequency of random mutation in malaria to counteract chloroquine and other drugs is directly observable, and roughly matches Behe's predictions. And "directly observable" is a pretty strong argument in my book.
Thanks for the post.
-sk
What is not being taken into account is spandrels. Spandrels are already-present genetic parameters that define a possibility space. Any genetic mutations that take place that do not alter the spandrels themselves can only move within that possibility space, and spandrels themselves tend to be firmly genetically anchored, requiring many mutations to change.
There is no contradiction with random genetic mutation here; it's the same principle under which the easier mutational course, when confronted with a bamboo food source and no ready means to strip foliage from it, was for pandas to evolve elongated bone spur from their wrists, rather than evolve actual thumbs. All other things being equal, random processes will tend to gravitate towards the simpler path.
| 950 |
jaunte Fri, Feb 13, 2009 8:04:37pm |
Here's a link to the relevant paper:
The edge of evolution? Our final example of waiting for two mutations concerns the emergence of chloroquine resistance in P. falciparum. Genetic studies have shown, see Wooton et al. (2002), that this is due to changes in a protein PfCRT and that in the mutant strains two amino acid changes are almost always present—one switch at position 76 and another at position 220. This example plays a key role in the chapter titled “The mathematical limits of Darwinism” in Michael Behe's book, The Edge of Evolution (Behe 2007).
Arguing that (i) there are 1 trillion parasitic cells in an infected person, (ii) there are 1 billion infected persons on the planet, and (ii) chloroquine resistance has arisen only 10 times in the past 50 years, he concludes that the odds of one parasite developing resistance to chloroquine, an event he calls a chloroquine complexity cluster (CCC), are ~1 in 1020. Ignoring the fact that humans and P. falciparum have different mutation rates, he then concludes that “On the average, for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait a hundred million times ten million years” (Behe 2007, p. 61), which is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given.
Indeed his error is much worse. To further sensationalize his conclusion, he argues that “There are 5000 species of modern mammals. If each species had an average of a million members, and if a new generation appeared each year, and if this went on for two hundred million years, the likelihood of a single CCC appearing in the whole bunch over that entire time would only be about 1 in 100” (Behe 2007, p. 61). Taking 2N = 106 and μ1 = μ2 = 10−9, Theorem 1 predicts a waiting time of 31.6 million generations for one prespecified pair of mutations in one species, with equation M58 having reduced the answer by a factor of 31,600.
We are certainly not the first to have criticized Behe's work. Lynch (2005) has written a rebuttal to Behe and Snoke (2004), which is widely cited by proponents of intelligent design (see the Wikipedia entry on Michael Behe). Behe and Snoke (2004) consider evolutionary steps that require changes in two amino acids and argue that to become fixed in 108 generations would require a population size of 109. One obvious problem with their analysis is that they do their calculations for N = 1 individual, ignoring the population genetic effects that produce the factor of equation M59. Lynch (2005) also raises other objections.
[Link: [Link: www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...]...]
| 951 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Feb 13, 2009 8:06:39pm |
We're still waiting for 'Spar Kling' to produce that list of peer-reviewed scientific papers supporting "intelligent design" creationism that he promised, months ago.
You know, I'm starting to think he lied about that.
| 952 |
TheAntichrist Fri, Feb 13, 2009 8:11:37pm |
re: #951 Charles
We're still waiting for 'Spar Kling' to produce that list of peer-reviewed scientific papers supporting "intelligent design" creationism that he promised, months ago.
You know, I'm starting to think he lied about that.
It's OK to lie, if you lie for Jesus.
| 953 |
Achilles Tang Fri, Feb 13, 2009 8:20:24pm |
| 955 |
TheAntichrist Fri, Feb 13, 2009 8:47:35pm |
| 956 |
danrudy Fri, Feb 13, 2009 9:01:04pm |
re: #942 Salamantis
The point is that there are evolutionary explanations for these things, but no creationist explanations.
Hiccups? There are bunch of theories. One of the latest having to do with brain stem initiated breathing patterns shared with tadpoles from a common ancestor. ....A theory.
Hernias....descending testicles as opposed to fish who have their testes near the heart....A theory.
Baby feet....Are you referring to opposable big toe and the lack of ability of the baby human to cling with feet to mother requiring that the infant be carried rather then cling?.....A theory.
There were also other theories to explain the above cited evolutionary "observations". These are hardly proof.
Never confuse theory with fact.
