Friday Afternoon Open

Open • Views: 2,035

I would like evolution to join the roster of other discredited religions, like the Cargo Cult of the South Pacific. Practitioners of Cargo Cult believed that manufactured products were created by ancestral spirits, and if they imitated what they had seen the white man do, they could cause airplanes to appear out of the sky, bringing valuable cargo like radios and TVs. So they constructed “airport towers” out of bamboo and “headphones” out of coconuts and waited for the airplanes to come with the cargo. It may sound silly, but in defense of the Cargo Cult, they did not wait as long for evidence supporting their theory as the Darwinists have waited for evidence supporting theirs.

— Ann Coulter

Jump to bottom

1197 comments
1 HelloDare  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 11:56:29am

Uh-oh!

2 Charles Johnson  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 11:57:05am

This statement by Ann Coulter ranks as one of the most willfully ignorant comments about evolution I've ever seen.

3 kafir lover  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 11:57:29am

Let the pissing match commence!

4 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 11:58:04am

Whne will she evolve a gag for herself?

5 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 11:58:19am

I'd hit it.

6 LockeOn  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 11:58:38am

in a minute!

7 Creeping Eruption  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 11:58:46am

Until Charles' #2, I thought this was a joke. Well . . .this fits in line with my already low opinion of her.

8 J.S.  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 11:58:56am

I saw some more of Coulter's idiocy displayed at Wikipedia (it's really unbelievable the sheer level of unvarnished, raw stupidity.)

9 S'latch  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 11:58:57am

Ouch. That was bad.

10 joncelli  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 11:59:06am

Is it 4:45 yet? Because I've already stopped working.

/Long, stupid week.

11 nyc redneck  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 11:59:15am

sometimes ann sounds like a simpleton.

12 2-Drink Minimum  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 11:59:17am

Hey Ann,
I'll be your freak-a-zoid . . .

13 Creeping Eruption  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 11:59:20am

re: #5 Ben Hur

I'd hit it.

Thats a mighty big adams apple "she's" sporting there bub.

14 jorline  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 11:59:48am

Uh, I'm uh, speechless.

15 itellu3times  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 11:59:54am

OK Ann, if not evolution, then what?

16 Kragar  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:00:03pm

re: #5 Ben Hur

I'd hit it.

Yeah, but you're a pervert, pron link man

17 MarineGrunt  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:00:09pm

New Guinea natives?

18 Miles Smit  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:00:28pm

Ann has a point. Evolution is either a theory or a scientific, empirically-grounded truth, as one prefers. But in no way is it cut out to be a religion, as the over-torqued eccentricities of the Dawkins' of the world attest.

19 subsailor68  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:00:58pm

I would like evolution to join the roster of other discredited religions, like the Cargo Cult of the South Pacific. Practitioners of Cargo Cult believed that manufactured products were created by ancestral spirits, and if they imitated what they had seen the white man do, they could cause airplanes to appear out of the sky, bringing valuable cargo like radios and TVs. So they constructed “airport towers” out of bamboo and “headphones” out of coconuts and waited for the airplanes to come with the cargo. It may sound silly, but in defense of the Cargo Cult, they did not wait as long for evidence supporting their theory as the Darwinists have waited for evidence supporting theirs.

Yes, Ann, it does sound silly. Just not funny or perceptive.

20 Kragar  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:01:00pm

re: #15 itellu3times

OK Ann, if not evolution, then what?

Obviously it was Cthulhu Mythos entities behind life on earth.

21 2-Drink Minimum  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:01:20pm

re: #5 Ben Hur

[removing coconuts] What?

22 faraway  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:01:21pm

So many species, so few links.

23 thefallingman  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:01:21pm

The earliest recorded cargo cult was the Tuka Movement that began in Fiji in 1885. (from Wikipedia)

24 subsailor68  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:01:59pm

re: #22 faraway

So many species, so few links.

And one of those is missing.

;-)

25 Occasional Reader  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:02:00pm
So they constructed “airport towers” out of bamboo and “headphones” out of coconuts

So did The Professor. The difference is, his actually worked.

26 Jack Burton  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:02:14pm

Didn't she, or some other conservative commentator, recently use the "cargo cult" analogy on AGW or socialism? Reading this was almost deja vu except last time I read the analogy I agreed with it and this time I'm laughing at it.

27 Erik The Red  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:02:18pm

Do another line Ann. Here is the Morrow and $100 note. PS don't forget the foot note.

And she made how MUCH from this?

28 tfc3rid  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:02:19pm

BDVM...

Oh yeah, to the tune of between $500 Million and $1 Billion... We're screwed... I guess my measly $4K for Season Tickets helps spread the wealth...

29 Kragar  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:02:39pm

re: #25 Occasional Reader

So did The Professor. The difference is, his actually worked.

But he couldn't fix a 2' hole in a boat.

30 DeafDog  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:02:48pm

re: #25 Occasional Reader

So did The Professor. The difference is, his actually worked.


Ginger or Mary-anne?

31 kansas  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:02:57pm

Here's an article that gave me an explanation of the Sarah Palin episode. [Link: www.commentarymagazine.com...]

32 Occasional Reader  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:03:06pm

re: #18 Miles Smit

Ann has a point. Evolution is either a theory or a scientific, empirically-grounded truth, as one prefers. But in no way is it cut out to be a religion, as the over-torqued eccentricities of the Dawkins' of the world attest.

To paraphrase David Bowie, re: your argument...

There's a Straw Manwaiting in the sky
he'd like to come and meet us
but he thinks he'd blow our minds

33 Dan G.  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:03:28pm

Palin/Coulter 2012! Lets run this party/country into the ground!

/Big F'ing time

34 Occasional Reader  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:03:33pm

re: #30 DeafDog

Ginger or Mary-anne?

Both.

Next question?

35 Charles Johnson  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:04:02pm

re: #22 faraway

So many species, so few links.

Nonsense.

A very incomplete list of transitional fossils:

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

36 Occasional Reader  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:04:25pm

re: #5 Ben Hur

I'd hit it.

She never quite "worked" for me. Hard to defined why not.

37 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:04:29pm

re: #25 Occasional Reader

So did The Professor. The difference is, his actually worked.

Back when MAD worked.

Youtube Video
38 gmsc  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:04:32pm

Dianne Feinstein: "I Reserve the Right at the End of the Day to Vote Against the Package That I Don't Think Puts These Jobs Out There"

The Jewish bankers got to her, too.

Worth every dime we're paying them they're stealing from us.

She's part of the "bipartisan group" trying to cut some spending out of the bill to make it more palatable. However, she seems to be announcing that the bill has to change quite a bit -- those "major changes" the Gallup poll found that 37% of the public (and rising) wanted -- or she won't vote for it. A shot across the bow of the Pelosi-Obama-Reid faction which is determined to simply win, baby, win with a crap bill, just to show they can.


On the Other Hand... Three Republicans have already cut a deal? And a fourth may vote for it too? Or more?

"So What?" So what, indeed.


CBO: Seriously, The Spendulus Will Reduce Long-Term Prosperity: There was some question about whether the Washington Times read the CBO's letter correctly. It seems they got it right. From the letter:

At your request, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has conducted an analysis of the macroeconomic impact of the Inouye-Baucus amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 1. CBO estimates that this Senate legislation would raise output and lower unemployment for several years, with effects broadly similar to those of H.R. 1 as introduced. In the longer run, the legislation would result in a slight decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) compared with CBO’s baseline economic forecast. …

Most of the budgetary effects of the Senate legislation occur over the next few years. Even if the fiscal stimulus persisted, however, the short-run effects on output that operate by increasing demand for goods and services would eventually fade away. In the long run, the economy produces close to its potential output on average, and that potential level is determined by the stock of productive capital, the supply of labor, and productivity. Short-run stimulative policies can affect long-run output by influencing those three factors, although such effects would generally be smaller than the short-run impact of those policies on demand.

In contrast to its positive near-term macroeconomic effects, the Senate legislation would reduce output slightly in the long run, CBO estimates, as would other similar proposals. The principal channel for this effect is that the legislation would result in an increase in government debt. To the extent that people hold their wealth as government bonds rather than in a form that can be used to finance private investment, the increased debt would tend to reduce the stock of productive capital. In economic parlance, the debt would “crowd out” private investment.

Yes, if people are holding a pile of government debt, that's money that's not going towards investing in companies.

Duh.

39 thefallingman  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:04:38pm

re: #29 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

But he couldn't fix a 2' hole in a boat.

re: #30 DeafDog

Ginger or Mary-anne?


I just liked how those two showed up one after the other.

40 Dan G.  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:04:40pm

re: #22 faraway

That little security blanket of yours keeps dwindling day-by-day.

41 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:05:06pm

re: #30 DeafDog

Ginger or Mary-anne?

Mary Ann has better bud.

42 Killer Tomato  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:05:18pm

re: #29 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

But he couldn't fix a 2' hole in a boat.

We have a sign in our office - "If the Professor can make a microwave out of Gilligan's hat and two coconuts, why can't he just fix the @#%*&! boat?!?"

43 tfc3rid  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:05:30pm

re: #35 Charles

What about that fossil of a Mammoth I just read about. Found in SD. May be approximately 500,000 years old...

44 Charles Johnson  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:05:36pm

Ann Coulter is speaking at CPAC this year, along with Ron Paul.

45 lawhawk  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:05:51pm

re: #2 Charles

This statement by Ann Coulter ranks as one of the most willfully ignorant comments about evolution I've ever seen.

How could someone supposedly so smart say something so incredibly dumb.

46 Kragar  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:05:55pm

re: #22 faraway

So many species, so few links.

So many posts, so little sense

47 jcm  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:05:59pm

Obama ----

The Sky is falling, the sky is falling....

If we don't do anything, millions more jobs will be lost.

More families will lose their homes. More Americans will go without health care. We'll continue to send our children to crumbling schools and be crippled by our dependence on foreign oil. That's the result of the inaction, and it's not unacceptable to the American people.

48 jorline  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:06:11pm

Ann...coconuts.

49 DeafDog  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:06:23pm

re: #34 Occasional Reader

Both.

Next question?

That would solve the problem, but doesn't answer the question.

The next question - keeping with the old sitcom theme - Agent 99 or The Genie?

50 Eclectic Infidel  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:06:23pm

re: #11 nyc redneck

sometimes ann sounds like a simpleton.

She is a simpleton, and she celebrates her ignorance with iron-clad pride.

51 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:06:29pm
In her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Crown Forum, June 2006), right-wing pundit Ann Coulter devotes two chapters to a bizarre attempt to disprove the theory of evolution. With a mix of misleading claims, pseudo-scientific arguments, distortions of evolutionary theory, and outright falsehoods, Coulter places herself not only outside the mainstream but truly toward the lunatic fringe. After all, no reasonable person argues that one cannot believe in God and simultaneously accept the findings of decades of accumulated research on evolution. Yet, Coulter appears to believe that in order to prove that liberals are "godless," she must attack evolutionary theory itself.

Though she stops short of saying that the earth is 6,000 years old and Adam and Eve rode through the Garden of Eden on the backs of dinosaurs, in her quest to disprove evolutionary theory, Coulter echoes the arguments of the creationists from whom even many religious conservatives distanced themselves long ago.

Among her falsehoods, misinformation, and distortions, Coulter:

Misstates how fossils demonstrate the evolutionary transition from reptiles and mammals, as well as the fossil record of dinosaurs and mammals.
Distorts the likelihood that a living creature will be fossilized.
Distorts the duration of the period known as the Cambrian explosion, omits important information about its significance, and suggests that 10 million years is "sudden."
On transitional fossils, misrepresents relation of the Archaeopteryx to modern birds.
Omits information regarding the Piltdown man and Archaeoraptor hoaxes.
Misrepresents the evolution of the eye and ignores recent research.
Falsely suggests that "irreducible complexity" disproves evolutionary theory.
On the drawings and theories of Ernst Haeckel, omits a century of scientific criticism while falsely suggesting that textbooks still use Haeckel.
Falsely suggests that the Miller-Urey experiment did not accurately reflect early Earth atmosphere.
Throughout the book, displays her own misunderstandings regarding evolutionary theory (i.e. descent with modification, the evolution of bacteria).
Offers only classic creationist arguments from discredited, unscientific ideas, despite a claim on the inner jacket sleeve of the book stating that Coulter writes "with a keen appreciation of genuine science."
According to the weblog of William Dembski, a supporter of intelligent design, all of the above-mentioned falsehoods, misinformation, and distortions can be attributed to his "generous tutoring."

The evidence reveals that Coulter's two chapters on the theory of evolution display her own ignorance toward the subject while providing an avenue to make ad hominem attacks against scientists, progressives, and Democrats.

There's more

Ann Coulter's "Flatulent Raccoon Theory"

52 Miss Molly  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:06:38pm

Oh good heavens! What is Anne talking about now?

53 Kragar  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:06:41pm

re: #45 lawhawk

How could someone supposedly so smart say something so incredibly dumb.

For further reference, see Barack Obama

54 tfc3rid  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:06:50pm

re: #49 DeafDog

That would solve the problem, but doesn't answer the question.

The next question - keeping with the old sitcom theme - Agent 99 or The Genie?

Agent 99

55 kansas  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:07:24pm

re: #2 Charles

This statement by Ann Coulter ranks as one of the most willfully ignorant comments about evolution I've ever seen.

If she is this ignorant, can I assume the other things she prints are equally ignorant. I mean seriously, I don't have the time to research everything she says. How can I know the the other things she writes aren't complete bullshit too?

56 Raven1  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:07:29pm

re: #30 DeafDog

Ginger or Mary-anne?

Mrs. Howell!

57 Occasional Reader  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:07:29pm

re: #49 DeafDog

That would solve the problem, but doesn't answer the question.

The next question - keeping with the old sitcom theme - Agent 99 or The Genie?

On your first point; if forced to choose, Mary Ann.

On the second: Jeannie (which is who I assume you mean).

58 tfc3rid  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:07:30pm

re: #53 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

For further reference, see Barack Obama

That's PRESIDENT Barack Obama to you sir!

59 Jack Burton  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:07:38pm

re: #45 lawhawk

How could someone supposedly so smart say something so incredibly dumb.

The same reason intelligent academics in universities can say things equally as stupid about capitalism and American foreign policy. Willful ignorance.

60 DeafDog  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:07:46pm

re: #36 Occasional Reader

She never quite "worked" for me. Hard to defined why not.

Same. The way a friend explained it to me, with Ann Coulter, you would never get to pick the movie at Blockbuster. It would always be her pick and your pick would be dumb.

61 stuiec  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:07:48pm

re: #2 Charles

Ranks up there with King Canute standing against the tide. Though to be fair to Canute, I don't think he really believed he could contradict the laws of physical reality, whereas Ann's statement indicates that she doesn't believe in the evidence of physical reality.

62 Kragar  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:08:19pm

re: #49 DeafDog

That would solve the problem, but doesn't answer the question.

The next question - keeping with the old sitcom theme - Agent 99 or The Genie?

Yes. with Samantha Stevens thrown in as well.

Next?

63 Miss Molly  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:09:05pm

Ann has gotten kind of way out there of late. It is hard to listen to much of anything she says anymore.

64 Kragar  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:09:05pm

re: #58 tfc3rid

That's PRESIDENT Barack Obama to you sir!

No, you can keep him, I've had enough of him already.

65 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:09:13pm

re: #44 Charles

Ann Coulter is speaking at CPAC this year, along with Ron Paul.

RON PAUL?

66 jcm  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:09:46pm

re: #22 faraway

So many species, so few links.

What you expect is a fossil for every developmental stage of every animal, in every part of the world, along with a nirth critifikat saying this is my mommy and this is my daddy linking one generation to the next?

67 Eclectic Infidel  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:09:57pm

re: #45 lawhawk

How could someone supposedly so smart say something so incredibly dumb.

I almost gave a negative response to this and then remembered a speech she gave concerning radical islam at a university a few years back. She was careful to distinguish between 'radical muslim extremists' and nonviolent muslims. She did so with eloquence and intelligence.

And then we have this quip from her, from the pits of wilfull ignorance. My only guess is that some are so tied to their political beliefs that they are willing to sacrifice rationalism in an effort to avoid either questioning their governing assumptions or ruffling the feathers of their base. Or both.

Thoughts?

68 jaunte  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:10:04pm

Coulter still scrabbling at the edge of the 'not relevant' cliff.

69 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:10:06pm

re: #60 DeafDog

Same. The way a friend explained it to me, with Ann Coulter, you would never get to pick the movie at Blockbuster. It would always be her pick and your pick would be dumb.

Was your friend sleeping with her?

70 Occasional Reader  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:10:19pm

re: #66 jcm

along with a nirth critifikat

PRICELESS!

71 HelloDare  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:10:37pm

Unfortunately, many people believe all conservatives think like Coulter. When people find out I'm conservative, many assume I don't believe in evolution. Why should they listen to me about anything. How right could I be about the stimulus package or anything if I don't believe in evolution.

Creationism is identified with the Republican party. And vice versa. It's a huge problem.

72 iLikeCandy  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:10:48pm

Does anyone know whether Michael Steele is a creationist? I can't find anything in a cursory google search.

73 FightingBack  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:11:20pm

Isn't she the one that said Jews aren't complete until they accept her Messiah?
That'd be evolution, let me tell you.

74 kansas  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:11:26pm

re: #47 jcm

Obama ----

The Sky is falling, the sky is falling....

If Obama hadn't taken the Affirmative Action online history course, he would know:
1. A bunch of rag tag colonists beat the English.
2. The country recovered from a civil war in which the American President was responsible for the murder of 600,000 fellow citizens.
3. The country recovered from a great depression by building airplanes and weapon systems and defeated enemies in Europe and Asia.
4. Having a little too much debt is something we will recover from as soon as you get your stupid ass out of the way.

75 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:11:43pm

re: #67 eclectic infidel

could be tied to the income stream too.

76 Nevergiveup  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:11:51pm

I'm sad to (see/hear?) that Ann Coulter said the above since it seems she has a nice body. And she must have gotten her "assets" from her parents. Genetics and all. Oh well.

77 kansas  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:12:49pm

re: #76 Nevergiveup

I'm sad to (see/hear?) that Ann Coulter said the above since it seems she has a nice body. And she must have gotten her "assets" from her parents. Genetics and all. Oh well.

Nice body? You must be thinking of someone else. Ann Coulter needs a Big Mac and milk shake.

78 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:12:55pm

re: #74 kansas

2. The country recovered from a civil war in which the American President was responsible for the murder of 600,000 fellow citizens.

Murder?

79 notutopia  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:13:09pm

re: #44 Charles

Ann Coulter is speaking at CPAC this year, along with Ron Paul.

UGH! Who was on the speakers selection committee for CPAC?
Are you attending and speaking?

80 Erik The Red  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:13:23pm

I was trying to put this nicely and ask why. I deleted lots of thoughts that went on and on.

To be concise WHAT THE FUCK is wrong with Ann and other Conservatives in the US?

81 kansas  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:13:49pm

re: #78 MandyManners

Murder?

OK, death by shooting, hanging, stabbing, beating, etc.

82 Killgore Trout  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:14:12pm

I don't think Ann understands the creationists are the Cargo Cult. Everyday we all use items developed by science. Every creationists that goes to the hospital, takes medication or undergoes treatment is reaping the benefits of evolutionary science while maintaining a magical world view without understanding how these medicines were developed.

83 tfc3rid  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:14:21pm

re: #64 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

No, you can keep him, I've had enough of him already.

Same here... I'm considering looking for amnesty in Kragaristan...

84 Spiny Norman  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:14:22pm

re: #14 jorline

Uh, I'm uh, speechless.

That simple exclamation earned a down-ding from "craginm", who's down-dinging anything that could possibly be construed as unflattering to Ms. Coulter.

Care to comment craginm, or are you too much of a coward?

85 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:14:35pm

re: #81 kansas

OK, death by shooting, hanging, stabbing, beating, etc.

600,000 murders?

86 NoWhereAlaska  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:14:39pm

AS much as I enjoylistening to Ann and Rush, it is always a disaster when they get on religion or science. What a waste of talent. The good they can do poisoned by ignorance and arrogance.

87 tfc3rid  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:14:49pm

re: #65 MandyManners

RON PAUL?

He'll be screeching 'I WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG!' Ugh.

88 Occasional Reader  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:14:51pm

re: #78 MandyManners

Murder?

And "Affirmative Action online history course"?

Speaking of making conservatives look bad... nice going, "kansas".

89 jcm  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:14:57pm

re: #74 kansas

If Obama hadn't taken the Affirmative Action online history course, he would know:
1. A bunch of rag tag colonists beat the English.
2. The country recovered from a civil war in which the American President was responsible for the murder of 600,000 fellow citizens.
3. The country recovered from a great depression by building airplanes and weapon systems and defeated enemies in Europe and Asia.
4. Having a little too much debt is something we will recover from as soon as you get your stupid ass out of the way.

Reagan (Happy Birthday) inherited an economy which arguable in worse shape. What did he have to say?

The crisis we are facing today does not require of us the kind of sacrifice that Martin Treptow and so many thousands of others were called upon to make. It does require, however, our best effort, and our willingness to believe in ourselves and to believe in our capacity to perform great deeds; to believe that together, with God's help, we can and will resolve the problems which now confront us.

And, after all, why shouldn't we believe that? We are Americans. God bless you, and thank you.

90 thefallingman  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:15:09pm

re: #67 eclectic infidel
I think the ultimate problem here is how strongly the evolution is tied to atheism in the minds of most people. Really, hard-core atheists are to blame for that because they push so hard to teach evolution and then want to shove all religious expression into the cellar. It makes people assume that the one goes hand in hand with the other.

91 subsailor68  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:15:12pm

On a lighter note, for those who like Shakespeare - and Hamlet:

Shakespeare Sketch.

Hugh Laurie and Rowan Atkinson. What else do you need?

92 Nevergiveup  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:15:13pm

re: #77 kansas

Nice body? You must be thinking of someone else. Ann Coulter needs a Big Mac and milk shake.

Well I like em thin, but I get were your coming from.

93 Killgore Trout  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:15:19pm

re: #72 iLikeCandy

Probably. Pretty much all of the Republicans are creationists. It's pretty much a requirement.

94 yma o hyd  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:15:24pm

Oh golly, where to start ...

In their blind hate of anything related to evolution and to Darwin, these idiots show clearly that they have not the faintest udenrstanding of the natural world.

@1, Darwin has writen other thigns besides his two books on evolution, and Steve Jones, whose book I'm eading right now and which I've been praising here, says that without these two books Darwin would still have been the foremost natural scientist of his era.

@2, people forget what an outstanding naturalist Darwin was, and how he in fact laid the foundations of modern biology. Many people, from both sides, simply are not naturalists. stick them in a pasture and tell them to count all species of snails in a square metre of that apsture and they just curl up.
They don't look at the plants, the grasses, the animals, they have no understanding of the ecology of a place, a region, a county - so obvioulsy they can never grasp what evolution is about.

Here is something which I found utterly nethralling and delightful, it was in todays paper:
Hills are alive with the sound of ants — talking to each other

Thats what it is about - and not some pseudo-scholastic debates about 'did God' - 'how long did God' - 'no, he didnt' ... bla bla bla.

95 Guanxi88  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:15:34pm

re: #56 Raven1

Mrs. Howell!

granny-grabber, huh?

96 Nevergiveup  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:15:56pm

re: #93 Killgore Trout

Probably. Pretty much all of the Republicans are creationists. It's pretty much a requirement.

I'm a Republican and I am not.

97 Kosh's Shadow  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:16:07pm

re: #29 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

But he couldn't fix a 2' hole in a boat.

He didn't want to.

Look, Mr. and Mrs. Howell were a couple.
The Skipper and Gilligan.
He had BOTH Mary Ann and Ginger.
And he could make anything necessary out of latex.

98 Charles Johnson  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:16:22pm

re: #79 notutopia

UGH! Who was on the speakers selection committee for CPAC?
Are you attending and speaking?

No. I prefer to keep my independence from events like this.

99 Creeping Eruption  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:16:30pm

Hey "craginm" Whats with the serial down-dinging? If you have something to say, at least have the balls to say and take your licks.

100 The_Vig  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:16:32pm

I would love to see a Charles vs Coulter debate on evolution.

101 Kragar  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:16:36pm

re: #83 tfc3rid

Same here... I'm considering looking for amnesty in Kragaristan...

Got any skills? Otherwise, its 5 years in the Ever Victorious Army before we grant you citizenship.

102 IslandLibertarian  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:16:37pm

The wedge becomes larger................

Dear God-Goddess-Higher Power-Akua-Cosmic Muffin,
Please have your people keep their superstitions out of politics.

/the Adam's apple doesn't bother me.

103 J.S.  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:16:38pm

Also, according to a Wiki article, Coulter "presents a parody—the 'Giant Raccoon's Flatulence Theory'—to illustrate what she sees as fallacious arguments of those who espouse the theory of evolution." Apparently, Coulter believes Evolutionary Theory is "made up"...

Anyway, the real tragedy though is how much attention this person receives. She's worse, far worse than many bloggers (in terms of intelligence, education, integrity, honesty, and so on). what does she offer? other than being "outrageous" or creating some "shock value?" (far, far too much of this is going on, imo -- not just from the Ann Coulter's -- one experiences the same thing with Hitchens, with al Franken, with James Carville, etc, etc. It's as if this were endemic to western "culture" -- or perhaps more accurately raunch culture.)

104 jcm  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:16:38pm

re: #82 Killgore Trout

I don't think Ann understands the creationists are the Cargo Cult. Everyday we all use items developed by science. Every creationists that goes to the hospital, takes medication or undergoes treatment is reaping the benefits of evolutionary science while maintaining a magical world view without understanding how these medicines were developed.

Speaking of Cargo Cults.

The Unicorn Stimulus Cargo Cult!

105 Nevergiveup  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:16:40pm

20:45 Saudi Arabia official: Mosques the only places of worship allowed in my country (AP)

Think Obama knows that?

106 Viking6  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:16:51pm

re: #54 tfc3rid

Diana Rigg - The Avengers

107 lostlakehiker  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:16:55pm

Ah, good old Ann Coulter. She of the sharp tongue and the ready wit. There must have been a selective advantage to genes that correlate with intense loyalty to the Party and an unwillingness to "think across the aisle". Otherwise, we would not see brains, elegance, and error so neatly packaged in one person.

She's wrong on evolution, and sadly, she is evidently just flat unable to entertain ideas that the crowd she runs with disapproves.

The same goes for Ben Stein, I guess. He's a bright guy. He can game Wall Street and come out ahead. He can make movies. And he can't see the effing obvious when it comes to evolution.

108 iLikeCandy  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:16:57pm

re: #45 lawhawk

How could someone supposedly so smart say something so incredibly dumb.

I keep wondering how people with brain cells that work so well in other areas cling to this superstition. William F. Buckley!? He who was overwhelmed by empirical evidence and flipped for legalization of drugs? I don't understand intellectual compartmentalization. Is it driven by some overpowering emotional or psychological mechanism?

109 Kragar  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:17:05pm

re: #85 MandyManners

600,000 murders?

Its a simple question of WTF is he talking about.

110 Ringo the Gringo  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:17:12pm

At the end of the day, Ann Coulter does more to help the Democrats than she does to help the conservative cause.

111 Occasional Reader  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:17:23pm

re: #101 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Got any skills? Otherwise, its 5 years in the Ever Victorious Army before we grant you citizenship.

I do. Bowhunting skills, numchuck skills...

112 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:17:28pm

re: #87 tfc3rid

He'll be screeching 'I WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG!' Ugh.

Will he pass out tin-foil hats?

113 Erik The Red  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:17:40pm

re: #93 Killgore Trout

Probably. Pretty much all of the Republicans are creationists. It's pretty much a requirement.

Bullshit KT.

114 Boxy_brown  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:17:48pm

OK, first off it's not a "Cult" and how do you expect great, giant aluminum eagle to drop off presents from the gods unless we construct the airport towers? Besides, we aren't all that observant, My tower is only 30'.

Bigots.

115 subsailor68  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:17:58pm

re: #99 Creeping Eruption

Hey "craginm" Whats with the serial down-dinging? If you have something to say, at least have the balls to say and take your licks.

hmm...downdinged me as well. There goes my karma.

116 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:18:02pm

re: #90 thefallingman

I think the ultimate problem here is how strongly the evolution is tied to atheism in the minds of most people. Really, hard-core atheists are to blame for that because they push so hard to teach evolution and then want to shove all religious expression into the cellar. It makes people assume that the one goes hand in hand with the other.

Perhaps because you are so young, you don't realize that most people here are not atheists and pushing hard to teach evolution is not a bad thing.

117 Rednek  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:18:05pm

Creep defined

118 Occasional Reader  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:18:15pm

re: #106 Viking6

Diana Rigg - The Avengers

A little before my time.

Now, "Laurie" from The Partridge Family, on the other hand...

119 Dan G.  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:18:51pm

re: #78 MandyManners

Typical libertarian historical revisionism.

120 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:18:58pm
121 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:19:00pm

re: #109 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Its a simple question of WTF is he talking about.

Feel free to share if you can figure it out.

122 jorline  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:19:00pm

craginm must be a serial down dinger...no posts?

Check him out Charles.

123 Charles Johnson  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:19:13pm

re: #90 thefallingman

I think the ultimate problem here is how strongly the evolution is tied to atheism in the minds of most people. Really, hard-core atheists are to blame for that because they push so hard to teach evolution and then want to shove all religious expression into the cellar. It makes people assume that the one goes hand in hand with the other.

I can't agree. The top fundamentalist preachers across America daily tell their congregations that evolution = atheism. This is far more influential than Richard Dawkins.

124 Dianna  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:19:16pm

re: #93 Killgore Trout

Probably. Pretty much all of the Republicans are creationists. It's pretty much a requirement.

In what dream world? Come on!

My brother is an evangelical, and he's not a creationist, even if he is a Republican living in Tennessee.

125 Creeping Eruption  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:19:22pm

re: #115 subsailor68

hmm...downdinged me as well. There goes my karma.

Looks like you can afford a few hits.

I have an idea: Hey Charles, can we start a "Karma Credits" program here? Subsailor has a bunch and I could use a few more to push me over 1000 . . .

126 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:19:26pm

re: #93 Killgore Trout

Probably. Pretty much all of the Republicans are creationists. It's pretty much a requirement.

Horsefeathers.

127 kansas  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:19:31pm

re: #85 MandyManners

600,000 murders?

What is it about 600,000 American Citizens dying during the Civil War that I am not splaining? To me everyone that was shot, hanged, stabbed, or otherwise removed from this life by someone else was murdered. Maybe the 600,000 dead include disease and accidental deaths. I don't have time to look into it. At any rate, the point is we recovered from the Civil War, we'll recover from this if Obama would STFU.

PS

I am not a fan of Lincoln.

128 Aviator  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:19:32pm

re: #36 Occasional Reader

She never quite "worked" for me. Hard to defined why not.

Fear of splinters?

129 The_Vig  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:19:35pm

re: #108 iLikeCandy

I keep wondering how people with brain cells that work so well in other areas cling to this superstition. William F. Buckley!? He who was overwhelmed by empirical evidence and flipped for legalization of drugs? I don't understand intellectual compartmentalization. Is it driven by some overpowering emotional or psychological mechanism?

Do you mean that he was dumb for supporting legalization, or for not supporting it.

130 Spiny Norman  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:19:37pm

re: #93 Killgore Trout

Probably. Pretty much all of the Republicans are creationists. It's pretty much a requirement.

I'm a registered Republican, and have been for more that 28 years. So it pretty much is not a "requirement".

Damn, you can be as much of a prick as Ann Coulter.

131 yma o hyd  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:19:41pm

re: #61 stuiec

Ranks up there with King Canute standing against the tide. Though to be fair to Canute, I don't think he really believed he could contradict the laws of physical reality, whereas Ann's statement indicates that she doesn't believe in the evidence of physical reality.

Quite right.
King Canute was showing his (stupid) followers and barons that even for a King like him, there were things which were impossible to do.

Ann Coulter?
Hm. ... ... ...

132 Peacekeeper  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:19:47pm

The really sad thing is that she is getting rich with this shtick.

133 Raven1  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:19:51pm

re: #95 Guanxi88

granny-grabber, huh?

No, To quote the J Geils Band, First I look at the purse! Actually, that was a lame attempt at humor, I've been happily married 30 years. Well, happy most of the time.

134 Eclectic Infidel  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:20:11pm

re: #90 thefallingman

I think the ultimate problem here is how strongly the evolution is tied to atheism in the minds of most people. Really, hard-core atheists are to blame for that because they push so hard to teach evolution and then want to shove all religious expression into the cellar. It makes people assume that the one goes hand in hand with the other.

Who are these hard-core atheists? How is wanting to teach evolution as opposed to theology in the science classroom tantamount to eliminating religion from the public discourse at large? You do know that science teachers exist who also believe in G-d, right? My HS biology teacher was one. Devout Catholic, kept science in the classroom and his religion in his church.

I think that some folk equate evolution with atheism because they are not aware that one can believe in G-d or Gods (didn't want to disparage the pagans out there!) and still maintain an understanding of the natural world and the science that explains it. They think it's an either/or proposition. It doesn't have to be so.

135 Viking6  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:20:14pm

re: #118 Occasional Reader


sorry I never watched the Partridge Family, to busy working swings

136 Creeping Eruption  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:20:16pm

re: #117 Rednek

Creep defined

Thats in my back yard. I posted a link to that yesterday as a warning for all parents with kids on social networking sites. Really fucked up story.

137 jorline  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:20:16pm

re: #84 Spiny Norman

That simple exclamation earned a down-ding from "craginm", who's down-dinging anything that could possibly be construed as unflattering to Ms. Coulter.

Care to comment craginm, or are you too much of a coward?

Looks like he's doing it to everyone. I can't find a single post for him.

138 Dustyvet  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:20:27pm

re: #21 2-Drink Minimum

[removing coconuts] What?

It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry a one pound coconut.


1st soldier with a keen interest in birds: Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?

139 RoboBob  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:20:29pm

I love her in her role as fire-breathing dragon when she takes on the excesses of the Left, but it is truly mystifying how she and some others on the Right reflexively revert to knuckle-dragger mode when it comes to the topic of evolution.

Charles Darwin had one of the most keen and elegant insights in the history of science, and all the voluminous evidence accumulated since then has only confirmed that he was more correct and the implications even more profound than even he realized at the time. It is sad that Ann and many others like her cannot look at evolution without peering through the shrouded lens of religious bias.

140 FightingBack  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:20:36pm

re: #105 Nevergiveup

20:45 Saudi Arabia official: Mosques the only places of worship allowed in my country (AP)

Think Obama knows that?

Why not? He said he was raised in a Moslem country.

141 NoWhereAlaska  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:20:46pm

OT, Listening to Obama lie is an interesting experience. He was talking about no 'earmarks' in the stimulus package. Yet what is it when you designate 2 billion for a clean coal plant in a specific place, in a specific state. I guess he just decided to rename it a non-earmarked 'earmark.'

There was a lot crying for joy when HE was elected. Unfotunately there are more tears on the way, including many of my own if this crap continues. And there will be 'no joy' in them.

142 Kosh's Shadow  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:20:53pm

re: #106 Viking6

Diana Rigg - The Avengers

MMMMM. Emma Peel.

143 Kragar  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:20:58pm

re: #111 Occasional Reader

I do. Bowhunting skills, numchuck skills...

We'll be reviewing your application and be getting back to you if we get a position using that skill set

144 thefallingman  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:20:59pm

re: #116 Naso Tang
I am not saying anybody here is atheist (or is not). I'm talking about the atheist true believers. Take Madeline Murray O'Hare or Bill Maher, for example. Those are the types of people I'm talking about.

145 subsailor68  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:21:02pm

re: #125 Creeping Eruption

Looks like you can afford a few hits.

I have an idea: Hey Charles, can we start a "Karma Credits" program here? Subsailor has a bunch and I could use a few more to push me over 1000 . . .

Well, in the spirit of our new Administration's commitment to socialism, I hereby request that my karma be shared equally with Creeping Eruption....

.....well, not the downding.

:-)

146 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:21:06pm

re: #127 kansas

What is it about 600,000 American Citizens dying during the Civil War that I am not splaining? To me everyone that was shot, hanged, stabbed, or otherwise removed from this life by someone else was murdered. Maybe the 600,000 dead include disease and accidental deaths. I don't have time to look into it. At any rate, the point is we recovered from the Civil War, we'll recover from this if Obama would STFU.

PS

I am not a fan of Lincoln.

Death in a war is not MURDER.

What would rather have had happen? Slavery to continue?

147 jcm  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:21:18pm

re: #122 jorline

Working with Midwestgak, first pass looks like a serious lack of memory on her machine, 256MB. I pointed her to a memory upgrade.

148 Occasional Reader  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:21:43pm

re: #128 Aviator

Fear of splinters?

Heh.

Actually, no, I'm pretty eclectic in regard to body type. But there's something off-putting about her.

149 iLikeCandy  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:21:46pm

re: #93 Killgore Trout

Probably. Pretty much all of the Republicans are creationists. It's pretty much a requirement.

Groan. Well, I started voting Repub after 9/11 (sorry it took so long, I had my issues) and I'm not leaving the tent. What do they mean to do about me?

150 yma o hyd  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:22:07pm

re: #91 subsailor68

On a lighter note, for those who like Shakespeare - and Hamlet:

Shakespeare Sketch.

Hugh Laurie and Rowan Atkinson. What else do you need?

Stephen Fry?

Updinged you anyway!

151 FightingBack  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:22:22pm

re: #141 NoWhereAlaska

OT, Listening to Obama lie is an interesting experience. He was talking about no 'earmarks' in the stimulus package. Yet what is it when you designate 2 billion for a clean coal plant in a specific place, in a specific state. I guess he just decided to rename it a non-earmarked 'earmark.'

Remarks about ears mean something different to him.

152 notutopia  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:22:26pm

re: #100 The_Vig

I would love to see a Charles vs Coulter debate on evolution.

I would love to HEAR it. Facts vs. Fiction. That's one of the reasons I was hoping that Charles was going to be speaking at CPAC. The other main element that would greatly benefit from his presence is on Communications Systems and Technology in the upcoming elections. We have got to get up to speed and outreach....literally.

153 Rednek  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:22:26pm
It may sound silly, but in defense of the Cargo Cult, they did not wait as long for evidence supporting their theory as the Darwinists have waited for evidence supporting theirs.

What a dingbat.

I hope she never has to find out what drug resistant bacteria are. She will get her evidence right quickly.

154 jcm  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:22:37pm

re: #125 Creeping Eruption

Looks like you can afford a few hits.

I have an idea: Hey Charles, can we start a "Karma Credits" program here? Subsailor has a bunch and I could use a few more to push me over 1000 . . .

Spread the Karma around, who do you think you are? Obama?
/ ;-P

155 jamgarr  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:22:43pm

Why has noone suggested that we spend our trillion dollars on building umpteen nuclear power plants?!?!?

156 Kragar  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:22:57pm

re: #127 kansas

What is it about 600,000 American Citizens dying during the Civil War that I am not splaining? To me everyone that was shot, hanged, stabbed, or otherwise removed from this life by someone else was murdered. Maybe the 600,000 dead include disease and accidental deaths. I don't have time to look into it. At any rate, the point is we recovered from the Civil War, we'll recover from this if Obama would STFU.

PS

I am not a fan of Lincoln.

OK, you're an idiot, thanks for clearing that up

157 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:23:11pm

re: #36 Occasional Reader

She never quite "worked" for me. Hard to defined why not.

Very long hands.

158 Kosh's Shadow  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:23:11pm

re: #141 NoWhereAlaska

OT, Listening to Obama lie is an interesting experience. He was talking about no 'earmarks' in the stimulus package. Yet what is it when you designate 2 billion for a clean coal plant in a specific place, in a specific state. I guess he just decided to rename it a non-earmarked 'earmark.'

There was a lot crying for joy when HE was elected. Unfotunately there are more tears on the way, including many of my own if this crap continues. And there will be 'no joy' in them.

I guess it's "Don't talk about the earmarks"

159 Viking6  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:23:15pm

re: #142 Kosh's Shadow

You are clearly a person of fine taste and distinction. They just don't make them like that anymore.

160 Killgore Trout  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:23:36pm

re: #96 Nevergiveup

I'm a Republican and I am not.

You are still a minority in the Republican party. Although there's some variety among Republicans the politicians are pretty much required to be creationists.

161 subsailor68  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:23:37pm

re: #150 yma o hyd

Stephen Fry?

Updinged you anyway!

Oooh, I only meant for this particular sketch. A gazillion updings for you for mentioning Stephen Fry! "A Bit of Fry and Laurie" shows are classics.

162 thefallingman  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:23:44pm

re: #123 Charles
Again, I don't think that would be as big an issue if there weren't the O'Hares and Mahers of the world. I have heard fundamentalist preachers and they always seem to bring people like this up when they tie evolution and atheism together. However, I will give people like William Jennings Bryan and his ilk equal credit.

