Another GOP Creationist with Presidential Hopes

Politics • Views: 7,175

You know, I don’t think we have enough anti-science homophobic religious fanatic creationists in the running for the 2012 GOP nomination for President. We can always use another; for example: Rick Santorum.

Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) is well aware his forthcoming visit to Iowa will encourage presidential speculation, and he is doing nothing to tamp down the buzz.

Santorum, the ardent conservative who lost his seat in 2006, will give the final lecture in a year-long series put on by the American Future Fund, a conservative group based in the Hawkeye State. Santorum will speak to conservative Iowans at the University of Dubuque on Thursday.

Santorum is deep in the pocket of the deceptive creationist think tank called The Discovery Institute. Here’s some background on his attempts to sneak, cajole, and/or force the teaching of creationism into US public schools:

In 2001, Santorum tried unsuccessfully to insert language which came to be known as the “Santorum Amendment” into the No Child Left Behind bill that sought to promote the teaching of intelligent design while questioning the academic standing of evolution in public schools.[26] The amendment, crafted with the assistance of the Discovery Institute,[26][27] would have required schools to discuss possible controversies surrounding scientific topics, and gave the theory of evolution as an example, opening the door for intelligent design as an opposing theory to be presented in science classrooms.[28] A federal court in Santorum’s own state, along with the majority of scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, say the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a false perception that evolution is “a theory in crisis”, portraying it as being the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community.[29][30][31]

Though not included in the final version of the Act made law, the language from the amendment was included in a report attached to the Act known as the Conference Report. The Discovery Institute and many intelligent design proponents, including two Ohio Congressmen, have repeatedly invoked this to suggest that intelligent design should be included in public school science standards as an alternative to evolution.[32][33]

In a 2002 Washington Times op-ed article Santorum wrote that intelligent design “is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes.”[34] By 2005 Santorum had adopted the Discovery Institute’s Teach the Controversy approach,[35] stating in an interview with National Public Radio “I’m not comfortable with intelligent design being taught in the science classroom. What we should be teaching are the problems and holes, and I think there are legitimate problems and holes in the theory of evolution”,[36] a statement which mirrors the Teach the Controversy strategy, the most recent iteration of the intelligent design movement.[37] The day after the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District decision that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature[38] came down, Santorum announced that he was resigning from the advisory board of the Thomas More Law Center which had defended the Dover school board.[3] Most recently Santorum wrote the foreword for the March 2006 book, Darwin’s Nemesis: Phillip Johnson And the Intelligent Design Movement a collection of essays largely by Discovery Institute fellows honoring the “father” of the intelligent design movement, Phillip E. Johnson.

Jump to bottom

709 comments
1 Kragar  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:27:59pm

Why do you hate the GOP?
///

I call a meltdown between 50 and 100 posts.

2 Guanxi88  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:28:03pm

Great! just peachy.

3 Sharmuta  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:28:55pm

I'll never vote for a disco dewd puppet.

4 Creeping Eruption  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:29:13pm

Do I dare link to Dan Savages definition of "Santorum?"

5 Guanxi88  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:30:32pm

Dammit, guys, just dammit! Is the GOP determined to break its losing streak by doubling down? Don't work in Vegas, don't work in politics.

6 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:30:37pm

2012 is going to be a major disaster if twits like Santorum are center stage. Maybe it is what is needed to discredit these jerks.

7 mshaw  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:30:49pm

There's no way. Santorum has been so thoroughly trashed - rightly or wrongly - by the left that he's radioactive.

8 Boondock St. Bender  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:30:51pm

we gotta come up with a better appellation for these characters than"conservative"
something along the lines of "arrogant self-serving Luddite the religious zealot persuasion"

9 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:31:31pm

re: #1 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Why do you hate the GOP?
///

I call a meltdown between 50 and 100 posts.

Oh, if any thread's gonna cuase a meltdown today, a major flouncy meltdown, I predict this one is it.

10 arethusa  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:31:47pm

I saw the speculation about Santorum yesterday. In addition to his creationism, several ethics issues haunt him as well - for instance, he made a school district in PA pick up the tab for educating his kids - who lived in VA with him - long-distance. The tab was quite high - 100K. He could so easily have afforded to have his kids educated in VA.

Anyway, that's another one I won't be voting for in 2012.

11 brennant  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:31:51pm

re: #4 Creeping Eruption

just what I was thinking... and probably not.

12 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:32:21pm

We're getting ads from the William J. Clinton foundation and "Good News Magazine"; the latter on creation vs evolution.
Why do I think the latter is related to the Christian fundamentalists who were passing out "Good News for Modern Man" bibles (New Testament only) in my college somewhat over 30 years ago?
If so, they aren't going to get many bites from this blog.

13 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:32:31pm

re: #7 mshaw

There's no way. Santorum has been so thoroughly trashed - rightly or wrongly - by the left that he's radioactive.

Never underestimate the stupidity of humans, especially those in a group.

14 Sheila Broflovski  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:32:31pm

Google Ads is serving up a seriously crazy soup of anti-evolution links.

15 rwmofo  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:32:37pm

Wait, I thought we were supposed to dissect frogs in science class.

16 The Shadow Do  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:33:18pm

Lots of luck Rick, you will need it. Can't outhuckabee Huckabee. Unless you bathe your squirrels with Lava soap before you cook them in your popcorn popper that is, of course.

17 Boondock St. Bender  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:33:22pm

re: #12 Kosh's Shadow

They're in the wrong church now baby!

18 Big Steve  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:33:28pm

re: #1 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Why do you hate the GOP?
///

I call a meltdown between 50 and 100 posts.

Double or nothing that the flounce contains the words..."but no one reads LGF anymore."

19 Charles Johnson  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:33:32pm

re: #14 Alouette

Google Ads is serving up a seriously crazy soup of anti-evolution links.

Creationists have a lot of money to promote their idiocy. It comes from fleecing the flock.

20 Creeping Eruption  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:33:43pm

re: #11 brennant

just what I was thinking... and probably not.

Not so sure many around here know what I am referencing. I can't imagine that Dan Savage is regular reading around for most around here.

21 Sharmuta  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:34:13pm

I think this guy stands as much of a chance winning the nomination as Dan Quayle in 2000.

22 brennant  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:34:27pm

re: #20 Creeping Eruption

Probably not, but Santorum deserves the abuse from Savage.

23 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:35:18pm

re: #16 The Shadow Do

Lots of luck Rick, you will need it. Can't outhuckabee Huckabee. Unless you bathe your squirrels with Lava soap before you cook them in your popcorn popper that is, of course.

Bathing squirrels in Lava soap? Soap has lye, therefore...

Lutesquirelsk!

24 Digital Display  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:35:20pm

re: #9 Honorary Yooper

Oh, if any thread's gonna cuase a meltdown today, a major flouncy meltdown, I predict this one is it.


Over/under at 130..
Please place your bets lizards!

25 Kragar  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:35:23pm

re: #18 Big Steve

Double or nothing that the flounce contains the words..."but no one reads LGF anymore."

Sucker bet. It'll get deleted before we can read it.

26 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:36:05pm

re: #21 Sharmuta

I think this guy stands as much of a chance winning the nomination as Dan Quayle in 2000.

Given this group of morons and Dan Quayle, I'd vote for Dan Quayle first.

27 ArchangelMichael  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:36:09pm

re: #1 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Why do you hate the GOP?
///

I call a meltdown between 50 and 100 posts.

I'll live dangerously. 1000 quatloos on a meltdown by 89.

28 The Shadow Do  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:36:15pm

re: #19 Charles

Creationists have a lot of money to promote their idiocy. It comes from fleecing the flock.

I hate flock fleecers, truly I do.

*sniff* *sniff*

Is that a whiff of broiling Oral Roberts that I smell?

29 Sheila Broflovski  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:36:18pm

re: #19 Charles

Creationists have a lot of money to promote their idiocy. It comes from fleecing the flock.

Not much wool over here. I hope you get paid by impression, not by clickthrough or sale.

30 Boondock St. Bender  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:36:39pm

If this is the best and brightest of the gop...get ready for the landslide re-election of obama.

31 Mark Pennington  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:37:35pm

I predict that Republicans will nominate an extremely evangelical ticket and Obama will win a crushing victory. Maybe in 2016, they'll get their crap together and put forth a star candidate.

There is no way Rick (Man-on-dog) Santorum would be successful.

32 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:37:39pm

re: #30 Boondock St. Bender

If this is the best and brightest of the gop...get ready for the landslide re-election of obama.

2012 - the race to the bottom, with Ron Paul vs Obama.

33 Big Steve  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:37:55pm

The other day I went back and read the "contract with America" that the GOP put forth in the 80's. You know it wasn't half bad. Contract with America

34 rwmofo  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:37:58pm

re: #21 Sharmuta

I think this guy stands as much of a chance winning the nomination as Dan Quayle in 2000.

That's because Dan Rather is preparing to break a story on Dan Quayle. Apparently when Quayle was in the National Guard, he defied orders by letting his hair get too long.

35 The Shadow Do  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:38:10pm

re: #23 Honorary Yooper

Bathing squirrels in Lava soap? Soap has lye, therefore...

Lutesquirelsk!

That's some good eatin' right there...

36 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:38:10pm

re: #27 ArchangelMichael

I'll live dangerously. 1000 quatloos on a meltdown by 89.

That early? Hmmm. I'll put 1,000 quatloos on a meltdown between 150 and 170.

37 Boondock St. Bender  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:39:59pm

re: #31 beekiller

i agree exept for the learning their lesson part.they won't.they'll sail the party to ruin.They drew the wrong conclusions from this past election,and will continue doing so.

38 rwmofo  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:40:01pm

re: #33 Big Steve

The other day I went back and read the "contract with America" that the GOP put forth in the 80's. You know it wasn't half bad. Contract with America


That's because Newt, like, balanced the budget or something.

39 Sharmuta  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:40:35pm

re: #31 beekiller

I predict that Republicans will nominate an extremely evangelical ticket and Obama will win a crushing victory. Maybe in 2016, they'll get their crap together and put forth a star candidate.

There is no way Rick (Man-on-dog) Santorum would be successful.

I do not think Palin will be on the ticket unless she wins the nomination- which I highly doubt she'll do.

I think the moderates which ensured a McCain nomination will return and we'll get Romney.

40 Cato the Elder  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:40:44pm

re: #38 rwmofo

That's because Newt, like, balanced the budget or something.

No. That was Clinton. Budget surplus, actually.

41 arethusa  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:41:00pm

re: #30 Boondock St. Bender

If this is the best and brightest of the gop...get ready for the landslide re-election of obama.

Depends. Is the rest of the Obama presidency going to be like the first eight months, with his unpopularity and his appearance of weakness increasing? In which case, I think anyone the GOP nominates might have a fighting chance. The US seems to be rediscovering it's a center-right country in many respects.

Also, candidates of Santorum's stripe tend to do well in Iowa and South Carolina (like Huckabee last year), and not beyond.

Either way, it'll be interesting.

42 Ben Hur  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:41:19pm

re: #39 Sharmuta

I do not think Palin will be on the ticket unless she wins the nomination- which I highly doubt she'll do.

I think the moderates which ensured a McCain nomination will return and we'll get Romney.

Did you see the report that McCain hosted a fundraiser for Romney?

43 reine.de.tout  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:41:24pm

re: #36 Honorary Yooper

That early? Hmmm. I'll put 1,000 quatloos on a meltdown between 150 and 170.

I'm betting on later tonight, at the end of the thread, when we're all in the middle of the 2nd post from now.

44 Mad Al-Jaffee  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:41:37pm

re: #20 Creeping Eruption

Not so sure many around here know what I am referencing. I can't imagine that Dan Savage is regular reading around for most around here.

I read him occasionally. His column is in the Washington City Paper, and I usually read his column when I pick up a copy.

45 Sharmuta  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:41:39pm

re: #38 rwmofo

That's because Newt, like, balanced the budget or something.

What a novel concept. It's unfortunate the GOP doesn't view their previous positions which won them majorities in both houses to be of any value at this point in time.

46 Ben Hur  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:41:44pm

re: #40 Cato the Elder

No. That was Clinton. Budget surplus, actually.

Projected.

47 eon  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:41:48pm

re: #8 Boondock St. Bender

we gotta come up with a better appellation for these characters than"conservative"
something along the lines of "arrogant self-serving Luddite the religious zealot persuasion"

Afternoon, Lizards.

I prefer something simpler. "Gibbering dingbats" sounds just about right.

/And as a Buckeye, I hereby apologize for the fact that two Congresscritters from Ohio helped Santorum tack this tripe onto NCLB.

cheers

eon

48 Equable  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:41:50pm

re: #29 Alouette

Not much wool over here. I hope you get paid by impression, not by clickthrough or sale.

I click Charles' ads as much as I can.

Sheesh - these fundamentalists don't get it. I believe in intelligent design, but henceforth I shall never refer to myself as a "creationist".

If any fundamentalist creationists read this, allow me to educate you.

1. God made the universe, and all the neato stuff in it.
2. If this is so then God made science.
3. If this is so, that makes God a de facto scientist.

Follow me so far? No? Okay...

4. If God made all of this neat stuff and gave us the capacity to think it over, deduce and use your free will to formulate an idea, isn't it your charge as a "Christian" to say: "Wow God is great, lookit all this stuff - isn't it cool how smart God is? Hey everybody, check this out"?

5. If your faith in God is unflinching and all the proof is there, shouldn't you shut your mouth and STOP trying to cheapen God's efforts and STOP trying to disprove his prowess as a scientist?

After all, chances are he's a better scientist than you.

49 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:41:51pm

re: #39 Sharmuta

I do not think Palin will be on the ticket unless she wins the nomination- which I highly doubt she'll do.

I think the moderates which ensured a McCain nomination will return and we'll get Romney.

I hope so. And maybe, just maybe, Romney will actually campaign and try to win.

50 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:42:14pm

re: #43 reine.de.tout

I'm betting on later tonight, at the end of the thread, when we're all in the middle of the 2nd post from now.

That may be a winner, given past history.

51 rwmofo  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:42:16pm

re: #40 Cato the Elder

No. That was Clinton. Budget surplus, actually.

Clinton balanced the budget? Oh, right. I can't remember what the Republican-controlled congress was doing then. Maybe they were at a baseball game that day.

52 lurking faith  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:42:21pm

re: #7 mshaw

There's no way. Santorum has been so thoroughly trashed - rightly or wrongly - by the left that he's radioactive.

Radioactive?

53 ArchangelMichael  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:42:36pm

re: #43 reine.de.tout

I'm betting on later tonight, at the end of the thread, when we're all in the middle of the 2nd post from now.

Too easy, thats a given.

54 Sharmuta  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:42:42pm

re: #48 Equable

OK- you and I are going to have to have a long talk and starting now.

Do you accept evolution- yes or no?

55 reine.de.tout  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:43:11pm

re: #48 Equable

I click Charles' ads as much as I can.

Sheesh - these fundamentalists don't get it. I believe in intelligent design, but henceforth I shall never refer to myself as a "creationist".

If any fundamentalist creationists read this, allow me to educate you.

1. God made the universe, and all the neato stuff in it.
2. If this is so then God made science.
3. If this is so, that makes God a de facto scientist.

Follow me so far? No? Okay...

4. If God made all of this neat stuff and gave us the capacity to think it over, deduce and use your free will to formulate an idea, isn't it your charge as a "Christian" to say: "Wow God is great, lookit all this stuff - isn't it cool how smart God is? Hey everybody, check this out"?

5. If your faith in God is unflinching and all the proof is there, shouldn't you shut your mouth and STOP trying to cheapen God's efforts and STOP trying to disprove his prowess as a scientist?

After all, chances are he's a better scientist than you.

That's pretty close to my take on it.
The existence of scientific facts and discovery, for me, enhances faith.
It doesn't detract from it one bit.

56 The Sanity Inspector  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:43:14pm

I had to bail out of the last creationism thread early, so I'd like to finish a thought here. Someone there said that creationism was so prevalent because established religion was using it to keep a grip on the flock. I disagree. Most every mainstream denomination in this country is officially fine with evolution, the Southern Baptist Convention being the most notable exception. It's the independent conservative megachurches, conservative micro-sects, as well as large numbers of conservative members of mainstream denominations, who embrace creationism. They viscerally feel that evolution negates the dignity of humanity and the validity of our ethics and morals. It is sadly very much a democratic mindset, not imposed top-down.

57 Guanxi88  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:43:17pm

re: #35 The Shadow Do

That's some good eatin' right there...

O, ja?

58 Creeping Eruption  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:44:02pm

re: #44 Mad Al-Jaffee

I read him occasionally. His column is in the Washington City Paper, and I usually read his column when I pick up a copy.

Ever here about the contest he ran for a definition of the term "Santorum?"

59 Creeping Eruption  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:44:17pm

re: #58 Creeping Eruption

Ever here hear about the contest he ran for a definition of the term "Santorum?"

60 Equable  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:44:40pm

Anyway this is a secular blog and I am sorry if I looked as if I was prosthletizing.

61 researchok  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:44:43pm

The wiki link notes that in a book, Karen Santorum brought home the baby she gave birth to and died two hours later, to 'introduce' him to their children.

Then they slept with the baby and returned the infants corpse to the hospital the following day.

I'd say Rick Santorum has other issues besides creationism to deal with.

Way, way crazy.

62 reine.de.tout  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:44:51pm

re: #54 Sharmuta

OK- you and I are going to have to have a long talk and starting now.

Do you accept evolution- yes or no?

I took him to mean he is a person of faith who yes, accepts evolution.

Equable - am I wrong or right?

63 ArchangelMichael  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:45:14pm

re: #54 Sharmuta

OK- you and I are going to have to have a long talk and starting now.

Do you accept evolution- yes or no?

I have a feeling this might be a case of "I think ID = theistic evolution". There are a lot of people out there like that and I think that the only reason ID has any traction anywhere. People don't know better. But I could be wrong in this individual case...

64 reine.de.tout  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:45:18pm

re: #53 ArchangelMichael

Too easy, thats a given.

Well, go ahead and rain on my parade then.
sheesh.

65 Equable  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:45:21pm

re: #54 Sharmuta

Yup!

66 Sharmuta  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:45:32pm

re: #55 reine.de.tout

That's pretty close to my take on it.
The existence of scientific facts and discovery, for me, enhances faith.
It doesn't detract from it one bit.

Except you know better than to call that intelligent design. You know that intelligent design is anti-science, wrapped in a label to make you think it's compatible with science when it isn't. You know that what you subscribe to is Theistic evolution and not intelligent design.

Something Equable needs to come to understand.

67 Equable  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:45:32pm

re: #62 reine.de.tout

You're right as the mail.

68 Ben Hur  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:45:35pm

re: #60 Equable

Anyway this is a secular blog and I am sorry if I looked as if I was prosthletizing.

You have one leg?

69 The Sanity Inspector  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:45:37pm

re: #33 Big Steve

The other day I went back and read the "contract with America" that the GOP put forth in the 80's. You know it wasn't half bad. Contract with America

It was good enough for Bill Clinton to hijack much of its platform.

70 Equable  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:45:57pm

re: #55 reine.de.tout

Exactly, it makes God that much more amazing to me.

71 Mad Al-Jaffee  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:46:02pm

re: #58 Creeping Eruption

Ever here about the contest he ran for a definition of the term "Santorum?"

Yup. I won't post it here. There's probably a definition on urban dictionary.

72 Equable  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:46:23pm

re: #68 Ben Hur

Three, to be exact!

;-P

73 Guanxi88  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:46:27pm

re: #68 Ben Hur

You have one leg?

Poor fellow, missing the other two.

74 brennant  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:46:35pm

re: #71 Mad Al-Jaffee

...and it's really funny.

75 Boondock St. Bender  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:47:17pm

re: #51 rwmofo

actually unprecedented economic growth was the catalyst for the budget getting balanced.The IRS was swimming in money.(those were the days)

76 Sharmuta  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:47:19pm

re: #65 Equable

Yup!

OK- that means you are not, I repeat NOT a creationist. You do not, I repeat NOT, believe in Intelligent Design.

Theistic evolution.

There's a difference, E. A big difference. The ID people don't want you to know about theistic evolution, because that makes them unnecessary.

77 Charles Johnson  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:47:50pm

re: #58 Creeping Eruption

Ever here about the contest he ran for a definition of the term "Santorum?"

I think you mean this one:

[Link: www.thestranger.com...]

NSFW!

78 Equable  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:47:51pm

re: #66 Sharmuta

Oh I understand and don't use the term "intelligent design" as the label so many have used it for to further bulwark their pabulum. For me the phrase just fits.

Maybe I should make another so I can distance myself from that crowd.

79 lurking faith  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:48:23pm

re: #48 Equable

Works for me, except that the term "intelligent design" has been coopted by people who mean something quite different.

80 Ben Hur  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:48:24pm

re: #76 Sharmuta

OK- that means you are not, I repeat NOT a creationist. You do not, I repeat NOT, believe in Intelligent Design.

Theistic evolution.

There's a difference, E. A big difference. The ID people don't want you to know about theistic evolution, because that makes them unnecessary.

THank you for that link.

It helps a great deal.

81 Sharmuta  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:49:21pm

re: #78 Equable

Oh I understand and don't use the term "intelligent design" as the label so many have used it for to further bulwark their pabulum. For me the phrase just fits.

Maybe I should make another so I can distance myself from that crowd.

Yes- you need to distance yourself from them, because they are NOT about reconciling faith with science- just the opposite! They want to undermine science and teach their ideas of God to your Equable Jr. vs. YOUR ideas of faith.

82 Equable  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:49:32pm

re: #76 Sharmuta

OK- that means you are not, I repeat NOT a creationist. You do not, I repeat NOT, believe in Intelligent Design.

Theistic evolution.

There's a difference, E. A big difference. The ID people don't want you to know about theistic evolution, because that makes them unnecessary.

Exactly, which is why I earlier said that I will never refer to myself as a "creationist" ever again. The term is starting to stink to all high heaven.

For my part, I see the God I worship as "intelligent" who made a wonderful "design" in this universe.

83 arethusa  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:49:50pm

re: #51 rwmofo

Clinton balanced the budget? Oh, right. I can't remember what the Republican-controlled congress was doing then. Maybe they were at a baseball game that day.

Yes - Wasn't it the Republicans who insisted on a balanced budget? Who were tired of 30 years of spiralling deficits and said the deficit could be erased in 7 years? (And who did it in 4?) Didn't Clinton have to submit 4 or 5 budgets before he submitted a balanced one Congress could work with?

Clinton just gets the credit because he happened to be President then.

84 reine.de.tout  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:49:59pm

re: #66 Sharmuta

Except you know better than to call that intelligent design. You know that intelligent design is anti-science, wrapped in a label to make you think it's compatible with science when it isn't. You know that what you subscribe to is Theistic evolution and not intelligent design.

Something Equable needs to come to understand.

You're correct.
And of course, the reason I know that is because I've hung around here a bit.

I believe that when "polls" are done, there are many folks who think like I do and are sucked into a particular answer because they misunderstand how the terms "intelligent design" and "creationism" are being used by the supports of the DI type of stupidity.

Well . . . maybe I should say I HOPE there are many folks like that.

It's one reason why it's important, imo, to bring the light of day to the Discovery Institute and what they are trying to do.

I had a conversation with the Roi about this once. Now, the Roi's job, basically, is chemical engineering. He has the education for it, and the training. So he understands science way better than I do. But he did not understand how these terms, "creationism" and "intelligent design", are being used to sucker people into learning about something other than evolution.

85 reine.de.tout  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:50:31pm

re: #78 Equable

Oh I understand and don't use the term "intelligent design" as the label so many have used it for to further bulwark their pabulum. For me the phrase just fits.

Maybe I should make another so I can distance myself from that crowd.

yes.

86 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:51:36pm

re: #76 Sharmuta

re: #78 Equable

That's why I usually use the term "YEC" for such people. In a way, one could use the literal term "creation" as presented in the dictionary for anything from the Big Bang to a YEC's 6,000 year old Earth. ID comes directly from YEC, as does the DI, and the ICR before it. And by using "YEC" for such folks, it describes best what they believe, IMHO.

87 Equable  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:51:51pm

re: #81 Sharmuta

Amen, sister (secular amen of course lol) - as my moniker implies I try to be free of extremes and look at both sides of the argument before I can begin to entertain the notion that I am entitled to an opinion.

88 Locker  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:52:00pm

It seems that creationism is defended so heavily because it is a main pillar in the argument that the bible is the true and literal word of god and everything in it is true and accurate. Besides, if they give up on creationism and the whole literal argument path, how will they support the hatred of gay people?

89 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:52:16pm

re: #82 Equable

Exactly, which is why I earlier said that I will never refer to myself as a "creationist" ever again. The term is starting to stink to all high heaven.

For my part, I see the God I worship as "intelligent" who made a wonderful "design" in this universe.

I think understanding that He could create a universe that allows for and would develop intelligent life, just from the laws of physics He created, is truly awe-inspiring, much more so than a cosmic magician who pulled Adam out of a hat, if you will.

90 Sharmuta  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:53:14pm

re: #82 Equable

Dude- you need to read the Wedge Strategy.

And I'm not kidding when I say they want to get their hands on your kid:

Johnson calls his movement "The Wedge." The objective, he said, is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to "the truth" of the Bible and then "the question of sin" and finally "introduced to Jesus."

I, for one, don't want other people shoving their ideas of faith onto children that don't belong to them. It's a violation of the rights of parents, and to put it in public schools is a violation of the Constitution and everything our Founders believed in matters of Freedom of Conscience.

91 leon77  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:53:25pm

I like the YEC label. No YEC's in office, please!

92 Equable  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:53:48pm

re: #89 Kosh's Shadow

Very well said Kosh... I've been using a phrase along the lines of:

"If this universe was created through intelligent design, what kind of dumbass would create an ecosystem that doesn't adapt?"

93 Sharmuta  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:55:56pm

re: #87 Equable

Amen, sister (secular amen of course lol) - as my moniker implies I try to be free of extremes and look at both sides of the argument before I can begin to entertain the notion that I am entitled to an opinion.

Bro- I'm a woman of faith. You don't need to be ashamed to be a Believer here. I don't think of LGF as secular- we have people of a number of faiths here as well as agnostics and atheists and we all get along well.

I just thought you should be aware your terminology is flawed and why. I have a ton of links I can share to help you or anyone else understand why the Discovery Institute and "Intelligent Design" is bad.

94 Dianna  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:56:14pm

re: #40 Cato the Elder

No. That was Clinton. Budget surplus, actually.

Projected, anyway.

A glimmering that led politicians astray, chasing the huge pork barrel. They tracked it by its rumbling, which waxed louder as its contents waned.

95 MandyManners  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:56:23pm

re: #88 Locker

It seems that creationism is defended so heavily because it is a main pillar in the argument that the bible is the true and literal word of god and everything in it is true and accurate. Besides, if they give up on creationism and the whole literal argument path, how will they support the hatred of gay people?

Are you saying that every single person who believes Genesis to be literal hate homosexuals?

96 Locker  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:57:19pm

re: #95 MandyManners

Are you saying that every single person who believes Genesis to be literal hate homosexuals?

Duh.

97 Big Steve  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:57:25pm

re: #93 Sharmuta

Bro- I'm a woman of faith. You don't need to be ashamed to be a Believer here. I don't think of LGF as secular- we have people of a number of faiths here as well as agnostics and atheists and we all get along well.

I just thought you should be aware your terminology is flawed and why. I have a ton of links I can share to help you or anyone else understand why the Discovery Institute and "Intelligent Design" is bad.

I agree...I have found this Blog to be very tolerant of religion but NOT tolerant of religious extremism...whether it be Islamic or Christian or Jewish.

98 Equable  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:57:32pm

re: #90 Sharmuta

Dude- you need to read the Wedge Strategy.

And I'm not kidding when I say they want to get their hands on your kid:

I, for one, don't want other people shoving their ideas of faith onto children that don't belong to them. It's a violation of the rights of parents, and to put it in public schools is a violation of the Constitution and everything our Founders believed in matters of Freedom of Conscience.

You're precisely right and I have read that through and through.

My son goes to a school for "gifted" children and they promote accelerated and intensive learning. In his social studies class they teach him about religion only in historical context. They are highly secular.

I read his textbooks thoroughly and talk to him about things I myself find to be "suspect", asking him what he thinks.