The creationist explanation?...I have no idea. Perhaps they would say that that is the way god created it. And in their belief system it would be entirely sound and logical.
Again...I am not saying it should be taught in school. I am not saying I believe in creationism. Evolution makes more sense to me as I am brought up in a scientific background and world. But, I also know that the more I know I realize the less I know. Heck, I am an MD but I am at a loss to explain what is the essence of life, IE....what causes those little cells to be alive rather then inert.....I am baffled.
I a not trying to pick a fight or defend creationism...contrary to what Charles thinks. I cant becasue I dont believe in it.
My main point is that I just sense to much bashing of religious folks (which I am not included if you choose to believe). I sense they are looked at as loony.
I dont think that is fair and is a bad precedent
| 957 |
Achilles Tang Fri, Feb 13, 2009 9:05:20pm |
re: #945 Spar Kling
Not at all. I'm convinced that Dr. Behe would be perfectly happy with the theory of evolution if it could somehow be demonstrated that, for example, viral transmission rather than point mutation was the source of genetic change in organisms.
Viral transmission is used in the lab every day to make genetic changes, deliberately. Are you not aware of that and do you not think that can happen in nature?
It's my fault for not being clearer on this point, and obviously you haven't read his book. What he claims to be observable is that random mutation can only produce a TOTAL of 2-3 changes and then the evolutionary process stops dead. It's this part of evolution that he has challenged.
This may be what he claims. It certainly isn't what biologists see. No, I haven't read his book(s). When I read a number of bad reviews of a book from respected opinions, I don't waste my time that way.
However your explanation of this sounds so silly that I suspect you don't understand Behe. What is the mechanism that stops genetic change dead in its tracks? That sounds almost like the ultimate cure for cancer, among other things. Why has nobody else detected such a fundamental principle, except for one interpretation of roughly fitted observations by someone called Behe?
No. I do understand what he writes, and I have concluded the opposite of what you suggest. Again, what he writes about the limits to evolution regarding malaria is *directly observable*. His math roughly fits the observation.
Any fool can come up with math to fit observations. To be sure, I don't really understand the argument as presented here. It seems that you think that there have been x observations of mutation addressing a particular environmental pressure in a parasite. (Why one is not enough, if it works, I am not sure.)
You then extrapolate to a different organism and suggest that the same frequency, modified by the new reproduction rate, would apply in that organism (human), even though everything is as different as one can imagine, number of genes, susceptibility to mutation and the relative importance of the environmental pressures on the different organisms, to name but the more obvious.
This flake science and you should know it simply based on the fact that human have evolved in more complex ways than resistance to a parasite in just the past 10,000 years or so.
So instead of concluding that rough math calculations like this are flawed, you and Behe conclude that aliens, (or god to your creationist friends) drop in every now and then with a flu epidemic that inserts new genes (a method you don't know about) in the animals they are selectively breeding for some unknown reason.
Does that not sound just like the explanation for the coins that appeared when you lost your baby teeth?
| 958 |
Achilles Tang Fri, Feb 13, 2009 9:09:39pm |
re: #956 danrudy
Never confuse theory with fact.
Never make simplistically profound statements with ambiguous words.
| 959 |
Yashmak Fri, Feb 13, 2009 9:52:37pm |
re: #925 Spar Kling
Read the book.-sk
You say science thrives on skepticism. Indeed, in has thrived through a healthy skepticism of Behe's I.D. sham. His so-called 'theories' have been reviewed and rejected by the scientific community.
Science does NOT, however, thrive on continuing to push thoroughly discredited ideas that have no scientific merit, that indeed do not even pass the fundamental requirements to be called science in the first place.
The man himself has clearly indicated that ID is religious dogma, and NOT science, as you'd know if you'd read the transcript from the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial.
"Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God. (P-718 at 705) (emphasis added). As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition’s validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe’s assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition." - pg 28.
"First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to “change the ground rules” of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. (28:26 (Fuller); 21:37-42 (Behe)). Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces. (38:97 (Minnich))." - pg 68.
"Not a single expert witness over the course of the six week trial identified one major scientific association, society or organization that endorsed ID as science." - pg 70 (threw that one in for flavor!)