163 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:23:45pm

re: #148 Occasional Reader

Heh.

Actually, no, I'm pretty eclectic in regard to body type. But there's something off-putting about her.

I think some men fear her mouth.

164 Occasional Reader  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:23:48pm

re: #155 jamgarr

Why has noone suggested that we spend our trillion dollars on building umpteen nuclear power plants?!?!?

I already suggested the 1,000 foot solid gold Obama statue on the National Mall. Other than that, I'm fresh out of ideas.

165 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:23:48pm
166 Kragar  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:23:57pm

re: #157 Ben Hur

Very long hands.

Smells of cabbage

167 Nevergiveup  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:24:05pm

re: #155 jamgarr

Why has noone suggested that we spend our trillion dollars on building umpteen nuclear power plants?!?!?

I don't think Peggy Noone is in favor of that, but if no one else is, I am.

168 Vicious Babushka  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:24:10pm
I would like evolution to join the roster of other discredited religions, like the Cargo Cult of the South Pacific. Practitioners of Cargo Cult believed that manufactured products were created by ancestral spirits, and if they imitated what they had seen the white man do, they could cause airplanes to appear out of the sky, bringing valuable cargo like radios and TVs. So they constructed “airport towers” out of bamboo and “headphones” out of coconuts and waited for the airplanes to come with the cargo.

When I first saw this quote, without seeing who said it, my brain automatically inserted "anti-evolution" to the first sentence, because the normal human mind basically rejects cognitive dissonance.

BTW lizards, my grandson's Bar Mitzvah was incredible! My daughter made everything herself, instead of having it catered, and it was utterly magnificent. Too bad you couldn't have been there.

169 turn  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:24:23pm

re: #124 Dianna

When I read that I was thinking Kilgore must have forgot to include the sarc tag. Hey I had fun swapping stories with you earlier this week. The Italian restaurant you recommend was pretty good. Thanks.

170 Dianna  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:24:26pm

re: #130 Spiny Norman

I'd have updinged you, except for that last sentence.

I'm trying not to whack people for the next two weeks.

171 Mardukhai  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:24:33pm

What I don't understand about the Creationists, is how they can actually believe that the world is only 6,000 years old.

Can't they just visit the La Brea Tar Pits?

172 jorline  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:24:50pm

re: #147 jcm

Working with Midwestgak, first pass looks like a serious lack of memory on her machine, 256MB. I pointed her to a memory upgrade.

Hey, jcm.

Thanks for helping her. She emailed me yesterday and said she ordered the upgrade. They told her is would be delivered in 5-8 days.
Hopefully we'll she her soon.

She may be contacting you if she runs problems during the upgrade.

Again, thanks for your help.

173 medaura18586  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:24:50pm

re: #130 Spiny Norman

I'm a registered Republican, and have been for more that 28 years. So it pretty much is not a "requirement".

Damn, you can be as much of a prick as Ann Coulter.

I think he's speaking statistically, by the law of large numbers.

174 FightingBack  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:24:52pm

About Republicans, why do they care what the prevailing "belief" about a scientific concept is? Isn't there freedom of belief in this country?

175 Bloodnok  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:25:01pm

re: #161 subsailor68

Oooh, I only meant for this particular sketch. A gazillion updings for you for mentioning Stephen Fry! "A Bit of Fry and Laurie" shows are classics.

What I have seen of that show was tree-mendous. As was Jeeves & Wooster.

176 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:25:06pm

Is that sh*t true about the Cargo Coconuts?

177 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:25:07pm
178 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:25:07pm
179 Kragar  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:25:09pm

re: #171 Mardukhai

What I don't understand about the Creationists, is how they can actually believe that the world is only 6,000 years old.

Can't they just visit the La Brea Tar Pits?

can't be any more than 3000 years old, right?

180 Erik The Red  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:25:22pm

re: #160 Killgore Trout

You are still a minority in the Republican party. Although there's some variety among Republicans the politicians are pretty much required to be creationists.

Bullshit again KT.

181 Nevergiveup  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:25:22pm

re: #163 MandyManners

I think some men fear her mouth.

I wish I had the guts to respond to that?

182 Killgore Trout  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:25:22pm

I can't wait to hear which hateful ethnic and racial slurs Coulter uses to descrtibe Obama at CPAC. She's an embarrassment, she always has been.

183 thefallingman  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:25:27pm

re: #157 Ben Hur
My current girlfriend has very long hands. But then again she's 5'11".

184 FightingBack  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:25:46pm

re: #157 Ben Hur

Very long hands.

It's the neck that gets me.

185 Caliredst8r  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:25:55pm

So they constructed “hope” out of bamboo and “change” out of coconuts and waited for the unicorns to come rescue the economy. It may sound silly, but in defense of the Cargo Cult, they did not wait as long for evidence supporting their theory as the Obamatons will wait for evidence supporting theirs.

186 itellu3times  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:26:11pm

re: #82 Killgore Trout

I don't think Ann understands the creationists are the Cargo Cult. Everyday we all use items developed by science. Every creationists that goes to the hospital, takes medication or undergoes treatment is reaping the benefits of evolutionary science while maintaining a magical world view without understanding how these medicines were developed.

It takes an angel.

187 kansas  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:26:12pm

re: #146 MandyManners

Death in a war is not MURDER.

What would rather have had happen? Slavery to continue?

Lincoln freed the slaves. Why was it necessary to send troops to destroy the South?

188 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:26:16pm

re: #144 thefallingman

I am not saying anybody here is atheist (or is not). I'm talking about the atheist true believers. Take Madeline Murray O'Hare or Bill Maher, for example. Those are the types of people I'm talking about.

Madeline Murray is long dead and Bill Maher is a comedian. I on the other hand am alive and well and here.

189 Boxy_brown  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:26:18pm

re: #171 Mardukhai


What I don't understand about the Creationists, is how they can actually believe that the world is only 6,000 years old.

Can't they just visit the La Brea Tar Pits?


Or have a look at Helen Thomas?

190 Killgore Trout  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:26:18pm

re: #124 Dianna

See #160.

191 Occasional Reader  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:26:19pm

re: #157 Ben Hur

Very long hands.

Yeah, that's part of it.

Also: No eye protection, lousy stance.

192 subsailor68  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:26:24pm

re: #175 Bloodnok

What I have seen of that show was tree-mendous. As was Jeeves & Wooster.

Oh yes. Jeeves & Wooster DVD's are on my purchase list!

193 Charles Johnson  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:26:26pm

re: #93 Killgore Trout

Probably. Pretty much all of the Republicans are creationists. It's pretty much a requirement.

I think you mean "almost all Republican politicians," right?

Even though everyone's bashing Killgore for this, he's right. It's difficult to find a Republican politician who isn't anti-evolution.

194 Dustyvet  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:26:28pm

re: #150 yma o hyd

Stephen Fry?

Updinged you anyway!

Youtube Video
195 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:26:32pm

re: #181 Nevergiveup

I wish I had the guts to respond to that?

Chicken.

196 Bloodnok  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:26:34pm

re: #182 Killgore Trout

I can't wait to hear which hateful ethnic and racial slurs Coulter uses to descrtibe Obama at CPAC. She's an embarrassment, she always has been.

Proof it is possible to make a million dollars by being a Moby.

197 jcm  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:26:47pm

re: #172 jorline

Hey, jcm.

Thanks for helping her. She emailed me yesterday and said she ordered the upgrade. They told her is would be delivered in 5-8 days.
Hopefully we'll she her soon.

She may be contacting you if she runs problems during the upgrade.

Again, thanks for your help.

Her machine won't take MacOS 10.5 (Leopard) but will take 10.4 (Tiger). We'll see if the memory works then see if we can find a OS upgrade.

198 Killgore Trout  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:26:53pm

re: #180 Erik The Red

Bullshit again KT.


You got something to prove that?

199 quickjustice  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:26:56pm

Hmmm. Coulter is a member of Redeemer Presbyterian Church here in NYC. Redeemer is a very conservative, Bible-centered church, unlike the liberal Presbyterian churches that hate Israel.

I'm surprised that Coulter and Redeemer have added evolution to their list of demons. Setting evolution against religion is a train wreck.

200 MJBrutus  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:26:57pm

Clever as usual Ann. Now go along to church and play with your coconut headphones.

201 kansas  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:27:11pm

re: #156 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

OK, you're an idiot, thanks for clearing that up

In the words of Mandy Manners, "Fuck You."

202 lobo91  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:27:12pm

re: #141 NoWhereAlaska

OT, Listening to Obama lie is an interesting experience. He was talking about no 'earmarks' in the stimulus package. Yet what is it when you designate 2 billion for a clean coal plant in a specific place, in a specific state. I guess he just decided to rename it a non-earmarked 'earmark.'

An "earmark" is a (usually unrelated) spending item that's attached to an existing bill.

This crap's all in the bill itself, so he's technically correct. Besides, this thing is a collection of every liberal dream for the past 30 years, so there's probably nothing left to attach.

203 Kragar  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:27:13pm

re: #187 kansas

Lincoln freed the slaves. Why was it necessary to send troops to destroy the South?

Probably had something to do with the Confederate Army attacking the Union.

204 thefallingman  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:27:15pm

re: #188 Naso Tang
Well then, you're not one of the people I'm talking about.

205 jorline  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:27:18pm

Charles, craginm is playing with his down ding button a lot...and he likes it.

206 Dan G.  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:27:21pm

re: #174 FightingBack

There SHOULD be, but there are those, both on the left and right, that would sell everyone's freedom for their pet projects.

207 Creeping Eruption  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:27:28pm

re: #154 jcm

Spread the Karma around, who do you think you are? Obama?
/ ;-P

If you look above, Subsailor has finished his stint in re-education camp and has already gotten on board with an equal distribution of his hard-earned credits to those less fortunate amongst us who's karma quota just cannot be filled.

208 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:27:33pm

re: #191 Occasional Reader

Yeah, that's part of it.

Also: No eye protection, lousy stance.

I've seen her walking in the city.

She dug me.

209 Nevergiveup  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:27:39pm

re: #189 Boxy_brown

Or have a look at Helen Thomas?

That's not evolution, that's mummification while still alive

210 Guanxi88  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:27:45pm

re: #205 jorline

Charles, craginm is playing with his down ding button a lot...and he likes it.

Didn't anyone tell him he'll go blind from doing that?

211 MJBrutus  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:27:46pm

re: #193 Charles

I think you mean "almost all Republican politicians," right?

Even though everyone's bashing Killgore for this, he's right. It's difficult to find a Republican politician who isn't anti-evolution.

Thus the distinction between Conservative and Republican.

212 iLikeCandy  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:27:56pm

re: #129 The_Vig

Do you mean that he was dumb for supporting legalization, or for not supporting it.

Neither. What I mean is that the man certainly appreciated the value of empirical evidence and had the intellectual honesty to use it in forming his judgments. So how did he manage to arrive at pro-creationism with such an appreciation of empirical evidence?

213 thefallingman  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:28:10pm

re: #187 kansas
As a native born Alabamian, my answer is "yes".

214 Eclectic Infidel  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:28:20pm

re: #144 thefallingman

I am not saying anybody here is atheist (or is not). I'm talking about the atheist true believers. Take Madeline Murray O'Hare or Bill Maher, for example. Those are the types of people I'm talking about.

I can't imagine either having that much influence over the greater Christian community in the U.S. I've known folk, several in fact, who were fundamentalists in the past and from the horse's mouth to my ears, all of them told me that services included references to the bible being the word of god and anything that contradicted those divine words were the elements of satan. Dave was Catholic, is now part of the ELC, Bob was fundamentalist, is now secular, Craig was Southern Bapist, is now Buddhist, etc.

215 Dan G.  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:28:38pm

re: #187 kansas

That's how wars are won, not dragged on for decades.

216 jamgarr  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:28:42pm

re: #164 Occasional Reader

I already suggested the 1,000 foot solid gold Obama statue on the National Mall. Other than that, I'm fresh out of ideas.

Well, one or the other - I'm open to a post-partisan solution.

217 FightingBack  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:28:43pm

re: #193 Charles

I think you mean "almost all Republican politicians," right?

Even though everyone's bashing Killgore for this, he's right. It's difficult to find a Republican politician who isn't anti-evolution.

But I still don't understand why this is an issue? People have beliefs. So what.

218 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:28:48pm

re: #193 Charles

I think you mean "almost all Republican politicians," right?

Even though everyone's bashing Killgore for this, he's right. It's difficult to find a Republican politician who isn't anti-evolution.

Difficult to find one that dares to be so publicly, you mean.

219 Peacekeeper  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:28:51pm

Uh.

220 Killgore Trout  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:29:06pm

re: #193 Charles

About 70% of Republican voters and I'd guess about 90% of the politicians. I think that qualifies as "pretty much all."

221 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:29:11pm

re: #187 kansas

Lincoln freed the slaves. Why was it necessary to send troops to destroy the South?

Ever heard of Fort Sumter? Secession? Do you really think the CSA would've freed the slaves?

222 kansas  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:29:15pm

< re: #203 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Probably had something to do with the Confederate Army attacking the Union.

No, according to Mandy, it was to free the slaves.

223 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:29:39pm

re: #204 thefallingman

Well then, you're not one of the people I'm talking about.

Be careful or I might start generalizing and blaming all kinds of silly stuff on you.

;)

224 allbusiness  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:29:40pm

Ann Coulter is a troll, deserving of some type of IRL ban.

225 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:29:42pm
226 Occasional Reader  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:29:50pm

re: #208 Ben Hur

I've seen her walking in the city.

She dug me.

It's your Jewfro, I'm sure of it. (Especially when you leave the "pick" in it like that.)

227 CyanSnowHawk  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:30:01pm

re: #4 MandyManners

Whne will she evolve a gag for herself?

I'm sure she has one in her fetish gear locker somewhere.

228 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:30:13pm

re: #201 kansas

Don't drag me into it.

229 Nevergiveup  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:30:15pm

re: #220 Killgore Trout

About 70% of Republican voters and I'd guess about 90% of the politicians. I think that qualifies as "pretty much all."

I have nothing to go on, but those stats don't feel right to me.

230 Erik The Red  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:30:30pm

re: #198 Killgore Trout

You got something to prove that?

You made the allegations. You prove that all or must Republicans are creationists.

231 Charles Johnson  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:30:33pm

Creationist meltdown.

232 dentate  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:30:35pm

I think there is a question as to whether Ann Coulter is an idiot or an attention whore. Saying things like this, just like the comment about 9/11 widows enjoying their status, are so moronic as to evoke suspicion that they are intentionally made to garner attention. I don't know which is worse.

233 subsailor68  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:30:37pm

re: #207 Creeping Eruption

If you look above, Subsailor has finished his stint in re-education camp and has already gotten on board with an equal distribution of his hard-earned credits to those less fortunate amongst us who's karma quota just cannot be filled.

Now if I can only get rid of this glassy eyed stare thingy.

234 Kragar  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:30:41pm

re: #222 kansas

<


No, according to Mandy, it was to free the slaves.

Mandy was incorrect. Slavery was one issue, but not the main issue. It had more to do with the differences between the excercise of State versus Federal power.

235 J.S.  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:30:47pm

re: #139 RoboBob

Ann is (imo) a huge liability -- and not just in terms of evolution or even creationism -- it's on a wide range of topics. (Have you read any of the Wiki articles? Have you read her quotes about "[bigoted word]s", and "camel jockeys?" then she seems incapable of understanding that these are even insults...A couple of months ago, the National Post's Johnathan Kay wrote an article about Coulter, and he presented a series of her infamous quotes....again, just breathtakingly unbelievable -- she comes across as uneducated, bigoted, narrow-minded, and tone deaf...and, that's just for starters...Democrats must really love her.)

236 Occasional Reader  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:31:00pm

I will say that I'd rather sleep with Ann Coulter than with Abraham Lincoln. For what it's worth.

237 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:31:02pm

re: #222 kansas

<


No, according to Mandy, it was to free the slaves.

Quit putting words into my mouth. Right now.

238 kansas  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:31:03pm

re: #221 MandyManners

Ever heard of Fort Sumter? Secession? Do you really think the CSA would've freed the slaves?

Yeah, I've heard of secession. That would be the reason for war. The slaves were freed by proclamation.

239 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:31:05pm

re: #226 Occasional Reader

It's your Jewfro, I'm sure of it. (Especially when you leave the "pick" in it like that.)

I acutally have one! When I let it go.

Weird.

240 jcm  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:31:08pm

re: #225 rogue yam

rogue yam
This user is blocked.
(Logged in)
Registered since: Jan 23, 2007 at 4:39 pm
No. of comments posted: 19
No. of links posted: 0

STINKY RULES!
BWAHAHAHAHAAH!

241 Dan G.  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:31:10pm

re: #231 Charles

Another martyr bites the dust.

242 jamgarr  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:31:37pm

re: #187 kansas

Lincoln freed the slaves. Why was it necessary to send troops to destroy the South?


W.T. Sherman said it best I think: "War is the action that our enemy has chosen - let's give them all they can handle."

243 bulwrk  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:31:38pm

So they constructed “airport towers” out of bamboo and “headphones” out of coconuts and waited for the airplanes to come.


Sounds more like they were worshiping reruns of Gilligan's Island and the professor must have been their supreme being.

244 kansas  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:31:47pm

re: #234 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Mandy was incorrect. Slavery was one issue, but not the main issue. It had more to do with the differences between the excercise of State versus Federal power.

Mandy incorrect? Me, an idiot? Dang.

245 FightingBack  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:31:48pm

re: #221 MandyManners

Ever heard of Fort Sumter? Secession? Do you really think the CSA would've freed the slaves?

He could have tried to make them love the Union.
/////

246 Nevergiveup  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:31:49pm

re: #236 Occasional Reader

I will say that I'd rather sleep with Ann Coulter than with Abraham Lincoln. For what it's worth.

And they didn't bath as much back then either?

247 joncelli  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:31:57pm

re: #93 Killgore Trout

That's ridiculous and you know it.

248 Dan G.  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:32:20pm

[Stinky extends his banishment stick and say: "Here, walk into this."]

249 kansas  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:32:27pm

re: #245 FightingBack

He could have tried to make them love the Union.
/////

He did, at gunpoint.

250 Leonidas Hoplite  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:32:37pm

re: #30 DeafDog

Ginger or Mary-anne?

Ginger.

251 eschew_obfuscation  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:32:41pm

Wow....

I used to like Ann .... She's just jumped the shark

252 Dan G.  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:32:42pm

re: #242 jamgarr

I have but one ding to give...

253 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:32:52pm

re: #234 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Mandy was incorrect. Slavery was one issue, but not the main issue. It had more to do with the differences between the excercise of State versus Federal power.

I never said that so please don't buy into it. Kansas put words into my mouth that I have never uttered.

254 jcm  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:32:53pm

re: #221 MandyManners

Ever heard of Fort Sumter? Secession? Do you really think the CSA would've freed the slaves?

Lincoln should have written a nice letter and met without preconditions, he just didn't know how to talk with people.

////

255 Occasional Reader  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:32:58pm

re: #239 Ben Hur

I acutally have one! When I let it go.

Weird.

I know that, because of the hidden webcam in your bathroom.

256 Lee Coller  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:32:58pm

re: #127 kansas

What is it about 600,000 American Citizens dying during the Civil War that I am not splaining? To me everyone that was shot, hanged, stabbed, or otherwise removed from this life by someone else was murdered. Maybe the 600,000 dead include disease and accidental deaths. I don't have time to look into it. At any rate, the point is we recovered from the Civil War, we'll recover from this if Obama would STFU.

PS

I am not a fan of Lincoln.

Must be a fan of Jefferson Davis then. I detect another LGF poster breakdown coming on.

257 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:32:58pm

re: #217 FightingBack

But I still don't understand why this is an issue? People have beliefs. So what.

Comes back to things like what is taught in schools and what science is supported. Have you been away for a while?

258 CyanSnowHawk  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:33:04pm

re: #22 faraway

So many species, so few links.

And on the other side, so many answers, so little evidence.

259 Creeping Eruption  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:33:25pm

re: #250 Leonidas Hoplite

Ginger.

. . and Mary-Ann

260 Erik The Red  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:33:38pm

re: #211 MJBrutus

Thus the distinction between Conservative and Republican.

That may be my difference with KT. Where do us Conservatives go?

261 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:33:44pm

re: #254 jcm

Lincoln should have written a nice letter and met without preconditions, he just didn't know how to talk with people.

////

LOL!

262 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:33:49pm
263 Dan G.  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:34:14pm

re: #250 Leonidas Hoplite

Is both a valid choice?

264 iLikeCandy  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:34:21pm

re: #199 quickjustice

Hmmm. Coulter is a member of Redeemer Presbyterian Church here in NYC. Redeemer is a very conservative, Bible-centered church, unlike the liberal Presbyterian churches that hate Israel.

I'm surprised that Coulter and Redeemer have added evolution to their list of demons. Setting evolution against religion is a train wreck.

See, this is what makes me doubt her actual faith in creationism. How long has she been a member of that church? This is the sort of thing a person gets a lot of mileage out of -- it works as well on our side as Jeremiah Wright does on Obama's. Don't misunderstand me; it's not that I'm cutting Ann some slack and saying she's simply too smart to be so dumb. I'm all about cynicism here.

265 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:34:28pm

re: #255 Occasional Reader

I know that, because of the hidden webcam in your bathroom.

Manscaping?

WHAT?@!?!?

266 Killgore Trout  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:34:48pm

re: #230 Erik The Red

I've provided proof. Twice already on this thread. I've backed up my assertion with evidence from a reputable source. You claim "bullshit" without countering with evidence of your own. At this point the ball is in your court.

267 Creeping Eruption  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:34:49pm

re: #263 Dan G.

Is both a valid choice?

Choice? No. Imperative? Yes.

268 turn  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:35:05pm

re: #232 dentate

I think there is a question as to whether Ann Coulter is an idiot or an attention whore. Saying things like this, just like the comment about 9/11 widows enjoying their status, are so moronic as to evoke suspicion that they are intentionally made to garner attention. I don't know which is worse.

I'm leaning toward attention whore, shit like this sells books.

269 kansas  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:35:09pm

re: #253 MandyManners

I never said that so please don't buy into it. Kansas put words into my mouth that I have never uttered.



Ever heard of Fort Sumter? Secession? Do you really think the CSA would've freed the slaves?

What did you mean if not that by the above statement?

270 The_Vig  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:35:34pm

re: #236 Occasional Reader

Is that because Lincoln is dead?

271 garycooper  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:35:47pm

re: #2 Charles

This statement by Ann Coulter ranks as one of the most willfully ignorant comments about evolution I've ever seen.

I've heard her say stupid stuff before, but I always thought she was going over-the-top on purpose, in critiquing Democrats and liberals, among others.

This is just sad.

272 yma o hyd  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:35:49pm

re: #161 subsailor68

Oooh, I only meant for this particular sketch. A gazillion updings for you for mentioning Stephen Fry! "A Bit of Fry and Laurie" shows are classics.

As are their 'Jeeves and Wooster' - utter hilarity!

273 Kragar  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:35:52pm

re: #253 MandyManners

I never said that so please don't buy into it. Kansas put words into my mouth that I have never uttered.

Re-reading what was said, you are correct. My apologies Mandy

274 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:35:56pm

Red roses, too.

Youtube Video
275 thefallingman  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:35:58pm

re: #223 Naso Tang
That's the great hell of having arguments in a comment thread. I don't want to spend the next 30 minutes typing, so I sum things up as best as I can. And even though we are now in the slow period at work (offering me time to do a little) I still get distracted from time to time and lose my train of thought.

276 Occasional Reader  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:35:59pm

re: #265 Ben Hur

Manscaping?

WHAT?@!?!?

You were unaware of your celebrity status in Germany? (benhurschiessevideo.com.de)

277 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:36:02pm
278 SixDegrees  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:36:05pm

re: #45 lawhawk

How could someone supposedly so smart say something so incredibly dumb.

Good question. I suspect that Coulter, though brilliant, is pathologically insane.

Maybe we can look forward to having her call Darwin a queer. Doesn't the Discovery Institute blame him for homosexuality already?

The sooner the GOP yanks the rug out from under this woman, the better.

279 Viking6  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:36:19pm

re: #254 jcm

Or the really big wart on his face turned them off.

//////////////

280 Occasional Reader  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:36:20pm

re: #270 The_Vig

Is that because Lincoln is dead?

Well, that's certainly part of it.

281 FightingBack  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:36:26pm

re: #257 Naso Tang

I understand the pork aspects of the political dialogue, but we all have differences on what programs are supported. What I don't get is why this particular religious belief is a test?

282 Dustyvet  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:36:42pm

re: #248 Dan G.

[Stinky extends his banishment stick and say: "Here, walk into this."]

Youtube Video
283 Honorary Yooper  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:36:50pm

Hey, craignm, why don't you actually post something instead of being a chickenshit downdinger? Come out and play.

284 kansas  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:36:57pm

re: #256 Lee Coller

Must be a fan of Jefferson Davis then. I detect another LGF poster breakdown coming on.

Got any Prozac for me?

285 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:36:59pm

re: #269 kansas

What did you mean if not that by the above statement?

I never named slavery as the sole reason for secession.

Now, kinldy leave me the fuck alone.

286 A Man for all Seasons  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:37:03pm

re: #115 subsailor68

hmm...downdinged me as well. There goes my karma.


Nope..I balanced his down ding out..

287 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:37:36pm

re: #273 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Re-reading what was said, you are correct. My apologies Mandy

No problem.

Have a good weekend, folks.

288 kansas  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:38:01pm

re: #285 MandyManners

I never named slavery as the sole reason for secession.

Now, kinldy leave me the fuck alone.

OK.

289 medaura18586  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:38:04pm

re: #193 Charles

I think you mean "almost all Republican politicians," right?

Even though everyone's bashing Killgore for this, he's right. It's difficult to find a Republican politician who isn't anti-evolution.

I think you mean "almost everyone's bashing Killgore," right? ;)

He is surely right, and if anything, I wouldn't mind this problem being overstated, as opposed to understated. Relegated to the bottom of reformers' priority list, this retrograde mentality will only keep festering, until it bubbles up in the form of political catastrophe.

The Republican Party needs to evolve! Fast!

290 Killgore Trout  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:38:07pm

re: #247 joncelli

No it's not. It's an established fact. Here's a poll from gallup that says pretty much the same thing. Lizards are very upset my reality this afternoon.

291 subsailor68  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:38:13pm

re: #187 kansas

Lincoln freed the slaves. Why was it necessary to send troops to destroy the South?

Just saw the reference to this post. IIRC, Lincoln didn't actually "free the slaves" so much as declare the slaves in the states in rebellion free. That didn't exactly lead the South to jump up and down and say "No problem."

292 MJBrutus  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:38:17pm

re: #260 Erik The Red

That may be my difference with KT. Where do us Conservatives go?

Quite right. The difference between Conservatives and Republicans is a whole lot wider than this little rift. This is just one of the differences. A bigger one is the entire deal struck by Reagan and Newt with the religious right.

By making them full partners, the Republicans brought in a whole raft of single-issue voters to the detriment of us all. It was why, for example, we were left with McCain (thanks to Huckleberry's electoral bleeding of Mitt) and ultimately why we now have President Bambi.

293 Occasional Reader  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:38:30pm

re: #276 Occasional Reader

You were unaware of your celebrity status in Germany? (benhurschiessevideo.com.de)

(Disclaimer: If that turns out to be a real website, I take no responsibility whatsover)

294 jcm  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:38:39pm

re: #283 Honorary Yooper

Hey, craignm, why don't you actually post something instead of being a chickenshit downdinger? Come out and play.

craignm just peed his pants and called for mommy to come down to the basement and help him log off.

295 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:38:59pm

re: #259 Creeping Eruption

. . and Mary-Ann

Throw I Dream of Jeanie into the mix, too.

296 quickjustice  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:39:05pm

Redeemer Presbyterian Church, of which Coulter is a member, is itself a member of the conservative Presbyterian Church in America ("PCA"). Here's a link describing the roots of the PCA in the Presbyterian Church of the Confederate States of America: [Link: www.waysidechurch.org...]

From that website, here's a list of the reasons the PCA broke off from the Presbyterian Church of the United States (PCUS), the former Southern Presbyterian (Confederate) Church:

"There are a number of reasons that these churches and elders left the PCUS:

1. The PCUS denied the authority of the Bible.
2. The PCUS required the ordination of women as elders and deacons.
3. The PCUS defended abortion and funded abortions.
4. The PCUS joined the National and World Council of Churches which support communism around the world.
5. The PCUS defended Darwinian evolution.
6. The PCUS was promoting sexual immorality to church youth.
7. The PCUS opposed capital punishment of murderers.
8. The PCUS welcomed some ministers who denied the virgin birth, and the deity and resurrection of Jesus, and refused to accept some ministers who believed in these doctrines.
9. The PCUS was run by a political machine which excluded conservatives from influential posts.
10. The PCUS redefined missions as social action, and downplayed evangelism and church planting."

297 Scion9  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:39:09pm

re: #165 buzzsawmonkey

Can't agree at all. The Democrats only have the stigma of being "Godless" among the religious right, that were never going to vote Dem anyway. Practically every Democrat is an avowed Christian on top of it, regardless of it being some liberal interpretation, or general non-observance. By comparison none of the Republican Creationists are also Evolutionary Biologists. To anyone in the middle, which either party needs to sway to win elections at this point, but especially Republicans, the Democrat's "Godlessness" doesn't matter.

The two stigmas are not comparable at all.

298 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:39:15pm

re: #275 thefallingman

That's the great hell of having arguments in a comment thread. I don't want to spend the next 30 minutes typing, so I sum things up as best as I can. And even though we are now in the slow period at work (offering me time to do a little) I still get distracted from time to time and lose my train of thought.

Well, that wasn't much of an argument, that you proposed; specifically that atheists give evolution a bad rap if they argue for it, or point out that Darwin was one.

Strawman I would say.

299 RoboBob  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:39:16pm

re: #262 Iron Fist

You really should visit the splendid collection of evidence to the contrary, known as The American Museum of Natural History.

300 subsailor68  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:39:26pm

re: #286 HoosierHoops

Nope..I balanced his down ding out..

Thanks so much! I owe you one.

:-)

301 faraway  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:39:56pm

re: #35 Charles

Nonsense.

A very incomplete list of transitional fossils:

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

Mostly incomplete. Human section is essentially blank. hmmm... I need more scientific data to reach any conclusions about this matter.

302 Honorary Yooper  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:40:17pm

re: #285 MandyManners

I never named slavery as the sole reason for secession.

Now, kinldy leave me the fuck alone.

kansas is being obtuse here. It wasn't slavery itself that was the issue, it was the expansion of slavery that was the issue. It later morphed during the war.

303 Charles Johnson  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:40:34pm

re: #301 faraway

Mostly incomplete. Human section is essentially blank. hmmm... I need more scientific data to reach any conclusions about this matter.

Right. You're just waiting for more evidence.

Snort.

304 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:40:43pm

re: #281 FightingBack

I understand the pork aspects of the political dialogue, but we all have differences on what programs are supported. What I don't get is why this particular religious belief is a test?

Huh? So far t

305 Mr Secul  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:40:59pm

re: #94 yma o hyd

Hills are alive with the sound of ants — talking to each other

Way cool.

306 Creeping Eruption  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:41:02pm

re: #283 Honorary Yooper

Hey, craignm, why don't you actually post something instead of being a chickenshit downdinger? Come out and play.

I asked the same thing at #99. Crickets.

307 jorline  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:41:05pm

Thanks for the pick me up Cyan.

308 jcm  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:41:18pm

re: #302 Honorary Yooper

kansas is being obtuse here. It wasn't slavery itself that was the issue, it was the expansion of slavery that was the issue. It later morphed during the war.

It was also the cause of the Whig party imploding and clearing the way for the Republican party.

309 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:41:27pm

oops. new post coming (excuse the noise)

310 Big Wabbit  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:41:52pm

It's all Bush's fault - No - wait - can't blame him anymore

311 Perplexed  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:41:54pm

re: #146 MandyManners

Death in a war is not MURDER.

What would rather have had happen? Slavery to continue?

Slavery? Sorry, but that was a side issue. Lincoln said that he basically would have done anything to end the war and reunite the states. Emancipating the slaves was done to upset the South's use of slavery for manual labor. Sherman's march to the sea did much much more to end the war than did Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. It did bring about the end to slavery here in the US though and in doing so was a good thing, but slavery wasn't the driving motive to the Civil War.

312 jcm  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:42:01pm

re: #306 Creeping Eruption

I asked the same thing at #99. Crickets.

They never do, I've called 'em out a few times. Chicken S**t downdingers.

313 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:42:07pm

re: #276 Occasional Reader


We need to drink, rip some bingers and shoot some effing guns.

314 Honorary Yooper  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:42:09pm

re: #301 faraway

Mostly incomplete. Human section is essentially blank. hmmm... I need more scientific data to reach any conclusions about this matter.

There are lots of transitional fossils, if you'd bother to look. The continual problem is that you YECs never seen to figure that out. We're seeing snapshots, not home movies.

315 jorline  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:42:14pm

re: #286 HoosierHoops

Nope..I balanced his down ding out..

Hey, Hoopster.

You were right, the video I posted was also on ESPN and it was better.

316 Occasional Reader  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:42:16pm

re: #262 Iron Fist

A mule is solid evidence that a hourse and a donkey have a common ancestor. What it is not evidence of is that the horse, donkey, my parrot, myself, and the rosebush out in the yard all share a common ancestor.

I'm not really aware of any evolutionary biologist who has declared that horse + donkey = mule is evidence for such a thing. Straw man, amigo mío.

317 JHW  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:42:21pm

This Neo-confederate apologia occasionally surfacing is an alliance with some of the most retrograde politics in the USA. The links among them are extremely disturbing to say the very least. Pat Buchanan-The Political Cesspool- Ron Paul-Lew Rockwell-The League of the South-Vlaams Belang-The Von Mises Institute, the list goes on and on.

And then you occasionally hear the excuse the US Gov't shouldn't have reinforced Ft. Sumter, it was now state property, not federal. Funny, they don't try that one when it comes to the Iranians seizing the US embassy (US property) because it was in Iran and therefore belonged to the Iranians.

318 Creeping Eruption  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:42:30pm

re: #295 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey

Throw I Dream of Jeanie into the mix, too.

I didn't know that was an option. :)

319 kansas  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:42:32pm

re: #291 subsailor68

Just saw the reference to this post. IIRC, Lincoln didn't actually "free the slaves" so much as declare the slaves in the states in rebellion free. That didn't exactly lead the South to jump up and down and say "No problem."

OK, the slaves in states that were in rebellion were freed. Anyway, I was making a point about our country recovering from lots of stuff much worse that an economic slow down. Obama's big lying mug on TV day in and day out carping about how we can never recover from this unless his pork package is passed, is just so much dangerous bullshit.

320 medaura18586  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:42:47pm

re: #290 Killgore Trout

No it's not. It's an established fact. Here's a poll from gallup that says pretty much the same thing. Lizards are very upset my reality this afternoon.

I had seen that data before already. What's very interesting is how similar the attitudes of Independents are to those of Democrats, when it comes to creationism/evolution. I'm sure this is a solid proxy of the social values of Independents. What is the percentage of those who are too repulsed by the SoCon agenda to support the Republican Party, but too weary of the Democrats' collectivist/socialist platform?

They represent a huge opportunity cost: what the Republicans are forgoing as additions to their base by their staple Neanderthal rhetoric when it comes to science/social-agenda.

321 SixDegrees  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:42:59pm

re: #182 Killgore Trout

I can't wait to hear which hateful ethnic and racial slurs Coulter uses to descrtibe Obama at CPAC. She's an embarrassment, she always has been.

I'm hoping CPAC has the good sense to continue to not invite her.

322 debutaunt  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:43:00pm

re: #232 dentate

I think there is a question as to whether Ann Coulter is an idiot or an attention whore. Saying things like this, just like the comment about 9/11 widows enjoying their status, are so moronic as to evoke suspicion that they are intentionally made to garner attention. I don't know which is worse.

What did she say about 9/11 widows?

323 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:43:01pm
324 bulwrk  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:43:07pm

re: #187 kansas

Lincoln freed the slaves. Why was it necessary to send troops to destroy the South?

I hope you forgot the sarc tag because anyone with at least a rudimentary knowledge of the Civil War would know that.

325 faraway  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:43:18pm

re: #82 Killgore Trout

I don't think Ann understands the creationists are the Cargo Cult. Everyday we all use items developed by science. Every creationists that goes to the hospital, takes medication or undergoes treatment is reaping the benefits of evolutionary science while maintaining a magical world view without understanding how these medicines were developed.

Everyday we all use items developed by your creator as well.

326 quickjustice  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:43:19pm

re: #74 kansas

Abraham Lincoln was a murderer? You're confused: Abraham Lincoln was murdered.

327 Occasional Reader  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:43:23pm

re: #313 Ben Hur

We need to drink, rip some bingers and shoot some effing guns.

Not necessarily in that order.

328 iLikeCandy  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:43:30pm

re: #231 Charles

Creationist meltdown.

You know, Charles, I followed a few of these creationist threads before I joined and I couldn't quite figure out why you were banning the meltdowners and not simply letting them expose their idiocy, especially since you were letting in new registrants at the same time. And I think I see what you're doing? Providing a place where lunacy is punished (or at least discouraged) and intellectual rigor is amplified?

329 J.D.  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:43:32pm

re: #320 medaura18586

That is changing.
Trust me.

330 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:43:33pm

re: #281 FightingBack

I understand the pork aspects of the political dialogue, but we all have differences on what programs are supported. What I don't get is why this particular religious belief is a test?

Name one other one that wants to ban or eviscerate and other branch of science education. Gravity, Relativity? Not yet, perhaps but there's always the next one.

331 Erik The Red  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:43:50pm

re: #266 Killgore Trout

Seeing that I currently live in S,Africa and have for the last 26 years I have always considered myself as an republican. By that I mean conservative. If being a republican means I have to believe in ID/creationism than I have a problem belonging to the party.

If us conservatives believe in evolution which party do we vote for?

332 MJBrutus  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:43:50pm

re: #303 Charles

Right. You're just waiting for more evidence.

Snort.

What make me chortle, is the way creationists talk about the "incompleteness" of evidence to support the ToE, yet can't seem to blush over the fact that their theory has NO evidence. In fact, even in theory, it can not be evidenced.

It is pure faith. I have no problem with that, so long as they stop trying to represent it as anything else but pure faith.

333 Occasional Reader  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:43:57pm

Whoops, need to finish somethig by 4 pm... later.

334 Nevergiveup  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:44:12pm

re: #326 quickjustice

Abraham Lincoln was a murderer? You're confused: Abraham Lincoln was murdered.

Yeah, by his Doctors!

335 joncelli  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:44:13pm

re: #290 Killgore Trout

Your original statement:

Probably. Pretty much all of the Republicans are creationists. It's pretty much a requirement.

The statement at your link:

There is a significant political divide in beliefs about the origin of human beings, with 60% of Republicans saying humans were created in their present form by God 10,000 years ago, a belief shared by only 40% of independents and 38% of Democrats.

I'm one of the 40%. Words means something; 60% is not "pretty much all."

336 subsailor68  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:44:20pm

re: #319 kansas

OK, the slaves in states that were in rebellion were freed. Anyway, I was making a point about our country recovering from lots of stuff much worse that an economic slow down. Obama's big lying mug on TV day in and day out carping about how we can never recover from this unless his pork package is passed, is just so much dangerous bullshit.

Now that I can agree with!

:-)

337 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:44:28pm

sigh

338 jcm  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:44:47pm

re: #314 Honorary Yooper

There are lots of transitional fossils, if you'd bother to look. The continual problem is that you YECs never seen to figure that out. We're seeing snapshots, not home movies.

It work like this. Fossil A and Fossil Z have a gap in between them. When Fossil G is found. Instead of seeing a step in the transition there are now 2 gaps to explain. When Fossils A to Z are present it doesn't show developement there are now 25 gaps to fill.

339 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:44:59pm

How an otherwise intelligent woman can make such an ignorant comment is beyond me.

340 mean Gene  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:45:14pm

I wish some of the earlier threads from today were still alive.
On this I've got nothing.

341 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:45:17pm
342 Randall Gross  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:45:20pm

I groaned when my wife bought her latest book for me thinking I would like it (I bought some of her previous books, but felt burned by the one before the latest which is just a series of retreaded quotes )

Meanwhile, up top in spinoffs her personal web pr flack has posted another link to another vid. Don't kid yourself, Ann's very much about Ann, and is bilking a faction for all they are worth... sorta like Discovery Institute.

343 Creeping Eruption  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:46:09pm

re: #313 Ben Hur

We need to drink, rip some bingers and shoot some effing guns.

Mr Phelps? That you?

344 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:46:58pm

re: #340 mean Gene

I wish some of the earlier threads from today were still alive.
On this I've got nothing.