Here's a shocker for you, my son began to believe in God and Jesus on his own and asked me to tell him more. I certainly would not want to indoctrinate my son in the ways of religion, but I do try to help him form his own ideas by encouraging critical thinking.

If he decided to be an atheist I'd accept it and wouldn't try to talk him out of it.

99 MandyManners  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:57:37pm

One of these days I'm gonna' slow down and proof my posts.

100 Boondock St. Bender  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:58:05pm

re: #94 Dianna

they were pigs at the trough weren't they

101 Kragar  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:58:35pm

At least 3 dead in Samoa fron the tsunami

102 MandyManners  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:58:59pm

re: #96 Locker

Well, you're wrong.

103 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:59:04pm

Sweet vindication for the states of Louisiana and Texas; politicians from snooty New Englandish Pennsylvania can be just as fucking stupid!

104 arethusa  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:59:19pm

re: #77 Charles

There's also the Bob Kerrey quote on what "Santorum" is Latin for. Less offensive to the sensitive, but related.

And Teresa Heinz-Kerry called him "Forrest Gump, but with an attitude."

105 Sharmuta  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:59:26pm

re: #84 reine.de.tout

I totally dig Equable- he's cool. So it's my intent to help him out here in understanding why the label he's using for himself is flawed.

The term "Intelligent Design" was.. er... designed to be intentionally misleading- to play on the natural sympathies of faithful people, but it leads them away from science instead of reconciling it with faith.

If Equable wants to do some book reading- I have links on those too.

106 Equable  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:59:26pm

re: #93 Sharmuta

Go for it sister, email them over. I'd appreciate it.

I saw the flaw in my terminology as well, which is why I am dropping labels. I don't need no stingging labels!

By the way have you noticed that I often correct myself here? ;-) I love flogging myself with the spiked chains of open-mindedness. It can be difficult, but it makes the world that much more interesting to me.

107 bofhell  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:59:49pm

re: #15 rwmofo

Wait, I thought we were supposed to dissect frogs in science class.

No, you were supposed to throw rubber ones into pots of boiling water and cue sound effects to convince everyone they were living frogs.

108 Boondock St. Bender  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 1:59:56pm

re: #96 Locker

actually i have a couple of guys at work who believe in Genesis,and they don't have a hateful bone in their body.
live and let live.

109 ArchangelMichael  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:00:24pm

re: #96 Locker

Duh.

No matter how literal they think they are being, they aren't. A lot of the shit in Leviticus would get one arrested in the US if they tried to "live the literal word".

110 Locker  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:00:30pm

re: #108 Boondock St. Bender

actually i have a couple of guys at work who believe in Genesis,and they don't have a hateful bone in their body.
live and let live.

My duh was directed at her moronic question and her deliberately ignoring a humorous statement.

111 eon  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:00:40pm

re: #92 Equable

Very well said Kosh... I've been using a phrase along the lines of:

"If this universe was created through intelligent design, what kind of dumbass would create an ecosystem that doesn't adapt?"

Well put. My usual riposte' to a YECkie, etc., is "We have skeletal remains of horses with three toes instead of a single hoof. That shows that horses have changed over time- hooves are better for running than toes are. Dolphins' bone structures in their fins today clearly show they used to have individual toes instead of a single fin- a single fin is better for swimming than toes are. In each case, we see a mammal changing over time to better adapt to its environment. Are you saying that only mammals other than humans adapt in this way?"

No, I don't get invited back to many parties thrown by YECkies, IDiots, etc.

/including political parties


cheers

eon

112 Ben Hur  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:01:02pm

I believed in Genesis.

Then Peter left.

113 Boondock St. Bender  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:01:20pm

re: #110 Locker

oh nevermind...

114 John Neverbend  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:01:53pm

In a 2005 interview on NPR, Santorum had this to say:

"What we should be teaching are the problems and holes and I think there are legitimate problems and holes in the theory of evolution. And what we need to do is to present those fairly from a scientific point of view. And we should lay out areas in which the evidence supports evolution and the areas in the evidence that does not."

If I thought he'd read it, I'd send him my copy of "The Greatest Show on Earth," and then he would see that it contains everything that really needs to be taught.

115 ArchangelMichael  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:02:03pm

re: #111 eon

Like that wonderfully intelligent and beautiful Romanian woman said: "Every fossil is a transitional form!"

116 Equable  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:02:11pm

re: #105 Sharmuta

I totally dig Equable- he's cool. So it's my intent to help him out here in understanding why the label he's using for himself is flawed.

The term "Intelligent Design" was.. er... designed to be intentionally misleading- to play on the natural sympathies of faithful people, but it leads them away from science instead of reconciling it with faith.

If Equable wants to do some book reading- I have links on those too.

Aww, thank you! Send them all over if you'd like, I know that I'd like to read them. I agree with you a lot so I think we'd share the same ideas.

Loother at ca dot rr dot com.

117 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:02:12pm

re: #88 Locker

It seems that creationism is defended so heavily because it is a main pillar in the argument that the bible is the true and literal word of god and everything in it is true and accurate. Besides, if they give up on creationism and the whole literal argument path, how will they support the hatred of gay people?

It's less to do with hatred of gay people than that these folks have a twisted belief that the Bible must be 100% accurate, true, and factual. If, for some reason, the Bible is not that, they fear that their faith will not be justified.

Literalism is a very twisted belief system, IMHO. It comes out of the protestant traditions brought over to America starting in the 17th Century. It was expanded upon during the Great Awakenings afterward. If you'll note, all of this tends to come from evangelical churches that base their belief on the Bible and believe that belief alone is good enough for salvation. As splits have occurred, this has also become a mainstay of nondenomination churches as well. It is not a core belief in the Catholic Church or in any of the Orthodox Churches, or most other churches that believe that one must have faith as well as performing good works.

118 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:02:27pm

re: #99 MandyManners

One of these days I'm gonna' slow down and proof my posts.

Time for that after you reach 100,000 posts in the next day or two.

119 Cato the Elder  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:02:39pm

re: #103 Salamantis

Sweet vindication for the states of Louisiana and Texas; politicians from snooty New Englandish Pennsylvania can be just as fucking stupid!

Pennsylvania "snooty" and "New Englandish"? That's news to me.

Someone got flamed here once for describing Pennsy as "Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between". As someone who's motorcycled the length and breadth of the state, I'd have to sign on to that one.

120 Boondock St. Bender  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:03:12pm

re: #112 Ben Hur

FOOO!!1eleventy (true though)
what do you call a drummer that sings?


A taxi.

121 bofhell  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:03:57pm

re: #40 Cato the Elder

No. That was Clinton. Budget surplus, actually.

It helped that the Internet became instantly famous during the Clinton Administration and companies (recklessly) spent money on things like, well, sock puppets!

122 MandyManners  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:04:13pm

re: #118 CyanSnowHawk

Good gravy.

123 Boondock St. Bender  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:04:59pm

re: #114 John Neverbend

Proffessor santorum must have spent years of study on these "problems"
I wonder if he could list them,just to be a little clearer.

124 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:05:37pm

re: #122 MandyManners

Damn. What happens when you get over 100,000 comments? Does the odometer roll back over to zero?

125 bofhell  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:06:01pm

re: #55 reine.de.tout

That's pretty close to my take on it.
The existence of scientific facts and discovery, for me, enhances faith.
It doesn't detract from it one bit.

And G-d said

126 Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:06:58pm

re: #77 Charles

I think you mean this one:

[Link: www.thestranger.com...]

NSFW!

IIRC the term 'santorum' is one of the better examples of a google bomb out there. if you google the term (warning NSFW!) the very first term is the results of the google bomb (particularly effective for someone who simply clicks 'i feel lucky').

That the google bomb is still there after all this time is a testament to both the ability to manipulate Google rankings and the unwillingness of Google to fudge the system.

127 bofhell  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:07:39pm

re: #125 bofhell

And G-d said

Let me try that again. With square brackets this time...

And G-d said [insert Maxwell's Equations on electromagnetic radiation here] and there was light.

PIMF...

128 tradewind  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:08:04pm

re: #119 Cato the Elder

If ' they ' suddenly found themselves with ' Alabama in between', they might think they'd died and gone to heaven.
If that was supposed to be a pejorative... not so much.

129 Mich-again  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:08:59pm
You know, I don’t think we have enough anti-science homophobic religious fanatic creationists in the running for the 2012 GOP nomination for President. We can always use another;

Well if ten kook candidates and one reasonable candidate slug it out for the GOP nomination, the kook candidates might cancel each other out. Just a thought.

130 TheMatrix31  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:09:01pm

re: #48 Equable

Never thought about it like that.

131 hokiepride  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:09:23pm

On a related note,
Sarah Palin's new book has been ghost-written by Lynn Vincent ([Link: features.csmonitor.com...]

Nothing wrong about that...so it seems until Lynn Vincent co-authored the book " Donkey Cons: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party" with Robert Stacy McCain.

132 Sharmuta  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:09:45pm

re: #116 Equable

Well- for books I highly recommend these:

Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul
Saving Darwin: How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution

Highly readable beginners books. There are, of course, tons of good books on evolution, but these are great for folks just starting.

For more on the disingenuous intelligent design movement:

Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battle for America's Soul
The Devil in Dover: An Insider's Story of Dogma v. Darwin in Small-Town America

If you want to take some time to understand more about ID in video form, I suggest the Nova special that was linked on LGF:

Video: Judgment Day - Intelligent Design on Trial

133 The Shadow Do  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:11:01pm

It's Howdy Doody time!

Yes, it is the Glen Beck ignorance hour.

Princess Summerfall Winterspring Putz. AKA Poopinthepants Fartinyourear.

*click* (off to ESPN Sportscenter)

134 Kragar  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:11:03pm

re: #131 hokiepride

On a related note,
Sarah Palin's new book has been ghost-written by Lynn Vincent ([Link: features.csmonitor.com...]

Nothing wrong about that...so it seems until Lynn Vincent co-authored the book " Donkey Cons: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party" with Robert Stacy McCain.

Nice catch.

135 italicus  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:11:08pm

I thought that LGF was a conservative site. The last few times I've logged in I read things that I swear the most left leaning leftist would have written. The latest example is the hit job you did not Senator Santorum. Creationism and Intelligent Design have nothing in common. This is the very deceptive tactic used by those who cannot answer the challenge of Intelligent Design and instead go with ad hominem attacks such as your piece on Sen. Santorunm. Shame, shame. Very bad journalism.

136 Killgore Trout  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:11:19pm

re: #131 hokiepride

I think you meant to link to this:
Lynn Vincent, the other voice behind the Sarah Palin book

137 Bagua  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:11:21pm

re: #19 Charles

Creationists have a lot of money to promote their idiocy. It comes from fleecing the flock.

Ah, the power of the internet works in mysterious ways which confound the faithful.


LGF: Fleecing the Fleecers.

138 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:11:23pm

re: #119 Cato the Elder

Pennsylvania "snooty" and "New Englandish"? That's news to me.

Someone got flamed here once for describing Pennsy as "Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between". As someone who's motorcycled the length and breadth of the state, I'd have to sign on to that one.

Well, it's true enough that the people in Dover, Pennsylvania were dumb enough to elect the Disco-Institute-luvvin' school board that passed the creationist guidelines that prompted the lawsuit that led to Judge Jones' brilliant and eminently sane science-siding position in the first place.

139 ArchangelMichael  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:11:30pm

re: #117 Honorary Yooper

It's less to do with hatred of gay people than that these folks have a twisted belief that the Bible must be 100% accurate, true, and factual. If, for some reason, the Bible is not that, they fear that their faith will not be justified.

Literalism is a very twisted belief system, IMHO. It comes out of the protestant traditions brought over to America starting in the 17th Century. It was expanded upon during the Great Awakenings afterward. If you'll note, all of this tends to come from evangelical churches that base their belief on the Bible and believe that belief alone is good enough for salvation. As splits have occurred, this has also become a mainstay of nondenomination churches as well. It is not a core belief in the Catholic Church or in any of the Orthodox Churches, or most other churches that believe that one must have faith as well as performing good works.

They still cherry pick what they want to be literal about which makes them intellectually dishonest right from the start. I don't see too many biblical literalists trying to kill someone by stoning them to death for wearing cotton-polyester blend clothing. Eating shellfish was described by the same word as male homosexuality was. They aren't protesting outside of Red Lobster that I know of. If somewhere along the line, Jesus said "thou shalt ignore Leviticus" (I'm not a Christian, I don't know if he did) then they should also be dropping hatred of homosexuality.

140 Dianna  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:11:54pm

re: #135 italicus

Bye, now.

141 John Neverbend  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:12:11pm

re: #92 Equable

Very well said Kosh... I've been using a phrase along the lines of:

"If this universe was created through intelligent design, what kind of dumbass would create an ecosystem that doesn't adapt?"

In the new book, Dawkins gives quite a few new examples (new to me, anyway) of "bad" design in nature.

142 Sharmuta  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:12:44pm

re: #135 italicus

Intelligent design is a fraud. There is zero evidence to support it. But please- since you seem to be a cdesign proponentist, tell us:

What testable, falsifiable hypotheses does ID put forth? What testable, falsifiable theories have been presented by the DI? On what grounds can the DI claim that ID is a scientific theory?

143 Boondock St. Bender  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:12:51pm

re: #135 italicus

what exactly is the challenge of intelligent design?

144 Dianna  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:12:59pm

re: #139 ArchangelMichael

Look up "Peter's Dream."

It's in Acts, but I don't really remember where.

145 Killgore Trout  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:13:03pm

re: #131 hokiepride

Interesting article.

146 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:13:06pm

re: #135 italicus

Bullshit. Intelligent Design is yet another name for Creation Science which is yet another name for teaching creationism (YEC) in schools.

147 Creeping Eruption  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:13:13pm

re: #71 Mad Al-Jaffee

Yup. I won't post it here. There's probably a definition on urban dictionary.

There is actually a whole website. LOL.

148 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:13:40pm

re: #135 italicus

Who had 135 for a flounce? It isn't quite one yet, but he's going fast.

149 medaura18586  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:13:48pm

Amy non-crazy Republicans better run as Independents in 2012--their only chance at making it past the nomination process controlled by the wacky base. It's what Giuliani should have done. Not as if he didn't have appeal nationally.

150 bofhell  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:14:05pm

re: #83 arethusa

Yes - Wasn't it the Republicans who insisted on a balanced budget? Who were tired of 30 years of spiralling deficits and said the deficit could be erased in 7 years? (And who did it in 4?) Didn't Clinton have to submit 4 or 5 budgets before he submitted a balanced one Congress could work with?

Clinton just gets the credit because he happened to be President then.

I always find it amusing when politicians take credit for an economic downturn or upturn.

The economy is going to do what the economy is going to do. Trying to effect it via legislation or executive orders is akin to herding cats.

151 Kragar  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:15:01pm

re: #148 Kosh's Shadow

Who had 135 for a flounce? It isn't quite one yet, but he's going fast.

Close, but no cigar.

152 Ben Hur  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:15:10pm

re: #135 italicus


Creationism and Intelligent Design have nothing in common.

Can you explain what you mean by the above?

When you refer to ID, do you mean Theistic evolution?

153 Bagua  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:15:16pm

re: #130 TheMatrix31

OT:

How to revert to FF 3.0

154 Ojoe  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:15:24pm

Creationists like to tell God what to do.

155 Equable  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:15:34pm

re: #132 Sharmuta

Thanks Ms. Sharmuta, I will head out and get those today - if not I'll click one of Charle's Amazon banner ads and order them. I really appreciate it.

156 Creeping Eruption  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:15:42pm

re: #77 Charles

I think you mean this one:

[Link: www.thestranger.com...]

NSFW!

LOL. Thats the one. And now for the winner . . .Santorum

WARNING: NSFW

157 Bagua  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:15:52pm

re: #148 Kosh's Shadow

Who had 135 for a flounce? It isn't quite one yet, but he's going fast.

His behavior is preflouncive.

158 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:16:06pm

re: #148 Kosh's Shadow

Who had 135 for a flounce? It isn't quite one yet, but he's going fast.

Hoosier Hoops had about 130. I'm in for the 150-170 range.

159 Sharmuta  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:16:21pm

re: #155 Equable

Thanks Ms. Sharmuta, I will head out and get those today - if not I'll click one of Charle's Amazon banner ads and order them. I really appreciate it.

The links I gave you go right to the LGF store for those books. :)

160 bosforus  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:16:33pm

re: #135 italicus

Here we go...

161 Ben Hur  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:16:38pm

re: #156 Creeping Eruption

LOL. Thats the one. And now for the winner . . .Santorum

WARNING: NSFW

He wears pink socks, too?

162 Cato the Elder  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:16:46pm

re: #128 tradewind

If ' they ' suddenly found themselves with ' Alabama in between', they might think they'd died and gone to heaven.
If that was supposed to be a pejorative... not so much.

No pejorative intended on my part. Someone else got it in the neck for saying that here once. I meant it purely descriptively.

163 TheMatrix31  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:16:51pm

re: #153 Bagua

I just went and downloaded Firefox 3.5.2 and installed it over 3.5.3.

3.5.3 was SHIT.

Thanks though.

164 Equable  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:17:20pm

re: #159 Sharmuta

Blammo!

Hey should your family ever find yourself in my neck of the woods I'll buy a few rounds.

165 Boondock St. Bender  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:17:32pm

gotta make dinner for the troops bbl.lizards play nice .

166 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:17:36pm

re: #135 italicus

I thought that LGF was a conservative site. The last few times I've logged in I read things that I swear the most left leaning leftist would have written. The latest example is the hit job you did not Senator Santorum. Creationism and Intelligent Design have nothing in common. This is the very deceptive tactic used by those who cannot answer the challenge of Intelligent Design and instead go with ad hominem attacks such as your piece on Sen. Santorunm. Shame, shame. Very bad journalism.

Conservative doesn't mean embracing anti-science idiocy - or at least it shouldn't. And you are obviously ignorant of the documented fact that Philip Johnson, the head honcho at the Discovery Institute, specifically coined the term 'intelligent design' as a PR propaganda term to conceal the Trojan Horse of creationism, after a previous court case ruled that creationism could not be taught in public schools because it was a religious doctrine and to teachn it in public schools would violate church-state separation.

167 John Neverbend  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:17:42pm

re: #123 Boondock St. Bender

Proffessor santorum must have spent years of study on these "problems"
I wonder if he could list them,just to be a little clearer.

Of course he couldn't. The only time I've seen such a "list" was when Mark Sanford said,

"Well I think that it’s just, and science is more and more documenting this, is that there are real “chinks” in the armor of evolution being the only way we came about. The idea of their being a, you know, a little mud hole and two mosquitoes get together and the next thing you know you have a human being … is completely at odds with, you know, one of the laws of thermodynamics which is the law of, of … in essence, destruction.

Whether you think about you bedroom and how messy it gets over time or you think about the decay in the building itself over time. Things don’t naturally order themselves towards progression … Uuummm … in the natural order of things. So, it’s in fact, it’s against fairly basic laws of physics … and so I would not have a problem in teaching both … Uh, you saying this is one theory and here’s another theory."

168 reine.de.tout  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:18:23pm

re: #135 italicus

Easy cure.
don't log in.

169 tradewind  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:18:24pm

re: #162 Cato the Elder

Thanks for the clarification, cato...

170 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:18:57pm

Interesting.

Hey, italicus (#135), could you explain why, in 1,000 words or less, you have a blog on Townhall linked to your nickname? A blog where all the posts are made by one Russell Neglia?

171 bosforus  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:19:05pm

re: #135 italicus

This is a conservative site. We conserve our brain cells for legitimate, sound, scientific ideology. Many a brain cell has been conserved. Unfortunately, many have also been lost due to an increase in flouncing.

172 filetandrelease  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:19:09pm

re: #76 Sharmuta

OK- that means you are not, I repeat NOT a creationist. You do not, I repeat NOT, believe in Intelligent Design.

Theistic evolution.

There's a difference, E. A big difference. The ID people don't want you to know about theistic evolution, because that makes them unnecessary.

Thanks Sharmuta, I learned something new today about what I actually believe that I could never quite define.

173 Sharmuta  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:19:26pm

re: #164 Equable

Cool! The neat thing about the two evolution books I gave you is they're from religious biologists. Ken Miller is a Catholic, and Karl Giberson is a former creationists who was convinced by the science that evolution was true.

174 Sharmuta  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:19:43pm

re: #172 filetandrelease

I'm glad I could help!

175 Dianna  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:19:46pm

re: #170 Honorary Yooper

Is that really a good idea?

176 Ben Hur  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:19:47pm

re: #170 Honorary Yooper

What was that?

177 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:20:25pm

re: #20 Creeping Eruption

Not so sure many around here know what I am referencing. I can't imagine that Dan Savage is regular reading around for most around here.

I know what you're referencing. I love Dan!

178 _RememberTonyC  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:20:33pm

he should change his name to Rick Sanatorium ...

179 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:21:10pm

re: #143 Boondock St. Bender

what exactly is the challenge of intelligent design?

To see if you can manage to be credulous and gullible enough to swallow their pseudoscientific horseshit? That does present quite a challenge; one I'm sure I could never meet...;~)

180 Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:21:15pm

re: #135 italicus

I refuse to quote your clap-trap and will simply say this: Intelligent Design == Young Earth Creationism in a Trojan Horse. I'll put more Credence into FSM and their theories behind the creation of the earth than I would ID.

And really, if you think this is a leftist site, dear lord, has the opinion of what left and right been shifted that far to the right??? (short answer, yes)

The Democrats are where the Republicans were in the 70s and 80s minus the Moral Majority.

In fact, the Republicans are moving so far to the right they're appearing on the Left. Particularly after their efforts to slam Obama for trying to cut spending in Medicare.

181 Equable  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:21:27pm

re: #173 Sharmuta

And here you thought you needed to have a "long conversation" with me... pfffbbbttth (raspberry noise)

182 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:21:36pm

re: #175 Dianna

Is that really a good idea?

Yes, I want to see his explanation.

183 Mich-again  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:22:36pm

Genesis chapter 1 doesn't even agree with itself as a story of creation. In Genesis chapter 1 it says God created the plants on day 3 and man and women on day 6. Then you flip the pages to Chapter 2 and it says God created man before there were any plants. If its a literal story, how can both Chapters 1 and 2 both be correct. I know its silly to argue such points.

184 Bagua  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:22:43pm

re: #170 Honorary Yooper

Interesting.

Hey, italicus (#135), could you explain why, in 1,000 words or less, you have a blog on Townhall linked to your nickname? A blog where all the posts are made by one Russell Neglia?

Simple: It's a Conservotribe site!

185 John Neverbend  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:22:50pm

re: #135 italicus

Creationism and Intelligent Design have nothing in common.

I believe they have rather a lot in common, as was revealed during the Kitzmiller case. Start with this.

Intelligent Design & Creationism

186 Cato the Elder  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:23:11pm

re: #135 italicus

LGF is an intelligent site. If you confuse "conservatism" with swallowing whatever anti-reason bilge is currently being put out with the right, you may find yourself more comfortable at Free Republic.

187 Dianna  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:23:36pm

re: #182 Honorary Yooper

Yes, I want to see his explanation.

Are you sure you should have done that the way you did, though? It's not very pleasant, or ethical.

188 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:23:45pm

re: #61 researchok

The wiki link notes that in a book, Karen Santorum brought home the baby she gave birth to and died two hours later, to 'introduce' him to their children.

Then they slept with the baby and returned the infants corpse to the hospital the following day.

I'd say Rick Santorum has other issues besides creationism to deal with.

Way, way crazy.

People deal with grief in different ways. I think Santorum's a wack job, and that's not at all what I'd do, but I've never lost a child, and I'm leaving that one alone.

189 tradewind  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:23:51pm

re: #175 Dianna
I wondered that too. I always thought that if you saw another person standing on a bridge, the idea was always to talk them down, not urge them to jump.

190 Sharmuta  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:23:58pm

re: #181 Equable

But I did- I totally spammed this thread- but in a good way that also helped others. I'm glad for the opportunity to help others understand the threat of the ID movement and better understand reconciling their faith with God. If it wasn't for Charles linking the Wedge Strategy on day- I might not have understood the problem either (I know this is what happened with Reine as well- her and I are ID sisters in that sense). So- if I get a chance to return the favor by helping others- it really makes my day.

191 eon  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:24:06pm

re: #135 italicus

Congratulations. You just collected my very first downding ever.

Saying that Creationism and Intelligent Design are "unrelated" is rather like saying that "alien abduction" theories had nothing to do with the "Area 51" mythology. In each case, it's an example of using scientism (a false or pseudo-scientific procedure) and sciolism (pseudo-scholarship that mimics the real thing) to attempt to legitimize a hypothesis that is unsupported by fact and is not only unproven, but has repeatedly been disproven by actual evidence. (I.e. in the "alien" business, the fact that no one spying on Groom Lake ever saw anything that wasn't explainable by conventional aeronautical engineering, and the 'abduction narratives" have been shown to be the result of auto-suggestion of witnesses under hypnosis by the "investigators"- exactly none of whom were medically or legally qualified to use hypnotic regression.)

I hate to call anyone intellectually dishonest, but that is the only way that you can make the argument you did.

cheers

eon

192 Equable  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:24:10pm

re: #183 Mich-again

And remember, it was written with contemporary context of the time.

Also, how much information did the council of Nicea hurl out? Anyone read the "Gospel According to Judas"?

If true it'd turn Christianity on its ears, as Judas (arch criminal for all time) would become a virtual hero.

193 Bagua  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:24:42pm

re: #189 tradewind

I wondered that too. I always thought that if you saw another person standing on a bridge, the idea was always to talk them down, not urge them to jump.

What he is "standing on" is not a bridge, it is a house of cards.

194 Creeping Eruption  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:25:13pm

re: #191 eon

One of the more polite downdings I've seen. Cheers.

195 Ojoe  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:25:32pm

re: #186 Cato the Elder

Yes, this site is:

Intelligence
Humor
& Good manners.

I think that covers it; am I missing something?

196 researchok  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:25:38pm

re: #188 SanFranciscoZionist

People deal with grief in different ways. I think Santorum's a wack job, and that's not at all what I'd do, but I've never lost a child, and I'm leaving that one alone.

Have you ever heard of anyone doing anything remotely like that (excluding any place where 'dueling banjos' plays on a regular basis)?

197 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:25:59pm

re: #187 Dianna

Are you sure you should have done that the way you did, though? It's not very pleasant, or ethical.

How so? If you follow the link, that is who the posts are by. It may or may not be "italicus", or his real name for that matter. It is what he links to, and most of the posts on that front page are about Obamacare.

198 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:28:20pm

And we have a new leader, as italicus has skyrocketed to the top of the bottom comments list!

199 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:28:37pm

re: #109 ArchangelMichael

No matter how literal they think they are being, they aren't. A lot of the shit in Leviticus would get one arrested in the US if they tried to "live the literal word".

Not to mention the stuff they ignore completely. Check out, for the fun factor, [Link: www.godhatesshrimp.com....]

It bugs me that people think they can dismiss anything that's culturally foreign to them as having been replaced by the new covenant of Christianity, but keep the bits of the Hebrew scriptures they like. Somehow it's always the parts that inconvenience other people.

200 Mich-again  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:28:39pm

re: #188 SanFranciscoZionist

People deal with grief in different ways. I think Santorum's a wack job, and that's not at all what I'd do, but I've never lost a child, and I'm leaving that one alone.

I tend to agree with you about leaving that one alone. But I just can't imagine a hospital would even let someone do that.

201 Right Brain  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:29:36pm

I'm unclear why "being a creationist" is an issue running for public office? Why would their conclusions about 19th century zoology be a factor in administering social security or running the military? Its the natural selection people who are acting looney: Czar Cass Sunstein wants animals to have lawyers, philosopher Peter Singer likens animal liberation to women's liberation and wonders aloud how animals can vote.

[Link: www.animal-rights-library.com...]

I find the creationists a bit tardy on scientific paradigm change but certainly much more stable than the zombies at PETA.

And then or course there's the problem of reproduction: creationists throughout the world reproduce and evolutionist throughout the world do not. So which is nature selecting for?

And don't bore me challenging the last statement: 19 of the 20 countries with the lowest birthrates, a rate HALF of that needed to sustain a population, are in Western Europe.

202 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:29:46pm

re: #115 ArchangelMichael

Like that wonderfully intelligent and beautiful Romanian woman said: "Every fossil is a transitional form!"

All the boy lizards are in love. It's a beautiful thing to watch.