"Professor Behe conceded that the proposed test could not approximate real world conditions and even if it could, Professor Minnich admitted that it would merely be a test of evolution, not design. (22:107-10 (Behe); 2:15 (Miller); 38:82 (Minnich)). We therefore find that Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large. (17:45-46 (Padian); 3:99 (Miller)). Additionally, even if irreducible complexity had not been rejected, it still does not support ID as it is merely a test for evolution, not design." pg 79
This man admits that he wants to change the definition of science to include the untestable, the unobservable, the supernatural. Since we are talking about a scientific issue here, and what is taught in the science classroom, why would you deign to suggest reading someone who is trying to foist ideas that he admits himself are outside the demesnes of science entirely?
| 960 |
danrudy Fri, Feb 13, 2009 10:00:59pm |
re: #958 Naso Tang
Never make simplistically profound statements with ambiguous words.
Which words did you find ambiguous? Perhaps I can help explain?
Would you prefer porfound statements to be complex and difficult to understand?
The statements profoundness is because of its simplicity.
| 961 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 13, 2009 10:01:02pm |
re: #956 danrudy
Hiccups? There are bunch of theories. One of the latest having to do with brain stem initiated breathing patterns shared with tadpoles from a common ancestor. ....A theory.
Hernias....descending testicles as opposed to fish who have their testes near the heart....A theory.
Baby feet....Are you referring to opposable big toe and the lack of ability of the baby human to cling with feet to mother requiring that the infant be carried rather then cling?.....A theory.
There were also other theories to explain the above cited evolutionary "observations". These are hardly proof.Never confuse theory with fact.
The fact is that these theories are supported by empirical evidence, whereas creationist notions such as "God made it that way" are supported by none. They cannot be equivocated. And the baby feet thing is referring to the Babinski reflex.
The creationist explanation?...I have no idea. Perhaps they would say that that is the way god created it. And in their belief system it would be entirely sound and logical.
Again...I am not saying it should be taught in school. I am not saying I believe in creationism. Evolution makes more sense to me as I am brought up in a scientific background and world. But, I also know that the more I know I realize the less I know. Heck, I am an MD but I am at a loss to explain what is the essence of life, IE....what causes those little cells to be alive rather then inert.....I am baffled.
I a not trying to pick a fight or defend creationism...contrary to what Charles thinks. I cant becasue I dont believe in it.
My main point is that I just sense to much bashing of religious folks (which I am not included if you choose to believe). I sense they are looked at as loony.
I dont think that is fair and is a bad precedent
It isn't a bashing religious folks to insist that their religious dogmas not be taught as empirical fact in public high school science class.
| 962 |
Yashmak Fri, Feb 13, 2009 10:02:12pm |
re: #956 danrudy
I a not trying to pick a fight or defend creationism...contrary to what Charles thinks. I cant becasue I dont believe in it.
My main point is that I just sense to much bashing of religious folks (which I am not included if you choose to believe). I sense they are looked at as loony.
I dont think that is fair and is a bad precedent
Be aware that some of the folks arguing against folks like Spar King and LoveOneAnother are in fact religious themselves. Additionally, if you read the commentary carefully, you'll find that those who are being 'bashed' almost uniformly have claimed to:
A) not be religious themselves
-or-
B) claim not to be creationists
In fact, it's been A) in most of the cases where I have engaged an individual in heated discussion, it has been with one of these individuals who has at one point or other claimed not to be religious themselves. I have nothing but respect for the religious (was raised Methodist myself). But I have nothing but loathing for those who would attempt to impose their beliefs on me and mine through sneaky litigation and trying to re-frame the supernatural as the scientific. I will fight tooth and nail, and might even be tempted to abusive language on occasion, to prevent religious dogma from invading the science classroom, no matter what religion that dogma stems from.
| 963 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 13, 2009 10:04:10pm |
re: #960 danrudy
Which words did you find ambiguous? Perhaps I can help explain?
Would you prefer porfound statements to be complex and difficult to understand?
The statements profoundness is because of its simplicity.
Never confuse scientific theory, which organizes a plethora of empirical facts, with religious dogma, which possesses no connection to empirical facts.
| 964 |
danrudy Fri, Feb 13, 2009 10:25:35pm |
re: #961 Salamantis
"And the baby feet thing is referring to the Babinski reflex"
Ah yes, cortical dominance....A different theory referring to feet.
IN our hospital every patient who gets cancer has a telephone and a television at home. There must be some link between having these appliances and developing cancer..based upon empirical evidence.
OF course, silliness.
But, explaining hernias (which I personally always thought was a decent evolutionary paradigm) is still theory
"It isn't a bashing religious folks to insist that their religious dogmas not be taught as empirical fact in public high school science class."