Well, it is technically an open thread, so say whatever you want, man.

345 J.D.  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:47:02pm

re: #342 Thanos

My manager texted me a couple of weeks ago how much he hated Ann Coulter. I told him one of his customers happens to be a personal friend of hers.
Bless his heart. He's 49 and new to politics...or something.

346 IslandLibertarian  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:47:17pm

re: #193 Charles

I think you mean "almost all Republican politicians," right?

Even though everyone's bashing Killgore for this, he's right. It's difficult to find a Republican politician who isn't anti-evolution.

George Bush?
Asked about creation and evolution, Bush said: "I think you can have both. I think evolution can -- you're getting me way out of my lane here. I'm just a simple president. But it's, I think that God created the earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty and I don't think it's incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution."

347 Peacekeeper  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:47:25pm

I can't even prove I exist.

348 faraway  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:47:26pm

re: #123 Charles

I can't agree. The top fundamentalist preachers across America daily tell their congregations that evolution = atheism. This is far more influential than Richard Dawkins.

Have links for this? Are you sitting in church listening? I have never personally witnessed this.

349 joncelli  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:47:26pm

re: #337 Ben Hur

Agreed. I didn't come here to defend the Republican party, which has tons of problems; but words do mean something.

350 Nevergiveup  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:47:30pm

financially desperate DreamWorks needed $250 million

[Link: www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com...]

I don't really care but I'm glad to see some of these liberal Hollywood phony commie bastards having trouble.

351 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:47:40pm

re: #342 Thanos

I think I'll keep my Coulter book on the Clinton impeachment because it's a great resoource, but the other book of hers I have is getting offered to a used bookstore.

352 J.D.  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:48:04pm

re: #347 Peacekeeper

I can't even prove I exist.

Prove it.

353 subsailor68  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:48:04pm

re: #341 Iron Fist

Actually, the Emancipation Proclomation was designed to keep the European Powers (mostly England and France) from supporting the Confederacy. There werer many, complex issues that led to the Civil War, but by making slavery the paramount issue, the North kept the Europeans pretty much out of the war.

Very interesting observation, and I do believe you're right. Lots of trade between Europe and the Southern states. And slavery was certainly an issue (wasn't that the theme of the movie Amazing Grace?), so it was a good political move.

354 Viking6  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:48:06pm

re: #344 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey

Well, it is technically an open thread, so say whatever you want, man.

Yazoo

There I have said what I want.

;-)

355 Nevergiveup  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:48:23pm

re: #347 Peacekeeper

I can't even prove I exist.

Who's freak en garbage do you think that is outside on the curb?

356 Ben Hur  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:48:29pm

BBL

357 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:48:35pm

re: #339 Sharmuta

How an otherwise intelligent woman can make such an ignorant comment is beyond me.

I've said it before. I say it again. I think it's for money and fame and adulation and power. Politicians have been known to do that too and they are not all stupid. I can't believe that there aren't quite a few agnostic/atheists in congress or the senate, and I've had my doubts about the Clintons. But where's the profit in making an issue of it?

358 Honorary Yooper  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:48:41pm

re: #339 Sharmuta

How an otherwise intelligent woman can make such an ignorant comment is beyond me.

Shar, I've doubted Couter's intelligence for quite some time. She's more like the right's version of Noam Chumpsky.

359 jcm  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:49:09pm

re: #347 Peacekeeper

I can't even prove I exist.

You are not getting out of taxes that easily.

360 FightingBack  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:49:26pm

re: #330 Naso Tang

Yes, Galileo would feel right at home here.

361 Bloodnok  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:49:30pm

re: #290 Killgore Trout

No it's not. It's an established fact. Here's a poll from gallup that says pretty much the same thing. Lizards are very upset my reality this afternoon.

KT, always keepin' it real.

362 J.D.  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:49:36pm

re: #346 IslandLibertarian

Huh.
That's sort of how I look at it, too.

363 Killgore Trout  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:49:37pm

re: #331 Erik The Red

If us conservatives believe in evolution which party do we vote for?

Beats the hell out of me. I'm not conservative or Republican and I didn't vote last election. As far as I'm concerned you can do whatever you want.

364 Creeping Eruption  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:49:46pm

re: #359 jcm

You are not getting out of taxes that easily.

No, for that you have to change parties.

365 Cato  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:49:49pm

Ann certainly knows how to sell books. She is certainly wrong in her estimation -- there are gobs and gobs of evidence confirming evolutionary theory. Unfortunately, there are also gobs and gobs of evidence that disconfirm evolutionary theory as it pertians to man, and probably many slow-breeding animals as well. These, however, are ignored by evolutionary theories or explained in terms that are directly contradictory to the fundamentals of evolutionary theory. Thus evolution, like global warming or the certainty that stem cells will cure all ailments without them actually curing anything at all yet, has taken on some of the characteristics of a religion.

366 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:50:11pm
367 lobo91  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:50:13pm

re: #340 mean Gene

I wish some of the earlier threads from today were still alive.
On this I've got nothing.

Right there with you.

I hate these threads.

368 Nevergiveup  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:50:14pm

Cher: Republican Rule Almost ‘Killed Me’
Friday, February 06, 2009

[Link: cnsnews.com...]

She also said that President Barack Obama’s “intelligence” and “spirit” are “so great” he will be able to do “more than anyone could possibly do.”

And what did this Einstein name her kids again?

369 brookly red  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:50:14pm

re: #347 Peacekeeper

I can't even prove I exist.

The IRS can.

370 iLikeCandy  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:50:49pm

re: #357 Naso Tang

I've said it before. I say it again. I think it's for money and fame and adulation and power. Politicians have been known to do that too and they are not all stupid. I can't believe that there aren't quite a few agnostic/atheists in congress or the senate, and I've had my doubts about the Clintons. But where's the profit in making an issue of it?

I agree.

371 Peacekeeper  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:50:52pm

NRO fired her on 09/12/01 for one of her outbursts.

372 HelloDare  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:50:54pm

re: #297 Scion9

Can't agree at all. The Democrats only have the stigma of being "Godless" among the religious right, that were never going to vote Dem anyway. Practically every Democrat is an avowed Christian on top of it, regardless of it being some liberal interpretation, or general non-observance. By comparison none of the Republican Creationists are also Evolutionary Biologists. To anyone in the middle, which either party needs to sway to win elections at this point, but especially Republicans, the Democrat's "Godlessness" doesn't matter.

The two stigmas are not comparable at all.

Yes, and no democratic politician that I know of makes a big deal of his atheism or "Godlessness". Many republican politicians on the other hand make a big deal of their religion. I'm not saying they are wrong to do it -- not at all. They just do.

373 quickjustice  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:51:00pm

re: #127 kansas

Bad definition of "murder", bad history, and bad logic.

374 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:51:01pm
375 Randall Gross  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:51:05pm

re: #351 Sharmuta

I think I'll keep my Coulter book on the Clinton impeachment because it's a great resoource, but the other book of hers I have is getting offered to a used bookstore.

Definitely one of her best.

376 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:51:07pm

re: #357 Naso Tang

I've said it before. I say it again. I think it's for money and fame and adulation and power. Politicians have been known to do that too and they are not all stupid. I can't believe that there aren't quite a few agnostic/atheists in congress or the senate, and I've had my doubts about the Clintons. But where's the profit in making an issue of it?

And we wonder why there's no integrity in politics. When it comes to the electorate or consumer, integrity is a liability.

377 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:51:12pm

re: #366 Iron Fist

Did anyone hear that sound, like a tree falling?

378 J.D.  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:51:13pm

re: #366 Iron Fist

It takes a lot of courage to speak up like you just did.

379 jorline  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:51:30pm

re: #334 Nevergiveup

Yeah, by his Doctors!

Did anyone ever check Lincoln's birth certificate?
//

380 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:51:34pm

re: #358 Honorary Yooper

Shar, I've doubted Couter's intelligence for quite some time. She's more like the right's version of Noam Chumpsky.

"She's like Darth Vader."
"No, she's worse. She's like The Emperor. But with nicer boobs."
/Saving Silverman

381 Charles Johnson  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:51:38pm

re: #365 Cato

Unfortunately, there are also gobs and gobs of evidence that disconfirm evolutionary theory as it pertians to man, and probably many slow-breeding animals as well.

Like what? Show me some of these "gobs and gobs of evidence."

382 Peacekeeper  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:51:49pm

re: #366 Iron Fist

Let me break this to you gently: you don't exist. You are simply a projection of Occasional Reader's subconscious on to the space-time matrix. There are only a few acutal "people" in the world, and you aren't one of them. Sorry to have to break it to you like this.


Actually it's rather comforting. May I be dismissed now?

383 Dianna  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:52:01pm

re: #169 turn

When I read that I was thinking Kilgore must have forgot to include the sarc tag. Hey I had fun swapping stories with you earlier this week. The Italian restaurant you recommend was pretty good. Thanks.

I'm glad you enjoyed the restaurant - I like it very much, and almost never get to go.

It was really good to meet you.

384 redstateredneck  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:52:03pm

re: #368 Nevergiveup

Cher: Republican Rule Almost ‘Killed Me’


Shame it didn't.

385 Perplexed  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:52:07pm

re: #341 Iron Fist

And the British ran guns through the Northern blockade of Southern ports. An act of war if I recall correctly. That was one bloody slugfest where we lost more men on both sides to disease than we did to combat. Politicians got us into that situation as they have in the current situation we find the US in today.

386 capitalist piglet  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:52:12pm

re: #368 Nevergiveup

Cher: Republican Rule Almost ‘Killed Me’
Friday, February 06, 2009

[Link: cnsnews.com...]

She also said that President Barack Obama’s “intelligence” and “spirit” are “so great” he will be able to do “more than anyone could possibly do.”

And what did this Einstein name her kids again?

She also said, "Excuses doesn't lift up your butt."

387 Erik The Red  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:52:13pm

re: #363 Killgore Trout

Beats the hell out of me. I'm not conservative or Republican and I didn't vote last election. As far as I'm concerned you can do whatever you want.

We all know what you did and didn't do in November. My question was not only directed at you.

388 MandyManners  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:52:14pm

I'm outta' here.

389 dentate  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:52:14pm

re: #301 faraway

Mostly incomplete. Human section is essentially blank. hmmm... I need more scientific data to reach any conclusions about this matter.

You have got to be kidding. The problem in human physical anthropology is the OVERABUNDANCE of transitional types. There are so many that it has become clear that Africa was, until not long ago, brimming with our genetic brothers, sisters and cousins, most of whom we likely helped drive to extinction. The problem is NOT absence of transitional fossils, the problem is having a thousand-piece jigsaw puzzle that is being slowly and progressively assembled into an accurate picture.

390 notutopia  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:52:15pm

re: #367 lobo91

Right there with you.

I hate these threads.

lobo91...It's an OPEN thread. How can you hate an open thread?

391 Ward Cleaver  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:52:16pm

J.D.!

392 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:52:35pm

re: #375 Thanos

Definitely one of her best.

She's a lawyer, so I think it was her best moment to legally dissect the impeachment and trial, and she did it well. As a "conservative" pundit, she leaves something to be desired.

393 subsailor68  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:52:37pm

re: #366 Iron Fist

Let me break this to you gently: you don't exist. You are simply a projection of Occasional Reader's subconscious on to the space-time matrix. There are only a few acutal "people" in the world, and you aren't one of them. Sorry to have to break it to you like this.

And I made Occasional Reader up, just to trick Peacekeeper into thinking he was talking to someone.

394 Leonidas Hoplite  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:52:42pm

re: #187 kansas

Lincoln freed the slaves. Why was it necessary to send troops to destroy the South?

If he hadn't the country would still be split in two. Maybe it's just me but I don't think that would be a good thing.

395 Randall Gross  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:52:51pm

re: #365 Cato

Unfortunately, there are also gobs and gobs of evidence that disconfirm evolutionary theory as it pertians to man,

Oh really? Got a link for that?

396 medaura18586  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:52:54pm

re: #329 J.D.

That is changing.
Trust me.

What is?

397 jorline  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:53:02pm

re: #359 jcm

You are not getting out of taxes that easily.

lol...I was thinking the same thing.

The IRS said I exist therefore I am.

398 lawhawk  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:53:09pm

re: #368 Nevergiveup

Cher's still alive? Who knew.... /

Seriously, these people have got to get a grip. The world didn't end with Bush as President and it didn't just begin with Obama's election win. That's Hollyweird for you...

399 J.D.  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:53:28pm

re: #391 Ward Cleaver

J.D.!

WARD!

400 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:53:33pm

re: #386 capitalist piglet

She also said, "Excuses doesn't lift up your butt."

That's what the plastic surgeons are for.

401 VioletTiger  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:53:40pm

Learn something new every day (on LGF at least).
I didn't know Ann Coulter was a creationist.

402 CyanSnowHawk  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:53:40pm

re: #127 kansas

What is it about 600,000 American Citizens dying during the Civil War that I am not splaining? To me everyone that was shot, hanged, stabbed, or otherwise removed from this life by someone else was murdered. Maybe the 600,000 dead include disease and accidental deaths. I don't have time to look into it. At any rate, the point is we recovered from the Civil War, we'll recover from this if Obama would STFU.

PS

I am not a fan of Lincoln.

What you are not explaining, although it is obvious, especially on the PS of this post, is that you are a "South will rise again" crank. I expect shit like that to be posted on Stormfront, or maybe even GoV. Then you get all indignant when we call you on this bullshit. Take your Stars and Bars and white hood and go fly that shit somewhere else.

403 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:54:04pm

re: #398 lawhawk

Cher's still alive? Who knew.... /

Seriously, these people have got to get a grip. The world didn't end with Bush as President and it didn't just begin with Obama's election win. That's Hollyweird for you...

Being liberal means that history begins anew each morning.

404 jcm  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:54:10pm

re: #395 Thanos

Oh really? Got a link for that?

Results 1 - 10 of about 150,000 for gobs and gobs of evidence.

Yeah, I do, 150,000 links.....
/ ;-P

405 reine.de.tout  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:54:27pm

re: #346 IslandLibertarian

George Bush?
Asked about creation and evolution, Bush said: "I think you can have both. I think evolution can -- you're getting me way out of my lane here. I'm just a simple president. But it's, I think that God created the earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty and I don't think it's incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution."

Bush was, as I think a lot of people are, befuddled by the terminology used.

Here he is saying what many of us here also say - we believe in God, we believe God created the earth and the world; but that belief is not incompatible with proof that the evolutionary process exists.

I may be naive, but I have to wonder how many people who get polled on whether or not they have "creationist" beliefs are fully aware of the Discovery Institute and the Wedge Document.

It seems to me anybody who looks at that Wedge Document would be scared out of their wits, as to what the DI is trying to do.

But poll questions that simply mention "creationism" do not necessarily mean to the person being questioned the same thing that we here know it to be, from our discussions and reading about it.

This means, I think, that many of our politicians are not fully informed; nor is the general public.

Which is why I think it is so very important for Charles to keep posting on this. This blog gets noticed, and sooner or later, people who need to know this, people who are making decisions in our government, who are still unaware will get the word.

406 Dianna  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:54:37pm

re: #187 kansas

Lincoln freed the slaves. Why was it necessary to send troops to destroy the South?

Because otherwise the Emancipation was merely a statement of good intentions?

Read Sherman. Hell, just because he's so readable, try Shelby Foote.

Look at the issues surrounding slavery, and the debates occurring at the time.

The South had to be defeated, and made to accept that they had been defeated. Sorry.

407 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:54:37pm

re: #365 Cato

I down ding seldom, and not without commenting, so you earned that one although I'm tempted to upding too, just for the laugh I had.

408 lobo91  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:54:40pm

re: #374 taxfreekiller

So, for Friday in the future, we invite one leading Democrat to join in and debate lgf's on say ACORN and other such subjects of interst.

We let Michale Savage, the guy from Daily Kos, Mark Levin, Olberman, have votes and Charles gets to break the tie on who won each thread.

Discussion Friday's.

The problem is that you'll never get them to show up.

Andrew Wilkow was talking about that when I was on my way back from lunch. The idiot Debbie Stabenow was on some left-wing radio show yesterday talking about how we need to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, but when his producers called her and invited her on to talk about it, she refused.

409 J.D.  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:54:49pm

re: #396 medaura18586

What is?

The younger conservatives are, by and large, fairly well-educated in science. From what I've observed.

410 iLikeCandy  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:55:06pm

re: #322 debutaunt

What did she say about 9/11 widows?

She complained about a few who were bitching at the Bush administration about supposedly letting it all happen. They also, coincidentally, supported John Kerry and got rich off their settlements. Fine, well and good, but she called them "broads."

411 quickjustice  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:55:35pm

re: #187 kansas

Uhhh-- the South started the Civil War at Ft. Sumter, S.C. Lincoln was careful not to fire the first shot. He did defend federal installations from Confederate seizure as best he could.

412 Creeping Eruption  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:55:52pm

re: #397 jorline

lol...I was thinking the same thing.

The IRS said I exist therefore I am.

IRSito ergo sum?

413 MJBrutus  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:56:05pm

re: #408 lobo91

The problem is that you'll never get them to show up.

Andrew Wilkow was talking about that when I was on my way back from lunch. The idiot Debbie Stabenow was on some left-wing radio show yesterday talking about how we need to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, but when his producers called her and invited her on to talk about it, she refused.

And it just so happens that Mr Debbie Stabenow is an executive in left-wing radio. Gee, what a co-inkey-dink.

414 redstateredneck  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:56:26pm

re: #405 reine.de.tout

{reine}! You made your scrabble play?

415 Salamantis  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:56:26pm

re: #262 Iron Fist

Not all Creationists believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old. I, myself believe that it is far older than that. I don't have a problem with the concept of animals and plants and bacteria, etc. change over time, or that those that adapt better tend to pass on their genes to their offspring. All of these things are manifestly true. A mule is solid evidence that a hourse and a donkey have a common ancestor. What it is not evidence of is that the horse, donkey, my parrot, myself, and the rosebush out in the yard all share a common ancestor.

They all share the possession of DNA, and in fact all share DNA sequences.

416 Honorary Yooper  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:56:28pm

re: #401 VioletTiger

Learn something new every day (on LGF at least).
I didn't know Ann Coulter was a creationist.

I kind of suspected it from the jackets on her books, but I never really looked further. I find her too shrill for my taste.

417 HelloDare  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:56:35pm

re: #381 Charles

Like what? Show me some of these "gobs and gobs of evidence."

Here ya go.

418 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:56:46pm
419 Salem  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:57:01pm

Ann, you ignorant slut.

(probably the hundredth person to post that on the thread)

420 J.D.  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:57:06pm

re: #415 Salamantis

They all share the possession of DNA, and in fact all share DNA sequences.

Really?!?

421 Killgore Trout  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:57:09pm

re: #335 joncelli

The numbers vary between 60-70% of republican voters. That's pretty accurate and nobody has provided contrary evidence. My original statement was in response to a Question about Steele. I have no evidence about his personal views on evolution but pretty much all Republican politicians are creationists so it's a safe bet that he is too. I'm sorry people find that so outrageous. If it was such an outrageous statement then why can't anyone provide evidence that my statement is false?

422 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:57:16pm

re: #411 quickjustice

Uhhh-- the South started the Civil War at Ft. Sumter, S.C. Lincoln was careful not to fire the first shot. He did defend federal installations from Confederate seizure as best he could.

The Civil War was a Republican conspiracy to fill the wallets of railroad companies.
/something a former co-worker of mine once said.

423 jamgarr  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:57:23pm

re: #347 Peacekeeper

I can't even prove I exist.

Postito ergo sum

/you post - therefore you exist

424 theheat  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:57:39pm

Still, to me, she's an offensive, embarrassing, horse-faced, skeleton. On a brighter note, this certainly doesn't change my opinion of her one way or another.

425 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:57:42pm

The next time someone tells me they don't believe in evolution, I'm going to respond by saying I don't believe in gravity.

426 reine.de.tout  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:57:49pm

re: #414 redstateredneck

{reine}! You made your scrabble play?

er, no. Let me check.

427 capitalist piglet  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:57:56pm

re: #408 lobo91

The problem is that you'll never get them to show up.

Andrew Wilkow was talking about that when I was on my way back from lunch. The idiot Debbie Stabenow was on some left-wing radio show yesterday talking about how we need to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, but when his producers called her and invited her on to talk about it, she refused.

I heard today that her husband is an executive at Air America. That either makes her a) a logical choice to speak on the topic, or b) exercising an obscene conflict of interest.

I choose "b".

428 Guanxi88  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:58:14pm

re: #377 Naso Tang

Did anyone hear that sound, like a tree falling?

No, it never happened.

429 Spare O'Lake  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:58:22pm

re: #2 Charles

This statement by Ann Coulter ranks as one of the most willfully ignorant comments about evolution I've ever seen.

You are very kind to this publicity whore who will obviously repeat any outrage for a buck.

430 thefallingman  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:58:39pm

re: #298 Naso Tang
I might suggest you were reading something in to it that wasn't there.

431 brookly red  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:58:46pm

re: #423 jamgarr

excellent.

432 turn  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:58:47pm

re: #401 VioletTiger

Learn something new every day (on LGF at least).
I didn't know Ann Coulter was a creationist.

Same here on both comments, even more surprising to learn the vast majority of Republican politicians are as well.

433 lawhawk  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:58:52pm

re: #417 HelloDare

You need the right delivery.

434 FightingBack  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:59:00pm

re: #425 Sharmuta

The next time someone tells me they don't believe in evolution, I'm going to respond by saying I don't believe in gravity.

Show me an Atom, and I'll believe in the Atomic Theory.

435 Gella  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:59:02pm

i almost fell out of my chair reading that statement, thanks Charles u made my weekend.

436 faraway  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:59:02pm

re: #347 Peacekeeper

I can't even prove I exist.

Now that's funny. Or serious, or something.

437 lobo91  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:59:07pm

re: #390 notutopia

lobo91...It's an OPEN thread. How can you hate an open thread?

This is an open thread in name only. Or have you not been reading?

I make a point of avoiding creationism threads, because they ultimately just turn into Catholic or Republican bashing threads, and I'm just not interested in going there.

438 FrogMarch  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:59:26pm

Evolution isn't a "Religion" Ann - it's science.

the bumper sticker war - Jesus Fish vs. Darwin fish is STUPID.
Shame on both sides.

439 Erik The Red  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:59:30pm

Night Lizards just looked at my watch. See you insomniacs on the LNDT.

440 J.D.  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:59:37pm

Was it Ann who referred to some of the 9/11 widows as Jersey girls?
I can't remember who said what about who, or when, necessarily...

441 Dustyvet  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:59:39pm

New TV AD "Keep Gitmo Open" Feb 10, 2009


Youtube Video
442 Unakite  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:59:51pm

re: #181 Nevergiveup
re: #163 MandyManners

I think some men fear her mouth.

I wish I had the guts to respond to that?


I was thinking the same thing.

443 bulwrk  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:59:54pm

re: #422 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey

The Civil War was a Republican conspiracy to fill the wallets of railroad companies.
/something a former co-worker of mine once said.

LOL, those damn Republicans were conspiring right from the get go.

444 iLikeCandy  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 12:59:59pm

re: #368 Nevergiveup

Cher: Republican Rule Almost ‘Killed Me’
Friday, February 06, 2009

[Link: cnsnews.com...]

She also said that President Barack Obama’s “intelligence” and “spirit” are “so great” he will be able to do “more than anyone could possibly do.”

And what did this Einstein name her kids again?

The names she inflicted are well known. Probably not so well known: she was a lousy mother do a lesbian daughter, exposed in Chastity's book about gays in the family. Dick Cheney was a model father in this regard. Whaa, you didn't read that in the New York Times?

445 MJBrutus  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:00:08pm

re: #425 Sharmuta

The next time someone tells me they don't believe in evolution, I'm going to respond by saying I don't believe in gravity.

Speaking of which, I heard that Speaker Pelosi has a brilliant idea to solve our energy problems. Once they're done with this stimulus bill (thus repealing the law of supply and demand) they're getting right to work to repeal the law of gravity. What a bright, new future we have to look forward to!

446 Peacekeeper  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:00:18pm

re: #418 Iron Fist
It may have been heat of the moment but there was no way they could defend it. Besides, her audience isn't on NRO-it probably worked for her.

447 brookly red  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:00:18pm

re: #440 J.D.

yes... that was her.

448 lawhawk  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:00:44pm

re: #434 FightingBack

I would, but he's a scaredy cat.

449 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:00:52pm

re: #425 Sharmuta

The next time someone tells me they don't believe in evolution, I'm going to respond by saying I don't believe in gravity.

I've already posted this recently, but perhaps you missed it.
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

450 redstateredneck  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:01:03pm

re: #437 lobo91

This is an open thread in name only. Or have you not been reading?

I make a point of avoiding creationism threads, because they ultimately just turn into Catholic or Republican bashing threads, and I'm just not interested in going there.

You and me, both. It's like the "a" word, or Terry Schiavo. Emotions just run too high for discussion.

451 BartB  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:01:05pm

If you don't like ID, what do you think of Scientology?

452 subsailor68  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:01:08pm

re: #408 lobo91

The problem is that you'll never get them to show up.

Andrew Wilkow was talking about that when I was on my way back from lunch. The idiot Debbie Stabenow was on some left-wing radio show yesterday talking about how we need to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, but when his producers called her and invited her on to talk about it, she refused.

Yep. Here's a link:

Another senator lines up behind 'Fairness Doctrine'

453 Ward Cleaver  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:01:10pm

re: #392 Sharmuta

She's a lawyer, so I think it was her best moment to legally dissect the impeachment and trial, and she did it well. As a "conservative" pundit, she leaves something to be desired.

She goes along okay, then says something really stupid, like the Jersey bitches celebrating their husbands' deaths, that makes everyone forget all the right things she was saying. Stupid.

454 notutopia  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:01:14pm

Here is a short vid snip from Dr. Phil's show, of which Coulter and Colmes were guests.
I actually watched this show live and at the end of it, Coulter began discussing her creationist views. If you can find a tape of the actual show, it is worth watching
Coulter in action. She knows how to steal the attention.
[Link: newsbusters.org...]

455 J.D.  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:01:17pm

re: #447 brookly red

yes... that was her.

That sort of stuff doesn't help her, imho.

456 so.cal.swede  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:01:20pm

I employ a similar method

I pretend to go to work everyday and bang my face in the keyboard until 5 pm. But in my case, just like the real workers, i get a paycheck every 2 weeks!

457 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:01:23pm

re: #437 lobo91

This is an open thread in name only. Or have you not been reading?

I make a point of avoiding creationism threads, because they ultimately just turn into Catholic or Republican bashing threads, and I'm just not interested in going there.

Catholic bashing? The Church has no objection to evolution, in fact, the Vatican just finished hosting an evolutionary science conference.

458 jcm  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:01:33pm

re: #434 FightingBack

Show me an Atom, and I'll believe in the Atomic Theory.

Okay..........
;-)

Or do you mean....

459 capitalist piglet  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:01:36pm

re: #429 Spare O'Lake

You are very kind to this publicity whore who will obviously repeat any outrage for a buck.

She lost me completely when she compared the Bataan Death March to standing in an airport security line post 9/11.

She blew up my hyperbole meter with that one.

460 lobo91  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:01:48pm

re: #427 capitalist piglet

I heard today that her husband is an executive at Air America. That either makes her a) a logical choice to speak on the topic, or b) exercising an obscene conflict of interest.

I choose "b".

I believe he's a former executive at Air America, but I still agree.

461 Maximu§  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:01:51pm

re: #437 lobo91

This is an open thread in name only. Or have you not been reading?

I make a point of avoiding creationism threads, because they ultimately just turn into Catholic or Republican bashing threads, and I'm just not interested in going there.

I feel the same way.

462 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:01:51pm
463 so.cal.swede  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:02:24pm

re: #381 Charles

Like what? Show me some of these "gobs and gobs of evidence."

uuh... yuk.. i don't think want to see his "gobs of evidence" as it pertains to slow breeding mammals.

464 Ward Cleaver  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:02:26pm

re: #452 subsailor68

Yep. Here's a link:

Another senator lines up behind 'Fairness Doctrine'

Something tells me that even the lib talk show hosts are going to scream about this. There's common ground there, when it comes to freedom of speech.

465 debutaunt  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:02:27pm

re: #410 iLikeCandy

She complained about a few who were bitching at the Bush administration about supposedly letting it all happen. They also, coincidentally, supported John Kerry and got rich off their settlements. Fine, well and good, but she called them "broads."

Ahhhhh - broads. What should they be called? Truthers?

466 yma o hyd  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:02:28pm

re: #405 reine.de.tout

Hiya {reine}!

I think you're absolutely right.
Lots of people, who belive in God on the one hand and see nothing wrong with evolution, as far as they have been taught it in school, will answer that they believe in craetion, when asked such yes/no question.

I'm sure not so many people have seen the Wedge document, and would be pretty horrified if they did.

The one other point which needs to be hammered home again and again is that allowing Id into schools opens the door for teachigns of Islam in schools - and that DI and Islam are actually going hand-in-hand to achieve this.
Think of that Turkish 'professor' we talked about here, a few months back ...

467 nyc redneck  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:02:31pm

re: #107 lostlakehiker

Ah, good old Ann Coulter. She of the sharp tongue and the ready wit. There must have been a selective advantage to genes that correlate with intense loyalty to the Party and an unwillingness to "think across the aisle". Otherwise, we would not see brains, elegance, and error so neatly packaged in one person.

She's wrong on evolution, and sadly, she is evidently just flat unable to entertain ideas that the crowd she runs with disapproves.

The same goes for Ben Stein, I guess. He's a bright guy. He can game Wall Street and come out ahead. He can make movies. And he can't see the effing obvious when it comes to evolution.

i bought her latest book, "guilty" at wal-mart. it was prominently displayed.
she has a broad spectrum of fans, apparently.
whether she is saying this kind of stuff to placate people or because she believes it, creates a problem for those of us who would like to take her seriously.

468 Perplexed  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:02:43pm

re: #452 subsailor68

Yep. Here's a link:

Another senator lines up behind 'Fairness Doctrine'

Careful. That fairness doctrine BS works both ways. Imagine NPR having to give Rush air time.

469 Honorary Yooper  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:02:49pm

re: #437 lobo91

This is an open thread in name only. Or have you not been reading?

I make a point of avoiding creationism threads, because they ultimately just turn into Catholic or Republican bashing threads, and I'm just not interested in going there.

That's funny because I've rarely seen such bashing on these threads. More often than not, it's the YEC claiming victimization. How does this make the YEC any different than a leftist in that regard? Not at all.

470 capitalist piglet  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:03:04pm

re: #460 lobo91

I believe he's a former executive at Air America, but I still agree.

Thank you for that correction; I was listening to Mark Belling, and I must have heard him wrong.

471 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:03:04pm
472 brookly red  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:03:17pm

re: #455 J.D.

That sort of stuff doesn't help her, imho.

but it does seem to sell books.

473 subsailor68  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:03:33pm

re: #468 Perplexed

Careful. That fairness doctrine BS works both ways. Imagine NPR having to give Rush air time.

LOL! Yes, it would infuriate both NPR listeners.

474 Charles Johnson  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:03:35pm

re: #437 lobo91

This is an open thread in name only. Or have you not been reading?

I make a point of avoiding creationism threads, because they ultimately just turn into Catholic or Republican bashing threads, and I'm just not interested in going there.

Why would anyone "bash" Catholics on this subject, when Pope Benedict has explicitly said the theory of evolution doesn't conflict with Catholicism?

Here we go again.

475 Leonidas Hoplite  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:03:36pm

re: #461 Maximu§

I feel the same way.

Maximus - is your avatar 12th Armored Cavalry Regiment?

476 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:03:41pm

re: #437 lobo91

This is an open thread in name only. Or have you not been reading?

I make a point of avoiding creationism threads, because they ultimately just turn into Catholic or Republican bashing threads, and I'm just not interested in going there.

The Catholic Church supports the teaching of evolution and rejects ID. But maybe you'd know that if you didn't avoid evolution threads.

477 redstateredneck  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:03:45pm

re: #453 Ward Cleaver

She goes along okay, then says something really stupid, like the Jersey bitches celebrating their husbands' deaths, that makes everyone forget all the right things she was saying. Stupid.


I think Ann just likes using the shock value to get attention. She doesn't need to do it; in fact, she's way more intelligent than resorting to such.

478 Salamantis  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:03:45pm

re: #301 faraway

Mostly incomplete. Human section is essentially blank. hmmm... I need more scientific data to reach any conclusions about this matter.

A plethora of scientific data supporting common ancestry between humans and great apes has already been repeatedly provided you, but you either dismiss or ignore it. Perhaps you lack the prerequisite capacity to comprehend it...

[Link: www.newyorker.com...]

479 faraway  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:03:46pm

re: #389 dentate

You have got to be kidding. The problem in human physical anthropology is the OVERABUNDANCE of transitional types. There are so many that it has become clear that Africa was, until not long ago, brimming with our genetic brothers, sisters and cousins, most of whom we likely helped drive to extinction. The problem is NOT absence of transitional fossils, the problem is having a thousand-piece jigsaw puzzle that is being slowly and progressively assembled into an accurate picture.

Can you name of few of the transitional types that you and I came from? Not separate species, please.

480 debutaunt  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:03:47pm

re: #425 Sharmuta

The next time someone tells me they don't believe in evolution, I'm going to respond by saying I don't believe in gravity.

hahahhahahahahhahahaa

481 J.D.  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:03:58pm

re: #468 Perplexed

Careful. That fairness doctrine BS works both ways. Imagine NPR having to give Rush air time.

Oh, they have lawyers that will figure out some wording to get around that.

482 iLikeCandy  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:03:58pm

re: #438 FrogMarch

Evolution isn't a "Religion" Ann - it's science.

the bumper sticker war - Jesus Fish vs. Darwin fish is STUPID.
Shame on both sides.

The Darwin fish is just the Jesus fish plus legs. It's faith and science. What's wrong with that?

483 HelloDare  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:04:11pm

re: #457 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey

Catholic bashing? The Church has no objection to evolution, in fact, the Vatican just finished hosting an evolutionary science conference.

Now if only the Pope would evolve into wearing a pant suit.

484 joncelli  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:04:30pm

re: #421 Killgore Trout

You said:

pretty much all Republican politicians

But that's not what you originally said:

Probably. Pretty much all of the Republicans are creationists. It's pretty much a requirement.

Words matter. Your original statement was either imprecise or a deliberate provocation. That's why people are reacting so strongly; they think you're accusing all Republicans -- voters AND politicians -- of being creationists. You come across as dropping bombs and being disingenuous. And by the way, the Gallup poll at the link says 60%, not 60-70%.

485 quickjustice  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:04:35pm

re: #311 Perplexed

I went to a Lincoln lecture last night. Lincoln's thinking on slavery evolved over time, as follows:

1. Slavery is immoral, and eventually should be abolished.
2. Immediate abolition of slavery will damage the economy, and likely lead to a shooting war.
3. Therefore, we must begin a lengthy process of gradual abolition, lasting perhaps 100 years, that cushions the economy and avoids war.
4. To begin, we should prohibit expansion of slavery to the territories.

From that, in 1863, Lincoln's thinking evolved to emancipating the slave population in the states in rebellion, both to add 180,000 soldiers to the Union Army, and to keep Great Britain from joining the war on the Southern side.

Total emancipation was his final position, implemented in the 13th Amendment.

486 FightingBack  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:04:46pm

re: #458 jcm

You'd have to believe the electron microscope, first.
The other proves it, though. Thanks.

487 J.D.  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:04:55pm

re: #472 brookly red

but it does seem to sell books.

I guess.
It has the opposite effect on me, though...and I agree with a lot of what she has to say, really.

488 Peter Verkooijen  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:05:09pm

My theme for Winter/Spring '09 is that the Republican party should stop being the conservative party and become the (classic) liberal party in opposition to the socialist Obamocrats.

Clueless conservatives, including Coulter apparently, are making the Republican party unelectable. They let the socialists coopt liberalism and America's political traditions and symbols.

489 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:05:10pm

re: #2 Charles

This statement by Ann Coulter ranks as one of the most willfully ignorant comments about evolution I've ever seen.

Willfully, to be sure. She does with her words what Madonna did with her image, and for the same intentional effect. Sales.

490 gennyk  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:05:16pm
#93 "Pretty much all of the Republicans are creationists. It's pretty much a requirement."

Good grief. You really believe that? That's just plain dumb.

491 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:05:16pm

re: #480 debutaunt

Are you mocking me, you damned gravitationist? /////

492 iLikeCandy  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:05:18pm

re: #440 J.D.

Was it Ann who referred to some of the 9/11 widows as Jersey girls?
I can't remember who said what about who, or when, necessarily...

Yes.

493 jcm  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:05:23pm

re: #486 FightingBack

You'd have to believe the electron microscope, first.
The other proves it, though. Thanks.

LOL!

494 Maximu§  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:05:26pm

re: #475 Leonidas Hoplite

Maximus - is your avatar 12th Armored Cavalry Regiment?

I spent 2 years with the 11th ACR, 3rd Sqrdn. at Bad Hersfeld.

495 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:05:27pm

I knew Coulter was a loud-mouthed idiot, but this statement really calls for permanent jaw-wiring.

496 godfrey  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:05:32pm
I would like evolution to join the roster of other discredited religions

(jaw dropping)

Coulter!?

The world is mad.

497 FrogMarch  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:05:38pm

re: #440 J.D.

Was it Ann who referred to some of the 9/11 widows as Jersey girls?
I can't remember who said what about who, or when, necessarily...

I think the Jersey girls names themselves the Jersey girls. They were liberal jerks. Ann was equally inappropriate.

498 jorline  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:05:49pm

U.N. to Halt Aid to Gaza Due to Hamas Interference

JERUSALEM — The U.N. agency for Palestinian refugees said Friday it has halted all aid shipments into the Gaza Strip due to interference by the ruling Hamas militant group.

In a statement, UNRWA said 10 truckloads of flour and rice that had been delivered into Gaza on Thursday were taken away by trucks affiliated with the Hamas-run Ministry of Social Affairs. Earlier this week, Hamas police took thousands of blankets and food parcels meant for needy residents.

Now that's the Hamas I know and the UN I don't know.

499 Charles Johnson  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:05:53pm

re: #479 faraway

Can you name of few of the transitional types that you and I came from? Not separate species, please.

Transitional fossils leading to Homo Sapiens:

[Link: www.talkorigins.org...]

I'll take a wild guess, and predict that you'll dismiss all of this.

500 Guanxi88  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:05:58pm

re: #483 HelloDare

Now if only the Pope would evolve into wearing a pant suit.

No, as an outsider, I like that he sticks with the tunic, robes, and such. There's something right about it; like ivory grips on a Colt 45 - without them, it just seems incomplete.

501 Gella  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:06:19pm

re: #495 Cato the Elder

I knew Coulter was a loud-mouthed idiot, but this statement really calls for permanent jaw-wiring.

its not going to help, as u know she always talks out of her behind anyways

502 J.D.  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:06:21pm

re: #497 FrogMarch

I think the Jersey girls names themselves the Jersey girls. They were liberal jerks. Ann was equally inappropriate.

Agree with everything you said.

503 lobo91  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:06:31pm

re: #457 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey

Catholic bashing? The Church has no objection to evolution, in fact, the Vatican just finished hosting an evolutionary science conference.

I'm well aware of that (not surprising, given that I was raised Catholic).

Certain other posters have an annoying tendancy to turn any thread that's even tangentially related to religion into an attack on the Catholic Church, in case you hadn't noticed.

It's becoming tiresome.

504 faraway  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:06:43pm

re: #402 CyanSnowHawk

What you are not explaining, although it is obvious, especially on the PS of this post, is that you are a "South will rise again" crank. I expect shit like that to be posted on Stormfront, or maybe even GoV. Then you get all indignant when we call you on this bullshit. Take your Stars and Bars and white hood and go fly that shit somewhere else.

The good folks from the South don't care to be lumped in with the KKK and StormFront as you say. I don't get your point.

505 DeafDog  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:06:45pm

re: #69 Naso Tang

Was your friend sleeping with her?

Hah! No. It was just a conversation - like LGF.

506 FrogMarch  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:06:52pm

re: #468 Perplexed

Careful. That fairness doctrine BS works both ways. Imagine NPR having to give Rush air time.

but - the real plan is not for it to work both ways. The liberal/left-wing plan is to shut down Rush and others like him and replace it with Air America.

507 HelloDare  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:06:54pm

re: #468 Perplexed

Careful. That fairness doctrine BS works both ways. Imagine NPR having to give Rush air time.

I'm sure some Republican politician will try to insert a provision in the fairness doctrine that relates to colleges.

508 Killgore Trout  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:06:54pm

re: #484 joncelli

If you had accurately followed the conversation you would have known what I was talking about. I'm not interested in your phony outrage.