;)

203 researchok  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:30:31pm

re: #200 Mich-again

I tend to agree with you about leaving that one alone. But I just can't imagine a hospital would even let someone do that.

It is true people grieve in different ways.

That said, there are parameters, a scale if you will. That kind of behavior is way off the scale.

204 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:30:50pm

re: #189 tradewind

I wondered that too. I always thought that if you saw another person standing on a bridge, the idea was always to talk them down, not urge them to jump.

But, I disagree. It looks more like a sleeper sock puppet.

italicus
Karma: -18
Registered since: Aug 13, 2007 at 6:22 pm
No. of comments posted: 3
No. of links posted: 0

Three comments in over two years, and he comes up with that gem?

205 tradewind  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:31:20pm

re: #196 researchok
Notwithstanding the fact that wiki is not always factual, if a family has waited months for a wanted child and the child dies before birth, there may be a very real need to grieve and accept that death as real rather than ' it never was', which would be the experience of the siblings. You or I may not agree with it, but it's not our call.

206 Ojoe  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:32:24pm

Apple pie.

207 Sharmuta  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:32:27pm

re: #201 Right Brain

I'm unclear why "being a creationist" is an issue running for public office?

Because they want to push their religious agenda.

Why would their conclusions about 19th century zoology be a factor in administering social security or running the military?

First- it's not zoology- it's biology. Second- if they can't understand science and it's impact on medicine and technology- we might not want them in charge of such important things like national defense.

208 MandyManners  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:32:50pm

re: #201 Right Brain

And then or course there's the problem of reproduction: creationists throughout the world reproduce and evolutionist throughout the world do not. So which is nature selecting for?

So, the little boy running around in my yard is a figment of my imagination?

209 filetandrelease  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:32:57pm

re: #201 Right Brain

Being a creationist isn't an issue when running for office. Advocating the teaching of ID in science however is an issue.

210 Ojoe  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:33:11pm

Vanilla Ice Cream.

211 SixDegrees  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:34:06pm

I posted this earlier in the overnight thread, but it seems to fit here, so here it is again:

An interesting espisode of the BBC's Heart and Soul radio program, on the religious implications of finding life on other planets, from the viewpoint of different faiths, from Buddhism to creationism to the Vatican and it's church-run observatories.

Traces the roots of fundamentalism to the Enlightenment, when the Church openly embraced science as a tool for understanding creation. Then things went horribly wrong.

Longish - about a half-hour - but thought provoking.

I'll add that no modern faith has issues with science or with finding life on other planets - except for the faith held by creationists, who are appalled at both ideas.

212 Ojoe  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:34:37pm

Grappa.

213 Ben Hur  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:34:38pm

re: #211 SixDegrees

I posted this earlier in the overnight thread, but it seems to fit here, so here it is again:

An interesting espisode of the BBC's Heart and Soul radio program, on the religious implications of finding life on other planets, from the viewpoint of different faiths, from Buddhism to creationism to the Vatican and it's church-run observatories.

Traces the roots of fundamentalism to the Enlightenment, when the Church openly embraced science as a tool for understanding creation. Then things went horribly wrong.

Longish - about a half-hour - but thought provoking.

I'll add that no modern faith has issues with science or with finding life on other planets - except for the faith held by creationists, who are appalled at both ideas.

Scientology?

Could it be?

214 MandyManners  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:34:39pm

I don't care what a politician believes as long as she or he can respect the Constitution and not shove her or his beliefs down the public's throat.

215 Mich-again  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:34:41pm

re: #201 Right Brain

I'm unclear why "being a creationist" is an issue running for public office?

I wouldn't vote for any candidate who wants to dump the Constitution and establish a theocracy in the USA.

216 researchok  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:35:17pm

re: #205 tradewind

Notwithstanding the fact that wiki is not always factual, if a family has waited months for a wanted child and the child dies before birth, there may be a very real need to grieve and accept that death as real rather than ' it never was', which would be the experience of the siblings. You or I may not agree with it, but it's not our call.

I disagree. There are acceptable parameters of behavior.

I am not saying his grief was not real or tragically painful. Nevertheless, engaging in that kind of behavior puts into question his judgment as far as I am concerned.

I'm not sure I want him making decisions when the going gets tough.

217 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:35:39pm

re: #196 researchok

Have you ever heard of anyone doing anything remotely like that (excluding any place where 'dueling banjos' plays on a regular basis)?

Not since the nineteenth century, when I suppose the child would likely have been born at home anyway. But I've heard of people taking family photographs with stillborn children. It disturbs me, and I have religious issues with it, but as I said, it's not something I want to criticize. Too loaded.

218 Ojoe  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:35:54pm

re: #215 Mich-again

I would last about 2 weeks in a theocracy.

219 Kragar  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:36:18pm

re: #215 Mich-again

I wouldn't vote for any candidate who wants to dump the Constitution and establish a theocracy in the USA.

Not even a theocracy for Crom? But he gave us steel!

/

220 Digital Display  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:36:31pm

re: #135 italicus

I thought that LGF was a conservative site. The last few times I've logged in I read things that I swear the most left leaning leftist would have written.

Hi sock! You've made 3 comments in 2 years...
You're probably having issues with the whole anti-idiot theme here...
Read more carefully next time...
See ya next year

221 Ben Hur  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:36:45pm

re: #214 MandyManners

I don't care what a politician believes as long as she or he can respect the Constitution and not shove her or his beliefs down the public's throat.

There's a Bill Clinton joke in there somewhere.

222 bofhell  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:36:54pm

re: #183 Mich-again

Genesis chapter 1 doesn't even agree with itself as a story of creation. In Genesis chapter 1 it says God created the plants on day 3 and man and women on day 6. Then you flip the pages to Chapter 2 and it says God created man before there were any plants. If its a literal story, how can both Chapters 1 and 2 both be correct. I know its silly to argue such points.

Hmmm. Gen Ch 1 V 11:

And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, seed yielding herbs and fruit trees producing fruit according to its kind in which its seed is found, on the earth," and it was so

Here is all of Ch 3:


1. Now the serpent was cunning, more than all the beasts of the field that the Lord God had made, and it said to the woman, "Did God indeed say, 'You shall not eat of any of the trees of the garden?'"
2. And the woman said to the serpent, "Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat.
3. But of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, God said, "You shall not eat of it, and you shall not touch it, lest you die.'"
4. And the serpent said to the woman, "You will surely not die.
5. For God knows that on the day that you eat thereof, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like angels, knowing good and evil."
6. And the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was a delight to the eyes, and the tree was desirable to make one wise; so she took of its fruit, and she ate, and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.
7. And the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked, and they sewed fig leaves and made themselves girdles.
8. And they heard the voice of the Lord God going in the garden to the direction of the sun, and the man and his wife hid from before the Lord God in the midst of the trees of the garden.
9. And the Lord God called to man, and He said to him, "Where are you?"
10. And he said, "I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I am naked; so I hid."
11. And He said, "Who told you that you are naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?"
12. And the man said, "The woman whom You gave [to be] with me she gave me of the tree; so I ate."
13. And the Lord God said to the woman, "What is this that you have done?" And the woman said, "The serpent enticed me, and I ate."
14. And the Lord God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed be you more than all the cattle and more than all the beasts of the field; you shall walk on your belly, and you shall eat dust all the days of your life.
15. And I shall place hatred between you and between the woman, and between your seed and between her seed. He will crush your head, and you will bite his heel."
16. To the woman He said, "I shall surely increase your sorrow and your pregnancy; in pain you shall bear children. And to your husband will be your desire, and he will rule over you."
17. And to man He said, "Because you listened to your wife, and you ate from the tree from which I commanded you saying, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed be the ground for your sake; with toil shall you eat of it all the days of your life.
18. And it will cause thorns and thistles to grow for you, and you shall eat the herbs of the field.
19. With the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, until you return to the ground, for you were taken therefrom, for dust you are, and to dust you will return."
20. And the man named his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all life.
21. And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife shirts of skin, and He dressed them.
22. Now the Lord God said, "Behold man has become like one of us, having the ability of knowing good and evil, and now, lest he stretch forth his hand and take also from the Tree of Life and eat and live forever."
23. And the Lord God sent him out of the Garden of Eden, to till the soil, whence he had been taken.
[cont.]

223 ArchangelMichael  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:36:58pm

re: #219 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Not even a theocracy for Crom? But he gave us steel!

/

To hell with him!

/ahnold

224 MandyManners  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:36:59pm

re: #218 Ojoe

I would last about 2 weeks in a theocracy.

I'd last one minute.

225 Ben Hur  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:37:15pm

You don't need to log in to read LGF.

226 researchok  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:37:17pm

re: #217 SanFranciscoZionist

See my remarks, 216

227 Right Brain  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:37:20pm

re: #208 MandyManners

I'm sorry was there a point other than the singular tense?

228 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:37:28pm

re: #201 Right Brain

I'm unclear why "being a creationist" is an issue running for public office? Why would their conclusions about 19th century zoology be a factor in administering social security or running the military? Its the natural selection people who are acting looney: Czar Cass Sunstein wants animals to have lawyers, philosopher Peter Singer likens animal liberation to women's liberation and wonders aloud how animals can vote.

It's an issue because creationist politicians like Bobby Jindal and Rick Perry can fuck up everyone's childrens' public school science education. And it's bad enough that it damages the kids, but it also damages America.

[Link: www.animal-rights-library.com...]

I find the creationists a bit tardy on scientific paradigm change but certainly much more stable than the zombies at PETA.

Just because one thinks that vomit nauseates doesn't mean that rotting meat smells like roses.

And then or course there's the problem of reproduction: creationists throughout the world reproduce and evolutionist throughout the world do not. So which is nature selecting for?

And don't bore me challenging the last statement: 19 of the 20 countries with the lowest birthrates, a rate HALF of that needed to sustain a population, are in Western Europe.

Actually, that's not nature selecting; it's a memetic command that is inserted in religious faiths as a means of demographic warfare, to prompt its adherents to out-breed their competition. The religious denomination with by far the highest reproduction rate is Islam; by your logic you must think that they're closest to the cosmic truth.

229 Equable  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:37:30pm

re: #224 MandyManners

Same here, I enjoy my debauchery a bit too much.

230 MandyManners  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:37:31pm

re: #221 Ben Hur

There's a Bill Clinton joke in there somewhere.

Can you find it?

231 tradewind  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:37:48pm

re: #216 researchok

I don't think you have to worry... Santorum's been thoroughly trashed after his run with HRC.
Again, I would be very careful when using wikis as a source. Almost anyone can update or ' edit ' them and often there are competing agendas who go at it with a vengeance.

232 Ojoe  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:37:55pm

re: #135 italicus

I think LGF is (sort of) centrist.

233 bofhell  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:38:24pm

re: #222 bofhell

[concluded]


22. Now the Lord God said, "Behold man has become like one of us, having the ability of knowing good and evil, and now, lest he stretch forth his hand and take also from the Tree of Life and eat and live forever."

I'm not sure, but I don't think I see a whole lot in there contradicting that Hashem created plants before Adom and Chava [Adam and Eve]

234 John Neverbend  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:38:33pm

re: #211 SixDegrees

An interesting espisode of the BBC's Heart and Soul radio program, on the religious implications of finding life on other planets, from the viewpoint of different faiths, from Buddhism to creationism to the Vatican and it's church-run observatories.

Longish - about a half-hour - but thought provoking.

Is there a link?

235 Ben Hur  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:38:35pm
And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, seed yielding herbs and fruit trees producing fruit according to its kind in which its seed is found, on the earth," and it was so

Damn straight "it was so!!!"

*toke*

Anybody else want to hit this?!?

236 Right Brain  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:39:05pm

re: #209 filetandrelease

Yes, a problem, should be taught as "most scientists believe this" and "lots of non-scientists believe this."

237 Ojoe  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:39:11pm

re: #224 MandyManners

See you in heaven if a theocracy ever gets going in the USA.

238 Kragar  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:39:24pm

re: #223 ArchangelMichael

To hell with him!

/ahnold

I guess I'll just have to wait for the candidate whose campaign slogan is "Blood for the Blood God" then.

239 researchok  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:39:30pm

re: #231 tradewind

I don't think you have to worry... Santorum's been thoroughly trashed after his run with HRC.
Again, I would be very careful when using wikis as a source. Almost anyone can update or ' edit ' them and often there are competing agendas who go at it with a vengeance.

The reference is not wiki's.

The source of the information is Rick Santorum's wife who wrote a book on the subject.

240 bofhell  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:40:07pm

re: #233 bofhell

[concluded]

I'm not sure, but I don't think I see a whole lot in there contradicting that Hashem created plants before Adom and Chava [Adam and Eve]

Oops. My bad. You said CH 2, not CH 3. Rechecking...

241 MandyManners  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:40:18pm

re: #227 Right Brain

Huh?

242 Right Brain  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:40:24pm

re: #215 Mich-again

I wouldn't vote for any candidate who wants to dump the Constitution and establish a theocracy in the USA.

How can you leap from creationism to dumping the American constitution? Huh?

243 tradewind  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:40:37pm

re: #239 researchok

I'm sorry... I thought you said that wiki quoted the book.

244 Sharmuta  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:40:37pm

Hey italicus!

Want to tell us again how creationism and intelligent design are nothing alike?

245 SixDegrees  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:40:40pm

re: #8 Boondock St. Bender

we gotta come up with a better appellation for these characters than"conservative"
something along the lines of "arrogant self-serving Luddite the religious zealot persuasion"

Santorum is NOT a Conservative by any stretch of imagination. He's best described as a tyrant. He wants the police to raid people's bedrooms to be sure they're not having sex in positions he doesn't approve of, or with people he doesn't approve of. This is a massive intrusion of government into the private lives of it's citizens, the very antithesis of Conservatism, which believes that government should be small and non-intrusive to the greatest degree possible.

True Conservatives have remained silent for too long allowing assholes like Santorum to hijac their movement and it's popularity. It's time for that to change. Conservatives need to challenge people like Santorum directly, and demand that he stop calling himself a Conservative unless he intends to actually act like one.

Until that happens, let's call him what he is: a fundamentalist, theocratic bigot.

246 MandyManners  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:41:11pm

re: #229 Equable

Same here, I enjoy my debauchery a bit too much.

I'm not into that but I would have a hard time being told what to do by someone who thinks that God is speaking to him.

247 Ben Hur  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:41:27pm

Later.

248 MandyManners  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:41:53pm

re: #237 Ojoe

See you in heaven if a theocracy ever gets going in the USA.

I'd move to a cave in the South Pacific.

249 reloadingisnotahobby  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:42:55pm

re: #195 Ojoe

Yes, this site is:

Intelligence
Humor
& Good manners.

I think that covers it; am I missing something?


And once again OJoe shows up with NO BEER!!
/// Been trying to catch up here and now have got to go fix some thing!
(job security...I broke it) Shsss!

250 SixDegrees  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:43:13pm

re: #135 italicus

I thought that LGF was a conservative site. The last few times I've logged in I read things that I swear the most left leaning leftist would have written. The latest example is the hit job you did not Senator Santorum. Creationism and Intelligent Design have nothing in common. This is the very deceptive tactic used by those who cannot answer the challenge of Intelligent Design and instead go with ad hominem attacks such as your piece on Sen. Santorunm. Shame, shame. Very bad journalism.

Intelligent design is creationism. Period. End of story. Go read the Wedge Document.

And stop implying that you're a Conservative. You're not, if you believe this sort of bilge and want to use the power of the state to ram it into every classroom in the country in place of science. You're a theocrat, plain and simple. Own it.

251 Kragar  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:43:25pm

re: #248 MandyManners

I'd move to a cave in the South Pacific.

Bali Hai?

252 eon  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:43:31pm

re: #201 Right Brain

I'm unclear why "being a creationist" is an issue running for public office? Why would their conclusions about 19th century zoology be a factor in administering social security or running the military? Its the natural selection people who are acting looney: Czar Cass Sunstein wants animals to have lawyers, philosopher Peter Singer likens animal liberation to women's liberation and wonders aloud how animals can vote.

[Link: www.animal-rights-library.com...]

I find the creationists a bit tardy on scientific paradigm change but certainly much more stable than the zombies at PETA.

And then or course there's the problem of reproduction: creationists throughout the world reproduce and evolutionist throughout the world do not. So which is nature selecting for?

And don't bore me challenging the last statement: 19 of the 20 countries with the lowest birthrates, a rate HALF of that needed to sustain a population, are in Western Europe.

Actually, Sunstein and the Creationists have more than a bit in common. Fundamentally (pardon the pun) both believe that there are two kinds of people; people who are very smart (like them) and people who are very stupid (everybody else). Furthermore, both types believe that only "really smart" people (like them) should be allowed to make decisions on any subject, and that everybody else should "shut up and sing".

Both lots define "smart people" as "people who agree with me".

I consider having either lot making decisions for the polity as a whole to be a bad idea. The problem with someone who is utterly convinced that they're smarter than everyone else is that when they make a mistake, they are loathe to admit it and will generally look for a scapegoat instead of admitting they screwed up and fixing the error.

As for the falling birthrate in the West, in fact the birthrate is falling in nearly all developed countries, even ones where what we would call "Creationism" holds sway; Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria being cases in point. In all those countries teaching evolution is a good way to get in trouble with the local authorities, and all are near or at passing the "break-even point" (births vs. deaths) on the way down. (Data courtesy of Wired magazine from two years ago.) So I doubt that the difference between "conserve the Earth" and "be fruitful and multiply" is a proximate cause.

cheers

eon

253 Bagua  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:43:40pm

The question here is simple:

Does the Republican party have an intelligent design to win an election?

254 researchok  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:43:43pm

re: #243 tradewind

I'm sorry... I thought you said that wiki quoted the book.



See this

Trying to put a spin on it.

255 MandyManners  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:44:30pm

re: #251 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Bali Hai?

I got legs like Mitzi Gaynor.

256 Dianna  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:46:39pm

re: #197 Honorary Yooper

I didn't see a link, HY.

Do what you think right. The final call isn't mine, and I don't pretend it is.

257 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:46:40pm

re: #201 Right Brain

I'm unclear why "being a creationist" is an issue running for public office?

Would you vote for someone who gives speeches about how the sun revolves around the earth? And belongs to advocacy groups that want to promote geocentric beliefs?

258 bofhell  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:46:42pm

re: #240 bofhell

Oops. My bad. You said CH 2, not CH 3. Rechecking...

OK, Take 2...

[Link: www.chabad.org...]

Rashi's explaination is (in part)...


When the creation of the world was completed on the sixth day, before man was created, no herb of the field had yet grown. And on the third [day], where it is written:“Let the earth bring forth,” they [the plants] had not yet emerged, but they stood at the entrance of the ground until the sixth day. And why? Because He had not caused it to rain, because there was no man to work the soil, and no one recognized the benefit of rain, but when man came and understood that they were essential to the world, he prayed for them, and they fell, and the trees and the herbs sprouted.

So while Hashem created plants (etc.) on the third day, they were in effect in stasis until all other things they would need (water nourish them and people to cultivate them) were in place.

259 Dianna  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:47:07pm

re: #253 Bagua

The question here is simple:

Does the Republican party have an intelligent design to win an election?

Not at present. Evidently.

260 Kragar  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:47:31pm

re: #255 MandyManners

I got legs like Mitzi Gaynor.

Where do you keep them?

/rimshot

261 John Neverbend  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:47:55pm

re: #252 eon

Actually, Sunstein and the Creationists have more than a bit in common. Fundamentally (pardon the pun) both believe that there are two kinds of people; people who are very smart (like them) and people who are very stupid (everybody else).

Then I must assume that Sunstein chose not to follow his beliefs when he ditched Martha Nussbaum and married Samantha Power.

262 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:48:06pm

re: #256 Dianna

I didn't see a link, HY.

Do what you think right. The final call isn't mine, and I don't pretend it is.

The link is in his nic.

263 Mich-again  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:48:14pm

re: #242 Right Brain

How can you leap from creationism to dumping the American constitution? Huh?



I suppose there might be a potential candidate out there who subscribes to creationism but didn't want to inject anti-science in the classroom. I said I wouldn't vote for any candidate who wanted to establish theocracy, and by that I meant a candidate who wanted to get rid of the establishment clause in the 1st Amendment and use the government to promote their religion.

264 MandyManners  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:48:22pm

The tsunami watch for Hawaii is cancelled.

265 tradewind  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:48:27pm

re: #254 researchok

I read the page from her book.
I don't think it's anyone's call to make but the family's.

266 tradewind  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:49:06pm

re: #264 MandyManners

Thank heavens for good news.

267 filetandrelease  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:49:35pm

re: #236 Right Brain

Yes, a problem, should be taught as "most scientists believe this" and "lots of non-scientists believe this."

So in a science class, something that "lots of non-scientist believe" should be taught? Oh boy.

268 Occasional Reader  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:50:21pm

re: #264 MandyManners

The tsunami watch for Hawaii is cancelled.

CHARLIE DON'T SURF!

269 SixDegrees  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:50:26pm

re: #201 Right Brain

I'm unclear why "being a creationist" is an issue running for public office?

Because creationists explicitly want to replace science with religion and establish a nationwide system of religious indoctrination through the public school system. For starters. In parallel with that effort, they seek to establish a fundamentalist Christian theocracy in place of the democratic, secular form of government we currently live under.

That's why.

270 researchok  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:50:34pm

re: #265 tradewind

I read the page from her book.
I don't think it's anyone's call to make but the family's.

You're missing my point. They can do as they please.

I just don't believe I'd be comfortable with him in the WH, based on that kind of behavior.

271 Right Brain  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:50:46pm

re: #228 Salamantis

Actually, that's not nature selecting; it's a memetic command that is inserted in religious faiths as a means of demographic warfare, to prompt its adherents to out-breed their competition. The religious denomination with by far the highest reproduction rate is Islam; by your logic you must think that they're closest to the cosmic truth.

Ah, you wish to privilege Darwinian selection not to include religious fantasy; the same biological mechanism that causes bad breath or our toe-nails to grow produces religious fantasy, and among the chance mutation of fantasy, which one results in reproduction and controlling the resources? Unless you're lying to yourself, on Darwinian terms, nature is selecting for creationists: they reproduce and control the resources, over and over again, throughout the world, from culture to culture.

272 Bagua  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:51:30pm

re: #264 MandyManners

The tsunami watch for Hawaii is cancelled.

Great, now how am I going to return all these bottles of water and duct tape?

273 Kragar  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:51:54pm

re: #267 filetandrelease

So in a science class, something that "lots of non-scientist believe" should be taught? Oh boy.

Sure, things like "Fire is magic" and "Blue Balls is a serious disease."

274 Occasional Reader  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:52:15pm

re: #272 Bagua

Great, now how am I going to return all these bottles of water and duct tape?

You can never have too much duct tape.

275 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:52:19pm

re: #242 Right Brain

How can you leap from creationism to dumping the American constitution? Huh?

To teach creationism in public schools would be to violate the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the 1st Amendment.

276 MandyManners  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:53:52pm

re: #269 SixDegrees

Because creationists explicitly want to replace science with religion and establish a nationwide system of religious indoctrination through the public school system. For starters. In parallel with that effort, they seek to establish a fundamentalist Christian theocracy in place of the democratic, secular form of government we currently live under.

That's why.

Not ALL creationists. Some actually can grasp the intent of the First Amendment's two clauses about religion.

277 SixDegrees  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:54:05pm

re: #271 Right Brain

Ah, you wish to privilege Darwinian selection not to include religious fantasy; the same biological mechanism that causes bad breath or our toe-nails to grow produces religious fantasy, and among the chance mutation of fantasy, which one results in reproduction and controlling the resources? Unless you're lying to yourself, on Darwinian terms, nature is selecting for creationists: they reproduce and control the resources, over and over again, throughout the world, from culture to culture.

creationism is an idea - a remarkably bad one - not a genetic trait.

Making your assertion an epic fail.

278 filetandrelease  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:54:18pm

re: #273 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Sure, things like "Fire is magic" and "Blue Balls is a serious disease."

LOL, no, not Blue Balls in science class!

279 Occasional Reader  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:54:35pm

re: #236 Right Brain

Yes, a problem, should be taught as "most scientists believe this" and "lots of non-scientists believe this."

"Lots of non-scientists" also believe that epilepsy is caused by demonic possession. Should that be taught in medical school? Come on.

280 Sharmuta  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:55:00pm

re: #242 Right Brain

How can you leap from creationism to dumping the American constitution? Huh?

How can Mich do that? Probably because Mich has been paying attention to the theocrats who push Intelligent Design, and also who they fund for political offices and which political PACs they support.

281 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:55:00pm

re: #236 Right Brain

Yes, a problem, should be taught as "most scientists believe this" and "lots of non-scientists believe this."

We're speaking of science class, not sociology class. And it isn't a matter of belief when you have mountains and tsunamis of supporting empirical evidence, as scientists do - it's a matter of knowledge.

282 MandyManners  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:55:16pm

re: #272 Bagua

Great, now how am I going to return all these bottles of water and duct tape?

Keep 'em. You can never have too much duct tape.

283 jaunte  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:55:31pm

re: #271 Right Brain

on Darwinian terms, nature is selecting for creationists: they reproduce and control the resources, over and over again, throughout the world, from culture to culture.

This is silly. Creationism is taught, not innate.

284 Right Brain  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:55:39pm

re: #241 MandyManners

Huh?

Singular as in little boy(s).

The reproduction rate in southern Europe eg Italy, Greece, Spain has dropped to .7 per couple. One third of the population maintenance rate, secular societies all. They are disappearing, whereas the creationists of Saudi Arabia are producing 2.9 per couple.

285 reine.de.tout  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:55:41pm

re: #236 Right Brain

Yes, a problem, should be taught as "most scientists believe this" and "lots of non-scientists believe this."

Why in a science class would anyone want to teach what "non-scientists" think?

In a math class, would you teach that "non-mathemeticians" believe that 2+2=5, not 4?

286 Boondock St. Bender  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:55:43pm

re: #271 Right Brain

disagree,i have three little ones.most of my friends who believe in evolution have children as well.
the loons who wish for sustainable numbers(massive human die off)are not folks i agree or wish to spend time with,They are not representative of a majority of science minded folks.

287 MandyManners  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:55:49pm

re: #274 Occasional Reader

You can never have too much duct tape.

Beat me to it.

288 Hawaii69  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:55:49pm

The meltdown of The Right in this country is highly entertaining at this point.

289 Occasional Reader  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:55:54pm

re: #281 Salamantis

and tsunamis of supporting empirical evidence

CANCELED! Didn't you see Mandy's post?!

290 Kragar  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:56:43pm

re: #278 filetandrelease

LOL, no, not Blue Balls in science class!

A BB denier I see.

/

291 medaura18586  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:56:55pm

This Right Brain is a freak... reproduction, breeding, control, resources... wtf!?

292 reine.de.tout  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:56:59pm

re: #274 Occasional Reader

You can never have too much duct tape.

The Roi believes no tool or piece of equipment is fully "broken in" until it is held completely together with duct tape.

293 Dianna  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:57:02pm

re: #285 reine.de.tout

Why in a science class would anyone want to teach what "non-scientists" think?

In a math class, would you teach that "non-mathemeticians" believe that 2+2=5, not 4?

Only in Big Brother's world.

294 Occasional Reader  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:57:42pm

re: #278 filetandrelease

LOL, no, not Blue Balls in science class!

Why not? Future engineers might as well get used to it.

//

295 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:57:46pm

Santorum's anti gay stance and other fun far right goodness has caused him to have a word named after him...

NSFW
[Link: www.urbandictionary.com...]

296 Kragar  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:58:41pm

re: #285 reine.de.tout

Why in a science class would anyone want to teach what "non-scientists" think?

In a math class, would you teach that "non-mathemeticians" believe that 2+2=5, not 4?

Well, thats one interpretation of 2+2, but lets leave room for dissenting opinions.

//

297 Sharmuta  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:58:46pm

re: #271 Right Brain

Ah, you wish to privilege Darwinian selection not to include religious fantasy; the same biological mechanism that causes bad breath or our toe-nails to grow produces religious fantasy, and among the chance mutation of fantasy, which one results in reproduction and controlling the resources? Unless you're lying to yourself, on Darwinian terms, nature is selecting for creationists: they reproduce and control the resources, over and over again, throughout the world, from culture to culture.

Never mind that it's science that has made it possible for creationists to live longer, and use the resources they have, all while not understanding the science that provides them with everything in modern society.