True...and agreed. But, I have observed snide jesus remarks here addressed to folks who are merely trying to explain themselves.
I would am pleased to see that there were 9 new threads following this one that referred to non-ID topics.
| 965 |
danrudy Fri, Feb 13, 2009 10:27:30pm |
re: #963 Salamantis
Never confuse scientific theory, which organizes a plethora of empirical facts, with religious dogma, which possesses no connection to empirical facts.
I don't believe I did.
| 966 |
Sharmuta Fri, Feb 13, 2009 11:12:48pm |
re: #964 danrudy
I would am pleased to see that there were 9 new threads following this one that referred to non-ID topics.
Then why aren't you posting comments on one of them instead of continuing to comment on an ID thread?
| 968 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 13, 2009 11:40:12pm |
re: #964 danrudy
"And the baby feet thing is referring to the Babinski reflex"
Ah yes, cortical dominance....A different theory referring to feet.
IN our hospital every patient who gets cancer has a telephone and a television at home. There must be some link between having these appliances and developing cancer..based upon empirical evidence.
OF course, silliness.
But, explaining hernias (which I personally always thought was a decent evolutionary paradigm) is still theory
Ah yews...the old 'correlation doesn't entail causation' canard. Tobacco companies are especially fond of it. What is not mentioned is that if A and B are correlated, and neither causes the other, then something else usually caused them both. Carl Jung wrote a book about it entitled Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle. But in fact, they are causally connected - not through each other, but through a cause common to both of them.
For instance, people who live in the first world generally have much higher rates of cancer than those who don't. There are several reasons for this; more toxic diet, the ubiquity of carcinogenic chemicals (the aforementioned tobacco among them), and the omnipresence of all kinds of radiant energy.
"It isn't a bashing religious folks to insist that their religious dogmas not be taught as empirical fact in public high school science class."
True...and agreed. But, I have observed snide jesus remarks here addressed to folks who are merely trying to explain themselves.
I would am pleased to see that there were 9 new threads following this one that referred to non-ID topics.
Some people have shown up here not to explain themselves, but to deceive others, and have been caught in their lies. Muslims aren't the only religious devotees capable of taqqiya; the Disco Institute has...umm...institutionalized the practice.
And topics both ID and otherwise will, I'll wager, continue to be posted. This site is anti-idiotarian, and strives to expose idiotarianism to the antiseptic klieg lights of public awareness, whether those idiotarians are moonbat leftists being employed as useful idiots by Islamofascists, selectively blind antijihadists doing a devil's deal with euroneonazis, or the naive and gullible faithful being taken on an impoverishing ride by the smarmy snake-oil salesmen of the Disco Institute.
| 969 |
Achilles Tang Sat, Feb 14, 2009 6:33:30am |
re: #960 danrudy
Which words did you find ambiguous? Perhaps I can help explain?
Would you prefer porfound statements to be complex and difficult to understand?
The statements profoundness is because of its simplicity.
Good morning, just checking in.
I thought it was clear. Scientific theories are based on facts. Your statement sounded like the usual creationist misuse. I'm surprised I have to explain that.
| 970 |
Sharmuta Sat, Feb 14, 2009 8:25:23am |
re: #961 Salamantis
What's interesting is the snide use of "theory" that applies to evolution and the three points I made, but somehow the "theory" of "intelligent design" is immune.
| 971 |
Spar Kling Sat, Feb 14, 2009 12:08:51pm |
re: #957 Naso Tang
Any fool can come up with math to fit observations. To be sure, I don't really understand the argument as presented here. It seems that you think that there have been x observations of mutation addressing a particular environmental pressure in a parasite. (Why one is not
enough, if it works, I am not sure.)
Ok, I'll try to make it simple. Let's say that in some fictitious organism, you observe that on the average there's a 1/3 chance of a random DNA error in a specific location over a specified time, let's say 10 minutes. You also observe that there's a 1/4 chance of a random DNA error in another specific location over a specified time, again 10 minutes. You observe that both mutations together confer resistance to something and that 1/12 of those organisms have that resistance.
Having taken a math course in simple probability, you jump to the "wild" conclusion that this confirms the randomness and lack of interaction between these two mutations: 1/3 x 1/4 = 1/12. Naturally, it could be a coincidence. Yes, these two locations might indeed be connected in some complicated way that gives the same result. They could indeed be like the coins that appear under your pillow when you lost your baby teeth.