509 so.cal.swede  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:06:54pm

re: #491 Sharmuta

Are you mocking me, you damned gravitationist? /////

[Link: www.theonion.com...]

510 Randall Gross  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:07:18pm

re: #425 Sharmuta

The next time someone tells me they don't believe in evolution, I'm going to respond by saying I don't believe in gravity.

It's not gravity, the dirt just sucks.

511 Honorary Yooper  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:07:21pm

re: #479 faraway

Can you name of few of the transitional types that you and I came from? Not separate species, please.

Here we go again.

OK, smart guy, give me some photographs of you, and prove to me that you grew from an infant to a child to an adult. I don't see any transitions in there, just snapshots of you at different times in your life.

512 faraway  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:07:27pm

This thread is moving too fast. I am over 100 comments behind and getting behinder by the minute.

513 Martinsmithy  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:07:29pm

Ann Coulter is indeed smart - but her intelligence is devoted to saying deliberately outlandish things to provoke a ruckus and therefore sell her books and other products she produces. On its face Charles is right, her statement is utterly willfully ignorant. But she wants it to be that way - because she will 1) get a bunch of creationists to say "All right, you go girl!" and 2) a bunch of mainstream liberal types to become apoplectic. And get both to read and buy her books.

But her schtick is getting old, and when you continually say shocking things, the shock value goes away. I don't know if anyone really cares what Ann Coulter says any more, except for her devoted fans.

By the way, for all that I admire about Rush Limbaugh, I think he is headed down the same path.

514 jamgarr  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:07:31pm

Open is as open does

515 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:07:40pm

re: #421 Killgore Trout

OT - Killgore, I hope you know that my comment yesterday re: Catholicism vs. Islam was not directed at you. I'm afraid I lost it there for a minute. Frustration.

516 MJBrutus  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:07:54pm

re: #497 FrogMarch

I think the Jersey girls names themselves the Jersey girls. They were liberal jerks. Ann was equally inappropriate.

Her point, which was a good one, was that Libs love to use victims like that as human shields. You can't criticize what they're saying because they are so sympathetic. Cindy Sheehan was another case in point where the anti-war crowd made her their poster girl because to argument against what she had to say was to be insensitive to her grief.

517 FabioC.  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:08:00pm

Ann Coulter has always been quite intellectually empty.

As some other blogger, a certain Kim DuToit, said, she's a shock monger. The particular quality of shockmongers is that they have to go for a bigger bang every time. The problem is, shockmongering has nothing to do with a well-crafted and convincing argument.

518 HelloDare  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:08:15pm

re: #500 Guanxi88

No, as an outsider, I like that he sticks with the tunic, robes, and such. There's something right about it; like ivory grips on a Colt 45 - without them, it just seems incomplete.

Roller skates would be a nice touch.

519 J.D.  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:08:19pm

re: #509 so.cal.swede

[Link: www.theonion.com...]

Funny!

520 The_Vig  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:08:23pm

re: #474 Charles

Exactly.

The Catholic church has been behind scientific findings since the whole Galileo thing.

Most of the Creationist talk comes from those heretical beliefs. You know, the Luthren, Baptists, Anglicans, Jehovas Witnesses, Snake Handlers etc......

(There, that should annoy someone.)

521 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:08:34pm

re: #430 thefallingman

I might suggest you were reading something in to it that wasn't there.

Hmm. Not meant to be there, perhaps?

522 brookly red  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:08:39pm

re: #487 J.D.

I guess.
It has the opposite effect on me, though...and I agree with a lot of what she has to say, really.

As do I, & it is hard to be right or wrong all of the time.

523 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:08:42pm

re: #510 Thanos

It's not gravity, the dirt just sucks.

These gravitationists are ripping the GOP apart.

524 Killgore Trout  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:08:51pm

re: #515 Cato the Elder

I don't recall your comment from yesterday so I doubt I took any offense.

525 Leonidas Hoplite  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:08:51pm

re: #494 Maximu§

I spent 2 years with the 11th ACR, 3rd Sqrdn. at Bad Hersfeld.

Apologies, I thought that was the emblem for 12th ACR - I had a friend with that outfit in the early 90's

526 Guanxi88  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:09:00pm

re: #518 HelloDare

Roller skates would be a nice touch.

Upding for the mental image of His Holiness on wheels.

527 joncelli  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:09:01pm

re: #508 Killgore Trout

Sigh. Nothing phony about it, but I'm just walking away.

528 subsailor68  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:09:04pm

re: #516 MJBrutus

"Cindy Sheehan was another case in point where the anti-war crowd made her their poster girl because to argument against what she had to say was to be insensitive to her grief."

Whatever happened to old Cindy anyway? Have 15 minutes gone by ALREADY?

529 yma o hyd  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:09:04pm

Aww - gotta go, Lizards!

Seeya tomorrow, all being well!

530 dentate  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:09:18pm

re: #415 Salamantis

They all share the possession of DNA, and in fact all share DNA sequences.

And in fact, based on good DNA evidence, we are more closely related to mushrooms than mushrooms are to plants, and we and the chimps are more closely related to each other than either of us are to gorillas. Via the logic of cladistics, the latter fact strongly suggests that our ancestors were knuckle-walkers. Some comments on this thread strongly suggest that some of us evolved into knuckle-draggers.

531 VioletTiger  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:09:23pm

re: #262 Iron Fist

Not all Creationists believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old. I, myself believe that it is far older than that. I don't have a problem with the concept of animals and plants and bacteria, etc. change over time, or that those that adapt better tend to pass on their genes to their offspring. All of these things are manifestly true. A mule is solid evidence that a hourse and a donkey have a common ancestor. What it is not evidence of is that the horse, donkey, my parrot, myself, and the rosebush out in the yard all share a common ancestor.

Take a look at these books:
Relics of Eden
[Link: www.amazon.com...]

Your Inner Fish
[Link: www.amazon.com...]

Both good reads on DNA evidence of evolution.

532 Westward Ho  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:09:36pm

re: #262 Iron Fist

Not all Creationists believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old. I, myself believe that it is far older than that. I don't have a problem with the concept of animals and plants and bacteria, etc. change over time, or that those that adapt better tend to pass on their genes to their offspring. All of these things are manifestly true. A mule is solid evidence that a hourse and a donkey have a common ancestor. What it is not evidence of is that the horse, donkey, my parrot, myself, and the rosebush out in the yard all share a common ancestor.


Are you an old earth creationist then, the folks who beleive in microevolution not macroevolution? I sense some skepticism about evolution.

533 Dustyvet  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:09:44pm

re: #458 jcm

Okay..........
;-)

Or do you mean....

Bet you don't know how to embarrass a chromosome?


Pull down it's genes.

534 dentate  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:10:01pm

re: #477 redstateredneck

I think Ann just likes using the shock value to get attention. She doesn't need to do it; in fact, she's way more intelligent than resorting to such.

Prove it.

535 J.D.  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:10:24pm

Must go do something even if it's wrong.
On second thought, I'll make a point of doing at least one wrong thing...on principle...

You all play nice.

536 Spare O'Lake  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:10:24pm

re: #467 nyc redneck

i bought her latest book, "guilty" at wal-mart. it was prominently displayed.
she has a broad spectrum of fans, apparently.
whether she is saying this kind of stuff to placate people or because she believes it, creates a problem for those of us who would like to take her seriously.

Prostitution.

537 Bubblehead II  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:10:34pm

re: #328 iLikeCandy

Perhaps. But I tend to think that he is engaging in a "forced evolution" experiment with the Lizard Nation. Introduce controversial ideas into the community and sit back and see what happens. Will intellectual integrity and honest debate ensue or will sophistry and straw man tactics be used? If it is the former, he lets the Lizard stay. If it is the latter, he stirs the pot in an endeavor to get the Lizard to self-destruct and remove itself from the "gene pool"

/ For what it's worth.

538 Spiny Norman  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:10:40pm

re: #459 capitalist piglet

She lost me completely when she compared the Bataan Death March to standing in an airport security line post 9/11.

She blew up my hyperbole meter with that one.

Quite by accident, I found my Democrat Hyperbole Meter™ works just fine with Coulter: it doesn't just go up to "11", it goes to "∞".

539 iLikeCandy  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:10:43pm

re: #465 debutaunt

Ahhhhh - broads. What should they be called? Truthers?

I just don't like slurs on gender. "Truthers" or "ghouls" or "crocodile tears" would have been fine with me.

540 MJBrutus  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:10:48pm

re: #528 subsailor68

"Cindy Sheehan was another case in point where the anti-war crowd made her their poster girl because to argument against what she had to say was to be insensitive to her grief."

Whatever happened to old Cindy anyway? Have 15 minutes gone by ALREADY?

Last I heard, she lost her bid for Pelosi's seat and pissed off all the libs in DC when she started protesting them for not being looney enough.

541 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:11:07pm
542 Dustyvet  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:11:08pm

re: #483 HelloDare

Now if only the Pope would evolve into wearing a pant suit.

Leisure Suit Larry?

543 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:11:11pm
544 J.D.  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:11:31pm

re: #540 MJBrutus

Last I heard, she lost her bid for Pelosi's seat and pissed off all the libs in DC when she started protesting them for not being looney enough.

They had to take great offense at that! LOL!

Bye.

545 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:11:42pm

re: #501 Gella

its not going to help, as u know she always talks out of her behind anyways

LOL!

PIDOOMA, as the engineers say. "Pulled it directly out of my ass."

546 debutaunt  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:11:45pm

re: #491 Sharmuta

Are you mocking me, you damned gravitationist? /////

The Onion article is hilarious!

547 Cato  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:12:03pm

re: #381 Charles


It is integral to Darwin's theory of natural selection, a theory which purportedly applies to every species, that behaviors that hinder an organizism's ability to compete for survival or reproduction be ruthlessly weeded out. If Darwin's theory of evolution were true, there would be in every species a constant and ruthless competition to survive. What ruthless thing have you done today to eat or breed? You see, human life isn't like that.

In fact, human life contains altruism, alcohol, anal intercourse, abortion and other behaviors that shorten lives or lessen the number of children people have, and that is just the A's. These behaviors have not been ruthlessly weeded out, and some are in fact on the increase. This is the inexplicable that you guys "forget". Darwin is fine for pines and cod, but not for me. The bottle of MacCallan at my desk disproves Darwin.

548 medaura18586  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:12:05pm

re: #489 Slumbering Behemoth

Willfully, to be sure. She does with her words what Madonna did with her image, and for the same intentional effect. Sales.

It's even more disgusting that way.

549 Salamantis  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:12:12pm

re: #365 Cato

Ann certainly knows how to sell books. She is certainly wrong in her estimation -- there are gobs and gobs of evidence confirming evolutionary theory. Unfortunately, there are also gobs and gobs of evidence that disconfirm evolutionary theory as it pertians to man, and probably many slow-breeding animals as well. These, however, are ignored by evolutionary theories or explained in terms that are directly contradictory to the fundamentals of evolutionary theory. Thus evolution, like global warming or the certainty that stem cells will cure all ailments without them actually curing anything at all yet, has taken on some of the characteristics of a religion.

This is unmitigated bovine fecus. The chance that humans and great apes possess the selfsame artifactual retroviral DNA sequences in the absence of common ancestors is so vanishingly small as to not allow for its embrace by anyone who both understands statistical probability and is in the elast bit rational or reasonable.

550 redstateredneck  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:12:18pm

re: #534 dentate

Prove it.


Maybe not. She may have tricked me by soundiing articulate. I've actually never read her books.

551 subsailor68  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:12:40pm

re: #540 MJBrutus

Last I heard, she lost her bid for Pelosi's seat and pissed off all the libs in DC when she started protesting them for not being looney enough.

Ah, she's a political genius ain't she?

;-)

552 Honorary Yooper  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:12:48pm

re: #520 The_Vig

Exactly.

The Catholic church has been behind scientific findings since the whole Galileo thing.

Most of the Creationist talk comes from those heretical beliefs. You know, the Luthren, Baptists, Anglicans, Jehovas Witnesses, Snake Handlers etc......

(There, that should annoy someone.)

Plus the whole Galileo affair had more to do with politics (what else is new and/or different in the Church?) and the simple fact that Galileo just was clueless about when to STFU. He just had to keep on going and insult people in power. Had he shut up, he had an ally in the Pope of the period.

553 Randall Gross  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:12:51pm

re: #513 Martinsmithy

If I only had more dings to give.

554 Occasional Reader  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:12:53pm

I'm back!

I post, therefore I am.

555 notutopia  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:13:04pm

re: #437 lobo91

This is an open thread in name only. Or have you not been reading?

I make a point of avoiding creationism threads, because they ultimately just turn into Catholic or Republican bashing threads, and I'm just not interested in going there.

lobo91, Honestly, I disagree. Bush and the Pope both agree that the two; creationism and evolution can and do live quite handsomely together.
Besides, I won't participate in bashing, unless, they INSIST on trying to make me believe in something I cannot. I believe and trust in empirical Science and I also believe in a Higher God Power.
: )

556 quickjustice  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:13:20pm

Based upon her membership in Redeemer Presbyterian Church, part of the fundamentalist PCA denomination, I'd say that Ann Coulter is simply a true believer in the doctrine of that church, which opposes evolution. Nothing more, and nothing less.

557 faraway  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:13:27pm

re: #478 Salamantis

A plethora of scientific data supporting common ancestry between humans and great apes has already been repeatedly provided you, but you either dismiss or ignore it. Perhaps you lack the prerequisite capacity to comprehend it...

[Link: www.newyorker.com...]

Here we go. Suggesting people that disagree with you are stupid. Not very scientific of you.

558 Charles Johnson  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:13:30pm

re: #547 Cato

It is integral to Darwin's theory of natural selection, a theory which purportedly applies to every species, that behaviors that hinder an organizism's ability to compete for survival or reproduction be ruthlessly weeded out. If Darwin's theory of evolution were true, there would be in every species a constant and ruthless competition to survive. What ruthless thing have you done today to eat or breed? You see, human life isn't like that.

In fact, human life contains altruism, alcohol, anal intercourse, abortion and other behaviors that shorten lives or lessen the number of children people have, and that is just the A's. These behaviors have not been ruthlessly weeded out, and some are in fact on the increase. This is the inexplicable that you guys "forget". Darwin is fine for pines and cod, but not for me. The bottle of MacCallan at my desk disproves Darwin.

None of this is evidence. It's all your opinion.

You claimed there were "gobs and gobs of evidence" disproving evolution. Where is it?

559 brookly red  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:13:51pm

re: #516 MJBrutus

yeah, that pretty much covers it.

560 jaunte  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:13:58pm

re: #547 Cato

You may not be taking into account the species' reproductive advantage of group cooperation.

561 godfrey  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:14:05pm

re: #90 thefallingman

I think the ultimate problem here is how strongly the evolution is tied to atheism in the minds of most people.

Difficult to determine. It was certainly the case when Darwin first started publishing on it: many high-profile Victorian writers reacted very strongly.

Here's a theory. This narrative (evolution -> inevitable loss of religious faith) keeps getting taught in literature programs in high school, and because English is required, most students come across it. The actual content of evolutionary theory is taught in an extremely superficial way in those situations, so most students come away with a superficial understanding and attitude. Of course, there are hard-core creationist schools, but they are fewer. Just a theory, and less rigorous than evolutionary theory.

562 mean Gene  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:14:18pm

So, this ''Fairness Doctrine?"
Is it a plot to force radio personalities to paint themselves into one ideological corner?
I mean, before he quit/was fired Larry Elder had changed his self-designation from Libertarian to Republican to Independent.
Will he be forced back on the air to fill a niche?
Will Rush be forced into having to create 24 hours worth of programming daily to satisfy ''Fairness?"
Will the liberals be forced into admitting/owning their slants?

563 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:15:12pm

re: #449 Naso Tang

I've already posted this recently, but perhaps you missed it.
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

re: #509 so.cal.swede

[Link: www.theonion.com...]

These are both hilarious, and sadly close to the mark at the same time.

564 DeafDog  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:15:16pm

re: #543 buzzsawmonkey

I frankly do not care if someone "believes in" creationism--as long as that belief is their own, and not something that they feel mandated to inject into a science curriculum, or will use as an excuse to de-fund research backed with public money.

Well said!

565 CyanSnowHawk  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:15:17pm

re: #307 jorline

Thanks for the pick me up Cyan.

I just went through and started countering the downdinger craginm.

566 jamgarr  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:15:18pm

If there is a supreme being who needs my worship, he doesn't deserve it
If there is a supreme being who deserves my worship, he doesn't need it
If evolution is one of his rules, I'm to stupid to prove it


/and I NEVER get involved in these!

567 Spiny Norman  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:15:20pm

re: #508 Killgore Trout

If you had accurately followed the conversation you would have known what I was talking about. I'm not interested in your phony outrage.

You backpeddled from this almost immediately:

Probably. Pretty much all of the Republicans are creationists. It's pretty much a requirement.

And you bristle at being called on it. "60%" in a Gallup poll does not equal "pretty much all" no matter how much you try to deflect.

568 iLikeCandy  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:15:28pm

I've gotta go, all. Nice chatting.

569 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:15:45pm

re: #554 Occasional Reader

I'm back!

I post, therefore I am.

I am, therefore I post.

/moonbat

570 Randall Gross  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:15:45pm

re: #547 Cato

Got a link to a paper, just your own banal misinterpretations and general sweeping statements? We asked for proof, not bileous blather.

571 Scion9  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:16:20pm

re: #311 Perplexed

Slavery? Sorry, but that was a side issue. Lincoln said that he basically would have done anything to end the war and reunite the states. Emancipating the slaves was done to upset the South's use of slavery for manual labor. Sherman's march to the sea did much much more to end the war than did Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. It did bring about the end to slavery here in the US though and in doing so was a good thing, but slavery wasn't the driving motive to the Civil War.

Your history is bad. The issue with ending slavery mid-war wasn't one of breaking the back of the Confederacy's labor mill. Especially considering that the Proclamation didn't have any legal authority over rebellious States, any more than the Declaration of Independence made the English Navy sail home, which should be obvious. Southern propaganda, diplomats and Press obviously didn't spin the war as being about slaves (which strictly speaking they didn't believe it was entirely). In the North, likewise the Press also did not promote the war as being explicitly about slavery, as such was not socially acceptable. Racism was the norm even there, and with the recent events of Bleeding Kansas, and John Brown's tactics, abolitionists were seen as radicals and most did not want to be too closely associated with them at the onset of hostilities. The South was courting French and other European allies. Lincoln giving blanket emancipation made the war about slavery, in an extremely public way, which precluded Europeans (whom were vehemently opposed to slavery) from allying with the South.

As for the Civil War, the driving cause was beyond any other issue, slavery. The Democrats had other political agendas that were in sharp contrast with that of their opposition, but slavery was the issue which held a bloc of Democrat States together in order to dominate the government and push their agenda. In order to keep this scheme in motion, the new States being admitted had to be slave States. When it was determined they would be Free, and therefore under no compunction to join a bloc of Slave States, the power of a political party was essentially broken. The grab for power in DC for the South was already precarious before the new States. After it would essentially ensure a permanent monopoly of the Federal Government for their opposition. Rather than accept this, they rebelled.

While there were certainly other issues, the fact that the divisiveness of slavery was used to mark partisan boundaries and form a political bloc, makes slavery the instigating issue in the war beyond other more esoteric political concerns. Had the new territories been Slave states and become part of that Southern Democrat bloc, then likewise the New York/New England Industrial Capitalists would have been out in the cold for generations. Maybe they would have rebelled had that been the case. Either way, it still would have been slavery at the center of the fight.

572 Charles Johnson  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:16:25pm

Atheism is tied to evolution in the minds of many fundamentalist Christians because they are taught this from the time they're little children. It has almost nothing to do with the hardcore atheism of people like Richard Dawkins.

573 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:16:27pm
574 NJDhockeyfan  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:16:41pm

World's oldest fossils discovered in Campbellton

The most famous find for the paleontologists who have been unearthing fossils from the Restigouche River basin for more than 100 years is a 409 million-years-old intact shark fossil.

575 FrogMarch  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:16:57pm

re: #516 MJBrutus

Her point, which was a good one, was that Libs love to use victims like that as human shields. You can't criticize what they're saying because they are so sympathetic. Cindy Sheehan was another case in point where the anti-war crowd made her their poster girl because to argument against what she had to say was to be insensitive to her grief.

Ann coulter has a habit of going too far with her over-the-top rhetoric. What starts as a valid point gets lost in her over-the-top language.

"They first came together to complain that the $1.6 million average settlement to be paid to 9/11 victims' families by the government was not large enough... These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities... These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them. ... I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much ... the Democrat ratpack gals endorsed John Kerry for president ... cutting campaign commercials... how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy."[9]

576 Soona'  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:17:09pm

re: #477 redstateredneck

I think Ann just likes using the shock value to get attention. She doesn't need to do it; in fact, she's way more intelligent than resorting to such.

She's a barroom fighter. Some people come into barrooms with the sole intention of getting drunk and starting a fight. IMHO that's what this whole issue seems to be to me is nothing but a barroom argument gone nuts. It has strong legs, though. Very strong legs.

577 faraway  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:17:14pm

re: #499 Charles

Transitional fossils leading to Homo Sapiens:

[Link: www.talkorigins.org...]

I'll take a wild guess, and predict that you'll dismiss all of this.

Here we go. Why would you assume any such thing? Et tu, Charles.

578 reine.de.tout  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:17:33pm

re: #466 yma o hyd

Hiya {reine}!

I think you're absolutely right.
Lots of people, who belive in God on the one hand and see nothing wrong with evolution, as far as they have been taught it in school, will answer that they believe in craetion, when asked such yes/no question.

I'm sure not so many people have seen the Wedge document, and would be pretty horrified if they did.

The one other point which needs to be hammered home again and again is that allowing Id into schools opens the door for teachigns of Islam in schools - and that DI and Islam are actually going hand-in-hand to achieve this.
Think of that Turkish 'professor' we talked about here, a few months back ...

I'm not certain, either, than many people are aware of that document.

I hope, in those polls that show 60% or whatever of Republicans are "creationists", that that's what the problem is.

Like I said before, this blog gets noticed. It's unfortunate, but the more negative items written about LGF and what is being called the LGF "focus" on evolution, the more attention will be brought here, and at least some of those people will learn something they didn't know before.

579 HelloDare  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:17:45pm

Hey Cato, chew on this.

580 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:18:00pm

re: #577 faraway

Did you read the link?

581 yochanan  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:18:06pm

re: #44 Charles

Ann Coulter is speaking at CPAC this year, along with Ron Paul.

ann the trannie and luap nor THAT SHOULD BE A HOOT

582 Salamantis  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:18:31pm

re: #437 lobo91

This is an open thread in name only. Or have you not been reading?

I make a point of avoiding creationism threads, because they ultimately just turn into Catholic or Republican bashing threads, and I'm just not interested in going there.

What a doofus you are! Catholics accept evolutionary theory.

583 reine.de.tout  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:18:38pm

re: #550 redstateredneck

Maybe not. She may have tricked me by soundiing articulate. I've actually never read her books.

I got one of her books - someone earlier mentioned that she is "too shrill" for their taste, and I found that to be true for me, too.

Became "not a fan of Ann" real quick after reading her book.

584 opnion  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:19:08pm

Hellol Lizards. I am glad that we are not into anything contoversial, like you know Chicago pizza vs New York pizza. I vote Chicago, if you can fold it, it's a sandwich!

585 Honorary Yooper  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:19:26pm

re: #547 Cato

It is integral to Darwin's theory of natural selection, a theory which purportedly applies to every species, that behaviors that hinder an organizism's ability to compete for survival or reproduction be ruthlessly weeded out. If Darwin's theory of evolution were true, there would be in every species a constant and ruthless competition to survive. What ruthless thing have you done today to eat or breed? You see, human life isn't like that.

In fact, human life contains altruism, alcohol, anal intercourse, abortion and other behaviors that shorten lives or lessen the number of children people have, and that is just the A's. These behaviors have not been ruthlessly weeded out, and some are in fact on the increase. This is the inexplicable that you guys "forget". Darwin is fine for pines and cod, but not for me. The bottle of MacCallan at my desk disproves Darwin.

For my 10,000th comment (yes, thank you very much):

Cato, human life incudes a lot of ruthlessness. We've modified it to the environment of the factory and the office, but it's still there. Competition for raises instead of food. And if you think competition for mates is dead, I invite you to the nearest singles bar, or check out a dating website. As a species, we are highly competative with each other having out competed and driven out other species that are competative with us. Thus, we really have only ourselves to compete with now. Think about that the next time you watch the stock market, or Iran's wish for nukes, or even the Olympics.

As for the rest, many species do self-destructive behaviors. Humans are neither alone nor unique in that regard.

586 Peacekeeper  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:19:33pm

I remember the 50 foot snake from yesterday.

587 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:19:48pm
588 yochanan  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:20:21pm

re: #520 The_Vig

Exactly.

The Catholic church has been behind scientific findings since the whole Galileo thing.

Most of the Creationist talk comes from those heretical beliefs. You know, the Luthren, Baptists, Anglicans, Jehovas Witnesses, Snake Handlers etc......

(There, that should annoy someone.)

WELL WE CONSIDER THE CATHOLIC CHURCH to be johnny come latelies and rather heretical besides.

589 brookly red  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:20:37pm

re: #584 opnion

Hellol Lizards. I am glad that we are not into anything contoversial, like you know Chicago pizza vs New York pizza. I vote Chicago, if you can fold it, it's a sandwich!

and if you eat it out of a bowl it's soup :)

590 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:20:46pm
591 Ringo the Gringo  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:20:48pm

#547 Cato,


What ruthless thing have you done today to eat or breed?

Do you really want to know?

592 dentate  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:20:49pm

re: #547 Cato

It is integral to Darwin's theory of natural selection, a theory which purportedly applies to every species, that behaviors that hinder an organizism's ability to compete for survival or reproduction be ruthlessly weeded out. If Darwin's theory of evolution were true, there would be in every species a constant and ruthless competition to survive. What ruthless thing have you done today to eat or breed? You see, human life isn't like that.

In fact, human life contains altruism, alcohol, anal intercourse, abortion and other behaviors that shorten lives or lessen the number of children people have, and that is just the A's. These behaviors have not been ruthlessly weeded out, and some are in fact on the increase. This is the inexplicable that you guys "forget". Darwin is fine for pines and cod, but not for me. The bottle of MacCallan at my desk disproves Darwin.

This is idiotic--and dangerous. Using the term "ruthless" attributes ethics to nature. It was the misguided attempt to draw ethical lessons from nature that led to whatever social monstrosities were done in the "name" of Darwinian evolution. Religious faith should not be used as a tool of science; but neither should nature be used as a moral guide.

593 itellu3times  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:21:05pm

re: #193 Charles

Even though everyone's bashing Killgore for this, he's right. It's difficult to find a Republican politician who isn't anti-evolution.

I don't wish to believe this, for the simple reason that I could probably never take such a republican politician seriously on any subject at all. What with the democrats being toxic idiots these days, that would be very constraining at the ballot box.

But then, I live in California, and haven't seen a real republican in ages.

594 Leonidas Hoplite  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:21:06pm

Rush Rules!

595 DeafDog  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:21:11pm

re: #547 Cato


This is a good defense of your beliefs, which is fine as far as it goes, but it does not prove anything.

BTW - I don't see why any of these beliefs are inconsistent with evolution. I believe in JC, but I am also convinced that species have evolved. Ir's ok to defend both.

596 Occasional Reader  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:21:12pm

re: #547 Cato

In fact, human life contains altruism, alcohol, anal intercourse, abortion

Altruism can be beneficial in ensuring the propagation of a given gene. See Dawkins on the subject.

Alcohol, fairly irrelevant to this process.

I offer no opinion on anal intercourse, leaving that to wiser heads.

Abortion will not necessarily confer a fatal evolutionary disadvantage, as long as enough live births occur to ensure species survival.

You are distorting the meaning of the theory of evolution.

597 debutaunt  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:21:15pm

re: #550 redstateredneck

Maybe not. She may have tricked me by soundiing articulate. I've actually never read her books.

I read Godless which has some very funny stuff along with the idiotic.

598 Scion9  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:21:27pm

re: #358 Honorary Yooper

Shar, I've doubted Couter's intelligence for quite some time. She's more like the right's version of Noam Chumpsky.

Despite the scorn, ole Noam is no dimwit so that is not saying much. However, he is not a political scientist, or historian, or economist by trade so his vapidness in those areas isn't really all that surprising.

Coulter is a lawyer by training, so she likely knows what she is talking about in her own arena. As a pundit, she is offering an opinion, nothing else. There isn't any guarantee that it will be informed.

I don't think either lack intelligence. They are just afforded more respect than is deserved in many areas that both would be better suited to shut up about.

599 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:21:36pm

re: #543 buzzsawmonkey

Education of children in schools is always the first place any dogma wants to be established, but I don't agree that creationism is irrelevant if kept as a private belief, simply because such people will and do hold positions of responsibility in many other areas beyond education.

It represents what is usually called a form of cognitive dissonance, but if one can avoid reality in one area one can do so in others (probably we all do in some ways from time to time. I think that's what my wife sometimes tells me), and I don't like someone making important decisions that can affect many many people with that type of thought process.

Simply politely recognizing it is a form of approval of the thought process.

600 lobo91  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:21:47pm

re: #562 mean Gene

So, this ''Fairness Doctrine?"
Is it a plot to force radio personalities to paint themselves into one ideological corner?
I mean, before he quit/was fired Larry Elder had changed his self-designation from Libertarian to Republican to Independent.
Will he be forced back on the air to fill a niche?
Will Rush be forced into having to create 24 hours worth of programming daily to satisfy ''Fairness?"
Will the liberals be forced into admitting/owning their slants?

Wilkow was talking about that today, as well. He's expecting them to do it the same way they did back in the old days. A station had to keep an actual log of the topics they discussed, with the amount of time devoted to each side. The logs were subject to random audit by the FCC, and could be grounds for license suspension.

Basically, what a talk show host would have to do is decide in advance what they were going to discuss on a given day, and book someone with an opposing view on that topic. If they couldn't find anyone, they'd have to get a different topic.

This thing with Debbie Stabenow is a good example. No prominent liberal will go on a conservative talk show to discuss the topic. If those rules were in effect today, he wouldn't be able to cover it.

601 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:22:08pm

re: #93 Killgore Trout

Probably. Pretty much all of the Republicans are creationists. It's pretty much a requirement.

Crap! Don't tell the local chapter about me, then. They'd probably kick me out.
/

602 Randall Gross  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:22:19pm

re: #585 Honorary Yooper

Yooper, grats on 10,000 -- but honestly I don't know why you'd venture down that rabbit trail lined with blazing strawmen.

603 FrogMarch  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:22:48pm

re: #93 Killgore Trout

Probably. Pretty much all of the Republicans are creationists. It's pretty much a requirement.

I disagree.

604 Dianna  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:23:02pm

re: #438 FrogMarch

Evolution isn't a "Religion" Ann - it's science.

the bumper sticker war - Jesus Fish vs. Darwin fish is STUPID.
Shame on both sides.

True, but I like the Darwin Fish!

605 NJDhockeyfan  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:23:04pm

Second Mammoth Tusk Unearthed

Construction crews have uncovered a second tusk thought to belong to the same 500,000-year-old Columbian Mammoth discovered Feb. 4 at the future site of the $68 million Thomas Jefferson School of Law in downtown’s East Village.

Paleontologists had previously identified the skull and right tusk, along with a few foot and leg bones, at the law school’s construction site, at 11th and Island avenues.

The left tusk, discovered slightly uphill, measures about the same size as the first one — more than 10 feet.

Paleontologists from the San Diego Natural History Museum are slowly uncovering the remains and taking them to the museum for further study. The museum will eventually put the bones on display.

The find is particularly fitting, Dean Rudy Hasl said, because founding father Thomas Jefferson had an affinity for fossils of the ancient mammals and kept a collection of their bones in the White House.

606 dentate  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:23:45pm

re: #587 Iron Fist

Old earth "creationist" will do, because I do believe that the universe was created. Microevolution does exist. The existence of a mule pretty much proves the existance of a common ancestor to both the horse and the donkey at some point in time. That far I'll follow.

But the notion that everything that uses DNA evolved from a common ancestor? No, I don't buy it. That is a huge leap of faith that I cannot take. Although I don't see why that would necessarily preclude creation. It would prove, beyond any doubt, that there was at least a primordial Eve for all living things on earth. Why couldn't that first "Eve" have been created? How else was it brought forth from the ooze?

I stay quite on these threads, for a number of different reasons. This is one of them. While you may say evolution doesn't mean there isn't a god, in practice most of you argue it from a position that comes across as saying there is no god. If that's what you believe, more power to you, but that isn't a step that I see as logical. "Everythng just happened the way it happened" is as unsatisfying as saying "Everything just happened the way God wills it to happen".

I don't believe either of those expressions of faith.

So, God created independently several different initial living things, put DNA into all those living things, put DNA with similar sequences that can be neatly arranged into a branching cladistic tree into all of those things--but just did that to fool us. Right.

607 Peacekeeper  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:23:46pm

In the final analysis,is a 50 foot snake really any harder to believe in than an afterlife?

608 opnion  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:24:17pm

re: #589 brookly red

and if you eat it out of a bowl it's soup :)

Kind Like Steve Martin in The Jerk treating his girlfriend to Pizza in a Cup.

609 notutopia  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:24:25pm

re: #585 Honorary Yooper

Honorary Yooper Congrats on your 10,000, I have enjoyed and benefited in some way from every one of your comments!

610 faraway  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:24:36pm

How about those Yankees.

611 HelloDare  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:24:40pm

I finally got through to the local offices of both Boxer and Feinstein and voiced my opposition to the stimulus package. Both numbers were busy for the last few hours.

612 aggieann  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:24:43pm

re: #556 quickjustice

Based upon her membership in Redeemer Presbyterian Church, part of the fundamentalist PCA denomination, I'd say that Ann Coulter is simply a true believer in the doctrine of that church, which opposes evolution. Nothing more, and nothing less.

This times 1,000. Sheesh!

613 DeafDog  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:24:49pm

re: #585 Honorary Yooper

For my 10,000th comment (yes, thank you very much):

You must be getting a big bonus check!

614 Occasional Reader  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:24:50pm

re: #587 Iron Fist

But the notion that everything that uses DNA evolved from a common ancestor? No, I don't buy it. That is a huge leap of faith

Why is the following statement a "huge leap of faith"?

A certain extremely complex, long-chain, self-reproducing molecule appears in species X. An extremely simliar moleculte appears in species Y. Therefore, it is likely that species X and species Y have common ancestor.

615 Honorary Yooper  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:25:15pm

re: #602 Thanos

Yooper, grats on 10,000 -- but honestly I don't know why you'd venture down that rabbit trail lined with blazing strawmen.

If you see a strawman, set it on fire. If it's blazing, throw gasoline on it. :-)

Seriously though, even their strawmen need to be addressed as not to let them mislead other down their paths. Sometimes trolls deserve a GAZE, and sometimes it's better to BBQ their asses.

616 quickjustice  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:25:16pm

re: #587 Iron Fist

A "leap of faith" isn't required to understand evolution and the scientific method. All that's required is to study it, and to study the evidence supporting it.

A "leap of faith" is required to be religious. There's nothing wrong with that, but you're misapplying your rhetorical metaphors.

617 Randall Gross  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:25:31pm

Here we go.... lizards are taking the straw bait. We know where this is going to end up :
"evilution bad! Science leads to killing people!"

Seriously, Cato put forth a proposition, the burden is on him to supply "gobs of evidence" . I'm waiting with bated and baited breath....

618 Killer Tomato  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:25:36pm

re: #610 faraway

How about those Yankees.

I thought we'd finished discussing the Civil War?

619 Salamantis  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:25:46pm

re: #503 lobo91

I'm well aware of that (not surprising, given that I was raised Catholic).

Certain other posters have an annoying tendancy to turn any thread that's even tangentially related to religion into an attack on the Catholic Church, in case you hadn't noticed.

It's becoming tiresome.

That straw man belongs in the Wizard of Odd.

620 itellu3times  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:25:48pm

re: #547 Cato

It is integral to Darwin's theory of natural selection, a theory which purportedly applies to every species, that behaviors that hinder an organizism's ability to compete for survival or reproduction be ruthlessly weeded out.

No, that is not at all the theory.

Take for example the peacock's tail, ... please.

All the theory says is that changes are explained by evolution, there is no push, no pull, no trend, no rush. Nothing is weeded out, but some things may be selected "out" if they don't allow their holders to make the cut.

This may seem a minor difference, but it really is huge. Even many pro-evolutionists get it wrong. And I guess all anti-evolutionists do, too.

621 mean Gene  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:25:56pm

re: #605 NJDhockeyfan

Gee.....they come in pairs!
Who knew?

622 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:25:57pm

re: #610 faraway

I'll take that to be a "no"- you didn't read the link. But don't let the assumption you'd disregard the evidence stop you from whining about it's accuracy.

623 dentate  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:26:21pm

re: #607 Peacekeeper

In the final analysis,is a 50 foot snake really any harder to believe in than an afterlife?

We have fossils of the 50 foot snake that you can hold in your hand. You have....?

624 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:26:26pm
625 Occasional Reader  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:26:34pm

re: #604 Dianna

True, but I like the Darwin Fish!

I once saw a Cthulhu Fish bumper sticker. (Really.)

626 Ward Cleaver  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:26:36pm

re: #477 redstateredneck

I think Ann just likes using the shock value to get attention. She doesn't need to do it; in fact, she's way more intelligent than resorting to such.

I agree; she just shoots her credibility by doing that, and drives away liberals that she might otherwise be able to convert to the conservative point of view.

627 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:27:30pm

re: #572 Charles

Atheism is tied to evolution in the minds of many fundamentalist Christians because they are taught this from the time they're little children. It has almost nothing to do with the hardcore atheism of people like Richard Dawkins.

Biblical literalism is the main culprit. What you get is people contorting their minds into pretzels to make every word true, even if it's directly contradicted in the next chapter. The two creation accounts in Genesis are a wonderful example.

The Near East is full of exact parallels to a lot of the Bible stories (the Flood, for instance), yet they insist on special revelation for every letter.

It ends up being bibliolatry, the worship of a book, instead of worshiping the God they pretend to believe in.

Where it really gets funny is when people insist on the literal truth of, say, the King James rendering. Some of what's in there is pure mistranslation, if you know anything about Hebrew or Greek, yet it's Divine Writ.

We need Monte Python to make a new movie: "Genesis, or I Was There At the Beginning."

628 mean Gene  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:27:44pm

re: #584 opnion

Hellol Lizards. I am glad that we are not into anything contoversial, like you know Chicago pizza vs New York pizza. I vote Chicago, if you can fold it, it's a sandwich!

I could never understand that.
If I'm in the mood for a sandwich I make one.
If I'm in the mood for pizza (oh how rarely that happens!) I make one of them.
Why would anyone in the mood for a sandwich get a pizza instead?
(I hope that wasn't too controversial.)
;)

629 redstateredneck  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:27:57pm

re: #583 reine.de.tout

I got one of her books - someone earlier mentioned that she is "too shrill" for their taste, and I found that to be true for me, too.

Became "not a fan of Ann" real quick after reading her book.


Watching her as a talking head makes me think she thrives on controversy. The more shit she can stir up the happier she seems.

630 DeafDog  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:28:05pm

re: #599 Naso Tang

Education of children in schools is always the first place any dogma wants to be established, but I don't agree that creationism is irrelevant if kept as a private belief.....

So you want to outlaw private beliefs?

Sorry. That's totalitarian thought police BS.

631 Ward Cleaver  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:28:10pm

re: #593 itellu3times

I don't wish to believe this, for the simple reason that I could probably never take such a republican politician seriously on any subject at all. What with the democrats being toxic idiots these days, that would be very constraining at the ballot box.

But then, I live in California, and haven't seen a real republican in ages.

There damn sure aren't any in Sacramento.

632 Occasional Reader  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:29:25pm

re: #584 opnion

Hellol Lizards. I am glad that we are not into anything contoversial, like you know Chicago pizza vs New York pizza.

Or, even just sticking to New York pizza, the bitter "Famous Original Ray's vs. Original Famous Ray's" controversy.

633 bulwrk  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:29:33pm

re: #485 quickjustice

From that, in 1863, Lincoln's thinking evolved to emancipating the slave population in the states in rebellion, both to add 180,000 soldiers to the Union Army, and to keep Great Britain from joining the war on the Southern side.


Not really, Lincoln had fully decided on emancipation mid 1862 and had penned a rough draft earlier in year but considering Union Army setbacks in 61 and 62 he needed a Union victory which he got at Antietam.After the resolution of the Trent affair any serious thought of British intervention was gone.

634 Peacekeeper  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:29:38pm

re: #614 Occasional Reader

Uh oh

635 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:29:43pm

re: #627 Cato the Elder

Biblical literalism is the main culprit. What you get is people contorting their minds into pretzels to make every word true, even if it's directly contradicted in the next chapter. The two creation accounts in Genesis are a wonderful example.