298 MandyManners  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:58:48pm

re: #284 Right Brain

Singular as in little boy(s).

The reproduction rate in southern Europe eg Italy, Greece, Spain has dropped to .7 per couple. One third of the population maintenance rate, secular societies all. They are disappearing, whereas the creationists of Saudi Arabia are producing 2.9 per couple.

You got a problem with me having one kid?

299 Ojoe  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:58:56pm

re: #249 reloadingisnotahobby

"Old Rasputin Russian Imperial Stout"

Stout link.

I did show up with Grappa in post No. 212.

300 medaura18586  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:59:02pm

re: #295 LudwigVanQuixote

lol, if it has made it to urban dictionary, it's legit as far as I'm concerned.

301 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:59:14pm

re: #284 Right Brain

Singular as in little boy(s).

The reproduction rate in southern Europe eg Italy, Greece, Spain has dropped to .7 per couple. One third of the population maintenance rate, secular societies all. They are disappearing, whereas the creationists of Saudi Arabia are producing 2.9 per couple.

WTF does this have to do with the teaching of creationism (or ID) to students within the US?

302 Occasional Reader  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:59:14pm

re: #284 Right Brain

They are disappearing, whereas the creationists of Saudi Arabia are producing 2.9 per couple.

So, creationism is associated with dysfunctional, intolerant, absolute monarchies. Gotcha.

And we want to emulate them... why, exactly?

303 filetandrelease  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:59:39pm

re: #290 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

A BB denier I see.

/


I not sure it right use the term BB and blues balls in the same sentence.

304 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:59:52pm

re: #300 medaura18586

lol, if it has made it to urban dictionary, it's legit as far as I'm concerned.

he heh... He's pissed off a lot of people.

305 bofhell  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 2:59:57pm

re: #288 Hawaii69

The meltdown of The Right in this country is highly entertaining at this point.

Oh, I don't know, there is always the news that Jon Gosselin has been fired from "Jon and Kate plus Eight".

306 researchok  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:00:04pm

re: #265 tradewind

I read the page from her book.
I don't think it's anyone's call to make but the family's.

I can assure you that if it came out that Barack Obama brought home the corpse of an infant child to 'teach' his daughters some kind of lesson and then slept with dead infant overnight, the right would have gome wild and be all over the 'perversions'' and the 'cruelty' of the Obama's.

307 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:00:18pm

re: #271 Right Brain

Ah, you wish to privilege Darwinian selection not to include religious fantasy; the same biological mechanism that causes bad breath or our toe-nails to grow produces religious fantasy, and among the chance mutation of fantasy, which one results in reproduction and controlling the resources? Unless you're lying to yourself, on Darwinian terms, nature is selecting for creationists: they reproduce and control the resources, over and over again, throughout the world, from culture to culture.

You obviously don't know the difference between memetic evolution and genetic evolution.

Genes are physical characteristics that exercise configurational control and evolve within a species by means of mutation and natural selection; they are replicated through sexual reproduction between members of that species, and are naturally selected for by the differential rates of survival to reproduction of those who possess them (and the configurations of which they are templates) vs. those who don't, or possess different ones.

Memes, on the other hand, are mental/cognitive characteristics that exercise behavioral control, mutate within the minds of their holders, and multiply by being passed between them via communication or imitation. They are replicated by being spread from intentionally or inadvertently teaching carriers to learning recipients, who either intentionally or inadvertently select to accept or reject them, by means of communicative behaviors, such as showing, telling or writing. They evolve by means of the differential selection rates of some memetic variants vs. others

308 Randall Gross  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:00:18pm

Like we really need to put forward the guy who got Bob Casey elected as presidential fodder? He already turned red to purple in Pennsylvania, we don't need a friggin repeat performance in 2012.

309 Charles Johnson  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:00:27pm

re: #271 Right Brain

Ah, you wish to privilege Darwinian selection not to include religious fantasy; the same biological mechanism that causes bad breath or our toe-nails to grow produces religious fantasy, and among the chance mutation of fantasy, which one results in reproduction and controlling the resources? Unless you're lying to yourself, on Darwinian terms, nature is selecting for creationists: they reproduce and control the resources, over and over again, throughout the world, from culture to culture.

Of all the weird rationalizations I've seen creationists come up with, this just might be the weirdest.

310 jaunte  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:00:39pm

re: #298 MandyManners

You got a problem with me having one kid?

I think you have the Right Brain issue nailed, right there.

311 MandyManners  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:01:22pm

re: #298 MandyManners

You got a problem with me having one kid?

Get busy, uterus! Crank out more kids!

312 Honorary Yooper  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:01:26pm

re: #305 bofhell

Oh, I don't know, there is always the news that Jon Gosselin has been fired from "Jon and Kate plus Eight".

Who? Oh, wait, that's one of the shows I don't watch.

313 SixDegrees  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:02:01pm

re: #296 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Well, thats one interpretation of 2+2, but lets leave room for dissenting opinions.

//

"How does the number 'seven' make you feel? Is it odd? Or is it just different?"

Lisa Simpson's "New Math" teacher

314 Sharmuta  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:02:16pm

re: #310 jaunte

I think you have the Right Brain issue nailed, right there.

But how to explain the evolution accepting Alouette of 23 grandchildren...?

315 Kragar  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:02:25pm

re: #311 MandyManners

Get busy, uterus! Crank out more kids!

Make sure you're barefoot, and get back in the kitchen in the mean time.

/

316 medaura18586  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:02:31pm

re: #304 LudwigVanQuixote

he heh... He's pissed off a lot of people.

When it was announced that Standford had been involved in something fishy in Venezuela, I was ready to bet it was a gay sex scandal. I was right, except the gay part. But watch out for these outspoken homosphobes. A good percentage of them are repressed homosexuals. I wouldn't be surprised at all if he went down in flames à la Mark Foley.

317 MJ  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:02:38pm

Israel has no right to exist, AUC Arabs unanimously tell Caravan poll

Despite studying at The American University in Cairo, the majority of Arab students here support a hardline view denying Israel’s right to exist, and that U.S. foreign policy is biased towards Israel.
The Caravan conducted a random poll of 100 Arab students on campus during April. Those selected had to be native to the Middle East, and were asked to respond to questions in a one-on-one interview.
Those polled unanimously opposed the existence of the Jewish state, while half said they did not separate Israel from America...

...When contacted, Robert Greenan, spokesman at the American Embassy in Cairo, said it was their policy not to comment on opinion polls.

Provost Lisa Anderson said she also did not want to comment on the survey’s findings.
“Students are entitled to their opinions and it would be inappropriate of any member of the senior administration to endorse or condemn the opinions of students, or faculty for that matter,” she wrote in an email to the Caravan.
Her counterpart, President David Arnold, said whatever the ideas expressed, there is no effort at the university to shape students’ political opinion.
“We are not in the business of trying to produce people who are, quote, more friendly to America,” Arnold said. “Our former provost Tim Sullivan was very fond of saying our job is not to teach you what to think but to teach you how to think and I think that’s the essence of a good AUC education.”

[Link: www.auccaravan.org...]

Yup, Obama's Cairo speech sure made a difference.
By the way, Lisa Anderson is the slime queen who, as the dean at Columbia, invited the antisemitic Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia.

318 SixDegrees  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:02:41pm

re: #298 MandyManners

You got a problem with me having one kid?

He has a problem separating things, like ideas and genetics.

319 eon  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:02:47pm

re: #261 John Neverbend

Then I must assume that Sunstein chose not to follow his beliefs when he ditched Martha Nussbaum and married Samantha Power.

On the personal level, I suspect he (like most people who define themselves as "smarter than everyone else") defined that as "she (Nussbaum) made the mistake, not me"; going back to the idea of blaming someone else.

Another factor in the mindset is that once the "real culprit" is identified, they need to suffer "consequences" for their "shortfall" in the "being perfect" department. He probably figured that Nussbaum would be considered persona non grata in the "right" social circles (Manhattan intellectual elite'/ upper crust, that is) for being dumped by someone who was as obviously "smart" as him.

I'm not an expert on Sunstein's personal life; I just go by his writings, going back to New Yorker articles on him from before the last election, when nobody knew he was going to be a "czar" of anything. And the attitude expressed there (which got him highly favorable book reviews from the NY) boiled down to;

"I'm always right, and my degrees prove it. If you disagree with me, even if you have a degree, you're too stupid to make your opinion worth considering. Deal with it."

As I said, the resemblance is worth noting.

cheers

eon

320 jaunte  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:02:59pm

re: #314 Sharmuta

Volunteerism is good.

321 Ojoe  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:03:09pm

re: #313 SixDegrees

Did you that the Romans had a superstitious dread of even numbers?

BBL

Got to get some things done.

322 medaura18586  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:03:09pm

re: #316 medaura18586

I mean, Sanford. Damn my pimfing ways!

323 BlackFedora  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:03:11pm

Well... if the Republicans want to lose they'll surely go with Santorum.

324 Digital Display  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:03:19pm

re: #314 Sharmuta

But how to explain the evolution accepting Alouette of 23 grandchildren...?

Was that the most beautiful baby pic she posted this morning?
Dang I bet she is so proud...

325 BlackFedora  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:03:34pm

re: #323 BlackFedora

... and I'm not convinced they don't want to lose..

326 Occasional Reader  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:03:42pm

re: #315 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Make sure you're barefoot, and get back in the kitchen in the mean time.

/

I prefer them wearing high heels, but that's just me.

/

327 Sharmuta  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:04:10pm

re: #311 MandyManners

Get busy, uterus! Crank out more kids!

"Know your role" is what Right Brain is trying to tell you.

328 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:05:14pm

re: #309 Charles

Of all the weird rationalizations I've seen creationists come up with, this just might be the weirdest.

By Right Brian's rationale, we should be excising all NON-cancerous cells, because they don't reproduce as fast. And especially brain cells, because after a point, they don't multiply at all.

329 Occasional Reader  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:05:21pm

re: #311 MandyManners

Get busy, uterus! Crank out more kids!

Need some help with that?

: )

330 SixDegrees  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:05:40pm

re: #321 Ojoe

Did you that the Romans had a superstitious dread of even numbers?

BBL

Got to get some things done.

That reminds me of my Rules For Committees:

1) Every committee should have an odd number of members.

2) Three is too many.

331 Dianna  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:06:14pm

re: #306 researchok

Most people would have more taste, even now.

People grieve - particularly over much-wanted babies - very oddly. Some of it seems morbid or extreme, but grief is so very hard to handle.

332 MandyManners  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:06:19pm

re: #305 bofhell

Oh, I don't know, there is always the news that Jon Gosselin has been fired from "Jon and Kate plus Eight".

No shit? Got a link?

333 SixDegrees  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:07:06pm

re: #332 MandyManners

No shit? Got a link?

CNN's main website has the story.

334 Randall Gross  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:07:21pm

re: #271 Right Brain

Ah, you wish to privilege Darwinian selection not to include religious fantasy; the same biological mechanism that causes bad breath or our toe-nails to grow produces religious fantasy, and among the chance mutation of fantasy, which one results in reproduction and controlling the resources? Unless you're lying to yourself, on Darwinian terms, nature is selecting for creationists: they reproduce and control the resources, over and over again, throughout the world, from culture to culture.

Terrible misunderstanding of principle. Producing the most offspring isn't what wins the day. Producing offspring that cares best for their young almost always wins over sheer numbers in long term studies. If the alternate were true the world would be over running with Boobies.

335 Right Brain  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:07:22pm

re: #252 eon

Eon, undoubtedly all countries are having a reduced birthrate due to the changes in agriculture. I had this thought first when sitting on a panel at the National Arts Club, in Grammercy Park in NYC someone was making fun of Sarah Palin, at the time Governor of Alaska, in control of roughly 13% of the proven oil reserves and mother of five children, all hers by birth. And I looked about the room, perhaps a third of whom I knew, and I counted two kids among thirty people. And I had this thought, which seems proximate enough for me, that creationists reproduce, why is immaterial, or at least no more materials than why certain other species are selected for. I find it holds true from place to place.

And by the definition of Darwinian selection are being selected for.

336 medaura18586  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:07:34pm

From my experience in following wacko memes of the blogosphere--take it with a grain of salt--all this talk of reproduction and higher birthrates and superiority by outbreeding is codespeak for neo-nazi racialist fantasies. Unfortunately, people like Mark Steyn have done much to mainstream them.

337 Kragar  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:07:42pm

re: #326 Occasional Reader

I prefer them wearing high heels, but that's just me.

/

High heels in the kitchen! But they'll slip on the linoleum!

/

338 reloadingisnotahobby  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:07:48pm

re: #299 Ojoe
Dang! It sucks being in Utah!!!

339 SixDegrees  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:08:08pm

re: #332 MandyManners

No shit? Got a link?

Here you go.

340 Occasional Reader  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:08:13pm

re: #333 SixDegrees

CNN's main website has the story.

I'm pleased to say, I haven't the slightest idea who this person is, or what "Jon and Kate Plus Eight" is.

341 MandyManners  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:08:41pm

re: #327 Sharmuta

"Know your role" is what Right Brain is trying to tell you.

What about sterile women or men?!

342 anduril3019  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:08:52pm

re: #269 SixDegrees

At least nobody's making gross generalizations on this topic.
//

Maybe I'm a rarity, but I'm a creationist who wants the opposite of everything mentioned in your comment. And I know plenty of others who are like-minded. I also think that Charles has some valid arguments on this topic. I realize there are plenty of high profile voices out there who do want what you say, but from the inside view, I can tell you it's not the majority.

343 MandyManners  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:09:21pm

re: #329 Occasional Reader

Need some help with that?

: )

You have a turkey baster?

344 reloadingisnotahobby  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:09:41pm

re: #340 Occasional Reader

Is it a Polygamy thing?
Octo mom?
I'm lost...

345 SixDegrees  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:09:47pm

re: #335 Right Brain

Eon, undoubtedly all countries are having a reduced birthrate due to the changes in agriculture. I had this thought first when sitting on a panel at the National Arts Club, in Grammercy Park in NYC someone was making fun of Sarah Palin, at the time Governor of Alaska, in control of roughly 13% of the proven oil reserves and mother of five children, all hers by birth. And I looked about the room, perhaps a third of whom I knew, and I counted two kids among thirty people. And I had this thought, which seems proximate enough for me, that creationists reproduce, why is immaterial, or at least no more materials than why certain other species are selected for. I find it holds true from place to place.

And by the definition of Darwinian selection are being selected for.

Uh - no. You're conflating idea with genes. Unless you'd care to openly advocate for eugenics, that dog's not gonna hunt, no matter how many times you repeat it.

346 Sharmuta  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:09:52pm

re: #342 anduril3019

What do you mean you're a creationist? You think the earth is 6000-10,000 years old? Do you accept evolution?

347 Randall Gross  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:09:58pm

re: #335 Right Brain

Nice theory, but it's mooted by figures demonstrating the decline of attendance across the board at church services.

348 bofhell  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:10:19pm

re: #332 MandyManners

No shit? Got a link?

[Link: www.cnn.com...]

Ironically, I used to work for Discovery Channel (which owns TLC) and I did not at the time, nor have I since or before, subscribed to cable.

349 Occasional Reader  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:10:21pm

re: #336 medaura18586

all this talk of reproduction and higher birthrates and superiority by outbreeding is codespeak for neo-nazi racialist fantasies

I don't think that's always the case. And I certainly don't think Mark Steyn is anything resembling a "neo-Nazi". There *is* a legitimate point to be made about the crashing birthrates in most Western countries (plus Japan). It's a very real phenomenon, with very real consequences.

350 Occasional Reader  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:10:49pm

re: #343 MandyManners

You have a turkey baster?

Well... I usually don't call it that, but...

351 Sharmuta  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:10:50pm

re: #341 MandyManners

What about sterile women or men?!

Sterile women will still be shoved in the invisible burqas with the rest of us.

352 medaura18586  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:10:52pm

re: #335 Right Brain

Eon, undoubtedly all countries are having a reduced birthrate due to the changes in agriculture. I had this thought first when sitting on a panel at the National Arts Club, in Grammercy Park in NYC someone was making fun of Sarah Palin, at the time Governor of Alaska, in control of roughly 13% of the proven oil reserves and mother of five children, all hers by birth. And I looked about the room, perhaps a third of whom I knew, and I counted two kids among thirty people. And I had this thought, which seems proximate enough for me, that creationists reproduce, why is immaterial, or at least no more materials than why certain other species are selected for. I find it holds true from place to place.

And by the definition of Darwinian selection are being selected for.

Interesting that you seethe against evolution yet resort to "Darwinist" arguments, or pseudo versions thereof, to pat yourself and your clique of creationist Neanderthals on the back.

353 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:10:54pm

re: #340 Occasional Reader

I'm pleased to say, I haven't the slightest idea who this person is, or what "Jon and Kate Plus Eight" is.

No kidding, and why in the world would anyone care. The little I do know makes me want to puke. This is about as exciting as putting a hidden camera in my pocket lint.

354 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:10:58pm

re: #335 Right Brain

Eon, undoubtedly all countries are having a reduced birthrate due to the changes in agriculture. I had this thought first when sitting on a panel at the National Arts Club, in Grammercy Park in NYC someone was making fun of Sarah Palin, at the time Governor of Alaska, in control of roughly 13% of the proven oil reserves and mother of five children, all hers by birth. And I looked about the room, perhaps a third of whom I knew, and I counted two kids among thirty people. And I had this thought, which seems proximate enough for me, that creationists reproduce, why is immaterial, or at least no more materials than why certain other species are selected for. I find it holds true from place to place.

And by the definition of Darwinian selection are being selected for.

I have not noticed any particular predominance of Christian creationism in the world's two most populous nations - China and India. And their problems with runaway reproduction are so great that in India, the government distributes free condoms, and in China, the government has gone to the draconian extent of mandating abortions.

You make it seem as if it would be a human success if our population reached a starving trillion.

355 Right Brain  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:11:43pm

re: #267 filetandrelease

So in a science class, something that "lots of non-scientist believe" should be taught? Oh boy.

Of course such as a ruler is a fixed measure, or a balance is fixed weight, or the sun comes up in the east or any other host of anecdotes that we use to participate in the world.

356 Dianna  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:12:09pm

re: #336 medaura18586

Slow down a little.

357 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:13:38pm

Time to head home.

358 MandyManners  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:13:47pm

I'm gonna' hafta' step back.

359 SixDegrees  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:14:12pm

re: #336 medaura18586

From my experience in following wacko memes of the blogosphere--take it with a grain of salt--all this talk of reproduction and higher birthrates and superiority by outbreeding is codespeak for neo-nazi racialist fantasies. Unfortunately, people like Mark Steyn have done much to mainstream them.

You're correct, and it's been around for a long time. Back when the Civil Rights movement was getting underway, lots of people were assuring everyone else that blacks were going to "reproduce us out of existence," with "us" being white, of course. The same bilge has bubbled up to the surface at least every few years since, with the group doing all the reproducing swapped out for Mexicans, Hispanics, and most recently Muslims, which is used interchangeably for Middle Easterners.

And in the present argument, it's just friggin' ridiculous, since creationism isn't a genetic trait.

Of course, it was ridiculous all the other times, too, because there's no such thing as "race" as a biological concept.

360 Occasional Reader  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:14:43pm

re: #358 MandyManners

I'm gonna' hafta' step back.

Is all this talk of my "turkey baster" starting to freak you out a little?

//

361 Dianna  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:14:46pm

re: #352 medaura18586

Geez, you're sure casting aspersions with abandon.

362 SixDegrees  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:14:56pm

re: #342 anduril3019

At least nobody's making gross generalizations on this topic.
//

Maybe I'm a rarity, but I'm a creationist who wants the opposite of everything mentioned in your comment. And I know plenty of others who are like-minded. I also think that Charles has some valid arguments on this topic. I realize there are plenty of high profile voices out there who do want what you say, but from the inside view, I can tell you it's not the majority.

Bullshit.

363 Digital Display  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:15:00pm

re: #358 MandyManners

I'm gonna' hafta' step back.

Hope your little man is feeling better today Mandy

364 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:15:05pm

re: #335 Right Brain

Eon, undoubtedly all countries are having a reduced birthrate due to the changes in agriculture. I had this thought first when sitting on a panel at the National Arts Club, in Grammercy Park in NYC someone was making fun of Sarah Palin, at the time Governor of Alaska, in control of roughly 13% of the proven oil reserves and mother of five children, all hers by birth. And I looked about the room, perhaps a third of whom I knew, and I counted two kids among thirty people. And I had this thought, which seems proximate enough for me, that creationists reproduce, why is immaterial, or at least no more materials than why certain other species are selected for. I find it holds true from place to place.

And by the definition of Darwinian selection are being selected for.

The why is indeed eminently material; they do so because their religions tell them to. That's what makes it memetic rather than genetic. And it's not a good thing.

Ecological degradation may be divided into natural resource depletion and biosphere pollution, but both have overpopulation as a root cause. Overpopulation drives us like lemmings to mow our global lungs for farmland, lumber and cattle pasture, sapping species diversity in the process. It drives us to strip-mine our eroding soil to build skyscrapers, cars and soda cans. It drives us to burn our fossil fuels, overheating our atmosphere and decimating our ozone sunscreen for the sake of light, mobility, plastic containers and air-conditioned comfort for a small percentage of our teeming billions. It drives us to turn our over-fished oceans into toxic cesspools when our rivers bear our pesticides, factory byproducts and sewage to the seas. Furthermore, the resulting competition for room and resources on a shrinking sphere has led our infant race to nurse the barrel of the nuclear gun.

It is ecologically imperative that we control our rate of reproduction generally, and the fundamental pillar of feminism that women must have the right to control their own reproduction individually. To this dovetailing of the calls of personal freedom and global necessity, the fundamentalist responds with an iron demand frozen for thousands of years in the face of catastrophically changing circumstances; you must be fruitful and multiply.

365 researchok  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:15:40pm

re: #331 Dianna

Most people would have more taste, even now.

People grieve - particularly over much-wanted babies - very oddly. Some of it seems morbid or extreme, but grief is so very hard to handle.

It isn't about grief- they are entitled to grieve any way they see fit.

My issue is that I just don't see Santorum as fit to to be president based on that kind of behavior.

366 medaura18586  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:15:55pm

re: #349 Occasional Reader

I don't think that's always the case. And I certainly don't think Mark Steyn is anything resembling a "neo-Nazi". There *is* a legitimate point to be made about the crashing birthrates in most Western countries (plus Japan). It's a very real phenomenon, with very real consequences.

I am not at liberty to discuss Mark Steyn, but let me just say that I find him much more subversive than his average reader does. There are legitimate points to be made through any demographic analysis... Panic is not among them. Neither is this complex of superiority from being the alleged outbreeder. Population growth is not a race. And any dimwits can screw and procreate--it doesn't take geniuses.

re: #356 Dianna

Slow down a little.

Why? I relaid my personal experience, and warned that it should be taken with a grain of salt. My self-mitigating measures are not sufficient for you?

367 Occasional Reader  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:16:01pm

re: #354 Salamantis

and in China, the government has gone to the draconian extent of mandating abortions

Although if I'm not mistaken, the Chinese government has reversed course on that in recent years, as they've suddenly noticed with alarm their own demographic trends.

368 Dianna  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:17:09pm

re: #365 researchok

That wouldn't be my reason. But, to each his own.

369 Randall Gross  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:17:54pm

re: #367 Occasional Reader

Demographic trends are not destiny, destiny in the modern world is driven by those who choose to adopt science and technology, not those who refuse it.

370 Right Brain  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:18:26pm

re: #297 Sharmuta

Never mind that it's science that has made it possible for creationists to live longer, and use the resources they have, all while not understanding the science that provides them with everything in modern society.

Excellent point. Unintended consequences. Its the secular, and barren workaholics, who pay massive taxes that went to those breeding an underclass that now out votes them. Do they understand where all that money came from? Nope. Could most the creationists understand these medical marvels that make all their kids live? Nope.

371 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:18:38pm

re: #355 Right Brain

Of course such as a ruler is a fixed measure, or a balance is fixed weight, or the sun comes up in the east or any other host of anecdotes that we use to participate in the world.

But popular opinion is not the same as fact. The earth didn't use to be a flat disc circled by the sun, only morphing into a sun-circling sphere when popular opinion changed.

372 SixDegrees  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:19:07pm

re: #367 Occasional Reader

Although if I'm not mistaken, the Chinese government has reversed course on that in recent years, as they've suddenly noticed with alarm their own demographic trends.

They've recently lifted the One Child rule in rural areas. The economic shifts in the country have drained farms of population, as people stream into the cities for high paying work. There's a shortage of manpower to produce food. The hope isn't so much to increase the birth rate among those left behind, but to use the exemption as an incentive for those in the cities who want more than one child to relocate back to the countryside.

373 Dianna  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:19:19pm

re: #366 medaura18586

Actually, no.

Right Brain isn't explaining him/her self very well, and is a bit confused between genetics and memetics, possibly through a surface misunderstanding. But starting to fling out accusations about what he/she believes based on internet experience just seems a bit hasty.

374 Sharmuta  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:19:47pm

re: #370 Right Brain

LMAO! The creationists are not winning at the ballot box, in case you didn't notice. Obama is not a creationist.

375 Sharmuta  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:20:36pm

re: #373 Dianna

Maybe you should direct your energies to Right Brian then and not medaura?

376 albusteve  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:20:36pm

"It is nutty," said Bing West, a former Marine and defense official in the Reagan administration. "Obama is stuck with his war of necessity yet he can't bring himself to face the fact he doesn't even know his commander in the field!"

[Link: www.foxnews.com...]

people are getting pissed

377 Occasional Reader  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:20:36pm

re: #369 Thanos

Demographic trends are not destiny,

No, but they do influence outcomes. As for technology; no country is higher-tech than Japan, but I think we'll be seeing some very odd effects (and not good ones) on Japan from their demographic profile in the coming decades.

378 Randall Gross  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:20:53pm

re: #372 SixDegrees

They've recently lifted the One Child rule in rural areas. The economic shifts in the country have drained farms of population, as people stream into the cities for high paying work. There's a shortage of manpower to produce food. The hope isn't so much to increase the birth rate among those left behind, but to use the exemption as an incentive for those in the cities who want more than one child to relocate back to the countryside.

See Stewart Brand's presentation here; basically once you go Urban population pressure drifts down, birthrates decrease.

[Link: blog.ted.com...]

379 anduril3019  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:21:23pm

re: #346 Sharmuta

I'll brace myself for the flogging, but yes, I do believe in a young earth and do not believe in evolution as it pertains to origin of life and origin of the human species. Now I'll brace for a flogging from the other side, I also don't have a big problem with evolution being taught in public schools and don't think creation or any variant of it ought to be taught.

380 Dianna  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:21:37pm

re: #375 Sharmuta

No.

381 Right Brain  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:21:58pm

re: #302 Occasional Reader

So, creationism is associated with dysfunctional, intolerant, absolute monarchies. Gotcha.

And we want to emulate them... why, exactly?

There's nothing about Darwinian Evolution that is moral, this is the part you are missing.

382 Randall Gross  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:22:16pm

re: #373 Dianna

Dianne, even I picked up the "muslim birth bomb" meme proselytized by the GOV crowd in Rightbrain's replies. It might be by ignorance, but it's there.

383 medaura18586  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:22:35pm

re: #373 Dianna

I did not fling out any accusations at Right Brain. The language s/he is employing reminded me of other cases I've observed of such talk, and where it seems to be aiming at. Whether it applies to him, I do not know. But how do you know whether he is expressing himself well or not? Are you in his brain? His right brain?

384 Randall Gross  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:22:38pm

/pimf "Dianna"

385 Sharmuta  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:22:57pm

re: #379 anduril3019

Evolution doesn't touch on the origin of life- just what happens to life once it exists.

386 jaunte  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:23:26pm

re: #370 Right Brain

those breeding an underclass that now out votes them.

I don't find this kind of rhetoric useful. In fact it stinks.

387 anduril3019  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:23:42pm

re: #362 SixDegrees

Which part is the BS if you don't mind me asking?

388 Dianna  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:23:45pm

re: #381 Right Brain

that is ridiculous.

389 Occasional Reader  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:23:49pm

re: #381 Right Brain

There's nothing about Darwinian Evolution that is moral, this is the part you are missing.

I'm not "missing" it, it's entirely irrelevant. There's nothing about gravity that's moral, either.