You do the same for another organism with different rates of reproduction and mutation at specific points. Both the math and the observations again work out the same way (maybe this time it's 1/5 and 1/20 to yield 1/100). And again you jump to the same "wild" conclusion.
The two organisms interact with each other to proliferate these mutations.
Then you observe the odds for a third random mutation. The product of all these random changes are, let's say 1/1000. But given the rate of reproduction of your organism and the amount of time you have, 10 minutes. You conclude that random mutation could produce one or two of the mutations, but not all three in the same organism due to the time limit of 10 minutes (i.e. you're not counting on 100-sigma statistical miracles).
This is what Behe is saying, but with bigger numbers.
You write a book suggesting that random mutation could not be the primary driving force behind the third leg of evolution for these organisms beyond one or two changes, but that you do accept the other two legs of the theory of Evolution: Natural Selection and Common Descent.
You don't mention any other possibilities to replace mutation, although some have been investigated intensively such as viral transmission, and that the genome of the platypus offers some tantalizing evidence for some other form of DNA transmission of large chunks of information. You also note that these mutations result in a loss of information, not something more complex.
Immediately, you are attacked that you haven't explained everything, that you are spreading flake science to sell lots of books, that you are trying to topple DARWIN (the most brilliant scientist in human history, past present, and future), that this will lead to teaching Creationism in public schools.
But this is ok. Stonings and burnings are an integral and traditional part of the scientific method, as anyone who has ever participated in the process full well knows--every major breakthrough in science and medicine has been vigorously opposed by the political establishment in the scientific institutions of the time.
-sk
| 972 |
danrudy Sat, Feb 14, 2009 1:21:35pm |
re: #969 Naso Tang
Good morning, just checking in.
I thought it was clear. Scientific theories are based on facts. Your statement sounded like the usual creationist misuse. I'm surprised I have to explain that.
Sorry...but a theory is a principle to try and explain a body of facts. It is itself not a fact.
From Wikipedia...
In science, the word theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon.[3]. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet but we invoke theories of gravity to explain this occurrence. However, even inside the sciences the word theory picks out several different concepts dependent on the context. In casual speech scientists don't use the term theory in a particularly precise fashion, allowing historical accidents to determine whether a given body of scientific work is called a theory, law, principle or something else. For instance Einstein's relativity is usually called "the theory of relativity" while Newton's theory of gravity often is called "the law of gravity." In this kind of casual use by scientists the word theory can be used flexibly to refer to whatever kind of explanation or prediction is being examined. It is for this instance that a scientific theory is a claim based on a body of evidence.
| 973 |
danrudy Sat, Feb 14, 2009 1:27:32pm |
re: #966 Sharmuta
Then why aren't you posting comments on one of them instead of continuing to comment on an ID thread?
Well...I tend to read and only occasionally post. My post here in this section was because I thought there was to much attention being paid to this issue and to much bashing of religion.
It had nothing to do with whether I agreed or disagreed with creationism being taught in schools (I don't).
When the attack dogs came out essentially accusing me of being a creationist with some hidden agenda I naturally responded.
I will now happily go back to reading about folks trying to portray muslims in a more positive light by beheading their wives.
| 975 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Feb 14, 2009 3:45:35pm |
re: #971 Spar Kling
Absolute nonsense, as usual. But hey, it sounds scientific!
| 976 |
Salamantis Sat, Feb 14, 2009 6:00:34pm |
re: #971 Spar Kling
Ok, I'll try to make it simple. Let's say that in some fictitious organism, you observe that on the average there's a 1/3 chance of a random DNA error in a specific location over a specified time, let's say 10 minutes. You also observe that there's a 1/4 chance of a random DNA error in another specific location over a specified time, again 10 minutes. You observe that both mutations together confer resistance to something and that 1/12 of those organisms have that resistance.
Having taken a math course in simple probability, you jump to the "wild" conclusion that this confirms the randomness and lack of interaction between these two mutations: 1/3 x 1/4 = 1/12. Naturally, it could be a coincidence. Yes, these two locations might indeed be connected in some complicated way that gives the same result. They could indeed be like the coins that appear under your pillow when you lost your baby teeth.
You do the same for another organism with different rates of reproduction and mutation at specific points. Both the math and the observations again work out the same way (maybe this time it's 1/5 and 1/20 to yield 1/100). And again you jump to the same "wild" conclusion.
The two organisms interact with each other to proliferate these mutations.