The Near East is full of exact parallels to a lot of the Bible stories (the Flood, for instance), yet they insist on special revelation for every letter.

It ends up being bibliolatry, the worship of a book, instead of worshiping the God they pretend to believe in.

Where it really gets funny is when people insist on the literal truth of, say, the King James rendering. Some of what's in there is pure mistranslation, if you know anything about Hebrew or Greek, yet it's Divine Writ.

We need Monte Python to make a new movie: "Genesis, or I Was There At the Beginning."

Lately I've been wondering which of the 4 versions of the Passion should I take to be literally true. There's discrepancies among them. How do literalists reconcile that?

636 FrogMarch  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:29:54pm

re: #604 Dianna

True, but I like the Darwin Fish!


LOL
To me it feels like this silly war where you beleive in one or the other. It feels hostile. Which is fine, but there are those who do not reject Darwin or God. /Maybe I should create a Jesus Fish kissing a Darwin Fish. Show the love.

637 lobo91  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:29:55pm

re: #629 redstateredneck

Watching her as a talking head makes me think she thrives on controversy. The more shit she can stir up the happier she seems more money she makes.

Is it clearer now?

638 capitalist piglet  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:29:58pm

Stimulus update, via HotAir:

Update (AP): Mark Hemingway also hears that Collins is wavering, leaving just Snowe and Specter.

639 nyc redneck  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:30:09pm

re: #583 reine.de.tout

I got one of her books - someone earlier mentioned that she is "too shrill" for their taste, and I found that to be true for me, too.

Became "not a fan of Ann" real quick after reading her book.

i do like her and i have bought most of her books.
she has a wonderful chapter in one,
(can't remember which book, i'll try to find it.) abt. how southern men have distinguished themselves in the military since the revolutionary war.
it was very very passionately and beautifully written. no sarcasm, or lame attempts at humor. and it was a subject she had researched. unlike evolution.

640 quickjustice  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:30:17pm

Like all pundits, Coulter trades off controversy: she makes big bucks from it. Which raise the obvious question: who's the bigger fool, she who profits handsomely from her self-created controversy, or those who call attention to it without profiting from it? ;-)

641 Randall Gross  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:30:22pm

re: #587 Iron Fist

But the notion that everything that uses DNA evolved from a common ancestor? No, I don't buy it. That is a huge leap of faith that I cannot take.


It's no leap of faith at all -- see matching, exact same retroviral sequences in our genes and some primates. See the fact that we can make chicken embryos grow dinosaur teeth, tails, and scales by methylating the right places in their genome. See the fossils. See the fact that you have latent gills called tonsils. See the fact that we have a latent "hybernation" capability (drownings in cold water) the list goes on and on Ironfist.

642 Peacekeeper  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:30:29pm

re: #623 dentate

We have fossils of the 50 foot snake that you can hold in your hand. You have....?

Thems some big hands you got.

643 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:30:37pm

re: #614 Occasional Reader

Why is the following statement a "huge leap of faith"?

A certain extremely complex, long-chain, self-reproducing molecule appears in species X. An extremely simliar moleculte appears in species Y. Therefore, it is likely that species X and species Y have common ancestor.

If one takes that doubt/faith to it's logical conclusion, DNA evidence would not be allowed and OJ would have been convicted on the circumstantial evidence alone, instead of confusing the poor jurors.

644 Leonidas Hoplite  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:30:47pm

Ni!

645 opnion  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:30:48pm

re: #503 lobo91

I'm well aware of that (not surprising, given that I was raised Catholic).

Certain other posters have an annoying tendancy to turn any thread that's even tangentially related to religion into an attack on the Catholic Church, in case you hadn't noticed.

It's becoming tiresome.


I have noticed that too.

646 redstateredneck  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:30:52pm

re: #628 mean Gene

Why would anyone in the mood for a sandwich get a pizza instead?


Wow! They coulda had a Hot Pocket!

647 Honorary Yooper  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:30:53pm

re: #632 Occasional Reader

Or, even just sticking to New York pizza, the bitter "Famous Original Ray's vs. Original Famous Ray's" controversy.

What's the difference between flat vs. flat? I vote Giorando's stuffed crust. Cheese, onion, green pepper, and ham, please. :-)

648 Spiny Norman  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:31:25pm

re: #631 Ward Cleaver

There damn sure aren't any in Sacramento.

The last one in Sacramento, Tom McClintock, was term-limited out and is now a Congressman.

649 UFO TOFU  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:31:33pm

re: #591 Ringo the Gringo

#547 Cato,

Do you really want to know?

No.
;-)

650 Charles Johnson  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:31:40pm

re: #624 buzzsawmonkey

But the "hardcore"--which is to say, often angry and barely restrained--atheism of people like Richard Dawkins does absolutely nothing to reassure or convince such Christians that evolution is not tied to atheism. Indeed, it confirms them in that belief, inaccurate though it may be--as does the gleeful celebration of that atheism by such people's partisans.

Which means that if the objective is to make people understand that evolution is not "tied to atheism" (with all that is taken to imply), then the "hardcore" atheists who clearly gain at least as much pleasure from insulting other people's beliefs as they do from any scientific endeavors need to be sat on a little--and need to learn how to phrase their arguments to reach rather than offend an audience. If, on the other hand, the objective is merely to gain a quick jazz by subjecting people to ridicule, they can carry on as they have.

I'm no fan of Dawkins' approach. But it's silly to claim that people like Richard Dawkins are as much to blame for creationist beliefs as the non-stop indoctrination that takes place in fundamentalist churches. Most creationists haven't even read a word of Dawkins' work; if they've heard of him at all, it's because their preacher used him as an example of the horrors of evolution.

651 pimp_conservative  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:31:43pm

If one were to bump into Speaker Pelosi at an event, and were lucky enough to get her response on video, what question would you want to ask her?
I have a camera, and may have the opportunity in the next couple days to do just that.

652 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:31:56pm

Please everyone, remember that there's Cato and then Cato the Elder. I registered precisely one day before Junior here.

653 Cato  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:31:58pm

re: #558 Charles

re: #560 jaunte

Charles, I gave you evidence. Anal intercourse, abortion, altruism, or beastiality. All are things that need to be ruthlessly weeded out by natural selection but have not been. Why? Because human life is nothing like the life of a bacterium or a weasel (unless you are leftist). Natural selection doesn't really apply to humans. It why we do not go around seeking to impregnate women with each sexual act and eat all we can and fight for territory. The very notion of property is anti-Darwin.

jaunte, Darwin never had a theory of "species advantage". It was the reproduction of individuals with specific variations that leads to energizes the process of natural selection. Nothing in ANY Darwinian or neo-Darwinian literature explains, for example, the Catholic nun who has given up breeding for herself yet aids in birthing other people's babies.

654 ConservatismNow!  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:32:04pm

re: #2 Charles

Not Ann! Noooooooooooooooo!
*cries in his chili*

655 NoWhereAlaska  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:32:24pm

re: #202 lobo91

An "earmark" is a (usually unrelated) spending item that's attached to an existing bill.


In that case my 'Bridge to Nowhere' was not an earmark. It was part of a transportation bill related to highway and bridge construction. It was specifically funded as part of that larger bill. No that coal plant is as much an 'earmark' as was my Bridge. (Please note: I am not saying the Bridge should have been built.)

656 opnion  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:32:25pm

re: #632 Occasional Reader

Or, even just sticking to New York pizza, the bitter "Famous Original Ray's vs. Original Famous Ray's" controversy.

Never heard of it , must be a New York thing.
I like pizza crisp & cut into squares. It's just what your used to.

657 Jack Burton  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:32:29pm

re: #503 lobo91

I'm well aware of that (not surprising, given that I was raised Catholic).

Certain other posters have an annoying tendancy to turn any thread that's even tangentially related to religion into an attack on the Catholic Church, in case you hadn't noticed.

It's becoming tiresome.

Those aren't evolution or ID threads, they are the SSPX Holocaust denial and anti-semitism threads. Criticism of the Catholic church in regards to how it deals with holocaust denial is legitimate and worthy of debate. It is not "bashing".

658 Perplexed  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:32:49pm

re: #571 Scion9

Must disagree with you over that one. States rights over federal rights were the issue leading to the Civil War. Slavery was a side issue as both the North and the South were in today's terminology, racists. Yes, you did have the abolitionists, but they were a small minority. Lincoln wanted preservation of the union as his number one goal. He wrote a letter saying to the effect that if he could reunite the union and keep slavery he would do so. He went on in that letter if he could reunite the union and only have slavery in the south he would do do. If he could reunite the union and abolish slavery he would do so. Seems that reunification was goal #1 and that slavery was the abortion rights issue of the 1860s with many heated discussions about the rights and wrongs.

That issue brought about nearly 100 years of social injustices/wrongs that in some ways haven't yet been resolved.

659 yochanan  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:33:07pm

re: #606 dentate

So, God created independently several different initial living things, put DNA into all those living things, put DNA with similar sequences that can be neatly arranged into a branching cladistic tree into all of those things--but just did that to fool us. Right.

on the subject of religion TO EACH HIS OWN.

on the subject of evolution I DON'T CARE no dawwinist is trying to blow me up or fly planes into tall buildings. (although the commies sure did a lot of evil in the name of scientific socialism)

I believe in G-D and my religion BUT THE WHOLE I.D. debates is at or near the bottom of my concers.

660 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:33:34pm
661 Guanxi88  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:33:36pm

re: #654 ConservatismNow!

Not Ann! Noooooooooooooooo!
*cries in his chili*

Is it Cincinnati Chili, by any chance? Now THAT will cause an all-out flame war.

662 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:33:37pm

re: #630 DeafDog

So you want to outlaw private beliefs?

Sorry. That's totalitarian thought police BS.

Silly comment. No, but I don't have a problem with pointing out that some are woo woo. Do you "believe" in astrology, ghosts, homeopathy, dowsing, ESP, alien abductions? If you do, please feel free, just don't demand my respect.

663 Honorary Yooper  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:34:11pm

re: #653 Cato

OK, then why do only the queen bees or queen ants breed, and the rest of the females are just drones gathering food and helping out with the larvae?

Your argument has a major leak in it, Cato.

664 itellu3times  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:34:14pm

re: #631 Ward Cleaver

There damn sure aren't any in Sacramento.

Actually, I did see in recent years one Tom McClintock, who was pretty good. I don't know his position on evolution, and that's good enough for me.

But he's not in Sacramento, at least not right now.

665 brookly red  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:34:16pm

re: #632 Occasional Reader

Or, even just sticking to New York pizza, the bitter "Famous Original Ray's vs. Original Famous Ray's" controversy.

For the record, a title search will show that the first pizzeria named Ray's was on the 500 block of DeKalb ave., Brooklyn 11205. For the record.

666 quickjustice  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:34:21pm

re: #633 bulwrk

Fair point. The exact moment isn't as important as the principle. I actually wrote a paper on the Trent Affair, which resulted in the eventual release of the Confederate commissioners captured from the British vessel. Lincoln was extremely shrewd.

667 jamgarr  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:34:23pm

re: #651 pimp_conservative

If one were to bump into Speaker Pelosi at an event, and were lucky enough to get her response on video, what question would you want to ask her?
I have a camera, and may have the opportunity in the next couple days to do just that.

If a train leaves A at 5:00 o'clock how far can it go on 500 million gallons of fuel?

668 victor_yugo  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:34:23pm

So we can account for genetic variations over time. But how do biologists account for variations in the number of chromosomes? How did we end up with 23 pairs, while gorillas got 24? What evolutionary pressure caused that?

That is the leap that must be explained, or better yet, demonstrated.

669 Occasional Reader  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:34:36pm

Speaking of retrograde evolution:

Thugs drawn to anti-semitism like moths to the flame.

Venezuela's Jews fear more attacks

CARACAS, Venezuela – As President Hugo Chavez intensifies his anti-Israel campaign, some Venezuelans have taken action, threatening Jews in the street and vandalizing the largest synagogue in Caracas — where they stole a database of names and addresses.

Now many in Venezuela's Jewish community fear the worst is yet to come.

670 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:34:37pm

What baffles me is how certain devotees go full on nutters when one of their sacred talking heads is justifiably criticized. They worship at the altar of Coulter/Rush/et al much the same way the leftists bowed down before Obama, and consider them to be perfectly infallible.

I just don't get it.

671 Peacekeeper  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:34:38pm

Grok the fullness fellow pimates...

672 reine.de.tout  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:34:40pm

re: #639 nyc redneck

i do like her and i have bought most of her books.
she has a wonderful chapter in one,
(can't remember which book, i'll try to find it.) abt. how southern men have distinguished themselves in the military since the revolutionary war.
it was very very passionately and beautifully written. no sarcasm, or lame attempts at humor. and it was a subject she had researched. unlike evolution.

Would be interested to know which one.

673 Spiny Norman  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:34:41pm

re: #644 Leonidas Hoplite

Ni!

We are the keepers of the sacred words: NI! PENG! and NU-WOM!"

A shrubbery?

674 eschew_obfuscation  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:34:43pm

re: #468 Perplexed

Careful. That fairness doctrine BS works both ways. Imagine NPR having to give Rush air time.

You're clearly not as devious as our lefties are... NPR would present liberal views as 'hard news' which was not covered by the fairness doctrine, and would therefore have no need to put Rush on their air. Anything that is conservative in nature would be labeled 'opinion' requiring a liberal counter-argument.

675 jaunte  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:34:54pm

re: #653 Cato


Darwin never had a theory of "species advantage"


Yet we can observe that animals who nurture their young, vs. animals who leave a clutch of eggs or larvae behind, have a species advantage in preserving their individual genes into another generation. Cooperation in groups allows later nurturing of young.

676 Charles Johnson  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:34:59pm

re: #653 Cato

Charles, I gave you evidence. Anal intercourse, abortion, altruism, or beastiality. All are things that need to be ruthlessly weeded out by natural selection but have not been. Why? Because human life is nothing like the life of a bacterium or a weasel (unless you are leftist). Natural selection doesn't really apply to humans. It why we do not go around seeking to impregnate women with each sexual act and eat all we can and fight for territory. The very notion of property is anti-Darwin.

"Abortion?" A medical procedure is evidence against evolution? And "anal intercourse?" You're joking, right?

None of that is evidence. It's all your opinion. Where are the "gobs and gobs" of evidence?

677 Randall Gross  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:35:02pm

re: #653 Cato

You gave zero evidence, just another strawman general sweeping assumption about what you think you know about evolution. In other words you are just giving your personal opinion again. Where's the Gobs of evidence?

678 lobo91  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:35:27pm

re: #651 pimp_conservative

If one were to bump into Speaker Pelosi at an event, and were lucky enough to get her response on video, what question would you want to ask her?
I have a camera, and may have the opportunity in the next couple days to do just that.

I'd pick one of the siller items that have been inserted into that bill and ask her to explain how, specifically, that item is critical to our economic recovery.

679 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:35:29pm
680 faraway  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:35:40pm

re: #580 Sharmuta

Did you read the link?

Let's see. I am walking this thing backwards. Just trying to keep it simple, since I am such a dufus.

Lets start at homo sapiens (us).

Then, this paper says homo erectus is the next previous missing link.

I am reading from this small college, Stanford, that there appears to be a problem already.

Homo erectus has long been regarded as the direct antecedent to Homo sapiens. Recently, this assumption has been questioned. Specifically, several investigators propose that many large brained fossil hominids from the Middle Pleistocene that traditionally have been assigned to Homo erectus in fact belong to several species of Homo, not just one. Homo erectus as currently defined from Asia would be one species which became extinct in the last half million years. The second would be populations similar to Homo erectus. This new and distinctly controversial-view stems from a cladistic analysis of the large collection of African and Asian fossils that traditionally have been assigned to Homo erectus.

The problem of defining Homo erectus is that it is viewed at present as a grade of human evolution intermediate between the small-brained early Pleistocene hominids and the large brained Homo sapiens. The term grade is used to encompass a population that has reached the same adaptive stage. It does not require that the organisms belong to the same group (species). Peter Andrew stated just because the erectus specimens are all the same size or similar size brains is not evidence that they belong to the same species.

681 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:35:57pm

re: #653 Cato

Explain hiccups and hernias.

682 Soona'  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:36:09pm

re: #595 DeafDog

This is a good defense of your beliefs, which is fine as far as it goes, but it does not prove anything.

BTW - I don't see why any of these beliefs are inconsistent with evolution. I believe in JC, but I am also convinced that species have evolved. Ir's ok to defend both.

As do I.

683 jamgarr  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:36:13pm

re: #656 opnion


I like pizza crisp & cut into squares. It's just what your used to

Imo's? (the square beyond compare)

684 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:36:18pm

re: #635 Sharmuta

Lately I've been wondering which of the 4 versions of the Passion should I take to be literally true. There's discrepancies among them. How do literalists reconcile that?

Good grief, now there's a subject! Suffice it to say they can't, and remain literalists. According to the Synoptic Gospels, the Passion occurred on a different Day than the story of John relates.

Of course oceans of ink have been spilled trying to reconcile the irreconcilable, but it hasn't advanced Jesus' message one bit.

685 itellu3times  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:36:25pm

re: #651 pimp_conservative

If one were to bump into Speaker Pelosi at an event, and were lucky enough to get her response on video, what question would you want to ask her?

Nancy, where's the change?

Nancy, is that botox, or did you sit on Obama's unicorn?

686 Salamantis  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:36:39pm

re: #547 Cato

It is integral to Darwin's theory of natural selection, a theory which purportedly applies to every species, that behaviors that hinder an organizism's ability to compete for survival or reproduction be ruthlessly weeded out. If Darwin's theory of evolution were true, there would be in every species a constant and ruthless competition to survive. What ruthless thing have you done today to eat or breed? You see, human life isn't like that.

In fact, human life contains altruism, alcohol, anal intercourse, abortion and other behaviors that shorten lives or lessen the number of children people have, and that is just the A's. These behaviors have not been ruthlessly weeded out, and some are in fact on the increase. This is the inexplicable that you guys "forget". Darwin is fine for pines and cod, but not for me. The bottle of MacCallan at my desk disproves Darwin.

Humans also are self-consciously aware, and have creasted complex societies and cultures that provide safety and sustenance that would not be so forthcoming in the wild. They preserve what is learned, and build on it. This memetic evolution, which operates very quickly when compared to mutation and natural selection, has overtaken human genetic evolution as our primary shaper of behavior.

But make no mistake about it; genetic evolution is still taking place in human beings, and at an even faster rate than before, since it has a larger pool of organisms, spread over far more diverse climates and cultures, from which mutations may issue and be selected in many different ways.

687 lobo91  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:36:50pm

re: #655 NoWhereAlaska

In that case my 'Bridge to Nowhere' was not an earmark. It was part of a transportation bill related to highway and bridge construction. It was specifically funded as part of that larger bill. No that coal plant is as much an 'earmark' as was my Bridge. (Please note: I am not saying the Bridge should have been built.)

That's correct. If it was actually in the bill, it's not an earmark.

688 Jetpilot1101  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:36:56pm

Wow, another good debate. Man I love these threads. For the record, I'm an evangelical Christian who believes in evolution. I reconcile the two very easily.

689 Occasional Reader  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:37:07pm

I nominate for "LGF Quote Of The Day:

Charles, I gave you evidence. Anal intercourse, abortion, altruism, or beastiality.

690 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:37:33pm
691 nyc redneck  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:37:40pm

re: #672 reine.de.tout

Would be interested to know which one.

i'll try to find it.

692 guitarguy  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:37:53pm

Anne's not bad looking.....but too darn skinny for my tastes.
And as time went on, I found myself either wincing, or shaking my head when she spoke her mind.

re: Gilligan professor not being able to fix the boat.
You're on an island with Ginger and Mary-Anne.......and you want to leave?

re: Ginger or Mary-Anne.
Mary-Anne......so wholesome.....more of a challenge to 'corrupt'....heh-heh-heh...

re: 'I Dream Of Jeannie':

Youtube Video
693 DeafDog  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:37:55pm

re: #651 pimp_conservative

If one were to bump into Speaker Pelosi at an event, and were lucky enough to get her response on video, what question would you want to ask her?
I have a camera, and may have the opportunity in the next couple days to do just that.

To keep it current

Ms. Pelosi, after the evidence that you directed PAC funds to your husband and that you stood to profit from the Boone Pickens energy plan, I'm curious - how does you and your family stand to directly benefit from this Stimulus package?

694 yochanan  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:37:58pm

re: #647 Honorary Yooper

What's the difference between flat vs. flat? I vote Giorando's stuffed crust. Cheese, onion, green pepper, and ham, please. :-)

one of the few things i miss now that i keep kosher is CHICAGO DEEP DISH PIZZA. nothing better

695 Leonidas Hoplite  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:38:09pm

re: #673 Spiny Norman

We are the keepers of the sacred words: NI! PENG! and NU-WOM!"

A shrubbery?

Not another shrubbery!

A prescient bit late in the clip..."We wouldn't get very far in life without saying 'is'"

696 Pyrocles  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:38:13pm

You'd think so, but I'm not sure. "Lib" talk show hosts aren't "Lib" to the ones proposing the Fairness Doctrine - they're normal and unbiased. Reality-based.

Only Conservative hosts can be defined as "Conservative" and in need of correction.

re: #464 Ward Cleaver

Something tells me that even the lib talk show hosts are going to scream about this. There's common ground there, when it comes to freedom of speech.

697 mean Gene  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:38:14pm

re: #646 redstateredneck

Wow! They coulda had a Hot Pocket!

In the 1950's we called them ''pasties.''
We made then of leftovers.
Usually leftover beef roast and leftover baked potatoes.
Add a lot of cracked black pepper and a little homemade gravy and fold into homemade pie crust.
Wonderful.

698 lawhawk  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:38:15pm

re: #669 Occasional Reader

[T]hugo's behind on his bills... again.

699 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:38:48pm

re: #680 faraway

Still doesn't answer whether you read the link that was provided for you.

700 jroberson  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:38:54pm

Ok, so evolution is an accepted fact, with a bevy of evidence to support it well beyond any respectable doubt. And I understand where Ann is coming from. She's religious, she's a creationist. I knew this about her years and years ago. This isn't news to me. I've read her books, and I enjoyed them.

She's loud, often obnoxious but she skewers the left with her sharp and hyperbolically witty remarks that bear a kernel of truth. I won't throw her under the bus just because she's a creationist and because I believe conservatives desperately need an injection of mainstream repectability. I won't throw her under the bus because she's often 'annoying' to the more sensitive of readers.

Sure one of her books was a waste, a retread of articles mostly found on the internet and her other older books. No big deal. But I can't disagree with much she says about those that would dismantle this nation and institute some sort of EuroSocialist amoral cesspool. And I believe how she says what she says has more of an impact on her image then what she actually says IMO, and if she spoke with a more reserved tone and attitude, more people would find her agreeable.

Anyway, I think those that accept evolution yet believe God created anything (the earth, the 'heavens') are trying to enjoy both sides. Evolution is a demonstrable fact. Also demonstrable is the fact the earth wasn't created by god, nor was the solar system, the Sun or anything else. Even the known universe can be shown to have evolved from the colliding of higher dimensional objects known as branes. We've seen planets and stars forming in cosmic nurseries, and have the pictures to prove it!

To me, people that cling to notion of a 'god' creating anything in the natural world are every bit as ignorant as any anti-Darwin creationist. You can't have it both ways for convenience.

701 ConservatismNow!  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:39:03pm

re: #661 Guanxi88

Cincinatti Chili is not chili. It's meat sauce with chili spices. That's just my opinion. I have had cincinatti chili. It tastes good, but it is not chili. I was eating the Campbells Roadhouse chili. For chili in a can, it's ok. Nowhere NEAR as good as homemade, but good enough to take to work for lunch.

702 redstateredneck  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:39:10pm

re: #689 Occasional Reader

I nominate for "LGF Quote Of The Day:

Got my vote.

703 quickjustice  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:39:11pm

re: #653 Cato

Yikes! You're making an argument for Christian altruism. There's nothing wrong with that, but it has NOTHING to do with evolution. Do you even understand the logical difference? Religion is, in part, about morality. In its examination of evidence, science is not (although ethical rules apply to scientists too).

Who said, "some brains need to be washed. They're dirty!"?

704 lostlakehiker  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:39:12pm

re: #127 kansas

What is it about 600,000 American Citizens dying during the Civil War that I am not splaining? To me everyone that was shot, hanged, stabbed, or otherwise removed from this life by someone else was murdered. Maybe the 600,000 dead include disease and accidental deaths. I don't have time to look into it. At any rate, the point is we recovered from the Civil War, we'll recover from this if Obama would STFU.

PS

I am not a fan of Lincoln.

The North's cause in the civil war was just. The responsibility for all those deaths rests first with the hothead secessionists, and if you go back to root causes, with southern unwillingness to see slavery circumscribed, much less ended.

You could put some of the blame on poor union generals, but the south had its share of poor generals too. You could put a lot of it on poor medical care and poor camp sanitation, but who knew? America was in the dark ages medically, even though we were ahead of most of the world.

He who leads in a just and necessary war, and leads well, is a national hero, not a murderer. Lincoln is on our money, on Mt. Rushmore, and in our hearts, for good reason. He did his level best to avert the war. He did what he had to do to win it. And then he did everything in his power to make the peace that was coming a generous one. Had Lincoln not been murdered, reconstruction wouldn't have been a dirty word in the south.

705 Perplexed  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:39:15pm

re: #651 pimp_conservative

If one were to bump into Speaker Pelosi at an event, and were lucky enough to get her response on video, what question would you want to ask her?
I have a camera, and may have the opportunity in the next couple days to do just that.

Given that the engineering alone takes around 18 months to complete before construction begins, how will the stimulus package help the economy in those 18 months?

Given that the stimulus package approaches 1e^12 dollars, and you're only forecasting 2-3 million new jobs, why not just give those 2-3 million people the money directly out of the stimulus package instead of waiting?

Why don't you give a tax holiday for businesses for the next 18 months and see what the economy does?

706 eschew_obfuscation  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:39:41pm

re: #562 mean Gene

So, this ''Fairness Doctrine?"
Is it a plot to force radio personalities to paint themselves into one ideological corner?
I mean, before he quit/was fired Larry Elder had changed his self-designation from Libertarian to Republican to Independent.
Will he be forced back on the air to fill a niche?
Will Rush be forced into having to create 24 hours worth of programming daily to satisfy ''Fairness?"
Will the liberals be forced into admitting/owning their slants?

It's a plan for force talk radio (primarily) to offer equal time to liberal talk programs. No one is interested in listening to those, except on the east and west coasts, so listenership would be very low during those time slots. As a result, advertisers would not advertise at those times, and radio station revenue would drop precipitously for talk format stations. This would effectively force talk radio (and conservative views) out of business ..... the ultimate goal of those supporting something like the fairness doctrine.

707 Spiny Norman  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:40:03pm

re: #695 Leonidas Hoplite

Not another shrubbery!

A prescient bit late in the clip..."We wouldn't get very far in life without saying 'is'"

It depends on what the definition of.... oh, nevermind, let's not go to Camelot, it is a silly place.

708 opnion  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:40:03pm

re: #628 mean Gene

I could never understand that.
If I'm in the mood for a sandwich I make one.
If I'm in the mood for pizza (oh how rarely that happens!) I make one of them.
Why would anyone in the mood for a sandwich get a pizza instead?
(I hope that wasn't too controversial.)
;)

Well, it is a little out there.

709 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:40:38pm

re: #684 Cato the Elder

Good grief, now there's a subject! Suffice it to say they can't, and remain literalists. According to the Synoptic Gospels, the Passion occurred on a different Day than the story of John relates.

Of course oceans of ink have been spilled trying to reconcile the irreconcilable, but it hasn't advanced Jesus' message one bit.

So it's a "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" sort of thing. They disregard discrepancies and contradictions and any quote that might lead them to question a literal interpretation. But they want to call "Darwinists" dogmatic.

Unreal.

710 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:40:46pm
711 Jetpilot1101  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:41:16pm

re: #700 jroberson

Anyway, I think those that accept evolution yet believe God created anything (the earth, the 'heavens') are trying to enjoy both sides. Evolution is a demonstrable fact. Also demonstrable is the fact the earth wasn't created by god, nor was the solar system, the Sun or anything else. Even the known universe can be shown to have evolved from the colliding of higher dimensional objects known as branes. We've seen planets and stars forming in cosmic nurseries, and have the pictures to prove it!

To me, people that cling to notion of a 'god' creating anything in the natural world are every bit as ignorant as any anti-Darwin creationist. You can't have it both ways for convenience.

1. I agree evolution is a demonstrable fact.
2. The "branes" had to come from somewhere - in my universe that is God.
3. Therefore, I can believe in both.
4. To call me ignorant is as bad as an anti-darwin creationist.

712 yochanan  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:41:24pm

re: #669 Occasional Reader

Speaking of retrograde evolution:

Thugs drawn to anti-semitism like moths to the flame.

Venezuela's Jews fear more attacks

TO ME THIS IS A IMPORTANT ISSUE

i will take a pass on the I.D. debate until this and other issues are soloved

713 lurking faith  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:41:25pm

re: #423 jamgarr

Postito ergo sum

/you post - therefore you exist

Tostito ergo sum

/I eat nachos; therefore I exist

714 Dustyvet  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:41:35pm

re: #586 Peacekeeper

I remember the 50 foot snake from yesterday.

It's in my kitchen at the moment, baking a sea kitten.

715 DeafDog  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:41:40pm

re: #662 Naso Tang

Silly comment. No, but I don't have a problem with pointing out that some are woo woo. Do you "believe" in astrology, ghosts, homeopathy, dowsing, ESP, alien abductions? If you do, please feel free, just don't demand my respect.

I see your point, but having a strong religious beliefs is very different than having a strong belief in the Loch Ness Monster.

It's not quite right to mix criticism of the two.

716 redstateredneck  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:41:50pm

re: #697 mean Gene

In the 1950's we called them ''pasties.''
We made then of leftovers.
Usually leftover beef roast and leftover baked potatoes.
Add a lot of cracked black pepper and a little homemade gravy and fold into homemade pie crust.
Wonderful.

A traditional food in Michigan's upper peninsula. Everywhere else, pasties go on exotic dancers.
;-)

717 Leonidas Hoplite  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:42:16pm

Hail Ceasar!

718 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:42:51pm
719 Salamantis  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:42:58pm

re: #557 faraway

Here we go. Suggesting people that disagree with you are stupid. Not very scientific of you.

But you buttress that very contention about youself, when you are presented with the artifactual retroviral DNA evidence of common ancestry between humans and great apes, and then claim that no such evidence exists, or that you are not convinced by it. Disagreement alone isn't enough; you have to be able to present some evidentiary basis for it, as I have.

[Link: www.newyorker.com...]

Maybe you're not stupid. Maybe you're just delusional or dishonest. But I cannot think of any other alternatives; since I have presented you with the evidence for human-great ape common ancestry, you cannot just claim to be ignorant of it any more.

720 Spare O'Lake  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:43:10pm

re: #653 Cato

Anal intercourse, abortion, altruism, or beastiality. All are things that need to be ruthlessly weeded out by natural selection but have not been.

You're kidding, right?

721 medaura18586  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:43:33pm

re: #627 Cato the Elder

Biblical literalism is the main culprit. What you get is people contorting their minds into pretzels to make every word true, even if it's directly contradicted in the next chapter. The two creation accounts in Genesis are a wonderful example.

The Near East is full of exact parallels to a lot of the Bible stories (the Flood, for instance), yet they insist on special revelation for every letter.

It ends up being bibliolatry, the worship of a book, instead of worshiping the God they pretend to believe in.

Where it really gets funny is when people insist on the literal truth of, say, the King James rendering. Some of what's in there is pure mistranslation, if you know anything about Hebrew or Greek, yet it's Divine Writ.

We need Monte Python to make a new movie: "Genesis, or I Was There At the Beginning."

Even more troubling is the conclusion such literalists must inevitably capitulate their minds to: i.e. that reason and logics are impotent and must be surrendered in the face of the mystical. There are two accounts of genesis, and two of the great flood; they contradict each-other respectively. The law of identity (A=A) is clearly violated. This should unsettle a person's mind -- his/her logical sensitivities.

So how do literalists square the circle? They conclude that logic doesn't matter, that elementary consistency is not a requirement of sound thinking. In other words, they commit seppuku on their faculty of reason.

Once reason is dead, Pandora's box of superstition, radicalism, and bigotry is wide open. So the problem of Biblical fundamentalism is greater than its immediate manifestations give it credit for.

722 quickjustice  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:43:38pm

re: #690 Iron Fist

Obviously, you're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. I'm also a believer, but I don't think evolution inconsistent with my faith. Your logical mistake is in trying to conflate your faith ("G-d created the universe") with empirical evidence. You're trying way too hard to superimpose one upon the other.

G-d will reveal himself in time. Many physicists think there are dimensions we cannot perceive. If that's true, it's cause for everyone, believer and scientist alike, to be especially humble.

723 lostlakehiker  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:43:43pm

re: #651 pimp_conservative

Ask a careful, honest question. Not a polemical gotcha question. There are way too few facts in play.

The answer she gives to a new, interesting, and important question, will be a new fact. Not that her answer will necessarily be factual, but it will be a fact that she gave that answer.

It might even prompt her to think. And since she's part of the top leadership, it's about time she got to thinking. Offhand comments such as "we're losing 500 million jobs a month" reflect a lack of thought.

724 Honorary Yooper  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:43:45pm

re: #716 redstateredneck

A traditional food in Michigan's upper peninsula. Everywhere else, pasties go on exotic dancers.
;-)

Heh. Same word, vastly different pronounciation.

Paste-ees go on nipples.
Pahst-ees are what you eat.
The other way 'round is just kinky now matter how you slice it.

725 lobo91  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:43:50pm

re: #701 ConservatismNow!

Cincinatti Chili is not chili. It's meat sauce with chili spices. That's just my opinion.

Finally, something on this thread I can agree with!

My wife's from there, and I spent a small fortune getting her some chili and a few other food items from that area this Christmas.

Imagine my disappointment when I tasted that crap...

726 HelloDare  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:44:00pm

re: #547 Cato

altruism, alcohol, anal intercourse

Rotating title!

727 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:44:00pm
728 Tigger2005  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:44:02pm

When did things start getting this bad?

If asked, I'd probably have to trace it all the way back to the late 40's and the 50's. At that time you had many scientists and intellectuals who were outspoken supporters of Socialism and Communism, and American scientists gave nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union.

The Bomb also exposed people to the "dark side" of unlocking the mysteries of the universe. (The sinking of the Titanic and World Wars I and 2 had already laid the foundations for mistrust, however misplaced, in scientists, science, and technology.)

Fast forward to the 60's, and again you had many prominent scientists and intellectuals throwing their support behind radical causes and being outspoken about their atheism as well.

Thus despite the fact that the Conservative movement was spearheaded by some very intelligent and deep-thinking men, science and higher learning in general became associated in the minds of many more conservative and "traditional" Americans with Leftism, radicalism, "free love," rejection of faith, and so on. Evolution, of course, being THE scientific bogeyman, since it supposedly "denied" God's hand in creating humankind and "reduced" us to the level of animals (a peeve going all the way back to the Scopes "monkey trial" and beyond, of course).

And the rift between science and conservatism has only widened since then, to the point where conservative leaders, such as they are, feel compelled to establish their "creationist street cred" if they want to get anywhere. Scientists have certainly not helped their cause among conservatives (not that they appear any longer to have any particular desire to win them over, considering them little more than ignorant cavemen) by embracing AGW and the associated anti-capitalist, anti-industrialist "solutions" proposed for combating it.

Most conservatives would probably tell you that they love science and believe a scientifically informed populace and U.S. leadership in science is essential to maintaining our security and prosperity. Yet they've managed to convince themselves that there is some kind of "real, Godly" science and that any science that doesn't support their views in every respect is sham science. And unfortunately the mess over AGW has given them ammo. So they eagerly go about the business of undermining science and weakening our security and prosperity and dumbing down our population, all the while firmly believing they're doing the opposite.

And at the spearhead of all this are the theocrats who have never liked our secular democracy in the first place and would gladly overturn it so they could impose their religious and moral views on everyone.

729 Guanxi88  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:44:06pm

re: #701 ConservatismNow!

Cincinatti Chili is not chili. It's meat sauce with chili spices. That's just my opinion. I have had cincinatti chili. It tastes good, but it is not chili. I was eating the Campbells Roadhouse chili. For chili in a can, it's ok. Nowhere NEAR as good as homemade, but good enough to take to work for lunch.

Now that I'm in the Lone Star State, I've had the privilege of experiencing what the natives call chili and the wonderful things they do with brisket.

Amazing cuisine we've got here, but - and those who know me think I'm nuts - I do still like my brisket "boiled" (as my wife calls it) and my chili a la Skyline from time to time.

730 jamgarr  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:44:09pm

re: #713 lurking faith

Tostito ergo sum

/I eat nachos; therefore I exist

Cheeto ergo sum nasty orange fingers

731 guitarguy  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:44:23pm

re: #676 Charles

"Abortion?" A medical procedure is evidence against evolution? And "anal intercourse?" You're joking, right?

None of that is evidence. It's all your opinion. Where are the "gobs and gobs" of evidence?

I'd also venture that none of those 'acts' have to be/need to be eradicated in order for the rest of us to survive. People performing those 'acts' can still survive quite well, despite how odd/unusual/disgusting the majority of mankind might find them.

732 faraway  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:44:24pm

Boy, what a thread.

Creationists vs. Evolutionists (6000 years ago, or millions of years ago)

Northerners vs. Southerners (150 years ago)

Ann Haters vs. Ann Lovers

Rush Haters vs. Rush Lovers

It's like an LGF bar fight.

733 Scion9  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:44:32pm

re: #543 buzzsawmonkey

I will have to disagree with you on several counts.

It is just as destructive for nearly half the electorate to dismiss the other half as "godless" as it is for nearly half of it to dismiss the other half as idiots, ignoramuses, or throwbacks. But that is about where we are right now.

Democrats may, in the main, be adherents to some religion or other--but they and their party, and the churches or whatever they attend, are largely so dismissed by conservative religious folk. I'm not saying it's right, just saying it happens.

Here is the issue. Conservative religious folk are not swing voters. They are part of the GOP base. Unless they are black, they almost definitely are voting GOP. If they are black conservative religious folk, they are probably voting Dem regardless if they are 'godless' or not. Hispanic conservatives are going that way too. They really don't seem to care all that much. People who believe in evolution, and don't want it taught in science classes are not a monolithic bloc like conservative Christians are.

The 'godless' stigma of the Democrats does not affect swing voters that decide the outcome of elections like the 'theocrat' stigma does. Half the electorate does not care if the Democrats are 'godless'. Not even all of the GOP base cares that the Democrats are 'godless'. Independents, Libertarians, conservative and moderate Democrats, and every other stripe of centrist that may be up for grabs, care even less.

The two stigmas are not comparable because the voting bloc that is most off put by the Democrats image are already staunchly Republican, while those off put by hardcore Creationists are potential Republican voters.

734 redstateredneck  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:44:32pm

re: #700 jroberson

To me, people that cling to notion of a 'god' creating anything in the natural world are every bit as ignorant as any anti-Darwin creationist. You can't have it both ways for convenience


Well, jist call me ignernt!

735 Randall Gross  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:44:40pm

re: #700 jroberson

Well you profess to have knowledge of something that stumps philosophers, scientists, and theologians with your "you can't have it both ways" statement. Indeed, you are furthering the same dichotomy as Discovery Institute.

So, do you have your proof of God's non-existance or existance, whichever you prefer?

736 NoWhereAlaska  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:44:55pm

re: #503 lobo91

I'm well aware of that (not surprising, given that I was raised Catholic).

Certain other posters have an annoying tendancy to turn any thread that's even tangentially related to religion into an attack on the Catholic Church, in case you hadn't noticed.

It's becoming tiresome.

I, too, am Catholic. I have not seen any attack on the church that wasn't deserved. I have seen meltdowns by anti-religion types; I have seen derogative comments about religion, and christianity. But basically I think you are full of 'Bull' on the anti-Catholic stuff. And face it our Church has made some monumental errors, and deserves some criticism.

737 opnion  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:44:58pm

re: #683 jamgarr

I like pizza crisp & cut into squares. It's just what your used to

Imo's? (the square beyond compare)


I'm gettin a hankerin for some pizza.

738 Dianna  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:45:46pm

re: #653 Cato

That's not evidence. That's anecdote.

739 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:46:02pm
740 Salamantis  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:46:22pm

re: #577 faraway

Here we go. Why would you assume any such thing? Et tu, Charles.

Umm...history?

741 Occasional Reader  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:46:49pm

When asked what he hoped for in post-Saddam Iraq, one Iraqi man memorably declared to US troops, "Democracy, whiskey, sexy, anal intercourse, abortion, altruism, and bestiality!"