390 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:24:18pm

re: #379 anduril3019

I'll brace myself for the flogging, but yes, I do believe in a young earth and do not believe in evolution as it pertains to origin of life and origin of the human species. Now I'll brace for a flogging from the other side, I also don't have a big problem with evolution being taught in public schools and don't think creation or any variant of it ought to be taught.

That is as honest as you can get. You believe, yet you want it kept out of the schools.

Should it be kept out of politics too?

391 Sharmuta  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:24:22pm

re: #380 Dianna

I see. So you'll tell other lizards like Yooper and medaura what they should be saying to trolls, but you won't engage the trolls yourself. Got it.

392 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:24:30pm

re: #381 Right Brain

There's nothing about Darwinian Evolution that is moral, this is the part you are missing.

There's nothing about it that is im moral, either.

It's just an empirical fact. Empirical facts are neither good, nor bad; they're just factual. And evolution is just the way it is.

393 Dianna  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:24:45pm

re: #382 Thanos

Ignorance appears to be the problem. And possibly a bit of fear of choosing.

394 Diamond Bullet  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:24:45pm

Creationists are exhausting. The whole thing reminds me of the 2004 election, when an animatronic donkey that sang show tunes in Polish could have won the election over GWB -- so who do the Democrats nominate? A Massachusetts Democrat who actually secretly met with the Viet Cong in Paris.

Upon hearing the news, a liberal friend of mine succinctly stated (through his hands) that "only a Massachusetts Democrat could lose this election." Bingo. Similarly, if Obama continues to crater, unless we've all been nuked in the mean time the Republicans should have it just as easy -- the only way they can screw it up would be to nominate a ... Creationist theocrat. Don't do it! There is a vast sea of moderates out there that just want a fiscal conservative who won't also try to mandate that schools teach that the Earth is 5,000 years old and that fake dinosaur bones were embedded in sedimentary layers for future generations to find because God is one tricky S.O.B. Creationism is the biggest self-inflicted wound I've ever seen conservatives dish out, on top of, you know, being flat out retarded.

395 eon  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:24:48pm

re: #335 Right Brain

Eon, undoubtedly all countries are having a reduced birthrate due to the changes in agriculture. I had this thought first when sitting on a panel at the National Arts Club, in Grammercy Park in NYC someone was making fun of Sarah Palin, at the time Governor of Alaska, in control of roughly 13% of the proven oil reserves and mother of five children, all hers by birth. And I looked about the room, perhaps a third of whom I knew, and I counted two kids among thirty people. And I had this thought, which seems proximate enough for me, that creationists reproduce, why is immaterial, or at least no more materials than why certain other species are selected for. I find it holds true from place to place.

And by the definition of Darwinian selection creationists are being selected for.


I assumed you forgot that word, as without it the last sentence is incongruous relative to your previous statement.

I would say that it probably isn't a big enough "bulge" in the demographics to matter, either way. Whether they like it or not, YEC/ID/CS "believers" are a minority, even among Christians, in the U.S. So, unless the rest of the population of this country stops breeding period, even multiple children to a couple are unlikely to place them anywhere near parity, let alone in a majority, for the foreseeable future. I prefer not to worry about molehills; there are more than enough mountains out there to keep me focused.

The only likely problem I see is that if the IDiots & Co. do actually take full control of the GOP, coupled with the increasing control of the Democratic Party by its own brand of delusional "believers" (the extreme "progressive" crowd), we may end up with a situation in which both parties so thoroughly alienate the majority of Americans that the majority simply declares "a pox on both your houses!" and doesn't bother to vote. Which means that whichever minority of "true believers" (to use Eric Hoffer's phrase) manages to "get out their vote" on Election Day will get to run things. Into the ground, either way.

The only solution I can see is to eject both lots of "believers" from the political entities they are attempting to usurp control of. Failing that, a new political entity will be needed. That seems the "least likely" outcome, based on history.

The moral is that, in politics, numbers only count if you have them. The other guy can win if he has them- or just can get up on the podium and can't be gotten off of it by anybody else. When that happens, whoever's up there yelling is, ipso facto, in charge.

This is why politics unfortunately cannot be a spectator sport. If you don't play, you have no control over who wins. And whoever wins can end up in control of you, your wishes in the matter notwithstanding.

cheers

eon

396 Cato the Elder  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:24:54pm

Just my opinion, but anyone who seriously believes this place we inhabit is no more than 6,000 years old excludes himself from all serious scientific discussion.

397 anduril3019  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:25:28pm

re: #385 Sharmuta

Just trying to use shorthand, thanks.

398 Dianna  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:25:43pm

re: #383 medaura18586

No.

I am objecting to boxing someone in, rather than speaking to him.

399 Occasional Reader  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:26:13pm

re: #391 Sharmuta

I see. So you'll tell other lizards like Yooper and medaura what they should be saying to trolls, but you won't engage the trolls yourself. Got it.

Um... and you're sniping at Dianna. See the irony?

400 Racer X  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:26:34pm

God has mad skilz. He made everything a looong time ago. Everything has been evolving ever since. No worries.

401 Sharmuta  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:26:46pm

re: #397 anduril3019

What evidence could be presented that you would accept as showing the veracity of evolution?

402 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:26:47pm

re: #396 Cato the Elder

Just my opinion, but anyone who seriously believes this place we inhabit is no more than 6,000 years old excludes himself from all serious scientific discussion.

I would go further and say it would exclude them from any serious discussion at all.

403 Dianna  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:26:51pm

re: #391 Sharmuta

I see. So you'll tell other lizards like Yooper and medaura what they should be saying to trolls, but you won't engage the trolls yourself. Got it.

Don't be ridiculous. I addressed stupidity when it was uttered by RB.

I'm not a member of LGF to be part of a baying pack, rending someone for not exactly agreeing with me.

404 medaura18586  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:27:00pm

re: #393 Dianna

Ignorance appears to be the problem. And possibly a bit of fear of choosing.

There, there... You are casting aspersions with abandon...

405 albusteve  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:27:44pm

re: #396 Cato the Elder

Just my opinion, but anyone who seriously believes this place we inhabit is no more than 6,000 years old excludes himself from all serious scientific discussion.

mine too, which is why I ignore them completely...even in politics there is little you can do to address the mayhem they inflict...just vote against them

406 Randall Gross  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:27:51pm

re: #377 Occasional Reader

No, but they do influence outcomes. As for technology; no country is higher-tech than Japan, but I think we'll be seeing some very odd effects (and not good ones) on Japan from their demographic profile in the coming decades.

Such as?

407 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:27:53pm

re: #403 Dianna

Don't be ridiculous. I addressed stupidity when it was uttered by RB.

I'm not a member of LGF to be part of a baying pack, rending someone for not exactly agreeing with me.

Like fresh meat around here?

408 Pianobuff  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:28:11pm

re: #349 Occasional Reader

I don't think that's always the case. And I certainly don't think Mark Steyn is anything resembling a "neo-Nazi". There *is* a legitimate point to be made about the crashing birthrates in most Western countries (plus Japan). It's a very real phenomenon, with very real consequences.

There are those who take the command 'be fruitful and multiply' quite literally and deliberately.

409 Digital Display  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:28:22pm

re: #396 Cato the Elder

Just my opinion, but anyone who seriously believes this place we inhabit is no more than 6,000 years old excludes himself from all serious scientific discussion.

I agree Cato...Ignoring scientific evidence is beyond the Pale...
I hope that poster never needs a doctor..

410 SixDegrees  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:28:29pm

re: #378 Thanos

See Stewart Brand's presentation here; basically once you go Urban population pressure drifts down, birthrates decrease.

[Link: blog.ted.com...]

Correct. Falling birthrates are a worldwide trend. In fact, the UN expects world population to peak around 2050 at roughty 10 billion and decline to a plateau of between 7 and 8 billion thereafter, with worldwide economic expansion being a primary factor.

411 bofhell  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:28:37pm

re: #396 Cato the Elder

Just my opinion, but anyone who seriously believes this place we inhabit is no more than 6,000 years old excludes himself from all serious scientific discussion.

Assuming the existence of an all-powerful G-d, how can you prove G-d did not create the Earth and the Universe to appear to be several billion years old?

I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the proposition, merely pointing out that it is impossible to directly prove the point, only to assert that the physical evidence is consistent with the Earth and the Universe being of a certain age.

412 Occasional Reader  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:29:35pm

re: #402 Walter L. Newton

I would go further and say it would exclude them from any serious discussion at all.

On that, I disagree. I know smart people who are YECists. Smart people, in fact, who could teach either of us on a number of subjects. Why they believe in YEC, I can't quite fathom, but it would be foolish of me to dismiss them in every other area.

413 Dianna  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:29:38pm

re: #404 medaura18586

There, there... You are casting aspersions with abandon...

Nope.

I'm noting what has been posted in my presence, which appears to be confused and a bit shaky.

414 bratwurst  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:29:42pm

re: #394 Diamond Bullet

There is a vast sea of moderates out there that just want a fiscal conservative who won't also try to mandate that schools teach that the Earth is 5,000 years old and that fake dinosaur bones were embedded in sedimentary layers for future generations to find because God is one tricky S.O.B.

If only the politicians representing this sea weren't all keeping their heads down at present for fear of being labeled a RINO by Rush, et al.

415 Randall Gross  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:30:03pm

re: #379 anduril3019

I'll brace myself for the flogging, but yes, I do believe in a young earth and do not believe in evolution as it pertains to origin of life and origin of the human species. Now I'll brace for a flogging from the other side, I also don't have a big problem with evolution being taught in public schools and don't think creation or any variant of it ought to be taught.

I have no problems with that. Where YEC'ers go wrong is when they try to force that belief onto others. It's like the Amish, I pull into the other lane when I pass their buggies, don't look down on them, and buy their cheese (some of the best in the US).

416 Occasional Reader  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:30:21pm

re: #406 Thanos

Such as?

Trying to support more and more retirees with fewer and fewer workers.

417 Hawaii69  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:30:27pm

re: #305 bofhell

Oh, I don't know, there is always the news that Jon Gosselin has been fired from "Jon and Kate plus Eight".

I'm waiting for the blowout over whether or not to have the kids vaccinated for swine flu.

Plus...how do we know that Jon was born in the United States? I've never seen his original birth certificate.

418 Bagua  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:30:57pm

re: #364 Salamantis

Interesting, however at present it does appear that the Western world has mostly bought into the idea of the world being overpopulated, this partly influencing low reproductive rates. Yet they are finding that this leaves an insufficient next generation to support the prior ones. The shortfall is being filled through immigration from cultures who have not taken on-board this meme. T

The world population continues to expand, not contract, including the more prosperous Western countries.

419 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:31:01pm

re: #411 bofhell

Assuming the existence of an all-powerful G-d, how can you prove G-d did not create the Earth and the Universe to appear to be several billion years old?

I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the proposition, merely pointing out that it is impossible to directly prove the point, only to assert that the physical evidence is consistent with the Earth and the Universe being of a certain age.

And why should people reverence a duplicitous deity that would inscribe lies in the book of nature?

420 Randall Gross  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:31:25pm

re: #416 Occasional Reader

Trying to support more and more retirees with fewer and fewer workers.

I think they will have that covered, they are doing great in robotics.

421 Right Brain  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:31:25pm

re: #307 Salamantis

You obviously don't know the difference between memetic evolution and genetic evolution.

Genes are physical characteristics that exercise configurational control and evolve within a species by means of mutation and natural selection; they are replicated through sexual reproduction between members of that species, and are naturally selected for by the differential rates of survival to reproduction of those who possess them (and the configurations of which they are templates) vs. those who don't, or possess different ones.

Memes, on the other hand, are mental/cognitive characteristics that exercise behavioral control, mutate within the minds of their holders, and multiply by being passed between them via communication or imitation. They are replicated by being spread from intentionally or inadvertently teaching carriers to learning recipients, who either intentionally or inadvertently select to accept or reject them, by means of communicative behaviors, such as showing, telling or writing. They evolve by means of the differential selection rates of some memetic variants vs. others

Egads, one would have to eject the entire project of evolutionary psychology to accept this silly partition of configuration vs. communication. Yes, nature vs. nurture. Nice new package, same old, same old.

Here's one for you, its the sentence that ended the enlightenment, from the Critique of Pure Reason (such as your attempt), said by Immanuel Kant:

"Everything perceived is located in space."

Meme or configured?

422 Occasional Reader  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:31:40pm

Later.

423 jaunte  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:31:40pm

Some more info about falling birthrates.

In some Muslim ­countries—­Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Lebanon—fertility rates have already fallen to ­near-­European levels. Algeria and Morocco, each with a fertility rate of 2.4, are both dropping fast toward such levels. Turkey is experiencing a similar trend.

Revisions made in the 2008 version of the UN’s World Population Prospects Report make it clear that this decline is not simply a Middle Eastern phenomenon. The report suggests that in Indonesia, the country with the world’s largest Muslim population, the fertility rate for the years 2010–15 will drop to 2.02, a shade below replacement level. The same UN assessment sees declines in Bangladesh (to 2.2) and Malaysia (2.35) in the same period. By 2050, even Pakistan is expected to reach a replacement-level ­fertility rate.

he falling fertility rates in large segments of the Islamic world have been matched by another significant shift: Across northern and western Europe, women have suddenly started having more babies. Germany’s minister for the family, Ursula von der Leyen, announced in February that the country had recorded its second straight year of increased births. Sweden’s fertility rate jumped eight percent in 2004 and stayed put. Both Britain and France now project that their populations will rise from the current 60 million each to more than 75 million by ­mid­century. Germany, despite its recent uptick in births, still seems likely to drop to 70 million or less by 2050 and lose its status as Europe’s most populous country.
Muslim Birthrates Falling Worldwide

424 bofhell  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:32:26pm

re: #417 Hawaii69

I'm waiting for the blowout over whether or not to have the kids vaccinated for swine flu.

Plus...how do we know that Jon was born in the United States? I've never seen his original birth certificate.

This just in...

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin announces that Jon Gosselin is really her long lost son. Tape at 11...

425 medaura18586  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:32:35pm

re: #413 Dianna

Nope.

I'm noting what has been posted in my presence, which appears to be confused and a bit shaky.

Au contraire, it appears to me lucid and internally consistent in its craziness.

426 Dianna  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:32:45pm

re: #421 Right Brain

That was one of the most garbled things I've seen in a while.

What on earth did you mean?

427 Racer X  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:33:11pm

re: #411 bofhell

Assuming the existence of an all-powerful G-d, how can you prove G-d did not create the Earth and the Universe to appear to be several billion years old?

Wouldn't that be deceitful?

428 Randall Gross  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:33:19pm

re: #423 jaunte

This trend is only bad in Gaza, the West Bank, and Afghanistan, however even there the births per woman are falling.

429 Dianna  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:33:36pm

re: #425 medaura18586

Au contraire, it appears to me lucid and internally consistent in its craziness.

#421 was lucid?

430 Dianna  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:33:54pm

re: #429 Dianna

#421 was lucid?

Aside from quoting Kant, of course.

431 medaura18586  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:34:23pm

re: #429 Dianna

#421 was lucid?

In its craziness... not confused, but confident in craziness. Lucid insanity, if you will. It's plain to everyone here what s/he is aiming at, except for you, it appears.

432 bofhell  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:34:44pm

re: #419 Salamantis

And why should people reverence a duplicitous deity that would inscribe lies in the book of nature?

Because Hashem created (and according to Jewish theology continues to create) the world in an organic fashion so that we can understand it. If plants mystically sprang forth fully bloomed at random intervals, it wouldn't provide much incentive to create agriculture.

433 SixDegrees  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:34:45pm

re: #411 bofhell

Assuming the existence of an all-powerful G-d, how can you prove G-d did not create the Earth and the Universe to appear to be several billion years old?

I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the proposition, merely pointing out that it is impossible to directly prove the point, only to assert that the physical evidence is consistent with the Earth and the Universe being of a certain age.

First, this is a demand for a negative proof or Argument from Ignorance, a long-recognized fallacy. Second, it relies on the existence of a supernatural being of limitless power who exists completely outside the realm of rational inquiry; this places any discussion of such a possibility completely outside the realm of science, which relies on observation of the physical world and reason to arrive at conclusions which are consistent with those observations.

434 Hawaii69  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:34:59pm

re: #353 Walter L. Newton

No kidding, and why in the world would anyone care. The little I do know makes me want to puke. This is about as exciting as putting a hidden camera in my pocket lint.


Oh, I don't know. That show is a useful tool in deciding whether or not to take fertility drugs...

435 Cato the Elder  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:34:59pm

re: #411 bofhell

Assuming the existence of an all-powerful G-d, how can you prove G-d did not create the Earth and the Universe to appear to be several billion years old?

And he would do this why? To create arguments among tailless apes?

436 anduril3019  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:34:59pm

re: #390 Walter L. Newton

I think any candidate ought to be honest about their beliefs and take what comes of it. While my political leanings originate in my faith, I don't think that's the argument you make in a pluralistic society. I guess I'd need a more specific example of how it pertains to politics, but in short, no.

437 anduril3019  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:35:56pm

re: #390 Walter L. Newton

Sorry for the double negative, I meant "no" it shouldn't be a part of politics.

438 Dianna  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:36:09pm

re: #431 medaura18586

In its craziness... not confused, but confident in craziness. Lucid insanity, if you will. It's plain to everyone here what s/he is aiming at, except for you, it appears.

Considering that I missed over 80 comments, perhaps that is the case. The comments I saw do not seem more than confused.

Prior to #421, that is.

439 albusteve  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:36:10pm

re: #434 Hawaii69

Oh, I don't know. That show is a useful tool in deciding whether or not to take fertility drugs...

really...good grief, how stupid can people get?

440 Sharmuta  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:36:11pm

re: #436 anduril3019

Hi. Still wondering what, if any, evidence for evolution would convince you of its veracity.

441 Cato the Elder  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:36:13pm

One thing that I always wonder about: If I have no monkey in me, and was created out of Special Mud, why do I have a tailbone?

442 Right Brain  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:36:51pm

re: #309 Charles

Of all the weird rationalizations I've seen creationists come up with, this just might be the weirdest.

Sorry Charlie, not a creationist.

443 Hawaii69  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:37:21pm

re: #424 bofhell

This just in...

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin announces that Jon Gosselin is really her long lost son. Tape at 11...

According to Letterman, Jon Gosselin's new girlfriend is actually Bristol Palin


*rimshot*

444 Pianobuff  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:37:23pm

re: #426 Dianna

That was one of the most garbled things I've seen in a while.

What on earth did you mean?

transcendental argument?

445 bofhell  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:37:23pm

re: #427 Racer X

Wouldn't that be deceitful?

In the Akida, Hashem tells Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, but (unbeknownest to Abraham), this was a test. Was Hashem being deceitful then?

446 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:37:29pm

re: #437 anduril3019

Sorry for the double negative, I meant "no" it shouldn't be a part of politics.

Got it.

447 freetoken  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:37:42pm

re: #335 Right Brain

... Sarah Palin, at the time Governor of Alaska, in control of roughly 13% of the proven oil reserves ...

There were many reasons to down-ding your statement, this being one of them.

Sarah Palin was no more in "control" of the oil deposits in AK than she was of anything else that involved federal land and private companies.

Indeed, all the declining oil production of Alaska bought for Palin was the ability to duck serious questions about raising taxes on her people, as other governors must ordinarily face. Fortunately for her, she bailed on her state before the declining oil revenues got so low she would have had to seriously raise taxes, which wouldn't look good on her resume.

448 Racer X  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:38:21pm

re: #441 Cato the Elder

One thing that I always wonder about: If I have no monkey in me, and was created out of Special Mud, why do I have a tailbone?

To make it appear like you had monkey ancestors, so that future monkeys would argue about it.

/no, wait.

449 Sharmuta  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:38:34pm

re: #442 Right Brain

Sorry Right Brain, not buying it.

450 Bagua  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:38:40pm

re: #441 Cato the Elder

One thing that I always wonder about: If I have no monkey in me, and was created out of Special Mud, why do I have a tailbone?

Damn, it keeps getting stranger, you have a what?

451 eon  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:38:45pm

Well, Lizards, it's been fun and entertaining as always, but I have to go. Time to choose a movie for the night, and crash.

Most likely candidate; The Vampire Bat(1932) starring Lionel Atwill and Fay Wray.

Good night, Lizards.

Continue to evolve.

cheers

eon

452 bofhell  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:39:01pm

re: #435 Cato the Elder

And he would do this why? To create arguments among tailless apes?

Well, G-d had to do somethign for entertainment. Not like he had Kate Plus Eight to entertain him.

453 tradewind  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:39:53pm

re: #441 Cato the Elder

Everyone knows the answer to that: so that state and local spelling bees can weed out the weak ones before nationals.

454 Dianna  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:40:50pm

re: #444 Pianobuff

Now that is a truly worrisome thought!

455 Racer X  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:41:38pm

re: #445 bofhell

In the Akida, Hashem tells Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, but (unbeknownest to Abraham), this was a test. Was Hashem being deceitful then?

Or was man telling stories implying that God was deceitful.

456 Dianna  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:41:40pm

re: #442 Right Brain

You didn't think that was clever, did you?

Because it wasn't.

457 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:41:51pm

re: #421 Right Brain

Egads, one would have to eject the entire project of evolutionary psychology to accept this silly partition of configuration vs. communication. Yes, nature vs. nurture. Nice new package, same old, same old.

Actually, no. Such psychological predispositions as an avoidance of a visual cliff and a fear of snakes can well be products of long term environmental selection. But most of our ideas -whether true or not - have been communicated to us by others. As has the very language in which we apprehend them.

Here's one for you, its the sentence that ended the enlightenment, from the Critique of Pure Reason (such as your attempt), said by Immanuel Kant:

"Everything perceived is located in space."

Meme or configured?

First of all, it's incomlete; everything perceived is located in spacetime, and unlike Kant's illegitimate bifurcation of that seamless manifold into 'space' and 'time' because he was seduced by the predominance of spatiality in vision and the predominance of temporality in audition (even though both of those sensory modalities are spatiotemporal - taction, the most basic sensory modality, contains the aspects in equal measure).

And just because something can be memetically replicated does not render it true - or untrue. But the simpler lie tends to be more readily memetically replicated than the more complex truth. Which is why the belief in creationism tends to be such a vexingly pernicious phenomenon.

458 SixDegrees  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:42:03pm

re: #441 Cato the Elder

One thing that I always wonder about: If I have no monkey in me, and was created out of Special Mud, why do I have a tailbone?

Maybe God's original idea wasn't so hot, so he changed His mind, but still wasn't quite sure what He was doing...

...which raises all sorts of troubling issues.

459 medaura18586  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:42:15pm

re: #438 Dianna

Considering that I missed over 80 comments, perhaps that is the case. The comments I saw do not seem more than confused.

Prior to #421, that is.

Then maybe you should take the time to read those 80 comments before jumping on my throat for voicing what my experience with Right Brain's talking points indicates.

460 Right Brain  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:42:49pm

re: #354 Salamantis

I have not noticed any particular predominance of Christian creationism in the world's two most populous nations - China and India. And their problems with runaway reproduction are so great that in India, the government distributes free condoms, and in China, the government has gone to the draconian extent of mandating abortions.

You make it seem as if it would be a human success if our population reached a starving trillion.

Who said Christian? I haven't mentioned the word once, no what we saw was runaway Hindu, Zoroaster, Buddhist, Muslim, and Daoism creationism.

461 Dianna  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:43:47pm

re: #459 medaura18586

Then maybe you should take the time to read those 80 comments before jumping on my throat for voicing what my experience with Right Brain's talking points indicates.

No. There's only so much time in a day.

Speaking of which, I have a train to catch.

462 karmic_inquisitor  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:44:10pm

Let's not forget that karma is a bitch and paybacks are hell.

Santorum has plenty of bad Karma and paybacks coming his way from within the GOP.

Santorum went ape sh*t when it was obvious that McCain was going to get the nomination. He went on radio denouncing the man and tried to get the SoCons to protest vehemently and threaten to simply boycott the general election.

Why? Because McCain shot down the "nuclear option" with the Gang of 14. You may recall that Santorum and many other SoCon ideologues were upset that SoCon ideologues were not occupying enough Federal Courts as judges. Because Democrats were using the filibuster in the Senate to produce that outcome, Santorum was a big backer of an effort to basically gut the filibuster.

McCain saw the value of a filibuster in the Senate and undermined the Frist/Santorum fantasy about effecting SoCon absolute rule. So Santorum got much of the "RINO" screaming going when McCain was pulling ahead (partly due to SoCon fratricide in the primaries).

Fast forward to now. Think ObamaCare. Think 2010 elections.

You still want to get rid of the filibuster, SoCons?

McCain saved you from yourselves. And Santorum painted a target on his own back when he motivated "true believers" to stay home on election day.

463 Hawaii69  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:44:26pm

re: #447 freetoken

There were many reasons to down-ding your statement, this being one of them.

Sarah Palin was no more in "control" of the oil deposits in AK than she was of anything else that involved federal land and private companies.

Indeed, all the declining oil production of Alaska bought for Palin was the ability to duck serious questions about raising taxes on her people, as other governors must ordinarily face. Fortunately for her, she bailed on her state before the declining oil revenues got so low she would have had to seriously raise taxes, which wouldn't look good on her resume.

Hey, my Governor is "in control" of 20 attack submarines, and about a dozen surface warships...
not to mention 50,000 marines.

I mean...they're here, so they're ours! Don't mess
with us man!

464 Areopagitica  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:44:46pm

I don't get it. After it was trounced in the midterm elections during Bush II's 2nd term followed by vast gains of the democrats last november, why on god's green evolving earth would the GOP stick with the same narrow minded, jokester candidates that lost in those elections?

We went from a fairly far right social conservative government to a very far leftist government. Why would the electorate want to go right back to the other extreme?

Mike Huckabee isn't going to win. He is popular in a few southern states with large populations of social conservatives

Mitt Romney couldn't even defeat John McCain in the primary and I question some of the statements he made during that primary.

Bobby Jindal looked like a deer in the headlights when he made that public speech responding to Obama's state of the union address. His creationist anti-volcanologist platform isn't going to sit well in states that sit on fault lines and/or have volcanoes...such as Washington, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Arizona...etc.

Don't even get me started on that twit Sarah Palin. Why would anyone want to vote for a politician that has numerous financial related ethics problems, looked like a complete nutball and uneducated ditz on TV, spouts endless rants from the far-right play book and who quit her term as governor so she could sell some books that I will not waste money on at Borders to read.

Rick Santorum? OMG, please put the party that used to stand for lower taxes, defense, and capitalism and spending (within reason) out of its misery. Just what the GOP should run away from, another creationist Justice Sunday hack who infamously said that women belong at home cooking and cleaning. His role in the whole Terry Schaivo issue where he tried to undermine federalism to placate christian conservatives was shameful.

Any of these clowns will loose to Obama or Hillary in 2012 and it will be by a larger margin than what Obama defeated McCain by. If 2008 showed us anything, its that we live in a pretty much centralist country. Extremes don't always go over to well and alienate a lot of prospective voters.

Iran is on the path toward militarism in a way we havent seen since the late 1930's, the feds just broke up Zazi's terrorist plot, our spending is nuts, people need health insurance that doesn't involve the feds giving a handout, Student loans are out of control, the job market is in the toilet and some form of regulation needs to be put back on investment banks to prevent the behavior that caused the meltdown in the first place. Oh and Chicago wants the 2016 olympics. These issues are much greater in importance than so called judicial activism which runs rampant on both sides of the political spectrum, abortion-enough already, prayer in school, faith based federal programs, evangelicalism...etc.

465 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:44:46pm

re: #432 bofhell

Because Hashem created (and according to Jewish theology continues to create) the world in an organic fashion so that we can understand it. If plants mystically sprang forth fully bloomed at random intervals, it wouldn't provide much incentive to create agriculture.

And how does that relate to faking a 6000 year old earth and universe to appear to all empirical measurement to be respectively 4.6 million years old and 13.7 billion years old?

466 medaura18586  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:45:01pm

re: #460 Right Brain

Who said Christian? I haven't mentioned the word once, no what we saw was runaway Hindu, Zoroaster, Buddhist, Muslim, and Daoism creationism.

Oh, you're so eclectic in your creationist preferences. All those sub-branches of creationism will do it for you? Really? No favorites?