Then you observe the odds for a third random mutation. The product of all these random changes are, let's say 1/1000. But given the rate of reproduction of your organism and the amount of time you have, 10 minutes. You conclude that random mutation could produce one or two of the mutations, but not all three in the same organism due to the time limit of 10 minutes (i.e. you're not counting on 100-sigma statistical miracles).
This is what Behe is saying, but with bigger numbers.
You write a book suggesting that random mutation could not be the primary driving force behind the third leg of evolution for these organisms beyond one or two changes, but that you do accept the other two legs of the theory of Evolution: Natural Selection and Common Descent.
You don't mention any other possibilities to replace mutation, although some have been investigated intensively such as viral transmission, and that the genome of the platypus offers some tantalizing evidence for some other form of DNA transmission of large chunks of information. You also note that these mutations result in a loss of information, not something more complex.
Immediately, you are attacked that you haven't explained everything, that you are spreading flake science to sell lots of books, that you are trying to topple DARWIN (the most brilliant scientist in human history, past present, and future), that this will lead to teaching Creationism in public schools.
But this is ok. Stonings and burnings are an integral and traditional part of the scientific method, as anyone who has ever participated in the process full well knows--every major breakthrough in science and medicine has been vigorously opposed by the political establishment in the scientific institutions of the time.
-sk
Other means of genetic mutation such as genetic drift and McClintock's transposons are IN ADDITION TO random genetic evolution, not INSTEAD OF.
Plus, the insertion of artifactual retroviral DNA sequences by viral phages into host genomes cannot help but add complexity, and such sequences comprise fully 8% of the human genome.
Where's your major scientific breaktheough that falsifies evolutionary theory? (Hint: Behe and Dembski ain't it.)
HelLO? BUELLER?
| 977 |
Nemesis6 Sun, Feb 15, 2009 2:45:29am |
re: #971 Spar Kling
Stonings and burnings are an integral and traditional part of the scientific method
Fair-gaming science. Nice. By the way, are you sure you're not talking about that OTHER method? You know the whole "burn the flesh off of the witch!" crowd? Yeah, that's right. The Christians.
The Good Liars at the Schnecksville Trump Rally [VIDEO] New theories, great tunes and SHOCKING breaking news. SUPPORT US: http://Herohero.co/thegoodliars SEE THE GOOD LIARS LIVE!WASHINGTON D.C. MAY 23RD: https://www.unionstage.com/shows/good-liars-fix-america/NASHVILLE, TN JUNE 6TH: https://www.etix.com/ticket/p/42992972/the-good-liars-nashville-the-lab-at-zaniesSAN FRANCISCO, CA JUNE 25TH: https://www.livenation.com/event/G5vYZbavGvggG/the-good-liars SUBSCRIBE TO OUR AUDIO PODCAST:Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-good-liars-tell-the-truth/id1731178442Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/7mgfiwzr32907N4y68eFOCJoin this channel ...
teleskiguy
Trump’s “Stolen Election” Lie Based on Evidence From Pervy Bathroom Cam-Spy OK, this really takes the cake. If you have relatives that still cling to the “election was stolen, dadgum, I jes’ KNOW IT … This should be a slight remedy to the stubborn madness Thanks to online anonymity, the ...
Khal Wimpo (free internal organs upon request!)
Best of April 2024 Nothing new here but these are a look back at the a few good images from the past month. Despite the weather, I was quite pleased with several of them. These were taken with older lenses (made from the ...
William Lewis
Gateway Pundit, Sued by Election Workers, Declares BankruptcyA onetime favorite, now just pathetic figure around these parts, Jim Hoft aka SMOTI ("Stupidest Man On The Internet"), has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in response to the defamation lawsuits filed against him to the same election workers that ... Khal Wimpo (free internal organs upon request!)
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ... Cheechako
Alone in a Bathroom: The Fear and Uncertainty of a Post-Roe Medication Abortion Angel tucked two white pills into each side of her mouth, bracing herself as they began to dissolve. Her deepest fears and anxieties took over. Angel had wanted to talk to a doctor before she took the pills to ... Cheechako
They Were Desperate to Get Pregnant. Then IVF Gave Them Extra Embryos. One morning last spring, Ashley Harrolle put her 1-year-old daughter down for a nap and went to the kitchen. She pulled up her fertility clinic’s contact information. It was time to make the call. In a freezer several hundred ... Cheechako
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ... Cheechako