/

742 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:47:00pm

re: #732 faraway

Anything to avoid answering the question, huh? Did you or did you not read the link Charles provided for you?

743 faraway  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:47:21pm

re: #719 Salamantis

Maybe you're not stupid. Maybe you're just delusional or dishonest. But I cannot think of any other alternatives; since I have presented you with the evidence for human-great ape common ancestry, you cannot just claim to be ignorant of it any more.

OK. Now I'm crazy or a liar.

Your evidence comes from the New Yorker?

Let's try to stick with logic.

744 Occasional Reader  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:47:25pm

re: #738 Dianna

That's not evidence. That's anecdote.

Actually, it's not even anecdote.

745 jaunte  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:47:26pm

re: #719 Salamantis

From your link:
This is an interesting sidelight on the complaints of ID proponents not getting published:


In 1968, Robin Weiss, who is now a professor of viral oncology at University College London, found endogenous retroviruses in the embryos of healthy chickens. When he suggested that they were not only benign but might actually perform a critical function in placental development, molecular biologists laughed. “When I first submitted my results on a novel ‘endogenous’ envelope, suggesting the existence of an integrated retrovirus in normal embryo cells, the manuscript was roundly rejected,’’ Weiss wrote last year in the journal Retrovirology. “One reviewer pronounced that my interpretation was impossible.’’ Weiss, who is responsible for much of the basic knowledge about how the AIDS virus interacts with the human immune system, was not deterred. He was eager to learn whether the chicken retroviruses he had seen were recently acquired infections or inheritances that had been passed down through the centuries. He moved to the Pahang jungle of Malaysia and began living with a group of Orang Asli tribesmen. Red jungle fowl, an ancestor species of chickens, were plentiful there, and the tribe was skilled at trapping them. After collecting and testing both eggs and blood samples, Weiss was able to identify versions of the same viruses. Similar tests were soon carried out on other animals. The discovery helped mark the beginning of a new approach to biology. “If Charles Darwin reappeared today, he might be surprised to learn that humans are descended from viruses as well as from apes,” Weiss wrote.

After getting rejected, he didn't write a book or a movie complaining about it, he went out and proved his hypothesis.

746 Honorary Yooper  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:47:28pm

re: #739 Shanimal1918

That's a quick delete and ban.

747 ConservatismNow!  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:47:38pm

re: #697 mean Gene

In the 1950's we called them ''pasties.''
We made then of leftovers.
Usually leftover beef roast and leftover baked potatoes.
Add a lot of cracked black pepper and a little homemade gravy and fold into homemade pie crust.
Wonderful.

Also could be called a pierogi. Most just have potatoes, but you could put meat in them too. Boil them then fry em. Om Nom Nom.

748 Guanxi88  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:47:58pm

re: #725 lobo91

Finally, something on this thread I can agree with!

My wife's from there, and I spent a small fortune getting her some chili and a few other food items from that area this Christmas.

Imagine my disappointment when I tasted that crap...

Hey, now! It's good stuff, you just gotta know what you're doing with it, is all. See, you needs the onions, natch, but if it ain't got cloves and chocolate, and if it ain't boiled for at least a couple hours, it's just not the same.

(Oh, and the spaghetti needs to be boiled down to nearly nothing, or the whole effort is in vain.)

749 yochanan  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:48:08pm

re: #716 redstateredneck

also wis. and the arrowhead area of minn.

750 iowavette  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:48:15pm

Wow, this post is handing your servers a pounding. Ann is hilarious. Another money-making comment by a master. SUCKERS.

751 Dianna  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:48:21pm

re: #662 Naso Tang

Silly comment. No, but I don't have a problem with pointing out that some are woo woo. Do you "believe" in astrology, ghosts, homeopathy, dowsing, ESP, alien abductions? If you do, please feel free, just don't demand my respect.

Just because I like it:

G.K. Chesterton was once asked if he believed in ghosts. He replied, "No. But I'm scared of them!"

752 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:48:22pm
753 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:48:39pm

re: #743 faraway

No- the evidence comes from retro-viral DNA sequences. It just happened to be reported by the New Yorker.

754 Soona'  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:48:41pm

re: #697 mean Gene

In the 1950's we called them ''pasties.''
We made then of leftovers.
Usually leftover beef roast and leftover baked potatoes.
Add a lot of cracked black pepper and a little homemade gravy and fold into homemade pie crust.
Wonderful.

LOL. Sorry, just had to laugh. Tasty pasty.

755 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:48:44pm

I only came to say I must be going. Have a great weekend, Lizards!

756 Tigger2005  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:48:50pm

re: #365 Cato

Ann certainly knows how to sell books. She is certainly wrong in her estimation -- there are gobs and gobs of evidence confirming evolutionary theory. Unfortunately, there are also gobs and gobs of evidence that disconfirm evolutionary theory as it pertians to man, and probably many slow-breeding animals as well. These, however, are ignored by evolutionary theories or explained in terms that are directly contradictory to the fundamentals of evolutionary theory. Thus evolution, like global warming or the certainty that stem cells will cure all ailments without them actually curing anything at all yet, has taken on some of the characteristics of a religion.

Please provide examples of the "gobs and gobs" of evidence that "disconfirm evolutionary theory as it pertians to man and probably many slow-breeding animals as well." Show me how scientists have ignored "these evidence" or explained them away "in terms that are directly contradictory to the fundamentals of evolutionary theory."

757 Occasional Reader  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:49:37pm
Anal intercourse, abortion, altruism, or beastiality.

"A feller could have himself a helluva weekend in Vegas with this stuff."

-Slim Pickens

758 Guanxi88  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:49:41pm

re: #747 ConservatismNow!

Also could be called a pierogi. Most just have potatoes, but you could put meat in them too. Boil them then fry em. Om Nom Nom.

mmmm... pirogi. Slavicly delicious.

759 Nevergiveup  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:49:46pm

Tip: Burr Says Keep Burning Up the Phone Lines
Update: Waterpark: Gone
Update: McCain: This Ain't Bipartisanship, Bucko
Update: Carl Cameron Says Negotiations Stalled; No Vote Until Monday?
—Ace

[Link: ace.mu.nu...]

Pardon the interruption, but there is a real world out there spinning around

760 jaunte  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:49:57pm

re: #749 yochanan

Yochanan, I know you're mentioned shooting 45-70 before; are you a reloader, or can you recommend a good online source for ammo?

761 Honorary Yooper  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:50:19pm

re: #747 ConservatismNow!

Also could be called a pierogi. Most just have potatoes, but you could put meat in them too. Boil them then fry em. Om Nom Nom.

Pasties are a bit different than pierogis though. Much thicker and crisper crust on a pasty. They also tend to contain meat (usually beef), potatoes, carrots, rutabegas, onions, and some spices. They're usually eaten with gravy or ketchup.

And, trust me, they're good. :-d

762 Dianna  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:50:47pm

re: #719 Salamantis

Sal, a quick question:

Can you give me a quick and dirty explanation of "cladist"?

I have read a definition, and my brain isn't wrapping around it. Avoid detail, just once sentence.

763 Randall Gross  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:50:50pm

In last night's thread I demonstrated how this culture war within the Republican party changed Kansas from Red to purple and shading towards blue. It's a serious issue and a serious rift in the party.

So where can I find a Republican Rift Raft™?

764 eschew_obfuscation  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:50:57pm

re: #732 faraway

Boy, what a thread.

Creationists vs. Evolutionists (6000 years ago, or millions of years ago)

Northerners vs. Southerners (150 years ago)

Ann Haters vs. Ann Lovers

Rush Haters vs. Rush Lovers

It's like an LGF bar fight.

Where's the damn beer?!

765 lobo91  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:51:21pm

re: #748 Guanxi88

Hey, now! It's good stuff, you just gotta know what you're doing with it, is all. See, you needs the onions, natch, but if it ain't got cloves and chocolate, and if it ain't boiled for at least a couple hours, it's just not the same.

(Oh, and the spaghetti needs to be boiled down to nearly nothing, or the whole effort is in vain.)

I'll take your word for it. You can have my share.

Where I come from, if you order chili, the waitress is going to ask if you want red or green.

Watery brown stuff with cloves in it isn't one of the options.

766 faraway  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:51:25pm

re: #742 Sharmuta

Anything to avoid answering the question, huh? Did you or did you not read the link Charles provided for you?

You are a pesky one. Try #680. Catch up please.

767 Jetpilot1101  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:51:28pm

re: #764 eschew_obfuscation

Where's the damn beer?!

...and the popcorn!

768 Jack Burton  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:51:30pm

The 'lack of transitional fossils' argument and other variations on "missing links" boil down to someone looking at Golden Gate Bridge on a foggy day where whey can see both ends but not the middle and so they claim the two sides are not connected. There's no link. No transitional form between south and north!

769 quickjustice  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:51:31pm

re: #743 faraway

The New Yorker magazine is politically liberal. Its science reporting generally is sound. The N.Y. Times is the same. The science section is the only part of the N.Y. Times I can bear to read.

770 brookly red  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:51:32pm

re: #748 Guanxi88
Re:(Oh, and the spaghetti needs to be boiled down to nearly nothing, or the whole effort is in vain.)

Hieratic!

771 debutaunt  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:51:33pm

re: #697 mean Gene

In the 1950's we called them ''pasties.''
We made then of leftovers.
Usually leftover beef roast and leftover baked potatoes.
Add a lot of cracked black pepper and a little homemade gravy and fold into homemade pie crust.
Wonderful.

Are they always worn on the hooters?

772 ConservatismNow!  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:51:41pm

re: #729 Guanxi88

Now that I'm in the Lone Star State, I've had the privilege of experiencing what the natives call chili and the wonderful things they do with brisket.

Amazing cuisine we've got here, but - and those who know me think I'm nuts - I do still like my brisket "boiled" (as my wife calls it) and my chili a la Skyline from time to time.

I'm in Oklahoma, so we make our chili Texas-style. The only difference is that we prefer big tomato chunks. And I am a student of the smoking arts. I make one heck of a smoked turkey and smoked chicken.

773 DeafDog  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:52:03pm

re: #700 jroberson


To me, people that cling to notion of a 'god' creating anything in the natural world are every bit as ignorant as any anti-Darwin creationist. You can't have it both ways for convenience.

Oh wise one, where did it all start then?

774 HelloDare  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:52:04pm

re: #756 Tigger2005

Please provide examples of the "gobs and gobs" of evidence that "disconfirm evolutionary theory as it pertians to man and probably many slow-breeding animals as well." Show me how scientists have ignored "these evidence" or explained them away "in terms that are directly contradictory to the fundamentals of evolutionary theory."

Gobs & Gobs is a Texas law firm specializing in creationist issues.

775 CyanSnowHawk  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:52:22pm

re: #504 faraway

The good folks from the South don't care to be lumped in with the KKK and StormFront as you say. I don't get your point.


I do not attribute that attitude to all, or even a significantly large minority, of Southerners. I do point out that kansas' comments make me think of him in those terms.

776 notutopia  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:52:23pm

re: #719 Salamantis
Here is Villareal's SCIENTIFIC papers.
[Link: cvr.bio.uci.edu...]

777 joncelli  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:52:38pm

re: #527 joncelli

And just to clarify my feelings on this subject, pretty much my first and only comments on creationism/ID, from this thread:

re: #24 zombie Actually, I find creationism and ID pretty embarrassing. It gives people the impression that all conservatives are anti-science, and in fact it's all predicated on misunderstandings and twisted logic. I just wish conservatives could get past this.
778 thefallingman  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:53:08pm

On a completely different topic: today is the first day of the parading season of Carnival. So, even thought it's not Shrove Tuesday yet, Happy Mardi Gras, everybody!

779 quickjustice  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:53:13pm

re: #771 debutaunt

Edible pastees! Now there's an idea I can market! ;-)

780 Dustyvet  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:53:16pm

Has-been: Living under Republican rule almost killed me


Well Cher. pack a suit case and hit the road...


[Link: hotair.com...]

781 Salamantis  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:53:23pm

re: #587 Iron Fist

Old earth "creationist" will do, because I do believe that the universe was created. Microevolution does exist. The existence of a mule pretty much proves the existance of a common ancestor to both the horse and the donkey at some point in time. That far I'll follow.

But the notion that everything that uses DNA evolved from a common ancestor? No, I don't buy it. That is a huge leap of faith that I cannot take. Although I don't see why that would necessarily preclude creation. It would prove, beyond any doubt, that there was at least a primordial Eve for all living things on earth. Why couldn't that first "Eve" have been created? How else was it brought forth from the ooze?

I stay quite on these threads, for a number of different reasons. This is one of them. While you may say evolution doesn't mean there isn't a god, in practice most of you argue it from a position that comes across as saying there is no god. If that's what you believe, more power to you, but that isn't a step that I see as logical. "Everythng just happened the way it happened" is as unsatisfying as saying "Everything just happened the way God wills it to happen".

I don't believe either of those expressions of faith.

Why couldn't ''Eve" have been created from dust by a deity, separate from great apes? How about the fact that they share thousands of artifactual retroviral DNA sequences, which were spliced into the same places in the 3 billion bas pair genomes of their common ancestors before they evolutionarily diverged into orangutans, gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees, and humans? That evidence is statistically prohibitive of the independent creation option, and it is checkable and re-checkable at will.

Your objection has to do not with healthy scepticism, but with visceral revulsion at being related to apes.

782 Guanxi88  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:54:06pm

re: #772 ConservatismNow!

I'm in Oklahoma, so we make our chili Texas-style. The only difference is that we prefer big tomato chunks. And I am a student of the smoking arts. I make one heck of a smoked turkey and smoked chicken.

First time I ever had a Texas brisket, i nearly wept to think of the decades' worth of wasted meat my family was responsible for. I made one, as my babi did once for the wife. When she looked at the shopping list, she thought I was drunk, and when she saw me get out a pot, fill it half-way with apple cider vinegar, onions, garlic, etc, she was sure I was crazy.

783 unreconstructed rebel  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:54:08pm

re: #768 ArchangelMichael

The 'lack of transitional fossils' argument and other variations on "missing links" boil down to someone looking at Golden Gate Bridge on a foggy day where whey can see both ends but not the middle and so they claim the two sides are not connected. There's no link. No transitional form between south and north!

Well put. I like that analogy.

784 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:54:30pm
785 FrogMarch  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:54:33pm

200 years after Darwin's birth - and he's still the bee's knees.

current issue of National Geographic.

786 jamgarr  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:54:44pm

I'm pretty sure that the only thing that comes in gobs is greasy, grimy gopher guts.

787 Dustyvet  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:54:49pm

re: #772 ConservatismNow!

I'm in Oklahoma, so we make our chili Texas-style. The only difference is that we prefer big tomato chunks. And I am a student of the smoking arts. I make one heck of a smoked turkey and smoked chicken.

W C Fields is a lizard?...:)

788 Kragar  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:55:19pm

re: #757 Occasional Reader

"A feller could have himself a helluva weekend in Vegas with this stuff."

-Slim Pickens

OOOOOOh! You're going straight to hell for that one. Watch out over there.

/Good Morning Vietnam

789 Occasional Reader  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:55:22pm

re: #781 Salamantis

Your objection has to do not with healthy scepticism, but with visceral revulsion at being related to apes.

We all have a little of that. For instance, I have these cousins in Rochester...

790 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:55:24pm

re: #766 faraway

You are a pesky one. Try #680. Catch up please.

Those are two different links.

791 godfrey  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:55:26pm

I am so freaking pissed I had to read dozens of job applications this afternoon. Looks like a great thread.

792 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:55:28pm
793 Randall Gross  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:55:48pm

Methinks Cato accidentally swallowed an Everlasting Gob Stopper

794 HelloDare  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:55:49pm

msnbc.com: BREAKING NEWS: FDA says peanut plant knowingly shipped salmonella-tainted products, AP reports

795 Soona'  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:55:49pm

re: #732 faraway

Boy, what a thread.

Creationists vs. Evolutionists (6000 years ago, or millions of years ago)

Northerners vs. Southerners (150 years ago)

Ann Haters vs. Ann Lovers

Rush Haters vs. Rush Lovers

It's like an LGF bar fight.

And Charles is sitting in the manager's office overlooking the bar and smiling at all of it. Every once in a while he'll stick his head out the door and yell at someone getting ready break something.
//

796 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:55:55pm

re: #653 Cato

re: #560 jaunteNothing in ANY Darwinian or neo-Darwinian literature explains, for example, the Catholic nun who has given up breeding for herself yet aids in birthing other people's babies.

That's the completest straw nun argument I've ever seen.

Evolution does not claim to explain civilization. Civilization, on the other hand, may go a long way in explaining evolution.

The existence of cooperation among members of the same species to protect the weaker individuals is a commonplace. It definitely confers a survival advantage. Add conscious civilization to basic cooperation, and you have a recipe for a kind of directed evolution. Thus, for example, the use of clothing may account for why humans are now largely hairless, although we have residual reflexes like goose-bumps that go back to the time when we were hairy.

And so on.

797 quickjustice  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:56:00pm

My primary opposition to evolution is based upon my revulsion at the idea that my DNA sequence in any way resembles that of Al Sharpton and his ilk! ;-)

798 Salamantis  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:56:06pm

re: #743 faraway

OK. Now I'm crazy or a liar.

Your evidence comes from the New Yorker?

Let's try to stick with logic.

[Link: www.newyorker.com...]

Whatta maroon! All you have is an ad hominem against the article publisher, without addressing a single iota of its content? And that's fucking logical? No; it's a 2500 year old Aristotelian logical fallacy.

Try googling the names of the paleovirologists in the article, and checking out their work.

799 Spare O'Lake  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:56:10pm

re: #764 eschew_obfuscation

Where's the damn beer?!

Sorry, I picked up a couple of two-fours, but if I give ya any I'll have to go back to the beer store to get me through the weekend.
*burp*

800 godfrey  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:56:16pm

re: #792 taxfreekiller

Best news I've heard all day!

You mean Collins, Voino, and Specter didn't break?

801 Westward Ho  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:56:26pm

re: #587 Iron Fist


But the notion that everything that uses DNA evolved from a common ancestor? No, I don't buy it. That is a huge leap of faith that I cannot take. Although I don't see why that would necessarily preclude creation. It would prove, beyond any doubt, that there was at least a primordial Eve for all living things on earth. Why couldn't that first "Eve" have been created? How else was it brought forth from the ooze?

I stay quite on these threads, for a number of different reasons. This is one of them. While you may say evolution doesn't mean there isn't a god, in practice most of you argue it from a position that comes across as saying there is no god. If that's what you believe, more power to you, but that isn't a step that I see as logical. "Everythng just happened the way it happened" is as unsatisfying as saying "Everything just happened the way God wills it to happen".

I don't believe either of those expressions of faith.

Iron Fist,

I will not insult your intelligence by posting links for the evidence of common descent since I judge that by the quality of your posts you are a well read person, however if you accept the antiquity of the world surely you must wonder why there are no monkeys, apes or hominids in the fossil records until very recently or that extinction and new species keep appearing throughout the records. The only answers I can think are of are either continuos creation by the creator or rejection of the evidence.
As for the latter part of your post you are correct other wise there is no reason for the continuing hostility to evolution from a very sizeable no. of adherents to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religious traditions. The paternity dispute of the species went so nightmarishly wrong for them.

802 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:56:29pm

Drive by. Everybody being kind?

803 Jetpilot1101  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:56:30pm

re: #792 taxfreekiller

Kennedy to ill to come to Senate to vote

Ried needs three R votes

trouble in Obama city

I'll be praying for Senator Kennedy, I sincerely hope he beats this cancer. As for Reid, no prayers will be sent his way.

804 ConservatismNow!  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:56:47pm

re: #787 Dustyvet

Hah! I wish I was W.C. Fields! Wait. I'd be dead then. I don't wish I was W.C. Fields.

805 joncelli  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:56:52pm

re: #610 faraway

Heh. My (unposted) version was "How about them Stillers" (as they say in Pittsburgh), but same idea.

806 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:57:01pm
807 quickjustice  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:57:02pm

And once again, Lizards: Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin, both born on February 12, 1809!

808 Honorary Yooper  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:57:08pm

re: #785 FrogMarch

200 years after Darwin's birth - and he's still the bee's knees.

current issue of National Geographic.

Sigh. I do wish National Geographic would get back to this type of story and dump some of the leftist BS they've adopted in recent years. I'm also sick of their Zip Code stories near the end of the magazine.

809 redstateredneck  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:57:15pm

re: #765 lobo91

Mmm green chili. I haven't had that since I moved from Denver.

810 Occasional Reader  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:57:30pm

re: #794 HelloDare

msnbc.com: BREAKING NEWS: FDA says peanut plant knowingly shipped salmonella-tainted products, AP reports

They're even worse than triffids!

811 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:57:36pm

re: #792 taxfreekiller

Kennedy to ill to come to Senate to vote

Ried needs three R votes

trouble in Obama city

Shame about Kennedy.

Yay for those sticking to their "no" guns!

812 Dustyvet  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:57:51pm

re: #807 quickjustice

And once again, Lizards: Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin, both born on February 12, 1809!

Twins?

813 lobo91  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:57:52pm

re: #792 taxfreekiller

Kennedy to ill to come to Senate to vote

Ried needs three R votes

trouble in Obama city

Reid is sure he has every one of the Dems on board? Huh

814 Fierce Guppy  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:57:55pm

If Ann Coulter is willfully ignorant on the matter of evolutionary theory then I would strongly suspect Rush Limbaugh carries the same affliction. Those two are inseparable spiritual brethren on all matters. With Coulter, I do not think her stance is primarily religious based, but reactionary. What she refers to as "Liberals" ( people who are in fact illiberal socialists/communists) are public enemy no. 1. "Liberals" have embraced the TOE since its inception, and therefore the TOE in her mind is a "Liberal" doctrine. The "Liberal" loves collectivist government, is a moral relativist, and has an animosity towards individual rights, Capitalism, and Christian values. To undercut "Liberalism", Anne Coulter will attack any doctrine she thinks gave rise to it.

I think part of the solution is to dispel any notion in that the TOE can be warped to support "Liberalism", both in the minds of God believers and the
"Liberal".

815 SFGoth  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:58:45pm

I left her at silly when she tried to belittle atheists by raising straw man arguments and empirically non-provable claims. OTOH, which seems more credible, that she evolved into what looks like a tranny or a supreme being made her that way? I think she prefers the latter so she has someone to be bitter towards. Frankly, the way she skanks around in miniskirts on "serious" talk shows at her age strikes me as she doesn't believe half the shit she's pushing but just enjoying the carnival.

816 quickjustice  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:58:45pm

re: #812 Dustyvet

Lincoln was born poor in Kentucky, Darwin, rich in England.

817 redstateredneck  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:59:05pm

re: #786 jamgarr

I'm pretty sure that the only thing that comes in gobs is greasy, grimy gopher guts.

The anthem of every elementary school cafeteria!

818 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:59:07pm

My God is no less powerful with evolution than without evolution.

So there; Ann.

819 eschew_obfuscation  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:59:16pm

re: #786 jamgarr

I'm pretty sure that the only thing that comes in gobs is greasy, grimy gopher guts.

.... and mutilated monkey meat

820 Dustyvet  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:59:52pm

“Some of you may remember that in my early days, I was sort of a bleeding heart liberal. Then I became a man and put away childish ways.”


Ronald Reagan

821 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 1:59:58pm
822 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:00:12pm

re: #819 eschew_obfuscation

.... and mutilated monkey meat

...petrified gorrilla feet!

823 Lincolntf  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:00:17pm

re: #725 lobo91

It's horrible, isn't it? I was in Cincinnati and everyone blabbed all day about how later we were all gonna have "real Cincinnati Chili". They made a big huge deal of it. We finally get to "Skyline" and they serve me a bowl of lukewarm, watery chili served on top of the crappiest spaghetti (who knew you could scrimp on spaghetti?) I've ever had.
Big disappointment.

824 joncelli  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:00:47pm

re: #732 faraway

With, alas, not enough vodka for my taste. (Yes, I'm STILL at work and STILL on the wagon.)

825 Honorary Yooper  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:00:59pm

re: #814 Fierce Guppy

I've never heard Rush Limbaugh express YEC beliefs. On the contrary, he seems to be interested when a new evolutionary discovery is found.

826 funky chicken  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:01:08pm

Thanks Charles. Yeah, this is a huge problem for the GOP. Being forced to coddle big mouths like Coulter and Ingraham to keep them on board with national level politicians is a real turn off to independents.

827 Occasional Reader  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:01:09pm

re: #820 Dustyvet

“Some of you may remember that in my early days, I was sort of a bleeding heart liberal. Then I became a man and put away childish ways.”


Ronald Reagan

OY do I miss that man.

828 yochanan  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:01:10pm

re: #760 jaunte

Yochanan, I know you're mentioned shooting 45-70 before; are you a reloader, or can you recommend a good online source for ammo?

not a reloader just buy the rounds at the gun shop.

haven't gone shooting in a long time.

829 redstateredneck  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:01:32pm

re: #822 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

...petrified gorrilla feet!


"little birdie's dirty feet" in my neck of the woods.

830 nikis-knight  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:01:52pm

re: #311 Perplexed

Slavery? Sorry, but that was a side issue. Lincoln said that he basically would have done anything to end the war and reunite the states. Emancipating the slaves was done to upset the South's use of slavery for manual labor. Sherman's march to the sea did much much more to end the war than did Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. It did bring about the end to slavery here in the US though and in doing so was a good thing, but slavery wasn't the driving motive to the Civil War.

It was only one step removed, though. Slavery motivated the South to split, the split brought the war. It's simply wrong to present slavery as incidenal to the Civil war; it's a big reason why people actually fought.

831 FrogMarch  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:01:55pm

re: #808 Honorary Yooper

Sigh. I do wish National Geographic would get back to this type of story and dump some of the leftist BS they've adopted in recent years. I'm also sick of their Zip Code stories near the end of the magazine.

I hear you. Sort of like PBS - there much to like about it, but the left-wing stuff ruins it. ( like Democracy Now)

832 MacGiolaPhadraig  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:02:12pm

In seminary, I was taught that a great many people have trouble accepting that portions of the Bible may be factually wrong; for them, rejecting texts on floating axes, or fish with coins, or seven-day creation is a slippery slope. Those issues may be easy to disregard, but then what about equally strange but central passages such as Pentecost, or the Virgin Birth? If one also believes that "getting it wrong" means eternal damnation, the terror Luther felt at the prospect makes "Creationists" if not more sympathetic, at least less villainous. I'm not making excuses for Ann, but her position may be more understandable as the outcome of a devout person trying to reconcile Truth with truth, and not succeeding very well.

833 Dustyvet  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:02:15pm

“One difference between a liberal and a pickpocket is that if you demand your money back from a pickpocket, he won't question your motives”

834 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:02:22pm
835 opnion  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:02:34pm

re: #792 taxfreekiller

Kennedy to ill to come to Senate to vote

Ried needs three R votes

trouble in Obama city

If BHO does not get this bill on the first pass he will act like a petulant child.
I heard new Illinois Senator on the radio today saying in so many words , that if the bill does not pass as is the world will experience an irreversible catastrophe. He sounded so freaking stupid.

836 redstateredneck  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:02:35pm

re: #823 Lincolntf

It's horrible, isn't it? I was in Cincinnati and everyone blabbed all day about how later we were all gonna have "real Cincinnati Chili". They made a big huge deal of it. We finally get to "Skyline" and they serve me a bowl of lukewarm, watery chili served on top of the crappiest spaghetti (who knew you could scrimp on spaghetti?) I've ever had.
Big disappointment.

Chili on spaghetti..that's just wrong; although, in the south, they'll eat it on rice. Equally wrong, IMHO.

837 Guanxi88  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:02:39pm

re: #823 Lincolntf

It's horrible, isn't it? I was in Cincinnati and everyone blabbed all day about how later we were all gonna have "real Cincinnati Chili". They made a big huge deal of it. We finally get to "Skyline" and they serve me a bowl of lukewarm, watery chili served on top of the crappiest spaghetti (who knew you could scrimp on spaghetti?) I've ever had.
Big disappointment.

The thing about Skyline and other Cincinnati chili is that people go into the experience expecting something they're not gonna get.

It's like being in Tokyo, hearing that there's a theater nearby, and sitting in on a Kabuki play, expecting maybe a little light comedy or something. Or, to stay true to my avatar, sitting down in a Peking Opera and wondering why nobody there looks like Caruso.

838 Leonidas Hoplite  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:02:40pm

re: #821 taxfreekiller

Kay Hagan new D of NC, now on the "not" committed to vote yes list

wow

Phone lines have been busy, it seems

839 Occasional Reader  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:02:53pm

re: #829 redstateredneck

"little birdie's dirty feet" in my neck of the woods.

"...mutilated monkey meat/chopped up baby parakeet/french-fried eyeballs rolling down a dirty street", when I was growing up.

840 jaunte  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:02:57pm

re: #828 yochanan

Ah, thanks. I've been looking for a way to save a bit.

841 Scion9  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:03:08pm

re: #658 Perplexed

Must disagree with you over that one. States rights over federal rights were the issue leading to the Civil War.

You can disagree but you will be wrong. The Confederates did not push for "State's Rights" when they had control of the Federal Government. The whole thing was about power over the Federal government; political and economic power. Slavery was their tool with which to maintain a political bloc. When the new admitted States were strictly going to be Free States, their strategy failed. Without Slavery as an issue there would have never been a war.

Abortion might be a good analogy, but it is not geopolitical in nature like slavery was. Slavery was so intrinsic to the industry of the Slave states that they had no choice

No State is so invested in abortion clinics that it must form coalitions with other States to ensure abortion stays legal. Nor does it devise methods with which to increase the number of seats it gets in Congress and the Electoral College by expanding abortion industries to other States in a bid to control the Federal government for a broader political agenda.

Likewise, you don't see the same kinds of blocs forming among agricultural States (like mine, which is solidly Democrat) now, because for the most part farming as done now isn't a controversial moral issue. Slavery was both a morally divisive political issue, and a means with which to build an economy. It was the perfect tool with which to ensure cohesion among a political party.

There were a lot of differences between the Confederates and their political opposition on other issues besides slavery, but the tool they used to maintain power of the government was slavery itself. No slavery, no Slave State political bloc, no Civil War.

842 Muadib  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:03:33pm

Ann's description helps explain many, perhaps all, of this worlds religions. I have faith that GOD exists, however, that does not interfere with my belief that limited government with impartiality towards any and all religions is the best way to govern ourselves. I hope that we can resolve this rift that divides us, and get on with the fight against totalitarianism.

Live free or die.

843 Occasional Reader  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:03:44pm

re: #838 Leonidas Hoplite

Phone lines have been busy, it seems

And it would seem, despite the moaning and wailing of some, that democracy sorta kinda works... perhaps. Fingers crossed.

844 The Shadow Do  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:04:33pm

re: #547 Cato

Darwin said only the vicious survive? It is about adaptation to changing environments, nothing more nor less. Where does this survival of the fittest equals the most brutal shall live stuff come from anyway?

845 Soona'  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:04:41pm

re: #807 quickjustice

And once again, Lizards: Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin, both born on February 12, 1809!

Well, I do declare. Exactly what does that mean?

846 redstateredneck  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:05:05pm

re: #839 Occasional Reader

"...mutilated monkey meat/chopped up baby parakeet/french-fried eyeballs rolling down a dirty street", when I was growing up.

Kid-lore. Each region has it's own version.

847 reine.de.tout  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:05:29pm

re: #845 Soona'

Well, I do declare. Exactly what does that mean?

Means February is a good month.
(full disclosure: my birthday is in Feb.)

848 Honorary Yooper  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:05:35pm

re: #835 opnion

If BHO does not get this bill on the first pass he will act like a petulant child.
I heard new Illinois Senator on the radio today saying in so many words , that if the bill does not pass as is the world will experience an irreversible catastrophe. He sounded so freaking stupid.

I see you were listening to Don and Roma with Senator Tombstone this morning. I heard the dipshit as well, as I was driving in on I-55.

849 Randall Gross  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:05:58pm

re: #832 MacGiolaPhadraig

In seminary, I was taught that a great many people have trouble accepting that portions of the Bible may be factually wrong; for them, rejecting texts on floating axes, or fish with coins, or seven-day creation is a slippery slope. Those issues may be easy to disregard, but then what about equally strange but central passages such as Pentecost, or the Virgin Birth? If one also believes that "getting it wrong" means eternal damnation, the terror Luther felt at the prospect makes "Creationists" if not more sympathetic, at least less villainous. I'm not making excuses for Ann, but her position may be more understandable as the outcome of a devout person trying to reconcile Truth with truth, and not succeeding very well.


Chaos and the unknown is very disturing indeed to many, and every new scientific discovery just points out the vast yawning gulf of those things we don't yet know. Some are capable of maintaining faith while trying to interpret the chaos, some close themselves in an impervious cage of faith rather than face the questions as true faith requires.

850 redstateredneck  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:06:00pm

re: #847 reine.de.tout

Means February is a good month.
(full disclosure: my birthday is in Feb.)

What day, reine?

851 NoWhereAlaska  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:06:09pm

re: #836 redstateredneck

Chili on spaghetti..that's just wrong; although, in the south, they'll eat it on rice. Equally wrong, IMHO.

Not to mention chili with beans, that too is wrong. Chili is a MEAT dish. And a damned good one too, (if prepared right, and is at least moderately 'hot').

852 redstateredneck  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:06:45pm

re: #851 NoWhereAlaska

Not to mention chili with beans, that too is wrong. Chili is a MEAT dish. And a damned good one too, (if prepared right, and is at least moderately 'hot').

Are pinto beans on the side acceptable to you?

853 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:06:53pm

re: #721 medaura18586

Right. And then you get things like this:

This site is devoted to the historical relationship between the Bible and astronomy. It assumes that whenever the two are at variance, it is always astronomy—that is, our "reading" of the "Book of Nature," not our reading of the Holy Bible—that is wrong. History bears consistent witness to the truth of that stance.

What's that? "History bears witness..."?

Not to mention the obvious absurdity of claiming for oneself that one's reading of the Bible is inerrant. The Bible is inerrant, my reading of it is inerrant...no mistakes anywhere, no sir.

Except the telescopes; they're lying.

854 FrogMarch  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:07:32pm

re: #835 opnion

If BHO does not get this bill on the first pass he will act like a petulant child.
I heard new Illinois Senator on the radio today saying in so many words , that if the bill does not pass as is the world will experience an irreversible catastrophe. He sounded so freaking stupid.

They are losing their minds over this.

855 abolitionist  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:07:40pm

re: #176 Ben Hur

Is that sh*t true about the Cargo Coconuts?

True. See Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman, Cargo Cult Science, pp 308-317.

856 reine.de.tout  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:07:52pm

re: #850 redstateredneck

What day, reine?

24.

857 NoWhereAlaska  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:08:18pm

re: #852 redstateredneck

Are pinto beans on the side acceptable to you?

Hell, put anything you want on the side. Beans, rice, bread, pie, or a sweet young thing. Life is good when you have Chili!

858 redstateredneck  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:08:29pm

re: #856 reine.de.tout

24.

Fat Tuesday! aiieeee, girl, they gonna have you a partay!

859 Soona'  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:08:31pm

re: #834 taxfreekiller

Ben Nelson ,,D of Nebraska just could be on the no list too

WTF? Ben Nelson? There must be shit in this bill that we don't even know about yet.

860 lobo91  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:08:35pm

re: #854 FrogMarch

They are losing their minds over this.

It's going to be interesting to see what happens if they have to accept the fact that their savior is a mere mortal.

861 redstateredneck  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:09:08pm

re: #856 reine.de.tout

My older daughter is on the 25th, BTW.

862 reine.de.tout  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:09:18pm

re: #858 redstateredneck

Fat Tuesday! aiieeee, girl, they gonna have you a partay!

LOL!
No kidding!
I just realized Mardi Gras coincides with my b-day this year.
I just may have to talk the Roi into taking me into N.O. for the day.

863 Soona'  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:09:23pm

re: #847 reine.de.tout

Means February is a good month.
(full disclosure: my birthday is in Feb.)

Which day?

864 opnion  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:09:43pm

re: #848 Honorary Yooper

I see you were listening to Don and Roma with Senator Tombstone this morning. I heard the dipshit as well, as I was driving in on I-55.

You are correct, I was headed west on 74 toward Peoria ( the 6,142 holiest city in Islam)

865 jamgarr  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:09:51pm

My demographic was "bashed beak and beaver brain"

866 reine.de.tout  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:09:56pm

re: #861 redstateredneck

My older daughter is on the 25th, BTW.

Really?
You know who else has a 25th of Feb b-day?
George Harrison of Beatles fame.
See, toldja Feb is a good month.

867 redstateredneck  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:10:03pm

re: #862 reine.de.tout

LOL!
No kidding!
I just realized Mardi Gras coincides with my b-day this year.
I just may have to talk the Roi into taking me into N.O. for the day.


Well, hell, yeah!
:D

868 reine.de.tout  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:10:08pm

re: #863 Soona'

Which day?

24

869 faraway  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:10:22pm

re: #798 Salamantis

[Link: www.newyorker.com...]

Whatta maroon! All you have is an ad hominem against the article publisher, without addressing a single iota of its content? And that's fucking logical? No; it's a 2500 year old Aristotelian logical fallacy.

Try googling the names of the paleovirologists in the article, and checking out their work.

OK. Try not to get so emotional over this with all the bad language.


The only way that humans, in thousands of seemingly random locations, could possess the exact retroviral DNA found in another species is by inheriting it from a common ancestor.

So, are you saying we came from Adam? or from Eve?


If Charles Darwin reappeared today, he might be surprised to learn that humans are descended from viruses as well as from apes,” Weiss wrote.

Or maybe we all descended from a virus? or an ape?

Help me out here.

870 CyanSnowHawk  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:10:33pm

re: #651 pimp_conservative

If one were to bump into Speaker Pelosi at an event, and were lucky enough to get her response on video, what question would you want to ask her?
I have a camera, and may have the opportunity in the next couple days to do just that.

Ask her to identify just one tangible benefit of the stimulus that will actually provide a long term benefit to the American economy.

871 turn  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:10:42pm

re: #861 redstateredneck

My older daughter is on the 25th, BTW.

Same here, FWIW.

872 opnion  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:10:47pm

re: #854 FrogMarch

They are losing their minds over this.

Can you tell, could he lose the first vote?

873 turn  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:11:06pm

re: #866 reine.de.tout

Really?
You know who else has a 25th of Feb b-day?
George Harrison of Beatles fame.
See, toldja Feb is a good month.

and turn! Ha

874 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:11:08pm

re: #845 Soona'

Perhaps it means that 9 months prior, the Lincolns and the Darwins GOT BUSY!

875 ProUSA  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:11:16pm

re: #2 Charles

This statement by Ann Coulter ranks as one of the most willfully ignorant comments about evolution I've ever seen.

I can agree with Ann on a number of things, but I had no idea she was an evolution denier. I think her arrogant style takes away from her arguments, and lowers her to the level of the left much of the time.

My scientist, conservative, catholic wife can't stand her, and this quote will push her dislike of Coulter over the edge.

876 redstateredneck  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:11:23pm

re: #870 CyanSnowHawk

Ask her to identify just one tangible benefit of the stimulus that will actually provide a long term benefit to the American economy.

blink.blink-blink.blink.

877 justadot  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:12:09pm

re: #743 faraway

Your evidence comes from the New Yorker?

Try using NCBI's PubMed — your tax dollars at work. That's 65 publications for Heidmann cross-referenced against retrovirus.

Take your time.

878 redstateredneck  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:12:10pm

re: #873 turn

and turn! Ha

We're gonna have to get a really big cake.

879 Cato  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:12:21pm

I work, so I don't have time to answer in detail.

1) Natural selection makes no distinction between activities or structures than enhance or detract from survival and reproduction.

2) Since humans freely choose to do things that impede the process of their own genes surviving, it cannot be said that natural selection works in the same way as it works for other species. What other species gives up their own power to reproduce? What other species kills in the womb perfectly fit members of their species (after birth, there are plenty of examples)? What other species engages in sexual acts that cannot bring about reproduction? What other species shares food with weaker members?

3) What are the above examples of? Unfitness in Darwinian terms.

4)Those who object that there may be an advantage to the species but not to the individual do not understand Darwinian theory. Species are FORMED by the accumulation of individual variations. Species do not cooperate to preserve the existing genetic types. To do so is putting those types outside of the productive/destructive process of natural selection. Therefore, if this is what we are doing, it is done as a bulwark AGAINST natural selection, not as a part of it.

880 SFGoth  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:12:57pm

re: #827 Occasional Reader

OY do I miss that man.

Listen mister we could use a man like Ronald Reagan again.
Tried to end the welfare state
Get everyone to pull their weight
Gee our Redskins played so great!
Those were the days.

881 faraway  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:13:00pm

re: #826 funky chicken

Thanks Charles. Yeah, this is a huge problem for the GOP. Being forced to coddle big mouths like Coulter and Ingraham to keep them on board with national level politicians is a real turn off to independents.