467 bofhell  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:45:22pm

re: #433 SixDegrees

First, this is a demand for a negative proof or Argument from Ignorance, a long-recognized fallacy. Second, it relies on the existence of a supernatural being of limitless power who exists completely outside the realm of rational inquiry; this places any discussion of such a possibility completely outside the realm of science, which relies on observation of the physical world and reason to arrive at conclusions which are consistent with those observations.

But is not the entire premise of religion that there exists such a being? [Or beings in the case of poly-theistic religions.]

The point I am driving it is we have physical objects that exhibit physical evidence of being a certain age. That's great and I'm all for this, especially as an indicator of how objects will act moving forward. I find the debate PER SE about whether the object is actually 5,770 years old or 4.5 billion years old or whether man evolved from apes or G-d simply created man and ape silly, because the important question is not "How did this come to be" but "Where the h-e-double-toothpicks is this going to go?"

468 tradewind  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:46:03pm

re: #464 Areopagitica

There's David Petraeus, you know...

469 jaunte  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:47:14pm

re: #442 Right Brain

Sorry Charlie, not a creationist.

You are demonstrating quite a few of the distinctive traits.

470 SixDegrees  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:47:19pm

re: #467 bofhell

But is not the entire premise of religion that there exists such a being? [Or beings in the case of poly-theistic religions.]

Yes, but it's a premise based on faith, not reason.

471 Cato the Elder  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:47:36pm

re: #450 Bagua

Damn, it keeps getting stranger, you have a what?

A coccyx, a residual tail.

At one point in embryonic development, we all have tails.

472 medaura18586  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:48:26pm

re: #461 Dianna

No. There's only so much time in a day.

Speaking of which, I have a train to catch.

Well, you sure are selective with your precious time. I'm so honored you're dedicating any of it to chewing me out for making sense.

473 Racer X  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:48:44pm

re: #464 Areopagitica

You left out immigration.

/pretty much covered everything else though.

474 bofhell  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:49:05pm

re: #470 SixDegrees

Yes, but it's a premise based on faith, not reason.

Well yes, religion requires belief, science requires proof, but my personal view is they are not incompatible with one another.

475 tradewind  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:49:08pm

re: #471 Cato the Elder
And we all started life as females with gills, too.
Ch-ch-changes...

476 bofhell  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:50:17pm

re: #471 Cato the Elder

A coccyx, a residual tail.

At one point in embryonic development, we all have tails.

And if you have anything resembling social skills as an adult, [bad pun redacted because I'm trying to be a good boychik.]

477 Racer X  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:50:57pm

Is it just me, or was that a catfight?

478 SixDegrees  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:52:13pm

re: #471 Cato the Elder

A coccyx, a residual tail.

At one point in embryonic development, we all have tails.

Yup. And sometimes, they are retained in adults, too.

Which brings up another crazy-ass assertion making the rounds on some blogs: that 0bama's nirth certificate in Africa was originally destroyed to hide the fact that he was born with a tail, which was removed in Kenya. Or something like that.

No, I'm not kidding. This idea actually had traction not that long ago. How could I make shit like that up?

479 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:52:15pm

re: #460 Right Brain

Who said Christian? I haven't mentioned the word once, no what we saw was runaway Hindu, Zoroaster, Buddhist, Muslim, and Daoism creationism.

All religions have creation myths. And all religions engage in memetic warfare against other religions by telling their adherents to be fruitful and multiply in order to outbreed their competititon.

The only connection between creationism and massive breeding is that they are both ideas that religions hold. They are not directly connected to each other in any cause and effect fashion whatsoever.

480 anduril3019  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:52:34pm

re: #401 Sharmuta

Good question. This is going to sound like a cop out, but I don't have a good answer off hand. It's wrapped up in worldview, faith, personal experience, and a host of other things. Creation/evolution is a small (but important) part of a bigger picture. Some elements of that bigger picture would have to be rocked for me to change my view. That doesn't mean I not willing to look and listen. For either side of the argument, were primarily talking about historical proof, not repeatable, experimental science, and I find plausible arguments (not proof mind you) based on physical evidence for my beliefs.

PS. again, using a bit of shorthand here in the interests of space and needing to get back to work

PSS. I know there are plenty of holes in my answer in terms of vocabulary, "proof", "theory" and all that, just trying to not avoid the question altogether.

481 SixDegrees  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:53:19pm

re: #474 bofhell

Well yes, religion requires belief, science requires proof, but my personal view is they are not incompatible with one another.

I don't believe they're incompatible at all. But they address entirely different realms of knowledge, and the realm containing the physical world falls squarely in the lap of science.

482 Right Brain  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:54:07pm

re: #364 Salamantis

The why is indeed eminently material; they do so because their religions tell them to. That's what makes it memetic rather than genetic. And it's not a good thing.

global lungs for farmland,

"Global lungs," good one! Yours? Got a book review due, will pinch it by next weekend.

483 Hawaii69  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:54:51pm

re: #464 Areopagitica


Don't even get me started on that twit Sarah Palin. Why would anyone want to vote for a politician that has numerous financial related ethics problems, looked like a complete nutball and uneducated ditz on TV, spouts endless rants from the far-right play book and who quit her term as governor so she could sell some books that I will not waste money on at Borders to read.

Interesting thing about Palin is that she was well liked by a lot of Democrats in Alaska State politics. They found her pleasant to work with, and willing to compromise. She used to bring them muffins.

One Alaska Democrat, who said she used to consider Palin a friend, said that Palin wouldn't even look at her when she tried to say hello more recently.

Seems that the Vice Presidential nomination was the opportunity to reveal her true identity as Darth Palinous...

484 Sharmuta  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:56:19pm

re: #480 anduril3019

That doesn't mean I not willing to look and listen. For either side of the argument, were primarily talking about historical proof, not repeatable, experimental science, and I find plausible arguments (not proof mind you) based on physical evidence for my beliefs.

There are evolutionary experiments that can be repeated in a lab, but I'm wondering what empirical evidence you might need to accept evolution since empirical evidence for faith isn't possible.

485 Randall Gross  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:58:41pm

OT:
The other Hsu drops...
[Link: online.wsj.com...]

486 erraticsphinx  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:59:44pm

re: #480 anduril3019


There is no physical evidence, none whatsoever, for a young earth. Or creationism.

Not an attack, I'm just stating a fact.

487 tradewind  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 3:59:46pm

Speaking of elections, I know this shouldn't make me feel so happy, but somehow it just does. maybe a little schadenfreude now and then won't hurt...
[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

488 Mich-again  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:00:30pm

re: #271 Right Brain

Unless you're lying to yourself, on Darwinian terms, nature is selecting for creationists: they reproduce and control the resources, over and over again, throughout the world, from culture to culture.

My three kids will be the people who the offspring of the anti-science creationists will call "boss" someday. Ha.

489 Randall Gross  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:00:41pm

On the moonbat front, Berkeley trying to join the UN.

490 Mich-again  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:01:42pm

re: #483 Hawaii69

She used to bring them muffins.

The whole thing or just the stumps?

491 Charles Johnson  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:03:34pm

re: #442 Right Brain

Sorry Charlie, not a creationist.

Heh. Right.

492 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:04:32pm

re: #489 Thanos

On the moonbat front, Berkeley trying to join the UN.

I say if they're willing to take over our dues, they can have our seat.

493 tradewind  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:04:54pm

re: #489 Thanos
I don't find that at all incongruous. After all, the UN has devolved into little more than a cabal of third-world nations attempting to assert their power over first-world nations by writing sanctions and fiats, so they'll fit right in.

494 albusteve  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:07:18pm

re: #492 EmmmieG

I say if they're willing to take over our dues, they can have our seat.


in fact, move the whole dismal entity out there...they deserve each other

495 SixDegrees  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:09:19pm

re: #494 albusteve

in fact, move the whole dismal entity out there...they deserve each other

Couldn't we move both dismal entities to, say, Somalia? Where their ideological pronouncements could, you know, be put into direct practice for the good of the otherwise unfortunate natives.

496 albusteve  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:10:19pm

re: #495 SixDegrees

Couldn't we move both dismal entities to, say, Somalia? Where their ideological pronouncements could, you know, be put into direct practice for the good of the otherwise unfortunate natives.

dood, get unreal

497 tradewind  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:11:22pm

re: #485 Thanos

HRC just smiles and thinks ' Hsu's sorry now'...

498 bofhell  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:14:05pm

OT: Some Republicans are complaining that the President's decision to lead the delegation to Copenhagen for a day (Friday) this week is a poor choice because we are at war in Afghanistan and Iraq (or words to that effect).

I'm kinda confused here. The President clearly has demonstrated a certain "star power" that attracts attention. Bringing the 2016 Olympics to the United States is a good idea, right? Brings in revenue to this country, yada yada yada. Why in the world would we NOT want to send our A-List publicizers?

499 Right Brain  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:15:12pm

re: #457 Salamantis

Actually, no. Such psychological predispositions as an avoidance of a visual cliff and a fear of snakes can well be products of long term environmental selection. But most of our ideas -whether true or not - have been communicated to us by others. As has the very language in which we apprehend them.

The visual cliff is a classic conundrum of "things we already know" that would seem to result from experience, for those not up to Salamantis' knowledge, it goes like this:

Two desks are set three feet apart and a piece of clear plexiglass placed between them, any baby will crawl to the edge of the first desk but will not cross the clear plexiglass to the next desk, they have no experience with falling yet they know they will fall and get hurt if they "crawl" into space. Its an experiment done to show how much exists in the human brain that we assume would come with experience, ie a disproof of the tabula rasa (blank slate) theories so popular during the European enlightenment.

Have to make dinner, night all.

500 albusteve  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:17:02pm

re: #498 bofhell

OT: Some Republicans are complaining that the President's decision to lead the delegation to Copenhagen for a day (Friday) this week is a poor choice because we are at war in Afghanistan and Iraq (or words to that effect).

I'm kinda confused here. The President clearly has demonstrated a certain "star power" that attracts attention. Bringing the 2016 Olympics to the United States is a good idea, right? Brings in revenue to this country, yada yada yada. Why in the world would we NOT want to send our A-List publicizers?

carbon footprint is just too great...why contribute to AGW for money?...yada yada yada

501 SixDegrees  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:17:54pm

re: #498 bofhell

OT: Some Republicans are complaining that the President's decision to lead the delegation to Copenhagen for a day (Friday) this week is a poor choice because we are at war in Afghanistan and Iraq (or words to that effect).

I'm kinda confused here. The President clearly has demonstrated a certain "star power" that attracts attention. Bringing the 2016 Olympics to the United States is a good idea, right? Brings in revenue to this country, yada yada yada. Why in the world would we NOT want to send our A-List publicizers?

I don't understand what all the bitching's about, either, except as yet another example of Daily Outrage over whatever it is that 0bama is doing.

502 bofhell  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:19:38pm

re: #500 albusteve

carbon footprint is just too great...why contribute to AGW for money?...yada yada yada

There will be a 2016 Olympics, so I would suggest the question of a carbon footprint, while real, is not whether we should contribute, but how can we minimize it?

503 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:21:00pm

re: #502 bofhell

There will be a 2016 Olympics, so I would suggest the question of a carbon footprint, while real, is not whether we should contribute, but how can we minimize it?

If it is held in the US, will it count against the US's carbon footprint, which is a subject of much International Whining? In that case pawn it off on France and make them take it out of their "allowance."

504 [deleted]  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:21:29pm
505 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:22:05pm

re: #499 Right Brain

The visual cliff is a classic conundrum of "things we already know" that would seem to result from experience, for those not up to Salamantis' knowledge, it goes like this:

Two desks are set three feet apart and a piece of clear plexiglass placed between them, any baby will crawl to the edge of the first desk but will not cross the clear plexiglass to the next desk, they have no experience with falling yet they know they will fall and get hurt if they "crawl" into space. Its an experiment done to show how much exists in the human brain that we assume would come with experience, ie a disproof of the tabula rasa (blank slate) theories so popular during the European enlightenment.

Have to make dinner, night all.

I didn't deny that such environmental-selection-inculcated psychological predispositions exist (in fact, it was I who brought up the visual cliff, as well as the fear of snakes); what I DID state is that our brains harbor far more memetically received ideas than they do genetically determined ones.

How else to explain the plethora of human languages, or the fact that they also undergo evolution via random mutation and nonrandom selection? The less efficient ones are progressively becoming extinct. And how else to explain religious and political stances and sociocultural trends? Kids aren't born with such things.

506 bofhell  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:23:15pm

re: #503 EmmmieG

If it is held in the US, will it count against the US's carbon footprint, which is a subject of much International Whining? In that case pawn it off on France and make them take it out of their "allowance."

True that, but the Earth is a closed system. If the footprint occurs in Paris, France or Paris, Virginia, doesn't much matter.

507 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:23:23pm

re: #306 researchok

I can assure you that if it came out that Barack Obama brought home the corpse of an infant child to 'teach' his daughters some kind of lesson and then slept with dead infant overnight, the right would have gome wild and be all over the 'perversions'' and the 'cruelty' of the Obama's.

True, they would have. However, it wouldn't have been their business either.

508 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:23:58pm

re: #505 Salamantis

I didn't deny that such environmental-selection-inculcated psychological predispositions exist (in fact, it was I who brought up the visual cliff, as well as the fear of snakes); what I DID state is that our brains harbor far more memetically received ideas than they do genetically determined ones.

How else to explain the plethora of human languages, or the fact that they also undergo evolution via random mutation and nonrandom selection? The less efficient ones are progressively becoming extinct. And how else to explain religious and political stances and sociocultural trends? Kids aren't born with such things.

The one I swear by is that babies are born with multiple cries, and they try them out until they find the one that gets the fastest reaction. In other words, they learn how to stand your hair on end, fast.

509 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:24:20pm

re: #506 bofhell

True that, but the Earth is a closed system. If the footprint occurs in Paris, France or Paris, Virginia, doesn't much matter.


You are correct scientifically, but not politically.

510 Charles Johnson  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:24:22pm

re: #504 kaziggy2

Quel idiot! Au revoir!

511 albusteve  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:24:25pm

re: #501 SixDegrees

I don't understand what all the bitching's about, either, except as yet another example of Daily Outrage over whatever it is that 0bama is doing.

I think if there were no summer olympics in Chicago, about 99.9% of Americans would say, ho hum...the remainder would be scrambling for the trash concession...instant millionairs

512 albusteve  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:25:27pm

re: #510 Charles

Quel idiot! Au revoir!

Fwensh!

513 bofhell  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:25:59pm

re: #509 EmmmieG

You are correct scientifically, but not politically.

DAMN! I hate when I'm rational...

514 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:26:03pm

re: #512 albusteve

Fwensh!

Careful about making fun of the French. You're treading on thin ice with me if you do.

515 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:27:25pm

re: #371 Salamantis

But popular opinion is not the same as fact. The earth didn't use to be a flat disc circled by the sun, only morphing into a sun-circling sphere when popular opinion changed.

But why not, Sal? That would have been the democratic, fair way to handle it.

//

516 freetoken  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:27:46pm

re: #512 albusteve

Fwensh!

Speaking of them... I put in the spinoffs an editorial asking if Polanski were a pedophile priest would the French leaders be so willing to him.

517 albusteve  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:29:21pm

re: #514 Walter L. Newton

Careful about making fun of the French. You're treading on thin ice with me if you do.

I'm not making fun of the French...but now I might just to piss you off...I'm a narrow minded monoliguiloid

518 Digital Display  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:29:43pm

re: #511 albusteve

I think if there were no summer olympics in Chicago, about 99.9% of Americans would say, ho hum...the remainder would be scrambling for the trash concession...instant millionairs

If Chicago gets the Olympics in 2016 I'll be spending 2 weeks up there..4 hours away...I love the Olympics...And if Chicago goes broke holding them..
It's just icing on the cake...

519 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:29:44pm

re: #514 Walter L. Newton

Careful about making fun of the French. You're treading on thin ice with me if you do.

I'm dying with curiosity--why? (Why the French in particular, I mean.)

520 freetoken  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:30:52pm

The Back-to-the-Cretaceous movement is in full swing and have produced another slick commercial:

Ahh... were is LVQ when you need him?

521 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:31:09pm

Please pause for a public announcement:

So far, Italicus' post #135 has received 30 downdings. Its only upding came from princetrumpet.

That is all.

522 albusteve  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:31:54pm

re: #518 HoosierHoops

If Chicago gets the Olympics in 2016 I'll be spending 2 weeks up there..4 hours away...I love the Olympics...And if Chicago goes broke holding them..
It's just icing on the cake...

I'm more of a winter olympics type...snow skiing

523 Charles Johnson  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:32:08pm

re: #520 freetoken

The Back-to-the-Cretaceous movement is in full swing and have produced another slick commercial:


[Video]

Ahh... were is LVQ when you need him?

Arrrggghhh! That's the climate change version of creationism. What the hell is wrong with these people?

524 freetoken  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:32:47pm

I predict that commercial by "co2isgreen" will be a big hit in the right-o-sphere.

525 bofhell  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:32:51pm

re: #523 Charles

Arrrggghhh! That's the climate change version of creationism. What the hell is wrong with these people?

That time of the month?

526 MandyManners  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:33:26pm

Aren't there people who don't believe in plate tectonics? How would they explain what happened today?

527 jaunte  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:33:39pm

re: #520 freetoken

I wonder what evidence they claim t have that more CO2 will result in a "greener earth?"

528 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:33:53pm

re: #478 SixDegrees

Yup. And sometimes, they are retained in adults, too.

Which brings up another crazy-ass assertion making the rounds on some blogs: that 0bama's nirth certificate in Africa was originally destroyed to hide the fact that he was born with a tail, which was removed in Kenya. Or something like that.

No, I'm not kidding. This idea actually had traction not that long ago. How could I make shit like that up?

Kenyan birth certificates report genetic oddities in babies?

Also, where in the Constitution or any subsequent material is is written that the President can't have a tail?

529 MandyManners  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:34:01pm

re: #525 bofhell

*whack*

530 freetoken  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:34:19pm

re: #523 Charles

However, the BttC movement has some really, really big $$$ behind it, while the creationists often get by on much smaller donations (except where funded by Ahmanson.)

531 MandyManners  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:34:45pm

re: #528 SanFranciscoZionist

Kenyan birth certificates report genetic oddities in babies?

Also, where in the Constitution or any subsequent material is is written that the President can't have a tail?

Clinton and Kennedy...oh, never mind.

532 Sharmuta  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:35:11pm

re: #527 jaunte

I wonder what evidence they claim t have that more CO2 will result in a "greener earth?"

None?

533 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:35:18pm

re: #494 albusteve

in fact, move the whole dismal entity out there...they deserve each other

Hold on. I live, like, twenty miles from Berkeley, and we don't want them either.

534 Bagua  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:35:25pm

re: #471 Cato the Elder

A coccyx, a residual tail.

At one point in embryonic development, we all have tails.

Er, that was my attempt at humour.

535 [deleted]  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:36:07pm
536 Altermite  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:36:29pm

re: #499 Right Brain

The visual cliff is a classic conundrum of "things we already know" that would seem to result from experience, for those not up to Salamantis' knowledge, it goes like this:

Two desks are set three feet apart and a piece of clear plexiglass placed between them, any baby will crawl to the edge of the first desk but will not cross the clear plexiglass to the next desk, they have no experience with falling yet they know they will fall and get hurt if they "crawl" into space. Its an experiment done to show how much exists in the human brain that we assume would come with experience, ie a disproof of the tabula rasa (blank slate) theories so popular during the European enlightenment.

Have to make dinner, night all.

And that is a confirmation of some aspects of evolutionary psychology. But it hardly means that any 'learned thing' is a product of evolution, specifically religion/creationism.

Dawkins does make the argument that a predisposition to religion may have genetic roots. For the moment, lets accept that your claim that creationist societies are out-competing secular societies is true, despite the problems with it.
At the same time, lets accept your claim that the spread of religiosity (or however you may like to put it) is Darwinian, and not some stealth-Lamarkian form of memetic evolution.

Even accepting these two claims, we still don't conclude that secularists are being outcompeted, as the time you cover is no more than a handful of generations, if that. Consider the number of secularists 1000 or more years ago, compared to the number now. On a larger timescale, it simply doesn't fly.

Better yet, evolution in darwinian terms is now accepted as a change in allele frequency (%) in a population. Secularism has been booming in the west recently, and has been doing a fair job of it in many eastern, nonmuslim countries. A much larger percentage of the world's population is secular than was so even half a century ago.

537 freetoken  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:37:03pm

re: #527 jaunte

Because way back, before the dinosaurs, during the time when most of the coal beds were laid down, the earth was covered in swampy forests while the CO2 level in the atmosphere was quite a bit higher than today (and so was O2 btw.)

What the commercial brazenly leaves out is which life forms benefit from a much warmer earth: jellyfish, cockroaches, and 5 ton reptiles...

538 bofhell  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:37:13pm

re: #529 MandyManners

*whack*

Thank you sir may I have another...

539 Killgore Trout  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:37:20pm

Oh noes! More child brainwashing!
Michelle Obama to promote gardening on "Sesame Street"


U.S. first lady Michelle Obama is to kick off the 40th anniversary season of the children's TV show "Sesame Street" with a segment encouraging kids to plant gardens and eat healthy food.

Obama, who is planting a fruit and vegetable garden on the grounds of the White House, will appear in the November10 season debut of "Sesame Street" -- the educational show for kids that is broadcast in more than 120 countries around the world.

Producers said on Tuesday that Obama will teach the furry "residents" of Sesame Street about the benefits of growing a garden and healthy living, and will show children how to plant tomato, cucumber and lettuce seeds.

"All these seeds need to grow are sun, soil and water. If you eat these healthy foods, you're going to grow up to be big and strong, like me," Obama says.

Lettuce nip fascism in the bud!

540 albusteve  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:38:04pm

re: #539 Killgore Trout

Oh noes! More child brainwashing!
Michelle Obama to promote gardening on "Sesame Street"

Lettuce nip fascism in the bud!

COMMIE LETTUCE!

541 jaunte  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:38:13pm

re: #537 freetoken

CO2isGreen; stealth cockroach lobby!

542 Altermite  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:38:15pm

re: #527 jaunte

I wonder what evidence they claim t have that more CO2 will result in a "greener earth?"

Plants like CO2, etc etc etc.

It likely would create a greener earth. Large amounts of that would be massive algal blooms precipating coral die-offs.

543 Sharmuta  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:38:38pm

re: #539 Killgore Trout

Oh noes! More child brainwashing!
Michelle Obama to promote gardening on "Sesame Street"

Lettuce nip fascism in the bud!

We must get the kids to eat as much junk food as possible in retaliation!

544 Bagua  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:38:42pm

re: #527 jaunte

I wonder what evidence they claim t have that more CO2 will result in a "greener earth?"

Actually, I think it is pretty well established that enriching the atmospheric CO2 increases such things as crop yields, plant size, and so on. The inverse is also true.

545 bofhell  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:39:40pm

re: #539 Killgore Trout

Oh noes! More child brainwashing!
Michelle Obama to promote gardening on "Sesame Street"

Lettuce nip fascism in the bud!

What a place to plant a stake. This should be a piece in the Onion.

546 Gus  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:40:00pm

re: #520 freetoken

The Back-to-the-Cretaceous movement is in full swing and have produced another slick commercial:


Ahh... were is LVQ when you need him?

CO2 is not a pollutant? Well, it certainly can be and in higher concentrations it's toxic. Normal range is around 0.036%.

At higher levels:

# 1%, as can occur in a crowded auditorium with poor ventilation, can cause drowsiness with prolonged exposure.
# At 2% it is mildly narcotic and causes increased blood pressure and pulse rate, and causes reduced hearing.
# At about 5% it causes stimulation of the respiratory centre, dizziness, confusion and difficulty in breathing accompanied by headache and shortness of breath.
# At about 8% it causes headache, sweating, dim vision, tremor and loss of consciousness after exposure for between five and ten minutes.

Then there's carbon dioxide poisoning. I think it's safe to give this advertisement 4 Pinocchios.

547 jaunte  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:40:02pm

re: #544 Bagua

Of course there are always the unforeseen consequences of messing with a complex system, like decreased sunlight.

548 albusteve  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:40:36pm

re: #543 Sharmuta

We must get the kids to eat as much junk food as possible in retaliation!

FREEDOM FRIES!

549 freetoken  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:40:37pm

Just to show you that there is real $$$ behind this, they have variants of the commercial that target specific politicians:

Also note that in the video the large animals they show are recent evolutionary developments from the past few million years, of animals who have adapted to the cooler, glaciated climate in which we also developed!

550 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:40:54pm

re: #542 Altermite

Plants like CO2, etc etc etc.

It likely would create a greener earth. Large amounts of that would be massive algal blooms precipating coral die-offs.

Only to a certain extent. Too much CO2, and plants die just like us.

551 Killgore Trout  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:40:57pm

re: #540 albusteve

Malkin has another stupid story today about children being brainwashed into becoming union bosses or community organizers. Ya just have to laugh at this point. The stupid can not be stopped.

552 anduril3019  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:42:02pm

re: #484 Sharmuta

It's kind of like pornography, I'll know it when I see it.

–Edwin Meese?


Not trying to be evasive, but my full answer is a bit long for this venue.

553 Killgore Trout  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:42:05pm

re: #543 Sharmuta

We must get the kids to eat as much junk food as possible in retaliation!

Don't be surprised if they do that. Remember when conservatives all banded together to waste energy on earth day?

554 freetoken  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:42:09pm

re: #544 Bagua

Actually, I think it is pretty well established that enriching the atmospheric CO2 increases such things as crop yields, plant size, and so on. The inverse is also true.

Only if water, NPK, trace elements, and light are also available for additional growth.

555 bofhell  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:42:09pm

re: #547 jaunte

Of course there are always the unforeseen consequences of messing with a complex system, like decreased sunlight.

Sounds like my teenage years.

556 [deleted]  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:42:49pm
557 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:42:50pm

re: #551 Killgore Trout

Whatever happened to blaming Ozzy for brainwashing the youth? Is that not the "in thing" anymore?
/

558 poteen  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:42:54pm

re: #520 freetoken

Who are they?

559 Gus  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:42:57pm

re: #551 Killgore Trout

Malkin has another stupid story today about children being brainwashed into becoming union bosses or community organizers. Ya just have to laugh at this point. The stupid can not be stopped.

"Mommy, when I grow up I wanna be a union boss!"

//

560 freetoken  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:43:10pm

My point is this: just like with creationism, anywhere there are groups of people there is a pile of money, and someone will have a vested interest in continuing a social movement as long as there is money/power involved.

Facts be damned...

561 reine.de.tout  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:43:41pm

re: #557 Slumbering Behemoth

Whatever happened to blaming Ozzy for brainwashing the youth? Is that not the "in thing" anymore?
/

People have now seen Ozzy and family life.
And it's crystal clear he is so befuddled there is no way he could brainwash anybody.

562 jaunte  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:44:16pm

Sourcewatch on Plants need CO2
[Link: www.sourcewatch.org...]

563 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:44:18pm

re: #553 Killgore Trout

Don't be surprised if they do that. Remember when conservatives all banded together to waste energy on earth day?

Not this conservative. I thought it was childish and reactionary. And foolishly wasteful, which certainly is not a conservative value in my estimation.

564 albusteve  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:44:43pm

re: #551 Killgore Trout

Malkin has another stupid story today about children being brainwashed into becoming union bosses or community organizers. Ya just have to laugh at this point. The stupid can not be stopped.

I pay little heed...if people believe MM and her cultural charge, I can't stop them...we are witnessing just how far people will go to reassure themselves that some TV or web goon speaks for them...lots of insecurity out there...too bad it's not really funny

565 Bagua  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:44:54pm

re: #547 jaunte

Of course there are always the unforeseen consequences of messing with a complex system, like decreased sunlight.

Yes of course, this can not be viewed in isolation. However it is a factor, and one of the potential benefits of increased atmospheric CO2. It is estimated that one of the unintended benefits of the increase in Atm. CO2 is its effect on helping the agricultural revolution that is currently feeding the world.

re: #554 freetoken

Only if water, NPK, trace elements, and light are also available for additional growth.

Correct.

566 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:45:05pm

?

re: #543 Sharmuta

We must get the kids to eat as much junk food as possible in retaliation!

Hmmm...they're awfully young. Maybe I'll eat theirs for them. What a good mother I am.

567 reine.de.tout  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:45:07pm

re: #563 Slumbering Behemoth

Not this conservative. I thought it was childish and reactionary. And foolishly wasteful, which certainly is not a conservative value in my estimation.

I wuz right there with you, on that one.
And I'm still trying to not be foolishly wasteful, etc.

568 albusteve  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:45:43pm

re: #553 Killgore Trout

Don't be surprised if they do that. Remember when conservatives all banded together to waste energy on earth day?

right here..I was embarrassed a little

569 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:46:19pm

re: #552 anduril3019

It's kind of like pornography, I'll know it when I see it.

–Edwin Meese?

Not trying to be evasive, but my full answer is a bit long for this venue.

See if you might recognize it here:

[Link: www.newyorker.com...]

Or here:

[Link: myxo.css.msu.edu...]

570 avanti  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:46:20pm

re: #471 Cato the Elder

A coccyx, a residual tail.

At one point in embryonic development, we all have tails.

Rarely, humans are born with them, and some move.

571 [deleted]  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:46:53pm
572 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:47:34pm

Here we see how plant life reacts to high concentrations of CO2.

Too much of a 'good' thing?

573 Sharmuta  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:48:13pm

re: #552 anduril3019

I'm sorry- I don't buy it. No one here will think your answer to my question on what evidence would you accept for evolution's veracity to be too long.

Honestly- I think perhaps you're afraid to tell us what evidence you'd accept because we'd show it to you, and that will create the conflict with your faith you mentioned earlier- a conflict you fear.

I will again point out this book:

Saving Darwin: How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution

Mr. Giberson went into science to prove creationism true, and ended up coming to accept evolution. He is still a practicing Christian, and you might find his story relatable. I hope you'll look into it.

574 Cato the Elder  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:48:15pm

Meanwhile, the FB page of a local radio host is currently full of anti-vaxers who say they won't get the H1N1 shots for their kids. Because it's "control of the masses", and the flu, polio and TB are all being released by government labs. Either to kill us or just cause panic, I'm not sure which...

575 Bagua  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:49:04pm

re: #570 avanti

Rarely, humans are born with them, and some move.


[Video]

Cato is nothing if not rare.

/"I am unique, and therefore indispensable" - J. Clouseau

576 doubter4444  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:49:08pm

re: #364 Salamantis

The why is indeed eminently material; they do so because their religions tell them to. That's what makes it memetic rather than genetic. And it's not a good thing.

Ecological degradation may be divided into natural resource depletion and biosphere pollution, but both have overpopulation as a root cause. Overpopulation drives us like lemmings to mow our global lungs for farmland, lumber and cattle pasture, sapping species diversity in the process. It drives us to strip-mine our eroding soil to build skyscrapers, cars and soda cans. It drives us to burn our fossil fuels, overheating our atmosphere and decimating our ozone sunscreen for the sake of light, mobility, plastic containers and air-conditioned comfort for a small percentage of our teeming billions. It drives us to turn our over-fished oceans into toxic cesspools when our rivers bear our pesticides, factory byproducts and sewage to the seas. Furthermore, the resulting competition for room and resources on a shrinking sphere has led our infant race to nurse the barrel of the nuclear gun.

It is ecologically imperative that we control our rate of reproduction generally, and the fundamental pillar of feminism that women must have the right to control their own reproduction individually. To this dovetailing of the calls of personal freedom and global necessity, the fundamentalist responds with an iron demand frozen for thousands of years in the face of catastrophically changing circumstances; you must be fruitful and multiply.

I favorited this comment.
Well said, so true.
Thank you

577 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:49:28pm

re: #561 reine.de.tout

It was a very sad day at The Behemoth Estate to watch a childhood hero and Metal Legend turn into a blubbering, shuffling zombie. A very sad day indeed.

578 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:50:20pm

re: #567 reine.de.tout

And I'm still trying to not be foolishly wasteful, etc.

High five, sister!

579 freetoken  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:50:22pm

One philosophical connection between the creationists and the anti-AGW-science crowd: Both refuse to accept that Homo sapiens is an animal that has evolved during the recent glaciated climate of the Pleistocene and Holocene!

The creationists and the anti-AGW-science movements are philosophical brothers, which is one reason why so many of the same personalities are involved.

580 bofhell  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:50:37pm

re: #574 Cato the Elder

Meanwhile, the FB page of a local radio host is currently full of anti-vaxers who say they won't get the H1N1 shots for their kids. Because it's "control of the masses", and the flu, polio and TB are all being released by government labs. Either to kill us or just cause panic, I'm not sure which...

OK, so let me see if I understand this.

These people do not want to inoculate themselves or their children against what they believe is a government engineered disease designed to kill them.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present Darwin at work...

581 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:52:06pm

re: #580 bofhell

OK, so let me see if I understand this.

These people do not want to inoculate themselves or their children against what they believe is a government engineered disease designed to kill them.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present Darwin at work...

I cannot forsee a US government that would want to pointlessly kill off taxpayers. (Taxpayers being the relevant word here.)

582 Kosh's Shadow  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:52:44pm

re: #580 bofhell

OK, so let me see if I understand this.

These people do not want to inoculate themselves or their children against what they believe is a government engineered disease designed to kill them.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present Darwin at work...

These idiots probably don't believe in evolution, either.

583 bofhell  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:53:14pm

re: #581 EmmmieG

I cannot forsee a US government that would want to pointlessly kill off taxpayers. (Taxpayers being the relevant word here.)

Neither do I. Again, Darwin at work...

584 jaunte  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:54:32pm

re: #549 freetoken

Just to show you that there is real $$$ behind this, they have variants of the commercial that target specific politicians:


Also note that in the video the large animals they show are recent evolutionary developments from the past few million years, of animals who have adapted to the cooler, glaciated climate in which we also developed!

One of the moneyed interests behind these commercials is Corbin Robertson, who is interested in protecting his investment in coal:

Robertson sits atop the largest private hoard in the nation--21 billion tons of reserves he has quietly amassed over three decades. That supply, second only to Uncle Sam's 92 billion tons, could fuel the entire U.S. demand for 20 years.[Link: www.forbes.com...]
585 bofhell  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:54:59pm

re: #582 Kosh's Shadow

These idiots probably don't believe in evolution, either.

These idiots make the residents of Chelm look like Einstein. Or Barney Frank.

586 tradewind  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:55:04pm

re: #553 Killgore Trout

No, and I don't know anyone else who did that, either.
But it makes a really attention-grabbing headline.

587 HelloDare  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:55:54pm
Another GOP Creationist with Presidential Hopes

Hey, it's only fair. Obama is the Antichrist. //

588 albusteve  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:56:22pm

re: #586 tradewind

No, and I don't know anyone else who did that, either.
But it makes a really attention-grabbing headline.

then you memory is bad, or you missed that thread

589 bofhell  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:57:37pm

By the way, ANOTHER quake occurred a few minutes ago -- 4.1 on the Richter scale, about 16 mi WSW of Raton, NM. [And while I know where Albuquerque, Santa Fe, Los Alamos, and Taos are in NM, I have no idea where Raton is.]

On that note, I'm off to make dinner. Buh Bye!

590 Charles Johnson  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:57:43pm

re: #579 freetoken

One philosophical connection between the creationists and the anti-AGW-science crowd: Both refuse to accept that Homo sapiens is an animal that has evolved during the recent glaciated climate of the Pleistocene and Holocene!

The creationists and the anti-AGW-science movements are philosophical brothers, which is one reason why so many of the same personalities are involved.

Absolutely -- there are a lot of similarities between the two crowds. Another is that they both like to try to snow people into buying their hooey, with reams of scientific-sounding jargon.

And they both use quote mining as a tactic.

And they both compile lists of "scientists" who they say are on their side, that are often packed with ringers, fakes, and people who never signed on to their lists.

And they both like to make their opponents chase down endless citations for articles and papers that turn out to: 1) say the exact opposite of what they claim, or 2) don't even relate to the subject under discussion, or 3) are written by kooks.

I could go on.

591 tradewind  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:58:17pm

re: #559 Gus 802

Haven't you ever seen a strike or labor protest where strikers marched around with their kids draped in sandwich boards wearing T shirts reading ' My Mommy's on strike to___'.?

592 albusteve  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:58:19pm

re: #589 bofhell

By the way, ANOTHER quake occurred a few minutes ago -- 4.1 on the Richter scale, about 16 mi WSW of Raton, NM. [And while I know where Albuquerque, Santa Fe, Los Alamos, and Taos are in NM, I have no idea where Raton is.]

On that note, I'm off to make dinner. Buh Bye!

up on the CO border...follow I-25

593 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:58:33pm

re: #519 EmmmieG

I'm dying with curiosity--why? (Why the French in particular, I mean.)

Had to leave for a bit. Sorry to leave you hanging, that was a little joke for Steve, he understands. Sorry.

594 tradewind  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 4:58:51pm

re: #588 albusteve

It might have been a thread, but it wasn't a factor here.

595 albusteve  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:00:23pm

re: #594 tradewind

It might have been a thread, but it wasn't a factor here.

lots of posters bragged about it...too many...just empty spite

596 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:00:47pm

re: #587 HelloDare

How many times to I have to say this?

Obama is not the antichrist. The antichrist is a catholic immigrant from Chile.
/

597 SpaceJesus  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:02:53pm

re: #592 albusteve

up on the CO border...follow I-25

does your name imply you too live in albuquerque?

598 tradewind  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:03:54pm

re: #595 albusteve

/They should have been spanked and sent to bed without supper./

599 SixDegrees  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:05:32pm

re: #528 SanFranciscoZionist

Kenyan birth certificates report genetic oddities in babies?

Also, where in the Constitution or any subsequent material is is written that the President can't have a tail?

Those promoting this theory admittedly left a lot of points unaddressed.

600 albusteve  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:05:51pm

re: #593 Walter L. Newton

Had to leave for a bit. Sorry to leave you hanging, that was a little joke for Steve, he understands. Sorry.

Chef Waltair...stirrin the pot

601 Gus  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:05:57pm

Allahpundit under attack by the knuckle dragging commentators at Hot Air.

602 albusteve  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:06:15pm

re: #597 SpaceJesus

does your name imply you too live in albuquerque?

yes

603 avanti  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:06:19pm

This is interesting, the Obama administration will fight the ACLU about a cross display.

ACLU.

604 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:06:37pm

re: #589 bofhell

By the way, ANOTHER quake occurred a few minutes ago -- 4.1 on the Richter scale, about 16 mi WSW of Raton, NM. [And while I know where Albuquerque, Santa Fe, Los Alamos, and Taos are in NM, I have no idea where Raton is.]

On that note, I'm off to make dinner. Buh Bye!

On the Co/New Mexico boarder, in New Mexico, Raton Pass is on 25, south of Trinidad Colorado.

605 albusteve  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:06:58pm

re: #598 tradewind

/They should have been spanked and sent to bed without supper./

they were resoundingly slapped...mostly in fun I presume

606 Sharmuta  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:07:00pm

re: #601 Gus 802

Allahpundit under attack by the knuckle dragging commentators at Hot Air.

I'd whip out the world's smallest violin and play something, but it's still in the shop getting repairs.

607 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:07:05pm

re: #600 albusteve

Chef Waltair...stirrin the pot

I fart in your direction.

608 tradewind  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:07:06pm

re: #581 EmmmieG
Don't get the H1N1 vaccine unless you don't mind having a microchip containing your religion and party affiliation, address and cell phone inserted via hypodermic needle. Because that's the plan, folks.

609 Gus  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:08:14pm

re: #606 Sharmuta

I'd whip out the world's smallest violin and play something, but it's still in the shop getting repairs.

I know where we can find a luthier. Not sure if he works on nano-violins though.

610 SpaceJesus  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:08:27pm

re: #602 albusteve

yes


let's be best friends

611 albusteve  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:08:53pm

re: #610 SpaceJesus

let's be best friends

no

612 Achilles Tang  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:09:04pm

re: #48 Equable

I click Charles' ads as much as I can.

Sheesh - these fundamentalists don't get it. I believe in intelligent design, but henceforth I shall never refer to myself as a "creationist".

If any fundamentalist creationists read this, allow me to educate you.

1. God made the universe, and all the neato stuff in it.
2. If this is so then God made science.
3. If this is so, that makes God a de facto scientist.

Follow me so far? No? Okay...

4. If God made all of this neat stuff and gave us the capacity to think it over, deduce and use your free will to formulate an idea, isn't it your charge as a "Christian" to say: "Wow God is great, lookit all this stuff - isn't it cool how smart God is? Hey everybody, check this out"?

5. If your faith in God is unflinching and all the proof is there, shouldn't you shut your mouth and STOP trying to cheapen God's efforts and STOP trying to disprove his prowess as a scientist?

After all, chances are he's a better scientist than you.

I've always wondered how things would have been if there was a religion with a commandment that said something like:

"You have been given intelligence in order to prove your worth by deciphering how this universe works, without reference to ME".

Maybe there would have been people on the moon, even before they populated Europe. Maybe a few Neanderthals would have come along too.

613 anduril3019  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:09:27pm

re: #573 Sharmuta

Glad to hear it's not too long for here, but it's too long for me to articulate right now (my shortcomings, not LGF's). I'll give it a shot later tonight or tomorrow but this thread might be a little dead by then.

I'll check out Giberson

614 SpaceJesus  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:09:30pm

re: #611 albusteve

no

:(

615 Canadian Guy  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:09:33pm

re: #601 Gus 802

Which thread is it today?

616 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:09:48pm

re: #611 albusteve

no

I second that emotion.

617 Mark Pennington  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:09:52pm

I'm agnostic and believe in evolution. Some of my family members are creationists and our arguments pretty much go exactly like this thread.
People get really very emotionally invested in the whole thing - so evolution can't possibly be allowed to be true because of simple denial, wishful thinking and hoping. For them, it is absolutely necessary for evolution to be false.

618 ArchangelMichael  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:10:14pm

It took until 504 for a real meltdown? I'm shocked. I guess we all lose our Quatloos.

619 Gus  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:10:29pm

re: #615 Canadian Guy

Which thread is it today?

Top one right now. Something about Glenn Beck's latest rant.

620 HelloDare  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:10:40pm

re: #579 freetoken

I'm missing your point. Doesn't the anti-AGW crowd cite the proximity of the last and next ice age when arguing their position.

621 Canadian Guy  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:11:06pm

re: #619 Gus 802

heh

622 Ojoe  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:11:30pm
623 SixDegrees  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:11:36pm

re: #590 Charles

Absolutely -- there are a lot of similarities between the two crowds. Another is that they both like to try to snow people into buying their hooey, with reams of scientific-sounding jargon.

And they both use quote mining as a tactic.

And they both compile lists of "scientists" who they say are on their side, that are often packed with ringers, fakes, and people who never signed on to their lists.

And they both like to make their opponents chase down endless citations for articles and papers that turn out to: 1) say the exact opposite of what they claim, or 2) don't even relate to the subject under discussion, or 3) are written by kooks.

I could go on.

This isn't at all surprising; anti-science across the board is the long-term goal of those now promoting creationism. Let's see what the Wedge Document has to say on these matters:

Twenty Year Goals

* To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
* To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.
* To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

This is part of the creationists Master Planning Document. I'm sure it's been discussed here before, but if you've never read it, you should. You need to see what you're up against - teaching creationism in the public schools is only a small, early step in their plans, and what follows is even more frightening. It also makes sense of a lot of seemingly disconnected attacks on science we're seeing across a wide spectrum of fields, because it's Rationalism itself that is under attack, and all of science as it's embodiment.

624 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:12:01pm

I am not anti AGW. In fact I accept that there is indeed global warming, and that human activity has contributed to it, and that negative consequences are entailed.

What I AM is anti AGW exaggeration. To misreresent the empirical evidence and the climatological consensus derived from it, or the effects that it might reasonably be expected to produce in the future, in either direction, are, to me, equally reprehensible.

625 ArchangelMichael  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:12:26pm

re: #617 beekiller

I'm agnostic and believe in evolution.

If you were agnostic and didn't believe in creationism, I think that it would be an example of colossal cognitive dissonance.

626 Racer X  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:12:29pm

Chinese artist Chen Wenling critiques the global financial crisis in What You See Might Not Be Real, on display at a Beijing gallery. The bull is said to represent Wall Street, while the man pinned to the wall represents jailed financier Bernard Madoff.

627 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:13:24pm

re: #624 Salamantis

I am not anti AGW. In fact I accept that there is indeed global warming, and that human activity has contributed to it, and that negative consequences are entailed.

What I AM is anti AGW exaggeration. To misreresent the empirical evidence and the climatological consensus derived from it, or the effects that it might reasonably be expected to produce in the future, in either direction, are, to me, equally reprehensible.

It's easy for you to say that when Ludwig is not here!
///

628 ArchangelMichael  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:13:25pm

re: #625 ArchangelMichael

If you were agnostic and didn't believe in creationism, I think that it would be an example of colossal cognitive dissonance.

doh... DID believe in creationism... PIMF

629 Sharmuta  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:14:02pm

re: #609 Gus 802

I know where we can find a luthier. Not sure if he works on nano-violins though.

Not sure if he cares in this particular case either. Heehee.

630 Canadian Guy  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:14:13pm

re: #619 Gus 802

He wrote:

if I were inclined to get on my knees and wish/hope/pray for intervention from either God or Barack Obama, I’d call out for The One too. After all, there’s at least a chance he might show.

Yeah, that's not good for business there.

631 albusteve  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:14:42pm

re: #627 Walter L. Newton

It's easy for you to say that when Ludwig is not here!
///

heh...I'm still investing in sandbags

632 Mark Pennington  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:15:31pm

re: #625 ArchangelMichael

I caught that and winced after I hit reply...a big DUH. :D

633 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:15:34pm

re: #627 Walter L. Newton

It's easy for you to say that when Ludwig is not here!
///

And just as easy for me to say it when he is - as most here full well know...;~)

634 marsl  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:16:27pm

Well, if I were American, I would begin to adjust myself to the idea of Obama staying 8 years in the White House... and with landslides victories...

635 albusteve  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:17:35pm

re: #633 Salamantis

And just as easy for me to say it when he is - as most here full well know...;~)

you're saying you don't believe that Key Biscayne will become a coral reef in 150 years?

636 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:17:58pm

re: #612 Naso Tang

For some reason that reminds me of an episode of Twilight Zone, where an alien race surrounds the planet with their ships. They tell the leaders of the world that we are their creations, and that they are sick of our petty squabbling and primitive wars, and if we don't straighten our shit out they would destroy us all.

The rest of the show is spent on all the world leaders getting together to scrap nukes, sign peace treaties, forget grievances, etc., culminating in unprecedented world peace.

When the aliens come back to see this, they express supreme disappointment in the fact that the world leaders "didn't get it". They created us to be warriors in their army, and complaint about our petty squabbling primitive wars was that it wasn't good enough for their warlike standards.

637 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:18:23pm

re: #633 Salamantis

And just as easy for me to say it when he is - as most here full well know...;~)

Well known... Got you covered.

638 Ojoe  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:18:26pm

re: #623 SixDegrees

Twenty Year Goals

* To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
* To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its influence in the fine arts.

That last part, which I bolded, is HIGHLY annoying to me because as a sincerely spiritual person I always try to do my best when I design buildings & as far as possible my work reflects who I really am.

And I don't go in for all the ID stuff.

So they want to change how I work & what I do because they think my work is somehow defective.

If I said more at this point I would be discourteous.

639 Sharmuta  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:18:54pm

re: #613 anduril3019

Glad to hear it's not too long for here, but it's too long for me to articulate right now (my shortcomings, not LGF's). I'll give it a shot later tonight or tomorrow but this thread might be a little dead by then.

I'll check out Giberson

I gave you a +1 for saying you'll look into the Giberson. I read it myself, and I think for a person of faith such as yourself, he handles the subject in a way that will not offend- and it's very readable. Good luck, and let me know what you thought of the book.

640 tradewind  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:19:09pm

re: #633 Salamantis
Oh, it's so on... :)
We're going to school tonight for sure.

641 albusteve  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:19:16pm

re: #634 marsl

Well, if I were American, I would begin to adjust myself to the idea of Obama staying 8 years in the White House... and with landslides victories...

a landslide in 2012 is almost sure to not happen

642 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:19:47pm

re: #634 marsl

Well, if I were American, I would begin to adjust myself to the idea of Obama staying 8 years in the White House... and with landslides victories...

I fear you are correct.

643 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:20:17pm

re: #635 albusteve

you're saying you don't believe that Key Biscayne will become a coral reef in 150 years?

Not unless it's all less than 6 feet above sea level.

644 albusteve  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:20:54pm

re: #642 Slumbering Behemoth

I fear you are correct.

the Messiah vs Lord Huckaby?...too close to call, imo

645 tradewind  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:21:01pm

re: #641 albusteve

Well, look at the bright side... there'll be teenagers, and you know they'll be just as hard on them as they were on the twins.
///

646 Ojoe  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:22:07pm

re: #641 albusteve

If you join the Modern Whig Party, you can help make a Whig landslide.
Modern Whig Party.

647 Irish Rose  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:22:17pm

Evening, lizards... just sitting down to a late dinner.
Did we lose anyone today?

648 tradewind  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:22:45pm

re: #644 albusteve

Look for the GOP to draft one of the generals that TOTUS is so fond of ignoring.
Petraeus has already expressed an interest. Depending on how it goes in AF and IR, that could be really effective.

649 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:23:05pm

re: #640 tradewind

Oh, it's so on... :)
We're going to school tonight for sure.

I have a shitload of current and climatologically sound articles bookmarked for just such pedagogical purposes.

650 albusteve  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:23:12pm

re: #646 Ojoe

If you join the Modern Whig Party, you can help make a Whig landslide.
Modern Whig Party.

I don't do political parties...nothing against the Whigs

651 tradewind  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:23:17pm

re: #647 Irish Rose

Does a fat baby burp?
///

652 Achilles Tang  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:23:23pm

re: #617 beekiller

I'm agnostic and believe in evolution. Some of my family members are creationists and our arguments pretty much go exactly like this thread.
People get really very emotionally invested in the whole thing - so evolution can't possibly be allowed to be true because of simple denial, wishful thinking and hoping. For them, it is absolutely necessary for evolution to be false.

I updinged you, then on reading again I changed my mind, for one fundamental reason, simple as it may seem.

You said you believe in evolution. If you rephrase you can say you understand evolution, or you can say you have enough understanding to believe those who do understand more than you; but otherwise you are an agnostic on this too.

653 albusteve  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:24:57pm

re: #648 tradewind

Look for the GOP to draft one of the generals that TOTUS is so fond of ignoring.
Petraeus has already expressed an interest. Depending on how it goes in AF and IR, that could be really effective.

however it turns, it will be one of the most intriguing elections I recall...the last being the most so far

654 Ojoe  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:25:13pm

re: #650 albusteve

OK

655 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:26:04pm

re: #520 freetoken

The Back-to-the-Cretaceous movement is in full swing and have produced another slick commercial:


[Video]

Ahh... were is LVQ when you need him?

Lo, I have been summoned! And for what? THIS EVIL TRIPE!

You are supposed to be my friend... You are not supposed to make my head want to pop!

But ok...

So first off this is no more than an evil ID like attempt to distort facts and make an utterly false series of claims.

The Earth is warming there is tons of evidence of it.

Too much CO2 will not help plants and animals at all. In fact it will cause die offs.

This is astonishing, This is essentially the idiots who chant that CO2 is plant food and think that they are being clever.

Look, at the end off the day, while these people lie like this, the problems grow and they are endangering lives. The only way the government will act is if this gets taken seriously by the people, and these bastards know this.

Much like so many others, they will feel no responsibility for the consequences of their lies.

656 Mr Pancakes  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:26:54pm

re: #577 Slumbering Behemoth

It was a very sad day at The Behemoth Estate to watch a childhood hero and Metal Legend turn into a blubbering, shuffling zombie. A very sad day indeed.

I love Ozzy... don't get me wrong SB.

I saw Black Sabbath, 1972 in San Diego (the movie Almost Famous was based on that concert).

He was a blubbering shuffling zombie then... that's part of his charm.

657 Achilles Tang  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:28:01pm

re: #636 Slumbering Behemoth

Yeah, I know what you mean. I labored for several minutes on that sentence in order to remove the more obvious catch 22's, but shit happens and after thousands of years of experimentation and countless extinct gods none of them have come up with that concept. Must be an evolutionary barrier.//

658 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:28:47pm

re: #465 Salamantis

And how does that relate to faking a 6000 year old earth and universe to appear to all empirical measurement to be respectively 4.6 million years old and 13.7 billion years old?

Oops!

4.6 billion years old!

PIMF

659 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:29:04pm

re: #612 Naso Tang

I've always wondered how things would have been if there was a religion with a commandment that said something like:

"You have been given intelligence in order to prove your worth by deciphering how this universe works, without reference to ME".

Maybe there would have been people on the moon, even before they populated Europe. Maybe a few Neanderthals would have come along too.

Actually, the first commandment I am the Lord your God is interpreted as a commandment to seek and find God through your reason and by unraveling his mysteries - at least according to the commentaries.

There are those who firmly believe that we are precisely to use our big brains. Heck we even have a tradition of arguing with HIm.

660 ArchangelMichael  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:29:18pm

re: #655 LudwigVanQuixote

The CO2 is plant food crap is totally asinine. As if there is no such thing as too much.

Plants need water too. Give them too much, they die.

Humans need "food" as well. If we eat too much we sick, fat, maybe die.

661 austin_blue  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:30:14pm

re: #627 Walter L. Newton

It's easy for you to say that when Ludwig is not here!
///

I'm here, and I'll jump in:

Sal-

I don't disagree with you, but agreement is gelling around the belief that because feedback loops aren't generally included in the climate models (feedback loops are notoriously hard to quantify) that models are very conservative as to affects on global climate change. Here's a basic example:

Everyone agrees that warming is much more prevalent in the upper latitudes. There is also no doubt that a shitpot of CO2 is locked up in the frozen organic material in the permafrost (including mammoth carcasses!). As warming continues, there is also no doubt that a lot of that organic material will be exposed to temperatures above freezing for longer periods, allowing decay and the release of more CO2 to the atmosphere. What is not clear is how much and how fast. So, that release is not included in the models of carbon "forcing".

You can see how a massive release from Northern hemispheric permafrost can change the equations to our detriment PDQ. It may even reach a tipping point where despite our efforts, we won't be able to stop runaway warming. It may not be in fifty years, it may not be a hundred. But it *might* be, possibly even *could* be.

Hydrocarbons are a mineable resource. Once used, gone. Then what? Do you want to bet the very possibly disastrous downside on that chance? We, at some point, simply *must* find an alternative to oil, coal, and natural gas, eventually. They are, by definition, finite resources Time value of money says do it now and save resources in the long run. Think of it this way:

Plastics.

662 Achilles Tang  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:31:51pm

re: #659 LudwigVanQuixote

Actually, the first commandment I am the Lord your God is interpreted as a commandment to seek and find God through your reason and by unraveling his mysteries - at least according to the commentaries.

There are those who firmly believe that we are precisely to use our big brains. Heck we even have a tradition of arguing with HIm.

Well, whoever wrote that one spent less time thinking about its interpretations than I did mine./

663 SFGoth  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:32:32pm

While the last reference is pretty far back, I'm going to echo the Dan Savage sentiment regarding "santorum". The guy's goo, pun intended, if he runs (no pun intended). BTW, anyone know where *Michael* Savage (aka, Weiner) stands on evolution? He does have a PhD in some health-related subject.

664 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:33:59pm

re: #660 ArchangelMichael

The CO2 is plant food crap is totally asinine. As if there is no such thing as too much.

Plants need water too. Give them too much, they die.

Humans need "food" as well. If we eat too much we sick, fat, maybe die.

And if it gets too hot we all cook...

665 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:34:04pm

re: #660 ArchangelMichael

The CO2 is plant food crap is totally asinine. As if there is no such thing as too much.

Plants need water too. Give them too much, they die.

Humans need "food" as well. If we eat too much we sick, fat, maybe die.

And too much oxygen will kill us.

But a CO2 concentration of 1000 parts per million, or 0.1%, would not kill off terrestrial plant life. And current CO2 levels are measured at 387 parts per million, little more than a third of that.

The extinction of animal or plant life is not a current CO2 concern.

666 swamprat  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:40:14pm

re: #655 LudwigVanQuixote

What was the CO2 level on the earth when the plantlife was most lush?
What was the temp?
What level of CO2 would be high enough to adversely affect flora?
How far are we from that level, or is plant-life already being attenuated?