What is an 'independent' exactly? Someone that can't decide whether they like freedom or socialism? Why can't they make up their mind?

882 Salamantis  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:13:16pm

re: #653 Cato

re: #560 jaunte

Charles, I gave you evidence. Anal intercourse, abortion, altruism, or beastiality. All are things that need to be ruthlessly weeded out by natural selection but have not been. Why? Because human life is nothing like the life of a bacterium or a weasel (unless you are leftist). Natural selection doesn't really apply to humans. It why we do not go around seeking to impregnate women with each sexual act and eat all we can and fight for territory. The very notion of property is anti-Darwin.

jaunte, Darwin never had a theory of "species advantage". It was the reproduction of individuals with specific variations that leads to energizes the process of natural selection. Nothing in ANY Darwinian or neo-Darwinian literature explains, for example, the Catholic nun who has given up breeding for herself yet aids in birthing other people's babies.

No, you're just ripping off a David Stove article without attribution:

[Link: www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org...]

Just search it for 'anal', Lizards, and you'll see what I mean...

883 Westward Ho  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:13:16pm

re: #719 Salamantis

Are there other links for this amazing evidence as the Newyorker is not exactly a science magazine. Infact one of the thoughts that kept hammering in my mind after reading this is why the hell was this not on the networks, it is mathematical evidence of common descent of our species.

884 redstateredneck  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:13:27pm

re: #880 SFGoth

Listen mister we could use a man like Ronald Reagan again.
Tried to end the welfare state
Get everyone to pull their weight
Gee our Redskins played so great!
Those were the days.

Today is the anniversary of his birthday.

885 Charles Johnson  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:13:32pm

re: #879 Cato

I work, so I don't have time to answer in detail.

1) Natural selection makes no distinction between activities or structures than enhance or detract from survival and reproduction.

2) Since humans freely choose to do things that impede the process of their own genes surviving, it cannot be said that natural selection works in the same way as it works for other species. What other species gives up their own power to reproduce? What other species kills in the womb perfectly fit members of their species (after birth, there are plenty of examples)? What other species engages in sexual acts that cannot bring about reproduction? What other species shares food with weaker members?

3) What are the above examples of? Unfitness in Darwinian terms.

4)Those who object that there may be an advantage to the species but not to the individual do not understand Darwinian theory. Species are FORMED by the accumulation of individual variations. Species do not cooperate to preserve the existing genetic types. To do so is putting those types outside of the productive/destructive process of natural selection. Therefore, if this is what we are doing, it is done as a bulwark AGAINST natural selection, not as a part of it.

None of that is evidence. It's all your opinion. You claimed to know of "gobs and gobs" of evidence, and all you're coming up with are opinions.

Where's the evidence?

886 Randall Gross  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:14:25pm

re: #853 Cato the Elder

Right. And then you get things like this:


What's that? "History bears witness..."?

Not to mention the obvious absurdity of claiming for oneself that one's reading of the Bible is inerrant. The Bible is inerrant, my reading of it is inerrant...no mistakes anywhere, no sir.

Except the telescopes; they're lying.

BOC has a better line:

"History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of man...."

Youtube Video
887 reine.de.tout  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:14:29pm

re: #873 turn

and turn! Ha

Well, there ya go!
Feb has turned from a good month into a GREAT month.

888 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:14:40pm

re: #596 Occasional Reader

Altruism can be beneficial in ensuring the propagation of a given gene. See Dawkins on the subject.

True

Alcohol, fairly irrelevant to this process.

Relevant to developing altruism. Drinking bussies and all that, not to mention seduction.

I offer no opinion on anal intercourse, leaving that to wiser heads.

Helps prevent killing one's neighbor to rape their wife.

Abortion will not necessarily confer a fatal evolutionary disadvantage, as long as enough live births occur to ensure species survival.

Could ensure the survival of remaining tribe members under threat of starvation.

Beastiality

Use it or lose it ?

889 Zimriel  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:14:43pm

re: #763 Thanos

In last night's thread I demonstrated how this culture war within the Republican party changed Kansas from Red to purple and shading towards blue. It's a serious issue and a serious rift in the party.

So where can I find a Republican Rift Raft™?

Specifically, Thanos posted lengthy excerpts from John Judis's TNRChange of Heartland alongside some personal anecdotes. I suspect that Judis and Thanos are right.

To the commenters here - I recommend reading the whole article.

890 NoWhereAlaska  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:14:46pm

re: #869 faraway

Or maybe we all descended from a virus? or an ape?

Help me out here.


Good grief, you can't be serious. He has been explaining this stuff for months now.
Look back at all of Sal's previous comments. You could construct a chapter in science text out of his comments.

891 redstateredneck  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:15:00pm

Gotta run.
Have a good weekend {lizards}.

reine, I will see you on the scrabble board.

892 notutopia  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:15:22pm

re: #821 taxfreekiller

Kay Hagan new D of NC, now on the "not" committed to vote yes list

wow

We just got off the phone with her office tfk.

893 reine.de.tout  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:15:25pm

re: #878 redstateredneck

We're gonna have to get a really big cake.

Cream cheese-filled king cake.
yum.

894 lurking faith  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:15:26pm

re: #653 Cato

re: #560 jaunte

Charles, I gave you evidence. Anal intercourse, abortion, altruism, or beastiality. All are things that need to be ruthlessly weeded out by natural selection but have not been. Why? Because human life is nothing like the life of a bacterium or a weasel (unless you are leftist). Natural selection doesn't really apply to humans. It why we do not go around seeking to impregnate women with each sexual act and eat all we can and fight for territory. The very notion of property is anti-Darwin.

Don't be ridiculous. The only traits involved in natural selection are those which allow or prevent a creature from reaching maturity, breeding, and raising its young to maturity (lather, rinse, repeat). Whatever humans happen to do in their spare time has NO bearing on their ability to reproduce, unless it gets them killed (or injured in very specific ways). So all the non-reproductive sex in the world does not tend to disprove evolution, any more than activities such as art or music would disprove evolution. The only question is whether those people ALSO have potentially reproductive sex, and the resources to raise children if any occur.

As for fighting for territory, we do that every day of our lives - or don't you have a job? Drive a car? Get angry when someone stands too close behind you in line? Seriously; what planet are you on? People compete for everything.

Most of us in the industrialized world don't "eat all we can" because it would frikkin' kill us. Shoot, my little parakeets are smart enough not to overeat regardless of how much food is in their dishes - eating enough but NOT overeating is also a survival mechanism. Duh.

And citing property as an anti-Darwinian concept is just bizarre. Property is a kind of territory - it's a resource - and the ability to gain and hold property is vital to the prospects of one's children.

No, it's Socialism and Communism that are anti-Darwinian, because those systems insulate people from the consequences of their failures or laziness.

895 ProUSA  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:15:29pm

re: #879 Cato

I work, so I don't have time to answer in detail.

2) . . . . What other species engages in sexual acts that cannot bring about reproduction? What other species shares food with weaker members?

.

Actually, there are known species that do those things.

896 SFGoth  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:15:30pm

re: #881 faraway

What is an 'independent' exactly? Someone that can't decide whether they like freedom or socialism? Why can't they make up their mind?

How does being in lockstep with ID and the religious right equate with freedom? No, libertarianism = freedom.

897 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:15:44pm

re: #877 justadot

Try using NCBI's PubMed — your tax dollars at work. That's 65 publications for Heidmann cross-referenced against retrovirus.

Take your time.

This link will be ignored.

898 Tigger2005  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:15:47pm

Cato, you simply do not understand evolution. I know you think you do, but you don't. You need to do more reading on the subject.

You seem to think evolution is the survival of the most selfish and ruthless. This is not true. Evolution is the survival of whatever WORKS, during a given period of time, under a given set of conditions, to keep a species going. As long as altruism assists in the survival and perpetuation of a species, there's no reason for it to be bred out of the population. Sure, you might still have alpha males that try to kill all offspring that aren't their own, but you also have females who "adopt" orphaned infants, or assist relatives in caring for their babies.

Particularly with highly complex, highly social, and highly intelligent species, who cooperate at least as much as they compete in order to survive, you're going to have a great deal of variation within populations. There is no reason for this variation to be bred out if it is beneficial or neutral with respect to the continuation of the population.

As for property being "anti-Darwin" ... WHY? HOW? If owning property helps a man survive, procure wives, have children, etc., how is it anti-Darwin? The fact of the matter is, we evolved to be a mix of both selfish and acquisitive and cooperative, altruistic, sharing creatures. BOTH sets of qualities have aided in our survival.

re: #653 Cato

re: #560 jaunte

Charles, I gave you evidence. Anal intercourse, abortion, altruism, or beastiality. All are things that need to be ruthlessly weeded out by natural selection but have not been. Why? Because human life is nothing like the life of a bacterium or a weasel (unless you are leftist). Natural selection doesn't really apply to humans. It why we do not go around seeking to impregnate women with each sexual act and eat all we can and fight for territory. The very notion of property is anti-Darwin.

jaunte, Darwin never had a theory of "species advantage". It was the reproduction of individuals with specific variations that leads to energizes the process of natural selection. Nothing in ANY Darwinian or neo-Darwinian literature explains, for example, the Catholic nun who has given up breeding for herself yet aids in birthing other people's babies.

899 faraway  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:15:54pm

re: #877 justadot

Try using NCBI's PubMed — your tax dollars at work. That's 65 publications for Heidmann cross-referenced against retrovirus.

Take your time.

Tell you what. You just paste me a few paragraphs in here. I'm kinda slow, but I'll try to read me some dang science.
/

900 reine.de.tout  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:15:54pm

re: #891 redstateredneck

Gotta run.
Have a good weekend {lizards}.

reine, I will see you on the scrabble board.

g'night!

901 redstateredneck  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:16:01pm

re: #893 reine.de.tout

Cream cheese-filled king cake.
yum.

My fave!
I'm really gone now.

902 Salamantis  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:16:05pm

re: #883 Westward Ho

Are there other links for this amazing evidence as the Newyorker is not exactly a science magazine. Infact one of the thoughts that kept hammering in my mind after reading this is why the hell was this not on the networks, it is mathematical evidence of common descent of our species.

Like I said to faraway; all you have to do is to google the names of the paleovirologists mentioned in the article. You might try googling the names of their research organizations, too.

903 UFO TOFU  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:17:42pm

re: #716 redstateredneck

Everywhere else, pasties go on exotic dancers.
;-)


At the river, they go on anything female; dancer or not.

904 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:17:47pm

re: #890 NoWhereAlaska

Good grief, you can't be serious. He has been explaining this stuff for months now.
Look back at all of Sal's previous comments. You could construct a chapter in science text out of his comments.

'faraway' is being intentionally obtuse.

905 Fierce Guppy  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:17:56pm

re: #825 Honorary Yooper

I've never heard Rush Limbaugh express YEC beliefs. On the contrary, he seems to be interested when a new evolutionary discovery is found.

Ah... That's a good sign. I would like very much to know what Rush thinks about the TOE versus Creationism debates, and which side of the fence he's on, or if he has a foot on both sides of the fence.

906 Randall Gross  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:17:58pm

re: #879 Cato

Sorry, no gobs there. Just more foils that you hope to parlay into "Science leads to killing people."

Nice try, now where's the gobs of evidence, so far you've provided nothing but opinions that demonstrate your immense ignorance of evolutionary biology.

907 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:18:03pm
908 faraway  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:18:22pm

re: #890 NoWhereAlaska

Good grief, you can't be serious. He has been explaining this stuff for months now.
Look back at all of Sal's previous comments. You could construct a chapter in science text out of his comments.

Sorry, I don't usually read creationist vs. evolutionist vs. Christians posts.

I just thought I would play along today.

909 NoWhereAlaska  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:18:59pm

re: #904 Sharmuta

'faraway' is being intentionally obtuse.

Yah, I figured that. But it doesn't make it any less frustrating to read his sh*t.

910 Basho  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:19:19pm

re: #885 Charles

None of that is evidence. It's all your opinion. You claimed to know of "gobs and gobs" of evidence, and all you're coming up with are opinions.

Where's the evidence?

It's true if you're sincere!@

/

911 CyanSnowHawk  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:19:22pm

re: #653 Cato

re: #560 jaunte

Charles, I gave you evidence. Anal intercourse, abortion, altruism, or beastiality. All are things that need to be ruthlessly weeded out by natural selection but have not been. Why? Because human life is nothing like the life of a bacterium or a weasel (unless you are leftist). Natural selection doesn't really apply to humans. It why we do not go around seeking to impregnate women with each sexual act and eat all we can and fight for territory. The very notion of property is anti-Darwin.

jaunte, Darwin never had a theory of "species advantage". It was the reproduction of individuals with specific variations that leads to energizes the process of natural selection. Nothing in ANY Darwinian or neo-Darwinian literature explains, for example, the Catholic nun who has given up breeding for herself yet aids in birthing other people's babies.

It is clear that you do not understand evolution. It does not relentlessly drive towards the perfection of the species. It only provides that those with the most successful breeding strategy, in the particular environment in which the animal exists, will eventually supplant those that do not.

912 faraway  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:20:14pm

re: #897 Sharmuta

This link will be ignored.

There you go again. Let's just stick to facts and logic. Try not to get emotional over this topic.

913 Salamantis  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:20:17pm

re: #668 victor_yugo

So we can account for genetic variations over time. But how do biologists account for variations in the number of chromosomes? How did we end up with 23 pairs, while gorillas got 24? What evolutionary pressure caused that?

That is the leap that must be explained, or better yet, demonstrated.

Hope this helps you out:

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

914 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:20:20pm

re: #908 faraway

Sorry, I don't usually read creationist vs. evolutionist vs. Christians posts.

I just thought I would play along today.

So- you're trolling. Lovely.

915 NoWhereAlaska  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:20:40pm

re: #908 faraway

Sorry, I don't usually read creationist vs. evolutionist vs. Christians posts.

I just thought I would play along today.

Well thanks. I guess you have every right to remain blindly ignorant, as well as obnoxiously arrogant.

916 SFGoth  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:20:53pm

I'm willing to overlook a political candidate's personal religious beliefs if it's clear they're not foisting them on others (why I don't begrudge Romney his Mormonism), and why this non-believing Jew was willing to consider Palin. But if turns out that she is getting cozy with the RR, and if she does become the GOP's standard-bearer, ugh.

917 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:21:04pm

re: #898 Tigger2005

As for property being "anti-Darwin" ... WHY? HOW? If owning property helps a man survive, procure wives, have children, etc., how is it anti-Darwin? The fact of the matter is, we evolved to be a mix of both selfish and acquisitive and cooperative, altruistic, sharing creatures. BOTH sets of qualities have aided in our survival.

Not to mention that forms of "property" exist outside human culture. Beehives (strongly defended, like cities), anthills (ditto), prairie dog colonies, bears' dens, wolf lairs, beavers' dams, badgers' sets, moles' burrows, ghosts' haunts - well, forget that last one. You get the idea, Cato Junior?

918 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:21:34pm
919 ConservatismNow!  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:21:44pm

re: #851 NoWhereAlaska

Not to mention chili with beans, that too is wrong. Chili is a MEAT dish. And a damned good one too, (if prepared right, and is at least moderately 'hot').

Ahh. A chili purist. The chili I grew on (ie, the chili my dad always made) had meat, beans, tomatoes, green peppers, onions, and all the seasonings to go along. Served on a slice of cornbread with cheese on top.

920 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:22:00pm

re: #912 faraway

Based on my observations, I predict you will ignore any link that challenges your pre-existing worldview. That's not emotional- that's a logical conclusion to make because your posting history suggests that's exactly what you'll do.

921 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:22:10pm

re: #715 DeafDog

I see your point, but having a strong religious beliefs is very different than having a strong belief in the Loch Ness Monster.

It's not quite right to mix criticism of the two.

I respectfully disagree to the extent that when a belief ignores obvious incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, then it does not deserve respect whether it calls itself religious or not.

In truth, the Loch Ness Monster is more acceptable than creationism, because there is only an absence of evidence, not contradictory evidence.

922 nikis-knight  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:22:18pm

re: #482 iLikeCandy

The Darwin fish is just the Jesus fish plus legs. It's faith and science. What's wrong with that?


It IS an obvious and intentional mockery. People here who promote a full accpetance of evolution as a correct scientific field of study should be ashamed of the Darwin sticker, as it positions evolution as some sort of religion or worldview in conflict with a devotion to Jesus, even if it is just a tongue in cheek way.

923 faraway  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:22:32pm

re: #902 Salamantis

Like I said to faraway; all you have to do is to google the names of the paleovirologists mentioned in the article. You might try googling the names of their research organizations, too.

With all the thousands of scientists and over a hundred years of evolutionary theory, why would anyone have to do so much googling? Just paste me in something simple to read and understand.

924 Scion9  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:22:55pm

re: #869 faraway


The only way that humans, in thousands of seemingly random locations, could possess the exact retroviral DNA found in another species is by inheriting it from a common ancestor.

So, are you saying we came from Adam? or from Eve?

We are descended from Eve, who gave birth to several species of great apes as well as mankind, apparently.

925 Tigger2005  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:22:58pm

re: #796 Cato the Elder

Evolution does not claim to explain civilization.

Well, it's all evolution. Just because we're conscious of it, and our intelligence has impacted the direction of our evolution, doesn't make it any less "natural" or any less subject to scientific analysis. Our intelligence is part of the natural world. Other species are intelligent as well, just not enough to have any real effect on the macroprocesses of nature.

926 Randall Gross  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:23:09pm

re: #917 Cato the Elder

Perhaps he needs a layman's primer

927 Zimriel  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:23:43pm

re: #879 Cato

I work, so I don't have time to answer in detail.

1) Natural selection makes no distinction between activities or structures than enhance or detract from survival and reproduction.

2) Since humans freely choose to do things that impede the process of their own genes surviving, it cannot be said that natural selection works in the same way as it works for other species. What other species gives up their own power to reproduce? What other species kills in the womb perfectly fit members of their species (after birth, there are plenty of examples)? What other species engages in sexual acts that cannot bring about reproduction? What other species shares food with weaker members?

3) What are the above examples of? Unfitness in Darwinian terms.

4)Those who object that there may be an advantage to the species but not to the individual do not understand Darwinian theory. Species are FORMED by the accumulation of individual variations. Species do not cooperate to preserve the existing genetic types. To do so is putting those types outside of the productive/destructive process of natural selection. Therefore, if this is what we are doing, it is done as a bulwark AGAINST natural selection, not as a part of it.

How does this square with an ant colony? or a dog pack? or any animal which has bred itself to be most effective as a member of a pack of the same species?

FAIL

928 Basho  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:24:26pm

re: #917 Cato the Elder

Not to mention that forms of "property" exist outside human culture. Beehives (strongly defended, like cities), anthills (ditto), prairie dog colonies, bears' dens, wolf lairs, beavers' dams, badgers' sets, moles' burrows, ghosts' haunts - well, forget that last one. You get the idea, Cato Junior?

Hell, just watch any episode on Nature. Every week they have a lion or something going crazy when something enters his "territory", which is nothing more than a stretch of land with traces of urine for borders.

929 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:24:36pm

re: #923 faraway

It's no one's job here to spoon feed you. Either click the links that have been provided for you and read them, or research the issue yourself, or wallow in your ignorance. It's no skin off of any of our noses.

930 Stonemason  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:26:10pm

re: #856 reine.de.tout

24.

Hey....that's me too!

931 Westward Ho  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:26:44pm

re: #781 Salamantis

Your objection has to do not with healthy scepticism, but with visceral revulsion at being related to apes.

Have some pity sir, the patrynomic loss from our father in heaven to a hairy naked ape in the African jungles is cosmic.

932 [deleted]  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:27:13pm
933 Basho  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:27:57pm

re: #715 DeafDog

I see your point, but having a strong religious beliefs is very different than having a strong belief in the Loch Ness Monster.

It's not quite right to mix criticism of the two.

"If I have one quibble with Dyson, it is that he has been far too modest in drawing out the implications of his argument. He is, of course, right to declare that "science and religion are here to stay." But magic is here to stay too, George; Africa is full of it. Is there a conflict between scientific rationality and a belief in magic spells? Specifically, is there a conflict between believing that epilepsy is a result of abnormal neural activity and believing that it is a sign of demonic possession? Dogmatists like Coyne and Dennett clearly think so. They don't realize, as Dyson must, that the more one understands neurology, the more one will understand--and honor--demonology. Have Coyne and Dennett read the work of sophisticated magicians like Aleister Crowley or Eliphas Levi? Don't count on it. Ask yourself, how could matter conflict with spirit in any way? Answer: it cannot. Forgive me, but I find it embarrassing to have to explain these things to people who are supposed be well educated."
[Link: scienceblogs.com...]

934 faraway  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:28:04pm

re: #920 Sharmuta

Based on my observations, I predict you will ignore any link that challenges your pre-existing worldview. That's not emotional- that's a logical conclusion to make because your posting history suggests that's exactly what you'll do.

I have never given you the slightest indication of my 'worldview' on this topic. You have assumed I am some crazy 6000 year old dino creationist. You have made a poor deduction.

Now, if we can get back to facts.

935 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:28:08pm

[Link: www.stanford.edu...]

faraway- please explain how this link is problematic for evolution.

936 reine.de.tout  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:28:11pm

re: #930 Stonemason

Hey....that's me too!

Really?
Never come across anyone before whose b-day was the same.
You know that is also Mardi Gras Day?
You need to be in New Orleans.

937 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:28:26pm

re: #928 Basho

Hell, just watch any episode on Nature. Every week they have a lion or something going crazy when something enters his "territory", which is nothing more than a stretch of land with traces of urine for borders.

I would venture that it is a pretty advanced civilization that can devise a system that reguires only pissing here, and there and then every member knows exactly whether they belong on one side or another of an imaginary line drawn between invisible points, and generally obeys that knowledge without strife.

938 Dianna  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:28:44pm

re: #844 The Shadow Do

Darwin said only the vicious survive? It is about adaptation to changing environments, nothing more nor less. Where does this survival of the fittest equals the most brutal shall live stuff come from anyway?

We could blame Tennyson. I always like blaming him - the man was such a hack.

939 Zimriel  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:28:48pm

I must say, #879 is one of the most entertainingly stupid comments I've read here since fuzuli ran away. Can we recruit Cedarford to post here some time? BAHAHAH

940 Randall Gross  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:29:36pm

re: #929 Sharmuta

It's no one's job here to spoon feed you. Either click the links that have been provided for you and read them, or research the issue yourself, or wallow in your ignorance. It's no skin off of any of our noses.

"Ignorarrogance" is a term we should use for these folks.

941 faraway  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:30:24pm

re: #935 Sharmuta

[Link: www.stanford.edu...]

faraway- please explain how this link is problematic for evolution.

Let's start with this.

"Homo erectus has long been regarded as the direct antecedent to Homo sapiens. Recently, this assumption has been questioned."

942 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:30:41pm

re: #939 Zimriel

FYI- I spoke with Fuzuli in the lounge a few months ago. He supports evolution.

943 SFGoth  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:32:03pm

How do creationists account for horrible diseases and birth defects? Oh yeah, it's His Plan and we can't understand it.

While we're never going to have agreement here, and you can only cover the same ol' ground (what have we found, wish you were here) so many times, the more interesting question is, what does this do to the party? Could it be like 1848-ish? You've got the HUMONGOUS GOVERNMENT Party (Dem), the God's Own Party (GOP), and will the Libertarian Party finally make it's mark? Could be.

944 Basho  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:32:34pm

re: #937 Naso Tang

Humans, stupidly, have to build obstacles such as fences. That requires cutting down trees, chopping up the wood, shaping it, transporting it, installing it, etc... That's a lot of energy and time wasted. Big cats and wolves must be all laughing at us =)

945 faraway  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:32:40pm

Well, I learned so much today :-) Jumping to the clenching thread.

946 Zimriel  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:33:57pm

re: #942 Sharmuta

FYI- I spoke with Fuzuli in the lounge a few months ago. He supports evolution.

I wasn't referring to his pro-evolution posts...

...Has he going back on his earlier, Fizelet-Partisi-style Islamism? I'd thought of him as an incurable. If he's wising up I humbly apologise.

947 NoWhereAlaska  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:34:25pm

re: #941 faraway

Let's start with this.

"Homo erectus has long been regarded as the direct antecedent to Homo sapiens. Recently, this assumption has been questioned."

Hey, that's a good quote. I like that. It raises in to question whether Homo erectus was an antecedent or a side branch from our joint antecedent. A good science question, one I would love to be combing the African sites to find the answer.

Now back to what are the problematic areas?

948 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:34:42pm

re: #941 faraway

Let's start with this.

"Homo erectus has long been regarded as the direct antecedent to Homo sapiens. Recently, this assumption has been questioned."

So a reclassifying of species disproves evolution? Actually, I would think it shows a more diverse speciation of the common ancestor and validates evolutionary theory.

949 Salamantis  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:35:29pm

re: #762 Dianna

Sal, a quick question:

Can you give me a quick and dirty explanation of "cladist"?

I have read a definition, and my brain isn't wrapping around it. Avoid detail, just once sentence.

This should help:

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

950 NoWhereAlaska  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:36:22pm

re: #948 Sharmuta
Gosh I beat you by 18 seconds. That is a record for me.

951 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:37:01pm

re: #946 Zimriel

I'm not sure, but he and I did speak about Harun Yahya and he doesn't support the creationist movement in Turkey. I asked him to come join us on these threads, but he's still a little shy after the beating he took. However- we both got a chuckle that of all the people to come together on some common ground, it was the two of us, since many in the lounge recall our infamous debates. :D

952 nikis-knight  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:37:10pm

re: #572 Charles

Atheism is tied to evolution in the minds of many fundamentalist Christians because they are taught this from the time they're little children. It has almost nothing to do with the hardcore atheism of people like Richard Dawkins.

I must admit there is some truth here. I had an otherwise excellent set of story books when I was a kid that promoted virtures like sharing and taking care of your siblings called Uncle Arthurs bedtime stories. It inclulded one that had the most absurd characiture of evolution--about how little Timmy was taught in school about how worms turned into monkeys that played with fire and burned away all their fur, turning them into people. Some weird Lamarkian/Darwinian mish-mash.

Actually, this was kind of fascinating to me at the time, but I think more because it was an interesting/absurd myth than that it presented a compelling scientific theory.

I'd still be happy to read my kids most of those stories. In fact, this is how I see most creationists, with some glaring exceptions, perhaps. Generally decent people who are more helpful to their community and country than not, but very ignorant and self-asured about this. The liars aside, I think they're mostly harmless, but Charles is doing good in opposing letting them get coddled in science curriculum passed on the next generation.

953 Dianna  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:37:42pm

re: #907 taxfreekiller

Finkstink D of Calif, says she reserves the right to vote no on the bill

wow

votes are still rights,

You mean my emails might be doing some good? Wow!

954 faraway  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:37:49pm

re: #948 Sharmuta

So a reclassifying of species disproves evolution? Actually, I would think it shows a more diverse speciation of the common ancestor and validates evolutionary theory.

I see why this requires 65 links and hours of Googling. My little old head is swimming.

Now, who is our direct ancestor if not mr. erectus?

955 Fierce Guppy  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:38:21pm

re: #825 Honorary Yooper

Now for the bad news. Here's Rush Limbaugh's take on Ben Stein's "Expelled". It is oh so glowing.

NOT a good sign.

956 SFGoth  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:38:58pm

re: #944 Basho

Humans, stupidly, have to build obstacles such as fences. That requires cutting down trees, chopping up the wood, shaping it, transporting it, installing it, etc... That's a lot of energy and time wasted. Big cats and wolves must be all laughing at us =)

Hey, Toonses doesn't laugh at me when I waste a lot of time and energy, getting a can of kitty salmon, opening the can, finding his food dish, putting out the food, etc. (At 2' long and 15#, he's a big cat.)

957 Randall Gross  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:39:01pm

re: #941 faraway

It's not a problem for evolution, it's just more proof. Homo Erectus is an offshoot, not in direct path, and not surviving that we know of. Under evolutionary theory you would expect to find things like this, a rather bushy tree instead of just a main trunk. A gap is not a problem, see the bridge analogy above, what don't you get mr. quote miner?

Here's the pertinent part:

The problem of defining Homo erectus is that it is viewed at present as a grade of human evolution intermediate between the small-brained early Pleistocene hominids and the large brained Homo sapiens. The term grade is used to encompass a population that has reached the same adaptive stage. It does not require that the organisms belong to the same group (species). Peter Andrew stated just because the erectus specimens are all the same size or similar size brains is not evidence that they belong to the same species. When the primitive characters are removed from the list of traditional Homo erectus, only a small number of derived characters remains. Significantly, these characters are found exclusively within Asian fossils leaving African fossils outside the group and they don’t form a link with Homo sapiens. In other words, the Asian Homo erectus population appears to be evolutionarily separated from those hominids of a similar grade in Africa, and eventually became extinct. The African populations would have other species names applied to them such as Homo ergaster and Homo leakeyi. One African species of the Homo erectus grade might have been ancestral first to European archaic sapiens and later to anatomically modern humans.

958 NoWhereAlaska  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:39:25pm

I've got to get back to work. Bye All! It's been real.....

959 faraway  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:42:13pm

re: #957 Thanos

So, scientists 'believe' there is an ancestor? Or there is undeniable proof of an ancestor?

960 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:42:41pm

re: #954 faraway

I see why this requires 65 links and hours of Googling. My little old head is swimming.

Now, who is our direct ancestor if not mr. erectus?

Willfully clinging to ignorance is no way to go through life.

It's too difficult to understand, so I'll throw up my hands and say God did it.

This is the exact thinking of IDers, and yet you'd have us believe you're not one of them. Whatever.

961 SixDegrees  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:43:10pm

re: #627 Cato the Elder

Biblical literalism is the main culprit. What you get is people contorting their minds into pretzels to make every word true, even if it's directly contradicted in the next chapter. The two creation accounts in Genesis are a wonderful example.

I'll add this: Biblical literalism explains absolutely nothing. The mechanics of creation - the process used, the precise details, ANY details - are completely absent from the Bible. "God created..." is all it says, without any further explanation.

Attempts to wring process out of this absence are some of the funniest and saddest contortions Creationists engage in; far from interpreting the Bible as literally true, word for word, they immediately begin layering on supposition, guesswork, interpretation driven by a predetermined outcome, and outright fiction and invention. Their interpretation is in no way supported by any "literal" reading of the text, yet the glaring vacuum concerning how anything, including species, actually came to be according to the Old Testament represents a gaping, empty hole in their argument.

962 SFGoth  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:44:15pm

re: #959 faraway

So, scientists 'believe' there is an ancestor? Or there is undeniable proof of an ancestor?

This is self-parody, right? Or there is undeniable proof of a supreme being (with male genitalia)?

963 Dianna  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:44:57pm

re: #943 SFGoth

Not unless they figure out that legalizing every drug under the sun is not - and never will be - a winning strategy.

Don't bother to say it's rational. It may be. But anyone who ever has lived in a really awful neighborhood will be heard muttering, "Some things should be illegal."

964 nikis-knight  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:45:06pm

re: #652 Cato the Elder

Please everyone, remember that there's Cato and then Cato the Elder. I registered precisely one day before Junior here.

Well, that was prescient! ;)

965 Dianna  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:45:44pm

re: #949 Salamantis

This should help:

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

Um...that's the one my aching head (I've been battling with accounting all week) won't wrap around, or retain, or something.

966 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:46:12pm

re: #961 SixDegrees

Live by the literalism, die by the literalism.

967 Randall Gross  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:47:06pm

re: #959 faraway

No, evolution predicts multiple branches, and they've found some. It's exactly what you would expect, as you would expect gaps until more fossils are found to fill those in. Try again.

968 Randall Gross  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:48:48pm

Here's another dead branch Faraway, more recent, no living descendants that we know of.

[Link: wilderdom.com...]

969 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:49:25pm

re: #879 Cato

I work, so I don't have time to answer in detail.

Cop out. You could bring your evidence later, when you're not working. Just wait for the next evolution thread.

What other species gives up their own power to reproduce?

Not all fertile members of animal groups are allowed to reproduce. Try being a young lion and going for a female in the old lion's pride. The young lion will give up the attempt until he can kill the old lion or found a pride of his own. Repeat cycle.

What other species kills in the womb perfectly fit members of their species (after birth, there are plenty of examples)?

This I'm not sure of; I think I read somewhere about abortifacients among mammals. But I admit I could be wrong. Anyway, what of it? It's a cultural thing, omnipresent throughout human history, and has nothing to do with "species fitness". In fact, with the new ability to identify and select for specific genes, we may end up giving evolution a conscious shove in what we consider - rightly or wrongly - the proper direction.

What other species engages in sexual acts that cannot bring about reproduction?

Monkeys, dogs, horses, to name a few. Masturbation and homosexual behavior are common. Do you think an animal asks whether the partner is fertile or even the same sex when the mood is on?

What other species shares food with weaker members?

Oh, birds, for example, or dogs, or cats, or almost any mammal. When my old cat was seventeen years of age and had trouble grooming himself, my dog helped out. Altruism! Nobody starved as a result.

What are the above examples of? Unfitness in Darwinian terms.

Au contraire, they are either irrelevant or potentially survival-enhancing for both individual and species.

Those who object that there may be an advantage to the species but not to the individual do not understand Darwinian theory. Species are FORMED by the accumulation of individual variations. Species do not cooperate to preserve the existing genetic types. To do so is putting those types outside of the productive/destructive process of natural selection. Therefore, if this is what we are doing, it is done as a bulwark AGAINST natural selection, not as a part of it.

Piffle. First of all, that's called the intentional fallacy. You are ascribing conscious motivation to animal behavior - as if the cooperative actions of, say, gophers were intended to get around the laws of nature. It is their nature. And of course it enhances species viability. So? Do you think the gophers should say, "We can't cooperate, it would be unfair to the moles"?

Cooperation in humans especially is an evolutionary advantage. If we were breaking some kind of imaginary "red in tooth and claw" law, why have we covered the earth with our societies, and why are we at the top of the food chain?

Game, set, match.

970 SFGoth  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:50:47pm

re: #963 Dianna

Not unless they figure out that legalizing every drug under the sun is not - and never will be - a winning strategy.

Don't bother to say it's rational. It may be. But anyone who ever has lived in a really awful neighborhood will be heard muttering, "Some things should be illegal."

If that porkulous package passes, we may well need every drug under the Sun - which by the way were intelligently designed, right?

971 mean Gene  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:51:49pm

re: #747 ConservatismNow!

Also could be called a pierogi. Most just have potatoes, but you could put meat in them too. Boil them then fry em. Om Nom Nom.

Yeah, we make those, too.
I use leftover mashed potatoes for those.
But I just got back from the store in the rain to get the needed warming taquila (sp?) for the Mexican coffee we'll have to go with our fajitas, taquitos and quesadillas tonight. (My spellcheck says EVERY Spanish word is spelled wrong! LOL)

972 Tigger2005  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:55:35pm

re: #879 Cato

I work, so I don't have time to answer in detail.

2) What other species engages in sexual acts that cannot bring about reproduction? What other species shares food with weaker members?

Many species have been observed engaging in homosexual activity. Bonobo chimp females have been observed frantically rubbing their genitals together, just because it feels good.

3) What are the above examples of? Unfitness in Darwinian terms.

Why? A few nuns choosing not to have kids doesn't make a whole species unfit. It's also not going to result in all altruistic people being bred out of the population, unless you have a really significant percentage of the altruistic members of the population opting out of sex and reproduction. Like pretty much all of them. There's far too many people for a relatively few non-reproducing nuns to have any significant impact on the composition of the species, even over many centuries.

4)Those who object that there may be an advantage to the species but not to the individual do not understand Darwinian theory. Species are FORMED by the accumulation of individual variations. Species do not cooperate to preserve the existing genetic types. To do so is putting those types outside of the productive/destructive process of natural selection. Therefore, if this is what we are doing, it is done as a bulwark AGAINST natural selection, not as a part of it.

So how does this in any way disprove evolution? I'll certainly allow that our self-awareness and intelligence and success has impacted and in a way driven our evolution as a species, but it doesn't mean that evolution itself "works" on us in any fundamentally different way than it does on any other species. It just means that we have significantly more power than many other species to resist and/or adapt to the changes and pressures that natural processes impose on us. And even so, we are still not quite as unique as you seem to think we are. And there are still a lot of things we can't control.

973 kansas  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:55:46pm

re: #402 CyanSnowHawk

What you are not explaining, although it is obvious, especially on the PS of this post, is that you are a "South will rise again" crank. I expect shit like that to be posted on Stormfront, or maybe even GoV. Then you get all indignant when we call you on this bullshit. Take your Stars and Bars and white hood and go fly that shit somewhere else.

I am not a South will rise again crank and I don't know what Stormfront or GoV are. It's pretty funny that I am called on bad logic and bad history, yet you have to resort to calling me a Klansman. Nice.

974 Salamantis  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:55:58pm

re: #869 faraway

So, are you saying we came from Adam? or from Eve?

Or maybe we all descended from a virus? or an ape?

Help me out here.

Mitochondrial Eve didn't even know Y-Chromosomal Adam, since they were born tens of thousands ot years apart, and Eve was born first:

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

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

We share common ancestors with great apes; both they and we are descended from ancient protohominids. Spliced-in genomically embedded artifactual retrovirral DNA sequences have had some effects upon the evolution of organisms in general.

975 Dianna  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 2:57:57pm

re: #970 SFGoth

If that porkulous package passes, we may well need every drug under the Sun - which by the way were intelligently designed, right?

One does wonder....

976 SpartacusDk  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 3:00:00pm

Is Ann Coulter the missing link ?

977 Dianna  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 3:02:27pm

re: #974 Salamantis

Mitochondrial Eve didn't even know Y-Chromosomal Adam, since they were born tens of thousands ot years apart, and Eve was born first:

Does anyone else spend time thinking about that fact and gaping? I simply boggle at the concept that our Y-chromosomal ancestor was a johnny-come-lately (no ribaldry intended) in the human family.

What does that say?

978 Dianna  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 3:03:29pm

I think I shall go drink a glass of wine and contemplate the gulf of time between Eve and Adam.

Bye!

979 USBeast  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 3:04:25pm

"It may sound silly, but in defense of the Cargo Cult, they did not wait as long for evidence supporting their theory as the Darwinists have waited for evidence supporting theirs."

Uh, Ann..."Darwinists" never waited for evidence. They went looking for it. They've been finding it for 150 years, lots of it...lots and lots of it. They will find more tomorrow and the next day and the day after that. They will continue to learn and you will continue to be an ignorant...person.

980 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 3:06:44pm

re: #941 faraway

Let's start with this.

"Homo erectus has long been regarded as the direct antecedent to Homo sapiens. Recently, this assumption has been questioned."

The entire basis of science is questioning and being prepared to be wrong.

It is so strange that some people think that is a weakness.

981 Tigger2005  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 3:07:32pm

re: #959 faraway

So, scientists 'believe' there is an ancestor? Or there is undeniable proof of an ancestor?

Oh, so scientists just sat down and said, "Let's believe there's an ancestor. We have no reason to believe such a thing, we just do. We have faith there's an ancestor. We're not going to look any further to find the ancestor. We have to believe this or we might have to believe in God and thus give up shellfish and our Thursday night orgies."

982 JHW  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 3:07:48pm

re: #978 Dianna

That brings new meaning to the phrase "I'm so ronery"

983 nikis-knight  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 3:08:27pm

I wonder if the people who down-dinged my 922 could give a counter-arguement?
Or anyone else. Because I'm serious that co-opting a christian symbol to promote Darwin--when that symbol had nothing to do with creationism whatsoever--paints a false dichotomy between the two and makes evolution seem like someone's religion.

984 Salamantis  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 3:09:27pm

re: #924 Scion9

We are descended from Eve, who gave birth to several species of great apes as well as mankind, apparently.

Actually, Mitochondrial Eve lived about 140,000 years ago, long after the human-chimpanzee evolutionary divergence. And Y-Chromosomal Adam lived about 80,000 years ago, long after Mitochondrial Eve.

985 Ziggy Standard  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 3:09:56pm

There are a number of inaccurate claims in the following video-

1) Anne Coulter is NOT fat.

2)Umm....that's it.

Youtube Video
986 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 3:10:30pm

re: #959 faraway

So, scientists 'believe' there is an ancestor? Or there is undeniable proof of an ancestor?

There are countless "ancestors". How far back do you want to go?

987 USBeast  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 3:11:06pm

re: #959 faraway

So, scientists 'believe' there is an ancestor? Or there is undeniable proof of an ancestor?

From my observations, there is no amount of proof creationists can't deny.

988 Salamantis  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 3:11:16pm

re: #923 faraway

With all the thousands of scientists and over a hundred years of evolutionary theory, why would anyone have to do so much googling? Just paste me in something simple to read and understand.