667 Achilles Tang  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:44:23pm

re: #666 swamprat

What was the CO2 level on the earth when the plantlife was most lush?
What was the temp?
What level of CO2 would be high enough to adversely affect flora?
How far are we from that level, or is plant-life already being attenuated?

All that is utterly irrelevant to us and the politics of AGW.

668 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:46:51pm

re: #661 austin_blue

I'm here, and I'll jump in:

Sal-

I don't disagree with you, but agreement is gelling around the belief that because feedback loops aren't generally included in the climate models (feedback loops are notoriously hard to quantify) that models are very conservative as to affects on global climate change. Here's a basic example:

Everyone agrees that warming is much more prevalent in the upper latitudes. There is also no doubt that a shitpot of CO2 is locked up in the frozen organic material in the permafrost (including mammoth carcasses!). As warming continues, there is also no doubt that a lot of that organic material will be exposed to temperatures above freezing for longer periods, allowing decay and the release of more CO2 to the atmosphere. What is not clear is how much and how fast. So, that release is not included in the models of carbon "forcing".

You can see how a massive release from Northern hemispheric permafrost can change the equations to our detriment PDQ. It may even reach a tipping point where despite our efforts, we won't be able to stop runaway warming. It may not be in fifty years, it may not be a hundred. But it *might* be, possibly even *could* be.

Hydrocarbons are a mineable resource. Once used, gone. Then what? Do you want to bet the very possibly disastrous downside on that chance? We, at some point, simply *must* find an alternative to oil, coal, and natural gas, eventually. They are, by definition, finite resources Time value of money says do it now and save resources in the long run. Think of it this way:

Plastics.

Temperature levels and sea-level rise (which is directly caused by ice cap and glacier melt) have recently (two months ago) been correlated going back the last 22000 years. And the results closely track the 2007 IPCC study that concludes that sea levels would rise less than a meter in response to a high end estimate 7 degree C temperature increase. Notice that this includes any nonlinear or catastrophic causes of temperature increase and reflects the sea level regardles of what causes the temperature increase; what it important here is the temperature - sea level correlation.

[Link: www.nature.com...]

But I fully support our simultaneous transition to nuclear power and electric vehicles; it does no good to plug in an electric car to a grid powered by fossil fueled plants. And indeed we should harbor increasingly scarce petroleum resources to use for purposes for which there are no inexpensive or abundant alternatives. Cutting down on the more toxic components of fossil fuel combustion and subsidizing those who fund jihadis less are also good reasons.

669 freetoken  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:51:38pm

re: #666 swamprat

What was the CO2 level on the earth when the plantlife was most lush?

It was not the plant life we use to sustain ourselves.

During the early periods a great deal of CO2 was in the air (volcano activity over many millions of years) and pulled out by various non-flowering plants and stored in the ground. We call the storage today "coal". The marine plants that accumulated into piles at the bottom of anoxic oceans became the source rock for oil.

In both cases, the plant life that did this was not what we use to sustain ourselves. Furthermore, we rely on cool adapted animals (both in the sea and on the land) for our food and other material.

If you want to return to the age where jellyfish and squid ruled the seas, large reptiles lived on very warm land, and cockroaches could roam all the way to the poles... I guess you are in luck, for that seems to be where we (collectively) want to head.

670 swamprat  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:56:42pm

re: #669 freetoken Don't want that. I was discussing something that LVQ said that piqued my curiosity


From post 655;

Too much CO2 will not help plants and animals at all. In fact it will cause die offs.

This is astonishing, This is essentially the idiots who chant that CO2 is plant food and think that they are being clever.

This is only a side issue if we are underwater, but he seemed to be implying that plants will get CO2 poisoning if we go much further. I had never heard this.

671 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:58:01pm

re: #669 freetoken

It was not the plant life we use to sustain ourselves.

During the early periods a great deal of CO2 was in the air (volcano activity over many millions of years) and pulled out by various non-flowering plants and stored in the ground. We call the storage today "coal". The marine plants that accumulated into piles at the bottom of anoxic oceans became the source rock for oil.

In both cases, the plant life that did this was not what we use to sustain ourselves. Furthermore, we rely on cool adapted animals (both in the sea and on the land) for our food and other material.

If you want to return to the age where jellyfish and squid ruled the seas, large reptiles lived on very warm land, and cockroaches could roam all the way to the poles... I guess you are in luck, for that seems to be where we (collectively) want to head.

Umm...that would require a global temperature increase of 20 degrees C to equal the temps that obtained when those were our terrestrial conditions.

Not even the most alarmist predictions remotely approach that.

672 freetoken  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 6:07:07pm

re: #671 Salamantis

Umm...that would require a global temperature increase of 20 degrees C to equal the temps that obtained when those were our terrestrial conditions.

No, just 6C. Remember, the global average temperature is just that, an average over the entire globe. Land temperatures will rise much more than sea temps.


Ok, perhaps a bit of hyperbole on the cockroaches - they will only be able to roam into Canada somewhere as there will still be winter snowfall way up north... and the jelly fish will only get as far north as say Seattle...

673 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 6:16:13pm

re: #665 Salamantis

And too much oxygen will kill us.

But a CO2 concentration of 1000 parts per million, or 0.1%, would not kill off terrestrial plant life. And current CO2 levels are measured at 387 parts per million, little more than a third of that.

The extinction of animal or plant life is not a current CO2 concern.

Sal, This is an utterly false conclusion.

It is a concern because of shifting weather and growing patterns. Species will not all just be able to migrate or adapt. There will be massive die offs.

674 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 6:17:34pm

re: #670 swamprat

Don't want that. I was discussing something that LVQ said that piqued my curiosity

From post 655;

This is only a side issue if we are underwater, but he seemed to be implying that plants will get CO2 poisoning if we go much further. I had never heard this.

NO it will cause die offs because of shifting weather patterns and growing patterns and the inability of many species to adapt or migrate.

675 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 6:20:09pm

re: #672 freetoken

No, just 6C. Remember, the global average temperature is just that, an average over the entire globe. Land temperatures will rise much more than sea temps.

Ok, perhaps a bit of hyperbole on the cockroaches - they will only be able to roam into Canada somewhere as there will still be winter snowfall way up north... and the jelly fish will only get as far north as say Seattle...

[Link: www.bbm.me.uk...]

The higher temperature of the Cretaceous has already been referred to. Estimates suggest that at the beginning of the Cretaceous, the Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) was around 20°C (about 5° hotter than today's value of 15°C), and was about the same at the period's end - but peaked to a high of 25°C in the Upper Cretaceous.
These high temperatures were due to the much higher level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at the time - which has been suggested as being 4 times as much as is in our air today.

The Cretaceous was thus an intense "Greenhouse world", and we have a long way to go before reaching those conditions.

Sal: let's split the difference and call it 10 degrees C higher.

676 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 6:21:50pm

re: #624 Salamantis

I am not anti AGW. In fact I accept that there is indeed global warming, and that human activity has contributed to it, and that negative consequences are entailed.

What I AM is anti AGW exaggeration. To misreresent the empirical evidence and the climatological consensus derived from it, or the effects that it might reasonably be expected to produce in the future, in either direction, are, to me, equally reprehensible.

Perfectly reasonable. Just understand that the predictions, all of them are rather dire. Here is a great paper that looks at a large number of predictions.
[Link: www.pnas.org...]

677 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 6:23:17pm

re: #673 LudwigVanQuixote

Sal, This is an utterly false conclusion.

It is a concern because of shifting weather and growing patterns. Species will not all just be able to migrate or adapt. There will be massive die offs.

Some species will migrate to more conducive latitudes, and other species will replace them. Yet other species will go extinct. And still other species will evolve to adapt. As has always happened.

678 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 6:24:56pm

re: #675 Salamantis

[Link: www.bbm.me.uk...]

The higher temperature of the Cretaceous has already been referred to. Estimates suggest that at the beginning of the Cretaceous, the Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) was around 20°C (about 5° hotter than today's value of 15°C), and was about the same at the period's end - but peaked to a high of 25°C in the Upper Cretaceous.
These high temperatures were due to the much higher level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at the time - which has been suggested as being 4 times as much as is in our air today.

The Cretaceous was thus an intense "Greenhouse world", and we have a long way to go before reaching those conditions.

Sal: let's split the difference and call it 10 degrees C higher.

On the contrary, we are heading towards a 4x concentration in the next century if we do not change.

This from Princeton looks at the effects.

[Link: www.gfdl.noaa.gov...]

679 Ian MacGregor  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 6:25:38pm

re: #139 ArchangelMichael

There is not one example of a gay person being killed in the bible. It seems that it was much more dangerous for an Israelite to have relations with a Canaanite of the opposite sex. One such pair is killed in the act when Phinneas drives his spear through the two of them. Samson's relationships with Canaanite women did not turn out so well either.

For a Christian perspective on law and faith, you need to read Romans. Yes the law defines sin, but one becomes righteous not by following that law, but by baptism and trust in God.

Most Christians do not want to live in a society in which biblical laws are enforced. For one, we are all sinners, and would be spending to much time in jail. It is also a mistake to think one's own sins don't bother God, but that gay couple over there is really incurring God's wrath.

We accept sin is what God says it is, we struggle against our own sins, but we know we are justified by Christ's death. We also want to help others to learn what we have. We are supposed to reach out with love to anyone who has not come to Christ and help them to accept his teachings, and get to heaven.

I' swear you must think that every Sunday hatred of homosexuals is taught. It's not taught on any Sunday, and if it is that Church has strayed far from Jesus.

For those who accept the bible as the revealed word of God, including the differences from the most ancient manuscripts. Most think it was a cooperative effort between God and the prophet with God's truth coming through.

680 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 6:25:46pm

re: #677 Salamantis

Some species will migrate to more conducive latitudes, and other species will replace them. Yet other species will go extinct. And still other species will evolve to adapt. As has always happened.

And there have also been periodic mass extinctions too. We are heading for one now. Why do you feel the need to assume otherwise?

681 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 6:28:42pm

re: #676 LudwigVanQuixote

Perfectly reasonable. Just understand that the predictions, all of them are rather dire. Here is a great paper that looks at a large number of predictions.
[Link: www.pnas.org...]

As of November 2007, when the to which article you linked was published.

Subseque3nt climatological studies, most notably the July 2009 Bristol study, have served to temper these concerns.

Global warming remains a serious concern, but as not short-to-middle-term catastrophically so as was previously thought.

682 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 6:31:49pm

re: #681 Salamantis

As of November 2007, when the to which article you linked was published.

Subseque3nt climatological studies, most notably the July 2009 Bristol study, have served to temper these concerns.

Global warming remains a serious concern, but as not short-to-middle-term catastrophically so as was previously thought.

Sal, I swear to G-d there are about 10,000 other papers than Bristol and I have been up and down why that is not a final word, and I have further been up and down with you about how even if IPCC is all that happens it is still a catastrophe. Please don't start this shit up with me again... I am so not in the mood to go through the same bullshit with you over and over. Please...

683 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 6:32:50pm

re: #678 LudwigVanQuixote

On the contrary, we are heading towards a 4x concentration in the next century if we do not change.

This from Princeton looks at the effects.

[Link: www.gfdl.noaa.gov...]

The paper to which you refer does not state that we are headed for a short-to-medium-term quadrupling of atmospheric CO2; it merely lays out what would be the likely climatological effects if such a quadrupling were to occur.

684 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 6:33:42pm

re: #683 Salamantis

The paper to which you refer does not state that we are headed for a short-to-medium-term quadrupling of atmospheric CO2; it merely lays out what would be the likely climatological effects if such a quadrupling were to occur.

Which is why I said it looks at the effects. Please Sal, don't start with me.

685 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 6:34:30pm

re: #682 LudwigVanQuixote

Sal, I swear to G-d there are about 10,000 other papers than Bristol and I have been up and down why that is not a final word, and I have further been up and down with you about how even if IPCC is all that happens it is still a catastrophe. Please don't start this shit up with me again... I am so not in the mood to go through the same bullshit with you over and over. Please...

Just furnish more recent climatological studies that refute Bristol 2009 -IPCC 2007 while explicitly taking them into consideration if you can.

686 swamprat  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 6:36:36pm

This is part of the answerre: #666 swamprat

What was the CO2 level on the earth when the plantlife was most lush?
What was the temp?
What level of CO2 would be high enough to adversely affect flora?
How far are we from that level, or is plant-life already being attenuated?

Here

The climate of the Cretaceous is less certain and more widely disputed. Higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are thought to have caused the world temperature gradient from north to south to become almost flat: temperatures were about the same across the planet. Average temperatures were also higher than today by about 10°C. In fact, by the middle Cretaceous, equatorial ocean waters (perhaps as warm as 20 °C in the deep ocean) may have been too warm for sea life, and land areas near the equator may have been deserts despite their proximity to water. The circulation of oxygen to the deep ocean may also have been disrupted. For this reason, large volumes of organic matter that was unable to decompose accumulated, eventually being deposited as "black shale".

Says here the ocean might have died

687 ArchangelMichael  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 6:37:45pm

re: #679 Ian MacGregor

WTFBBQ... Strawman much?

688 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 6:38:00pm

re: #684 LudwigVanQuixote

Which is why I said it looks at the effects. Please Sal, don't start with me.

The climatological effects of a 20 mile wide meteorite impacting the earth would be an extinction level event. That is not to predict that such a collision is slated to occur.

And I'll start with you whenever the fuck I think you're exaggerating the science - and post scientific suport for my opinion.

689 swamprat  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 6:40:20pm

re: #679 Ian MacGregor


BS. A whole town was wiped out.

690 Salamantis  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 6:40:50pm

re: #680 LudwigVanQuixote

And there have also been periodic mass extinctions too. We are heading for one now. Why do you feel the need to assume otherwise?

We are actually in the middle of a mass extinction now, because we are destroying so many natural habitats that are the sole residences of so many species.

But we are destroying them primarily by mowing them down for lumber, farmland, and living space.

691 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 6:59:43pm

re: #685 Salamantis

Just furnish more recent climatological studies that refute Bristol 2009 -IPCC 2007 while explicitly taking them into consideration if you can.

Sal, I furnished you with several papers from 2009 that discussed how Greenland and the caps were going faster than IPCC reported. You ignored them. I furnished you with papers about the Siberian and Canadian bog that was going faster than reported and creating a bigger feedback than IPCC reported. You ignored them

Don't do this shit. I really don't care if you think I am exaggerating. It is not as if you read any of the things I send you or take the time to understand them. It got old a long time ago.

Now, on the off chance that you will actually look at them here are some other papers. If you do actually read them and process what they mean, we will talk, otherwise you are just not worth the effort, life is too short to keep explaining the same shit to you over and over again.

So read what this says about the current models not taking the ice sheets properly into account from 2009

[Link: www.agu.org...]

or this one

[Link: www.cgd.ucar.edu...]

692 Ian MacGregor  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 7:02:47pm

re: #689 swamprat

Sorry, I meant as a consequence of the law. There are no executions.

693 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 7:03:58pm

re: #691 LudwigVanQuixote

and one more
[Link: www.agu.org...]

694 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 7:06:03pm

re: #691 LudwigVanQuixote

and one more
[Link: www.sciencemag.org...]

695 Ian MacGregor  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 7:11:10pm

re: #687 ArchangelMichael

I'd like to know your definition of strawman. I am presenting the Christian perspective in an effort to educate. It also dealt with your question on why we don't follow Leviticus to the letter. Another reason is that some of the laws had to do with living in a communal society in the desert that are not applicable to other societies even in that day.

696 Ian MacGregor  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 7:37:04pm

re: #689 swamprat

You might want to compare Sodom to what happened to the Benjaminites in Judfes 19 and 20

697 bofhell  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 7:46:46pm

re: #592 albusteve

re: #604 Walter L. Newton

On the Co/New Mexico boarder, in New Mexico, Raton Pass is on 25, south of Trinidad Colorado.

And now I know.

698 ArchangelMichael  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 8:08:48pm

re: #695 Ian MacGregor

Strawman as in...

I never said that homosexuals were killed in the bible. I also never made a claim that all Christians hate gays or obsess over gays. You completely missed the entire point of what I was saying. I was attacking the group that claims to take the bible 100% literal (and is insulted by any claim that parts or all of it are metaphorical or allegorical), but then they cherry-pick the parts they like and the parts they ignore.

699 Bagua  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 8:26:38pm

re: #655 LudwigVanQuixote


Too much CO2 will not help plants and animals at all. In fact it will cause die offs.

This is astonishing, This is essentially the idiots who chant that CO2 is plant food and think that they are being clever.


re: #660 ArchangelMichael

The CO2 is plant food crap is totally asinine. As if there is no such thing as too much.

Plants need water too. Give them too much, they die.

Humans need "food" as well. If we eat too much we sick, fat, maybe die.

Certainly “too much”CO2 is a problem, “the dose makes the poison” however getting to that “too much” number is an astonishing reach. The amounts of increase projected for even the next 100 years (assuming many other things) does not even approach the level that would be problematic for plants. Many will in fact grow faster and produce more under such conditions, the majority of others will be unaffected adversely .

While you may assert that CO2 could cause additional warming, flooding, droughts, and other changes which will impact what plants and animals survive and which do not, this is a knock on effect and also localized to those areas affected, and this knock on effect requires several decades of additional emissions. It is not necessary to deny that there may also be some beneficial impact on plants, even if you believe on balance the equation is negative.

This sort of over-stating is part of what I find so worrying about the state of AGW propaganda. There is a need to insist that it is all bad, that the only result is catastrophe, and any minor advantage must be wrong and fiercely condemned, this suggests a bias in that direction. This overstating harms the warmist agenda more than anything else, and we are seeing the result now with the increase in the denial side.

The projections are too lopsided and too Malthusian to be taken seriously at the moment, and, they are just that, projections, they are not destiny any more that population growth trends. They assume that nothing would be done, twenty or thirty or fifty, or eighty years in the future when the models will likely be far more accurate, the science better understood and accepted, and the technology to replace natural fuels greatly advance. Also a projection, surely, but the last 50 years of technological advance gives a strong precedent that there will be others in the future.

Should this occur in the way I am suggesting, and we reach a point of confirmation, agreement, action and technology, say 40-60 years from now. The resulting CO2 level at that peak time, will most certainly be at a level that is directly beneficial to plants and not harmful.

700 Ian MacGregor  Tue, Sep 29, 2009 8:29:12pm

re: #698 ArchangelMichael

Yes, there is certainly a problem of leaving out parts of the Bible which do not fit in with the sects beliefs. I'm not sure if literalists are more prone to do this.

It's hard to be a literalist. Matthew's gospel has Jesus riding into Jerusalem astride both a donkey and a colt. The other gospels have him on a donkey and a colt.

You also had the problem of idioms. If the bible said, "it was raining cats and dogs what would a literalist think?

I apologize for including my arguments against those who believe Christians are haters in my answer. I was trying to answer several posters at once.

701 JEA62  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 9:25:30am

Santorum - what a joke. Couldn't even win his home state, which outside of Philly is pretty conservative. Libs would love him - all they'd have to do would be to play vid of him in the Schiavo case.

702 Salamantis  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:50:04pm

re: #691 LudwigVanQuixote

Sal, I furnished you with several papers from 2009 that discussed how Greenland and the caps were going faster than IPCC reported. You ignored them. I furnished you with papers about the Siberian and Canadian bog that was going faster than reported and creating a bigger feedback than IPCC reported. You ignored them

Don't do this shit. I really don't care if you think I am exaggerating. It is not as if you read any of the things I send you or take the time to understand them. It got old a long time ago.

Now, on the off chance that you will actually look at them here are some other papers. If you do actually read them and process what they mean, we will talk, otherwise you are just not worth the effort, life is too short to keep explaining the same shit to you over and over again.

So read what this says about the current models not taking the ice sheets properly into account from 2009

[Link: www.agu.org...]

or this one

[Link: www.cgd.ucar.edu...]

We keep going through 'this shit' because you are unable to furnish me with what I have repeatedly requested - an academic study that credibly refutes Bristol 2009 while explicitly taking it into account. And you apparently still are unable to do so.

Any bog contributions leading to higher than expected feedback would also have happened the LAST several times that global temperatures rose this high in the last 22 millennia. Bristol 2009 implicitly takes these factors, and any other factors leading to temperature increase, into account, as it correlates sea level with global temperature for the last 22,000 years, regardless of the causes of the global temperature, bog or otherwise. As I have repeatedly informed you.

The first of your two links was from January 2009, and the second led to a dead page dated 2008.

Obviously, neither of them could have taken a paper published in July 2009 into consideration, without a handy-dandy time machine.

It would be really nice if I could explain the terms 'before' and 'after' to you in a manner that you could understand.

703 Salamantis  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:52:40pm

re: #693 LudwigVanQuixote

and one more
[Link: www.agu.org...]

Once again, a 2008 paper, which cannot address a 2009 paper, although the reverse can - and did - happen, by choosing a measure that doesn't care about causes, only correlations between effects (sea level and global temperature).

704 Salamantis  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 1:55:52pm

re: #694 LudwigVanQuixote

and one more
[Link: www.sciencemag.org...]

And again, a May 2009 paper, which cannot take a July 2009 paper into account, although, once again, the reverse can - and did - happen.

You're gonna have to do better - and more current - than that.

I don't think that you can. And you have yet to show me otherwise.

705 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Sep 30, 2009 4:27:40pm

re: #703 Salamantis

re: #704 Salamantis

Your 2009 paper comes to defend IPCC and even gives credence to issues that both it and IPCC did not take into account that would make matters worse.

IPCC was 2007.

In the course of our discussions, I have given you over ten papers from 2007-2009 that detail what those other issues making things worse would be. The ice and the bogs are going faster than IPCC accounted for. This means that the feedbacks are growing faster than IPCC accounted for and your Bristol paper actually acknowledges this.

You refuse to see the papers. You refuse to take into account that IPCC is a lowball estimate because of them. I could give you ten dozen papers and you would still spout nonsense.

So from now on I am going to take a new tact with you. You are not a denier, you are just some web fool who is pompous enough that he just has to be right against the physicist no matter how many papers he brings you. G-d forbid you read them and understand the mechanism.

So from no on, since it is utterly clear that this is not about science for you at all, but rather that I or someone acknowledges your genius is so great that you can master any field just by skimming abstracts, I will lay the hammer down hard.

Sal, you are very bright. You are not a physicist. You don't know physics and you have not taken the time to learn physics. You are so, pompous, arrogant and insecure, that you can not take the time to read the physics when it is given to again and again and then patiently explained to you.

This is a very childish and insecure behavior on your part. Your value as a person does not change if I know more science than you. I should know more science than you - It is after all my job, and unlike you, I spent yars actually studying it.

I am tired of dealing with your ignorant attempts to show off how bight you are by derailing discussion about important issues that I am trying to inform people about. It makes you a pathetic ass.

706 anduril3019  Thu, Oct 1, 2009 3:48:04am

re: #573 Sharmuta

A little slow on the draw, but here you go.

What evidence would I accept?

This may seem a bit indirect but here goes. Forewarning: there are going to be a lot of ifs and presuppositions buried in here, each of which is it's own can of worms for another day.

My belief in creation starts with a historical figure who walked the earth about 2000 years ago or so. According to the records we have, he made certain claims regarding who he was, where he was from, why he was here, and where he was going. He said and did a lot of outrageous things that threatened those in power and led to his eventual crucifixion and death at the hands of the Romans. After having been killed and placed in a tomb, he literally and physically came back to life. I believe the historical evidence points to (but does not "prove") these events being true and accurately recorded.

Jesus is either a fictional or historical figure, of course with many degrees in between being possible. If the record of his life is accurate and he is who he claimed to be, then he came for a purpose. That purpose, articulated by him and those who were eyewitnesses to his life, was to provide a way for the gap that exists between man (collectively and individually) and God to be bridged.

So, where did this gap come from? After the creation of the world, including mankind, whether in a few days or a few hundred million years, God pronounced his creation "good." This goodness included a communal relationship between God and mankind, and free-run of a new planet, albeit with a few commands to follow. Mankind chose not to follow one particular rule and in so doing committed a cosmic act of treason against the God of creation. This act of self-reliance and rebellion broke the relationship that mankind had enjoyed with God in a way that affected the entirety of creation. The enormous consequences of this act include the entrance of death and disease into the world, which brings us back to evolution.

The fossil record plainly shows a history of violence, disease, and death in the animal kingdom, things we obviously take for granted, but it was not always so. The plain teaching of the Bible is that these things were brought into the world as a result of mankind's rebellion. Therefore, the fossil record, in so far as it contains these corruptions of a perfect creation, must necessarily reflect the time after mankind's rebellion.

This is why I hold that evolution is incompatible with the fundamentals of my faith. Basically, the whole chronology is backwards. Rather than many millions of years of mutations leading to the emergence of humans as we now know them, it was, instead, a fully developed human that initiated thousands of years of mutations.

So, back to the original question, I need to see conclusive evidence that the Bible is not reliable or accurate in regards to the topics it speaks to. Most importantly, that would be the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the starting point of this argument.

To quote Madeleine L'Engle quoting Aristotle, "That which is probable and impossible is better than that which is possible and improbable."

I'll take the Glorious Impossible.

PS. I'll still check out Giberson, but to be honest, it's going to be a little while down the road, and I am a bit stuck in my ways.

Cheers

707 freetoken  Thu, Oct 1, 2009 4:03:21am

re: #706 anduril3019


My belief in creation starts with a historical figure who walked the earth about 2000 years ago or so.

You mean the same person who railed against the Sadducees and the Pharisees for their picayune attention to what they thought each jot and tittle of the law meant, and yet didn't understand the truth when it was in front of their eyes?

If you're looking for back up to your religious doctrines, perhaps you should find someone who isn't so well known for ripping religious people new a-holes...

708 The Left  Thu, Oct 1, 2009 4:55:53am

re: #707 freetoken

You mean the same person who railed against the Sadducees and the Pharisees for their picayune attention to what they thought each jot and tittle of the law meant, and yet didn't understand the truth when it was in front of their eyes?

If you're looking for back up to your religious doctrines, perhaps you should find someone who isn't so well known for ripping religious people new a-holes...

Damn, freetoken...rock ON!

709 Salamantis  Thu, Oct 1, 2009 11:13:00am

re: #705 LudwigVanQuixote

And I will reply by reposting the abstract to the Bristol July 2009 paper. And bold the excerpt that you are depending upon, and the one that answers it - both of them in included the abstract.

[Link: www.nature.com...]

Constraints on future sea-level rise from past sea-level change
Mark Siddall1,4, Thomas F. Stocker2 & Peter U. Clark3

It is difficult to project sea-level rise in response to warming climates by the end of the century, especially because the response of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to warming is not well understood1. [your favorite part]. However, sea-level fluctuations in response to changing climate have been reconstructed for the past 22,000 years from fossil data, a period that covers the transition from the Last Glacial Maximum to the warm Holocene interglacial period. Here we present a simple model of the integrated sea-level response to temperature change that implicitly includes contributions from the thermal expansion and the reduction of continental ice.[the part you prefer to ignore, that points out that Bristol's methodology and subject matter implicitly takes such studies into account]. Our model explains much of the centennial-scale variability observed over the past 22,000 years, and estimates 4–24 cm of sea-level rise during the twentieth century, in agreement with the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change1 (IPCC). In response to the minimum (1.1 °C) and maximum (6.4 °C) warming projected for AD 2100 by the IPCC models, our model predicts 7 and 82 cm of sea-level rise by the end of the twenty-first century, respectively. The range of sea-level rise is slightly larger than the estimates from the IPCC models of 18–76 cm, but is sufficiently similar to increase confidence in the projections.

Sal: and the last part points out that Bristol July 2009 closely correlates with IPCC 2007, so the most recent study corroborates the most extensive one to date, despite their different methodological paths.

1.Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, 61 Route 9W, PO Box 1000, Palisades, New York 10964-8000, USA
2.Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern, Bern, CH 3012, Switzerland
3.Department of Geosciences, 104 Wilkinson Hall, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331-5506, USA
4.Present address: Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Wills Memorial Building, Queen's Road, Bristol BS8 1RJ, UK


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
A Closer Look at the Eastman State Bar DecisionTaking a few minutes away from work things to read through the Eastman decision. As I'm sure many of you know, Eastman was my law school con law professor. I knew him pretty well because I was also running in ...
KGxvi
1 hour ago
Views: 67 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 1