I'm beginning to doubt that we could ever post empirical evidence for evolution that would be simple enough for you to read and understand. We have certainly tried.

989 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 3:15:29pm

re: #922 nikis-knight

It IS an obvious and intentional mockery. People here who promote a full accpetance of evolution as a correct scientific field of study should be ashamed of the Darwin sticker, as it positions evolution as some sort of religion or worldview in conflict with a devotion to Jesus, even if it is just a tongue in cheek way.

It (Darwin bumper sticker) is not tongue in cheek as much as it is making fun of the one that came first by those who have to publicly proclaim their religion. I don't have any stickers, but I did see one once, with Georgia plates no less, that said "Born right the first time".

990 Salamantis  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 3:15:33pm

re: #934 faraway

I have never given you the slightest indication of my 'worldview' on this topic. You have assumed I am some crazy 6000 year old dino creationist. You have made a poor deduction.

Now, if we can get back to facts.

We tried that. You rejected them because they were printed in the New Yorker.

991 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 3:17:56pm

re: #986 Naso Tang

There are countless "ancestors". How far back do you want to go?

We are fish. *glub glub*

992 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 3:18:28pm

re: #923 faraway

With all the thousands of scientists and over a hundred years of evolutionary theory, why would anyone have to do so much googling? Just paste me in something simple to read and understand.

The chances are you would only have to read one or two of the links you have been given. Clearly you don't wish to do that and now seem to be suggesting that if there are so many promoting a theory, there must be something wrong with it to generate so much defense.

993 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 3:18:41pm

re: #991 Sharmuta

We are fish. *glub glub*

We are fish- no wonder Jesus was considered a fisherman. :p

994 Tigger2005  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 3:19:28pm

re: #954 faraway

I see why this requires 65 links and hours of Googling. My little old head is swimming.

Now, who is our direct ancestor if not mr. erectus?

Why do you like to belittle yourself in this way?

I'm not that smart a person, but I still try to understand complicated things, even if it's hard or takes some study, research, and thinking. I never say, "Oh, I'm just a dumb old little person and this is too much for me." And if, in the end, I still don't really understand it, I don't take it out on the people who do understand it, and then try to pretend I'm actually smarter than them or that they're a bunch of fools. This is the behavior of a very insecure person.

995 Salamantis  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 3:19:32pm

re: #941 faraway

Let's start with this.

"Homo erectus has long been regarded as the direct antecedent to Homo sapiens. Recently, this assumption has been questioned."

That sentence does not THAT humans evolved from ancient hominid ancestors; it simply questions whether erectus was our particular direct antecedent. Btw: erectus lived several million years AFTER the human-chimpanzee evolutionary divergence.

996 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 3:20:13pm

re: #991 Sharmuta

We are fish. *glub glub*


Nope,
Slim mold. Drives creationists crazy.

997 nikis-knight  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 3:20:20pm

re: #989 Naso Tang

It (Darwin bumper sticker) is not tongue in cheek as much as it is making fun of the one that came first by those who have to publicly proclaim their religion. I don't have any stickers, but I did see one once, with Georgia plates no less, that said "Born right the first time".

Yeah, that's pretty much what I meant by tongue in cheek--a bit of fun mockery. A very poor way of opening a dialogue is by making fun of someone.
Try to convince some one that evolution and their religion is compatible by using Darwin to mock their religion?

Then wonder why they don't bother to understand evolution?

Sorry, the Darwin reptile people are the jerks there.

998 Salamantis  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 3:22:47pm

re: #954 faraway

I see why this requires 65 links and hours of Googling. My little old head is swimming.

Now, who is our direct ancestor if not mr. erectus?

According to the cited article, it could be ergaster.

999 Lynn B.  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 3:25:11pm

re: #346 IslandLibertarian

George Bush?
Asked about creation and evolution, Bush said: "I think you can have both. I think evolution can -- you're getting me way out of my lane here. I'm just a simple president. But it's, I think that God created the earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty and I don't think it's incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution."

Yeah, but then there was this:

President Bush invigorated proponents of teaching alternatives to evolution in public schools with remarks saying that schoolchildren should be taught about "intelligent design," a view of creation that challenges established scientific thinking and promotes the idea that an unseen force is behind the development of humanity.

Although he said that curriculum decisions should be made by school districts rather than the federal government, Bush told Texas newspaper reporters in a group interview at the White House on Monday that he believes that intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution as competing theories.

"Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about," he said, according to an official transcript of the session. Bush added: "Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."

And it gets worse.

1000 tatterdemalian  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 3:26:04pm

Ms. Coulter is just using the old diversion-by-projection strategy, perfected by the AGW believers. She knows that "intelligent design" is really cargo cult "science," aping the terminology and jargon of scientists without actually performing any scientific experimentation at all, because the "hypotheses" of intelligent design simply aren't falsifiable. So she simply accuses the scientists of doing what the "intelligent design" believers do, and if anyone points out any flaws in her argument, she can simply accuse them of lowering the debate to a "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I" playground taunt level (preemptively, if need be, by pointing out the similarities herself and forming those facts into a strawman of any dissenter).

1001 JHW  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 3:26:34pm

re: #954 faraway

It's been a while since I've studied science also,school days farrrrrr in the past, but this is a one-stop source at the Univ. Cal. Berkeley you may find useful. It's geared to all comers, from k-12 to adults, a most excellent source.
Understanding Evolution, U.C. Berkeley site

Very clear and understandable for the layman.

1002 Salamantis  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 3:27:27pm

re: #959 faraway

So, scientists 'believe' there is an ancestor? Or there is undeniable proof of an ancestor?

There is statistically undeniable proof that humans and great apes diverged from common ancestors. It is artifactual retroviral DNA sequence evidence, and I have linked to it for you on this very thread. You illegitimately and gratuitously pooh-poohed it because it was published in the New Yorker. One need not believe in that for which empirical evidence exists; one can come to know it by objectively and dispassionately perusing that empirical evidence. All of which seems quantums beyond your capacity or will.

1003 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 3:29:12pm

re: #997 nikis-knight

Sorry, the Darwin reptile people are the jerks there.

Perhaps, but IMHO so are all those others who insist on wearing public labels, particularly those that indicate ignorance.

1004 nikis-knight  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 3:30:40pm

re: #1003 Naso Tang

Perhaps, but IMHO so are all those others who insist on wearing public labels, particularly those that indicate ignorance.

What about the Jesus fish represents ignorance? It has nothing to do with creationism.

And why does that make someone a jerk?

1005 Salamantis  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 3:34:43pm

re: #995 Salamantis

That sentence does not THAT humans evolved from ancient hominid ancestors; it simply questions whether erectus was our particular direct antecedent. Btw: erectus lived several million years AFTER the human-chimpanzee evolutionary divergence.

Umm...does not deny that....PIMF

1006 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 3:37:06pm

re: #997 nikis-knight

Yeah, that's pretty much what I meant by tongue in cheek--a bit of fun mockery. A very poor way of opening a dialogue is by making fun of someone.
Try to convince some one that evolution and their religion is compatible by using Darwin to mock their religion?

Then wonder why they don't bother to understand evolution?

I forgot to add to this, that your argument sounds kind of like the kid who thinks a teacher isn't nice enough, and makes that a justification for not learning.

This is a dialog at some level, true, but mostly it is the battle between superstition and reason that humanity has always had.

1007 J.S.  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 3:43:17pm

re: #927 Zimriel

Please explain what you mean by: "How does this square with an ant colony? or a dog pack?" Specifically, what does the term "this" refer to?

1008 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 3:44:13pm

re: #1004 nikis-knight

What about the Jesus fish represents ignorance? It has nothing to do with creationism.

And why does that make someone a jerk?

You have a point. The Jesus fish eating the Darwin one is more specific, and I am indeed guilty of making assumptions about whether the fish alone indicates creationism. My experience with people suggests that it does most of the time, but there can be exceptions.

However, I do have little patience with people "who wear their religion on their sleeve" as the expression goes, and that is not limited to Christians by any means.

I'm sure they exist somewhere, but I have never seen a bumper sticker indicating atheist (unless you think evolutionists are closet atheists), and they amount to 10% or more of the population.

1009 Ziggy Standard  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 3:45:51pm

re: #94 yma o hyd


Hills are alive with the sound of ants — talking to each other

Interesting! Put me in mind of this - Bill Bailey: Human Slaves in an Insect Nation

Youtube Video
1010 nikis-knight  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 3:53:28pm

re: #1006 Naso Tang

I forgot to add to this, that your argument sounds kind of like the kid who thinks a teacher isn't nice enough, and makes that a justification for not learning.

This is a dialog at some level, true, but mostly it is the battle between superstition and reason that humanity has always had.

Nah, I'm not justifying anything; creationism is still incorrect. But this tangent started when someone said the Darwin fish was just the Jesus fish with legs--faith plus reason, how sweet. That's not at all what it is intended as, it's an obvious slight where none is called for, and it contributes to the schism rather than bridges it.

As for someone being a jerk for displaying a "label," do you feel the same way about a simple American flag?

1011 nikis-knight  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 4:01:42pm

re: #1008 Naso Tang
The one you cited before, about "I was born right the first time" is nearly an athiest bumper sticker.
That's the problem with expressing atheism, though, most statements of atheistic "belief" tend to be snide (or at least snarky) sounding rebuttals, since the ones who take it seriously are more against some beliefs than for something in particular.

1012 Mirage  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 4:02:03pm

Dang, this jumped 300 posts as I was reading and it will probably jump another 300 as I'm typing this. In a nutshell, the best way I've found to reconcile creationism and evolution is to seperate the focus of the two completely...

creationism - who and why
evolution - how and when

Keep the science to the facts and the religion to the philosophy. One is side is provable, one side is not. My $.50 worth of opinion (adjusted for inflation)

1013 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 4:02:31pm

re: #1010 nikis-knight

Nah, I'm not justifying anything; creationism is still incorrect. But this tangent started when someone said the Darwin fish was just the Jesus fish with legs--faith plus reason, how sweet. That's not at all what it is intended as, it's an obvious slight where none is called for, and it contributes to the schism rather than bridges it.

As for someone being a jerk for displaying a "label," do you feel the same way about a simple American flag?

*shrug* To some the fish indicates an expectation for respect, just on that basis alone. That too is pious conceit and builds no bridges.

As to labels, yes they are generally divisive by their very nature, indicating a difference from many around one (if everyone felt the same, what would be the point of the label?), but the flag makes a different statement does it not?

It says we are all Americans together and regardless of party or religion, that is always true.

1014 nikis-knight  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 4:02:38pm

(By the way, I'm not on some crusade about this, it's just an interesting tangent.)

1015 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 4:05:52pm

re: #1011 nikis-knight

The one you cited before, about "I was born right the first time" is nearly an athiest bumper sticker.
That's the problem with expressing atheism, though, most statements of atheistic "belief" tend to be snide (or at least snarky) sounding rebuttals, since the ones who take it seriously are more against some beliefs than for something in particular.

It could just as well have been Catholic, but it was not specifically against religion, I am not, just those who think a certain, IMHO "in your face" way.

1016 Irish Rose  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 4:05:55pm

Ann Coulter... don't like her, don't respect her. Sorry.

1017 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 4:07:06pm

re: #1014 nikis-knight

I trust you don't find me crusading either.

1018 nikis-knight  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 4:10:30pm

re: #1013 Naso Tang

I don't think divisions are bad. People can have positive relations between divisions, though it is harder. But I don't have a problem with competing ideologies/group identities, even within a country like ours, so long as there is also an overarching respect for what is in common and a recognition of a shared humanity and all that.

1019 nikis-knight  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 4:11:56pm

re: #1015 Naso Tang

It could just as well have been Catholic, but it was not specifically against religion, I am not, just those who think a certain, IMHO "in your face" way.

heh, not orthodox catholic, anyway; don't they hold to original sin? IE, born wrong?

1020 Mirage  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 4:13:04pm

Stop continental drift!

Reunite Gonwanaland!

Two of the funniest bumper stickers I've seen on a car in a University parking lot. I wish I took a picture.

1021 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 4:17:20pm

re: #1019 nikis-knight

heh, not orthodox catholic, anyway; don't they hold to original sin? IE, born wrong?

tsk tsk. Don't get disrespectful now...

1022 Ziggy Standard  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 4:24:39pm

re: #943 SFGoth

How do creationists account for horrible diseases and birth defects? Oh yeah, it's His Plan and we can't understand it.

Oh come on that's easy. God wants us to get good at medical science. What better incentive for that could there be than a bunch of horrible diseases and birth defects? And just to keep us from becoming complacent, he lovingly hand-crafts a bunch of new ones from time to time as well./

1023 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 4:25:16pm

re: #1018 nikis-knight

I don't think divisions are bad. People can have positive relations between divisions, though it is harder. But I don't have a problem with competing ideologies/group identities, even within a country like ours, so long as there is also an overarching respect for what is in common and a recognition of a shared humanity and all that.

There is that, but were we started was the premise some of those divisions are fundamentally dangerous to what is shared. In the simplest form, ignorance of and disbelief in reality. Let me say that I know many believers to whom their faith is very important and comforting, but they don't preach to me and neither do I to them, and most don't know I am an atheist.

If I sound like a Dawkins clone at times, it is based on those I have seen pointing at me from the TV.

Anyway, I'm glad we have come to know each other better, but now I've got to go pay some attention to my wife, so 'till later.

1024 lostlakehiker  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 4:28:10pm

re: #969 Cato the Elder

Cooperation in humans especially is an evolutionary advantage. If we were breaking some kind of imaginary "red in tooth and claw" law, why have we covered the earth with our societies, and why are we at the top of the food chain?

Game, set, match.


Watch for this strawman argument: while cooperation may help the society, it does nothing to help the individual who falls on the grenade. Thus, cooperative behavior cannot evolve.

And here's the reason that argument is wrong: cooperation can be selected for even so. First, it can happen that the organisms you're cooperating with share some, many, or even all of your own genes. If you lay down your life to save the life of your Queen and several of your Sisters, you're a winner of an ant in Darwinian terms. Well, you're dead, but your GENES are alive, and in greater numbers than they would have been.

If you're a human and you're part of an infantry patrol, shirking will serve the interests of your genes nicely. At first sight. But humans have a finally calibrated sense of fairness and hot resentment boils against shirkers. (Genes that promote this tendency will be selected for too.) It's not so easy to shirk and be seen as a cooperator. So your choices are to shirk and be punished for it, and be a member of a patrol that's unsafe for everybody because nobody loves his "brother", or to not shirk, play it straight, and be a hero if necessary, and be a member of a patrol that's less likely to get bushwhacked and slaughtered, because your "brother"'s got your back, and you've got his.

Kinship selection and the payoff from reciprocal altruism explain cooperation. The fact that human warrior bands literally call themselves a "band of brothers" points to an evolutionary tie-in that harnesses kinship-selection-favored tendencies to buttress reciprocal altruistic tendencies when the stakes are as high as life or death.

1025 ConservatismNow!  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 4:41:13pm

re: #1024 lostlakehiker

I'm intrigued by your ideas. I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

1026 Ziggy Standard  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 4:41:55pm

re: #997 nikis-knight

This seems to amount to a general argument against mocking religion in a fun way(splendid example below). I think religious people should be able to handle that, and usually can unless they are fundamentalists of some sort.

Youtube Video
1027 Ziggy Standard  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 4:57:28pm

re: #1026 Jimmah

I should add - And if they can't, too bad.

1028 Lynn B.  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 5:23:10pm

re: #1007 J.S.

Please explain what you mean by: "How does this square with an ant colony? or a dog pack?" Specifically, what does the term "this" refer to?

It was a response to #879 Cato,

Species do not cooperate to preserve the existing genetic types. To do so is putting those types outside of the productive/destructive process of natural selection.
1029 hazzyday  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 5:26:14pm

From someone familiar with Coulters church.

She quotes "Ron Choong, who is an elder of Redeemer Presbyterian Church" if I am reading that article correctly. I see them advocating creationism, but not identifying it as yecism

“Darwinism exposes Christianity’s weakness in keeping up with the growing scientific knowledge. We use the fruits of scientific technology and blissfully ignore its implications for a contemporary and comprehensive biblical worldview. We ought to (i) Learn the basic idea behind the theory, (ii) make informed judgments about what it entails, (iii) assess it impact on Christianity, and (iv) construct a biblically faithful comprehensive worldview that accounts for the growth of scientific knowledge.”

1030 NoWhereAlaska  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 5:39:51pm

re: #1029 hazzyday

As I read the link you gave, I thought too bad Ann Coulter hadn't written that blog entry. It is a sound statement of how faith and science can be discussed. Also, I liked the comments about 'evolution' as FACT.

Thanks.

1031 Basho  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 5:46:52pm

Evolution of rocks:

Youtube Video
1032 jroberson  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 5:48:51pm

re: #711 Jetpilot1101

You're ignorant because you cling to superstition as an explanation for anything. Science is the only mover, the only explanation. There is no demonstrable God. If I say that a Pink Unicorn created the Universe, my belief certainly doesn't make it so. Only science says it is so.

You cling to God in the spaces between what is known and what isn't. If evidence came forth, undeniable evidence of pre-cosmic branes that collided and created this universe, you'd simply shift your position and say God created them. Oh wait, you already said that.

Well then , if we could somehow show that some other pre-cosmic entity, lets call them 'planes' or hanes or whatever, and that they created the branes that created the universe, you'd shift God again, saying he created the planes/hanes. And on, ad infinitum. Such is the magic of hiding God at the impossible, undiscoverable origin of an infinite matryoshka-esque universe.

Using your logic that god is the prime mover, the origin of reality, I have to ask the most important question of all: who or what created god?

The notion of god is so un-evolved, so primitive. I just can't understand how (not why, as the why is self-serving) enlightened modern people cling to God as an explanation for anything.

1033 hazzyday  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 5:52:53pm

Carm members debate evolution. Carm is a Presbyterian think tank.

Within the church the members are having the same arguments. I haven't seen anything yet where yecism is officially advocated.

1034 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 5:55:51pm

re: #1029 hazzyday

Back again.

That link was a little confusing. If I understood it right, it seems that this Choong is not well regarded by the writer, being kind of loose with the interpretations and certainly not preaching what Coulter does.

On the other hand the 4 points above can be taken any way one wants. On the one hand, who is "We"? Everyone for themselves?

Learn the basic idea? From whom?
Make informed judgments about what it entails? See point 1.
Assess impact on Christianity? Whose version of Christianity?
Construct a biblically faithful worldview of.....knowledge? According to...?

1035 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 5:56:35pm

re: #1030 NoWhereAlaska

Clearly we disagree.

1036 hazzyday  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 6:01:31pm

re: #1032 jroberson

Science is a subset of God. Do Darwinist's believe this? Humans project the conception of God unto themselves using the tools of language at hand. Those tools evolve over time as humanity lifts it's conception of itself up. Is this consciousness lifting that occurs in tandem with evolution drive by evolutionary theory only? or by what we perceive to be God? Awareness of the relationship of God to the individual mind is best thought out internally. But one may observe the actions of those around and obtain a better clarity.

To say "there is no God" would seem to limit your chances to be right more so than to say "there is a God"

1037 hazzyday  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 6:03:57pm

re: #1034 Naso Tang

It was to me also confusing, but what I got from it is that the evolution debate is occurring within the Church in 1998. Coulter's opinions might be her own. Which to me suggests she is not on terms with her church. But there are church members there that agree with her. I am still looking for someplace where this church takes an official stance.

1038 Cato  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 6:05:56pm

re: #885 Charles

For a smart guy Charles, you have trouble following an argument. I believe examples to BE evidence. Apparently you do not.

Darwin requires the Malthusean principle to hold. Populations expand up to their ability to feed. Those who cannot feed die off. Thus, the constant struggle culls and is the primary strainer, other less important being pestilence, war and predation.

Have you struggled for food today? What about your neighbors? No. Well how have you tried to reproduce today?

What about our military? DO these courageous men do ill because they risk not passing on their genes in as great a number as possible because of the profession they chose? WHat about doctors? Are they ill prepared for life because they have a higher chance of getting sick and dying from patient bourne illness?

Charles Darwin is NOT about genetics, although genes are influenced by natural selection. Darwin is about a process that is just completely inapplicable to man. We have evolved beyond it and therefore the process is NOT universal. To the extent you think it is, you have to twist yourself in knots or say what is obvious to all is not evidence.

And yes, I have been greatly influenced by David Stove on this by his "Darwinian Fairytails" book, but not by his reading of Popper.

1039 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 6:07:26pm

re: #1032 jroberson

This isn't really a forum for this discussion. Plenty of other atheist places around for those who want to do so. Belief in god, or spirituality, takes many forms and is not the focus of LGF, as I see it.

Rather the focus here is on specific issues that directly effect daily life in one way or another.

Just saying, before you get your ass kicked.

1040 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 6:10:03pm

re: #1036 hazzyday

To say "there is no God" would seem to limit your chances to be right more so than to say "there is a God"

Pascal's wager. Read up on it.

I think he was being sarcastic myself.

1041 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 6:11:13pm

re: #1038 Cato

Are you talking to Charles Darwin? He's dead you know.

1042 hazzyday  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 6:16:21pm

re: #1040 Naso Tang

Pascal's wager. Read up on it.

I think he was being sarcastic myself.

I've wiki'd it once from a link here. That is probably why I am trying to intuit in my own words. If believers work from a faith perspective they have to account for that Atheists are part of God's plan. Where someone who is an Atheist doesn't have to.

1043 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 6:18:16pm

re: #1042 hazzyday

Freedom and responsibility. They go hand in hand.

1044 jroberson  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 6:23:53pm

re: #1039 Naso Tang

Just saying, before you get your ass kicked.

I'm absolutely terrified. That's sarcasm, btw, as I'm a veteran of flame wars with heavy lefties who knew my every personal habit and inclination. I'm solid and unfazed. My only weakeness is that I'm currently using IE.

1045 Tigger2005  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 6:27:46pm

re: #1038 Cato

Charles Darwin is NOT about genetics, although genes are influenced by natural selection. Darwin is about a process that is just completely inapplicable to man. We have evolved beyond it and therefore the process is NOT universal. To the extent you think it is, you have to twist yourself in knots or say what is obvious to all is not evidence.

Charles Darwin or Darwin, is not "about" anything. Charles Darwin was a man with a theory. That theory is "evolution." There is no such thing as "Darwinism."

As for "we have evolved beyond" Darwin, or evolution, that evolution is "inapplicable" to man, that is the most ridiculous and bizarre thing I have ever heard. We are still very much subject to evolutionary processes, no matter how effective we may be at altering our environment to suit ourselves. In fact, the very act of altering our environment to suit ourselves has caused evolutionary changes, such as our relative hairlessness.

Just because we can resist or block out natural forces and processes more effectively than other creatures does not mean we are no longer subject to natural forces and processes. And nature has a nasty way of reminding us of this from time to time.

1046 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 6:28:57pm

re: #1038 Cato

For a smart guy Charles, you have trouble following an argument. I believe examples to BE evidence.

That's your problem, right there. Arguing an opinion is not evidence, it is not fact. Just arguing, and opinion.

1047 Haverwilde  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 6:33:31pm

re: #1034 Naso Tang


That link was a little confusing. If I understood it right, it seems that this Choong is not well regarded by the writer, being kind of loose with the interpretations and certainly not preaching what Coulter does.

On the other hand the 4 points above can be taken any way one wants. On the one hand, who is "We"? Everyone for themselves?

Learn the basic idea? From whom?
Make informed judgments about what it entails? See point 1.
Assess impact on Christianity? Whose version of Christianity?
Construct a biblically faithful worldview of.....knowledge? According to...?

re: #1035 Naso Tang

Clearly we disagree.

You say you disagree, yet seem to find merit in the same link that NWA found merit. I am confused

1048 Cato  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 6:38:38pm

re: #1046 Slumbering Behemoth

I say "A is evidence of B" and you say "you gave no evidence for that". I say "A is the evidence". And you say "where is the evidence?". I may be right or wrong, but you can only be dense. Either refute A is evidence, say it is evidence but of something else or agree. Don't pretend I didn't say anything.

1049 USBeast  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 6:42:05pm

re: #1038 Cato

This is one of the most grotesquely twisted arguments I've ever read. We are speaking about the survival and evolution of species, not individuals. If an individual sacrifices himself to save another man's child it does not disprove the theory of evolution. As to the sacrifices of our military; they are the clearest evidence of the advance of human evolution.

1050 Charles Johnson  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 6:46:09pm

re: #1038 Cato

For a smart guy Charles, you have trouble following an argument. I believe examples to BE evidence. Apparently you do not.

"Evidence" means facts.

Not the opinions of creationists.

If you had actually made an evidence-based argument, I'd respond to it. But all you're doing is spewing pathetic, long-discredited creationist talking points.

1051 Cato  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 6:49:20pm

re: #1045 Tigger2005

I think "Darwinism" exists, at least in a nominal way, since there is an article about it on Wikipedia.

We clearly live our day-to-day lives in an environment that is nothing at all like the life Malthus or Darwin proposed (Darwin specifically states Malthus gave him the idea for the engine for natural selection). That unforeseen events can arise which will cause us to have to adapt or which might cull out certain traits is beyond doubt. That doesn't mean Darwin's paradigm was correct with respect to man, only that changes from ordinary reality might once again make them relevant.

1052 USBeast  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 6:57:20pm

re: #1051 Cato

I think "Darwinism" exists, at least in a nominal way, since there is an article about it on Wikipedia.

We clearly live our day-to-day lives in an environment that is nothing at all like the life Malthus or Darwin proposed (Darwin specifically states Malthus gave him the idea for the engine for natural selection). That unforeseen events can arise which will cause us to have to adapt or which might cull out certain traits is beyond doubt. That doesn't mean Darwin's paradigm was correct with respect to man, only that changes from ordinary reality might once again make them relevant.

Sophistry, pure sophistry.

1053 Haverwilde  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 6:57:29pm

re: #1051 Cato

I think "Darwinism" exists, at least in a nominal way, since there is an article about it on Wikipedia.


Okay Wikipedia says:

Darwinism is a term used for various movements or concepts related to ideas of transmutation of species or evolution, including ideas with no connection to the work of Charles Darwin. The meaning of Darwinism has changed over time, and depends on who is using the term.

So if you are using the term define it first. At least we can then argue about something specific.

1054 Charles Johnson  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 6:58:41pm

re: #1053 Haverwilde

So if you are using the term define it first. At least we can then argue about something specific.

Good luck with that.

1055 Cato  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 7:01:24pm

re: #1050 Charles

Where in anyone you like's name do you see my argument as a creationist argument? Stop looking for creationists around every rock. I am no creationist. Creationism is not science. In fact, as far as I can tell, it is not even a theory. It is more like an anti-theory, saying we have problems with that Darwin guy BECAUSE we know God did it.

What I am saying is that Darwin's argument is wholly adequate with respect to some species (cods and pine in Stove's memorable phrase), not really adequate for others (hymenoptera are an example of that, as the sociobiologists recognize but don't quite fix correctly), and really off-base for man. I gave you examples. Examples are evidence. Feel free to disagree, but don't give me bull that it isn't evidence.

As for the inadequacy of Darwinian theory, don't sweat it. Relativity is wrong too, yet it remains the best understanding we have yet of applicable phenomena. (It is wrong because its premise has already been made false -- information can travel faster than light through quantum tunneling and entanglement). So does Darwin, for a lot of stuff. FOr others, not so much.

1056 Haverwilde  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 7:02:34pm

re: #1054 Charles

Good luck with that.

You got me giggling with that comment.

I guess I know its a lost cause but... These folks can be so densely convoluted and frustating. I want to find some point that can be actually discussed, instead of avoided.

1057 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 7:03:47pm

re: #1044 jroberson

Just trying to be helpful. Try Chrome. It loads fast at least.

1058 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 7:06:13pm

re: #1048 Cato

Your opinion is that "altruism, alcohol, anal intercourse, abortion" is evidence against the theory of evolution as it applies to humans, and you're gonna call me dense?

I want your dealer's number. Whatever you're smoking must be top-notch stuff.

1059 USBeast  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 7:06:19pm

re: #1053 Haverwilde

So if you are using the term define it first. At least we can then argue about something specific.

Good point. Invoking "Darwinism" allows the opponents of science to attack the man. If those same opponents have to tackle the proponents of theory of evolution they find themselves out numbered. If they are forced to tackle the evidence...they run and hide go back to attacking "Darwanism".

1060 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 7:07:55pm

re: #1047 Haverwilde

You say you disagree, yet seem to find merit in the same link that NWA found merit. I am confused

I found only that it didn't sound like what Coulter preaches, but I also said I didn't think much of what was said. The poster I disagreed with liked it.

1061 Cato  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 7:08:30pm

re: #1049 USBeast

Darwin said species survive and adapt BECAUSE of individuals. I think our military are some of the most profoundly decent and admirable people in our society. Yet, because of the danger they freely accept as part of their duty, they are less likely to survive and procreate. This behavior is something Darwin tells us should not happen, yet it does. Why? Becauswe Darwin is wrong, that's why.

1062 Tigger2005  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 7:09:12pm

re: #1038 Cato

For a smart guy Charles, you have trouble following an argument. I believe examples to BE evidence. Apparently you do not.

Really cool of you to insult your host this way.

Darwin requires the Malthusean principle to hold. Populations expand up to their ability to feed. Those who cannot feed die off. Thus, the constant struggle culls and is the primary strainer, other less important being pestilence, war and predation.

EVOLUTION (not "Darwin") "requires" no such thing. All evolution requires is imperfect replicators, and ALL replicators replicate imperfectly. Evolution, genetic drift, the change in allele frequencies over time, is happening all the time, in all species, including us. Even if there is no struggle, there is still imperfect replication.

Have you struggled for food today? What about your neighbors? No. Well how have you tried to reproduce today?

You're just not getting it. Species don't change "because" of struggle or reproduction. Species change because they are imperfect replicators. When there's no, or very little, selective pressure they change very slowly, even imperceptibly, but they still change. Struggle, disease, predation, natural disasters, and so on just tend to push the changes faster. But struggle isn't essential to the process. Imperfect replication, and evolution, go on in the absence of struggle.

What about our military? DO these courageous men do ill because they risk not passing on their genes in as great a number as possible because of the profession they chose? WHat about doctors? Are they ill prepared for life because they have a higher chance of getting sick and dying from patient bourne illness?

What in the world is your point here? Are you saying that evolution must drive every single living thing to be a selfish, sex-crazed baby-making coward who would never put him or her self at risk for another living thing of the same species, and the fact that some human beings forego having lots of children or choose to risk themselves for the sake of others means evolution is no longer applicable to us?

Again, you simply do not understand evolution. You are very confused. You think that evolution consists solely of some of the forces that drive noticeable micro- and macro-evolutionary changes--struggle, disease, predation, and so on. But that is not the case. The primary cause of evolution is something that happens every single time a child is conceived--imperfect replication.

1063 Haverwilde  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 7:14:09pm

re: #1055 Cato

What I am saying is that Darwin's argument theory is wholly adequate with respect to some species ... and really off-base for man.


Example where it worked in man: development of the ability to digest milk past childhood in culture where cows were domesticated. Those with that ability (fittest) survived, those that couldn't (not so well). Forget that non-sense about violence, think more globally.

1064 Cato  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 7:15:04pm

re: #1058 Slumbering Behemoth

Natural selection makes no distinction between attributes and activities. Right now large predators in Australia are dying out from eating poisonous frogs. Those predators who don't like frog meat will live and those who do will die out. Yet these activities I listed have not died out and abortion has probably increased, at least since Roe. They are obviously negative for procreation. Is this a world Darwin's theory describes?

1065 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 7:16:06pm

re: #1055 Cato

Your problem is that you throw stuff out that you clearly don't understand, and you repeatedly make the classic creationist argument that if there one area that has a "gap" then everything else is suspect, if not outright wrong.

Quantum mechanics, for example, does not invalidate relativity, nor does either pretend to explain what we know we don't know. You pretend to know better, without offering anything new.

1066 justadot  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 7:21:22pm

re: #899 faraway

Tell you what. You just paste me a few paragraphs in here. I'm kinda slow, but I'll try to read me some dang science.
/

A real wiseass - you want evidence but you won't even click on a link. I'll tell you what: try approaching the world with a sense of curiosity. You could've looked through any of Heidmann's publications and learned something about endogenous retroviruses.

For example, Sal's New Yorker article cited this paper (#10 on that list I gave you earlier): Identification of an infectious progenitor for the multiple-copy HERV-K human endogenous retroelements.
When a retrovirus invades a cell, its single-stranded RNA can be reverse-transcribed by an enzyme known as reverse transcriptase to give double-stranded DNA, which then gets inserted by a protein known as integrase into the host's genomic DNA. (You can call it a provirus at that point.) These, in turn, can be transcribed into mRNA to produce new viruses and infect other cells.

Sequences like these can found throughout the human genome, but many of them have been there for millions of years. You can read through some of Heidmann's work for examples of those that are common to all primates (excepting prosimians) that demonstrate shared ancestry. Those endogenous retroviral sequences have experienced nucleotide insertions and deletions over many years so they're different from when they were first introduced into the genome -- they're broken up with added-on pieces, etc. They're not functional; that is, you don't get new infections from them.

Heidmann took sequences from one family of endogenous retroviruses - the HERV-K(HML2) family. These sequences are multiple copies of a 9.4-kB length provirus taken from different sites in the genome. Of course, they have different inserts and deletes so they're a bit different from one another. Heidmann used a tool called ClustalW - a multiple sequence alignment tool (and you and anyone else can use it, if you wish.) ClustalW aligned all those copies to give a consensus sequence to recreate (as close as possible) the original proviral sequence. From this, he was able to create a clone containing this sequence -- dubbed Phoenix.

When the Phoenix element was introduced into human cells, Heidmann found evidence for different components of the original retrovirus had been synthesized such as the HERV-K(HML2) envelope protein. He later demonstrated that Phoenix could actually infect mammalian cells and itegrate into the host genomes, just like a retrovirus would.

Heidmann had resurrected the "ancestral" retrovirus -- the first time that's ever been done.

Read some of those links from NCBI. At least you'll have some idea what you're rejecting.

1067 USBeast  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 7:23:40pm

re: #1061 Cato

Darwin said species survive and adapt BECAUSE of individuals. I think our military are some of the most profoundly decent and admirable people in our society. Yet, because of the danger they freely accept as part of their duty, they are less likely to survive and procreate. This behavior is something Darwin tells us should not happen, yet it does. Why? Becauswe Darwin is wrong, that's why.

Excuse me! Just where does Darwin tell us that this behavior is contra-survival? Did it never occur to you that many of our "profoundly decent and and admirable people in our society" have procreated and are fighting to make sure that their children and those who might defend those children might survive? Have you ever read any book pertaining to this subject that did not start with "In the beginning..."?

1068 Cato  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 7:31:22pm

re: #1065 Naso Tang

A) Show me the evidence that I have said one thing creationist? That I believe one theory to be inadequate in some whay does not imply I endorse another theory, particularly when I don't and have said so.

B) Of course quantum mechanics doesn't invalidate relativity, and I never said it did. I said that relativity is premised on the the notion that information cannot be transferred faster than the speed of light. It can be. We are up to 2x c through quatum tunneling and infinitely faster by way of entanglement. It seems EPR is not the case (see Bell's inequality).

1069 hazzyday  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 7:35:47pm

re: #1061 Cato

Darwin said species survive and adapt BECAUSE of individuals. I think our military are some of the most profoundly decent and admirable people in our society. Yet, because of the danger they freely accept as part of their duty, they are less likely to survive and procreate. This behavior is something Darwin tells us should not happen, yet it does. Why? Becauswe Darwin is wrong, that's why.

Your paragraph here seems illogical to me. Danger can just as easily make them more likely to procreate. Evolution probably doesn't care.

Martini slurping intellectuals who believe in abortion are probably more likely to have their genetic histories weeded out when in competition with beer guzzling procreators. Beer rules over time.

1070 Cato  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 7:37:22pm

re: #1063 Haverwilde

Is there anything more global than the military, religion, selfishness and altruism, and substance dependency? I think the digestion of milk the more particular.

1071 USBeast  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 7:41:33pm

re: #1068 Cato

A) Show me the evidence that I have said one thing creationist? That I believe one theory to be inadequate in some whay does not imply I endorse another theory, particularly when I don't and have said so.

B) Of course quantum mechanics doesn't invalidate relativity, and I never said it did. I said that relativity is premised on the the notion that information cannot be transferred faster than the speed of light. It can be. We are up to 2x c through quatum tunneling and infinitely faster by way of entanglement. It seems EPR is not the case (see Bell's inequality).

Ooo, I'm totally impressed! Now can we please get back to your attack on the proven fact of evolution?

1072 Cato  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 7:41:57pm

re: #1069 hazzyday

You may be right. You may be wrong. You may have been wrong for the last 1000 years, but right for the future. Who knows? But we both know that martini drinking intellectuals

1073 Tigger2005  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 7:44:27pm

re: #1061 Cato

Darwin said species survive and adapt BECAUSE of individuals. I think our military are some of the most profoundly decent and admirable people in our society. Yet, because of the danger they freely accept as part of their duty, they are less likely to survive and procreate. This behavior is something Darwin tells us should not happen, yet it does. Why? Becauswe Darwin is wrong, that's why.

First, no one says Darwin was "right" about everything. Einstein wasn't right about everything either. But both men got a hell of a lot more right than they got wrong. Evolution remains a powerful theory, one that has moved beyond Darwin. He got it mostly right as far as he could go, and since then many others have tested and further refined his ideas and added to his theory. So if Darwin was wrong about something, that doesn't make evolutionary theory wrong. Darwin was a man, who is long dead. His theory is something separate from him, with a life of its own. It's not like, say, Platonism, or National Socialism, which are inextricably connected to Plato and Hitler. He doesn't "own" it, and he wasn't the only one to think of it ... he just published first. Evolution is a description of natural processes, based on evidence and observation.

But I would need a quote (and not a "mined" one) before I will accept that Darwin said evolution should NOT lead to altruistic behavior. As far as I know he never said any such thing. There is no "requirement" that evolution leads only to selfish, ruthless, cowardly, sex-seeking, baby-making individuals. Consider the beehive. Thousands of the bees are sexless worker drones. Others are warriors who, if the hive is attacked, will instantly sacrifice themselves in an attempt to save the queen bee.

One thing that you're not getting is that behavior that may have evolved because it conferred a survival/reproductive advantage (individuals who are not good at hunting or finding their own food, but do things for others and cooperate, are given food--young males who defend the tribe get the best food and the best females, etc.) can, in a conscious, intelligent species like ourselves, can be directed toward purposes not related to survival or reproduction.

1074 Charles Johnson  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 7:45:37pm

The creationists are working in shifts.

Oh, but I forgot. They're not creationists. Snort.

1075 USBeast  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 7:46:04pm

re: #1072 Cato

You may be right. You may be wrong. You may have been wrong for the last 1000 years, but right for the future. Who knows? But we both know that martini drinking intellectuals

...may click "post this comment" before they've finished typing their drivel.

1076 Basho  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 7:50:40pm

Actually, relativity is not violated by quantum mechanics. For example, while it is possible to change an electron and cause an instantaneous change in another electron regardless of distance, information cannot be sent this way. It may be a technicality, but information can never move faster than light.

1077 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 7:55:12pm

re: #1075 USBeast

...may click "post this comment" before they've finished typing their drivel.

Chortle!

1078 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 7:55:14pm

re: #1068 Cato

You have said many things that sound creationist, and if you have paid any attention at all I shouldn't need to repeat what others have told you. In particular though, and you have been told this also, you repeatedly talk about what you "believe", not what you know.

Another telltale is your partial acceptance of evolution, as if god used evolution in some places but waved a magic wand on others, where you choose to believe so (specifically those where you don't understand). That sounds uncomfortably like an ID mindset.

As to quantum mechanics and entanglement, I am far from an authority and just read things like SciAm, but I do think you are confused as to what this means in any real sense. It does not violate relativity and transmission of data above light speed. What it says is that if you make a measurement (of say a photon spin) at one place, you can get the same measurement instantaneously of an entangled photon at another place, but only of an entangled photon which must be defined in advance, and you cannot know what that measurement will be before you make it.

Spooky indeed, as Einstein said, but not faster than light transmission of your bio.

No doubt there will be more to learn in this field, but your beliefs will not determine what that may be.

1079 USBeast  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 7:55:40pm

re: #1076 Basho

Actually, relativity is not violated by quantum mechanics. For example, while it is possible to change an electron and cause an instantaneous change in another electron regardless of distance, information cannot be sent this way. It may be a technicality, but information can never move faster than light.

You are quite right, but information often moves faster than enlightenment.

1080 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 7:56:19pm

re: #1079 USBeast

You are quite right, but information often moves faster than enlightenment.

Guffaw!

1081 Cato  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 7:57:53pm

re: #1062 Tigger2005

A) About Charles, I hold him in the highest esteem. The Rather letter, Iranian trick photography and his general outlook are markers of a fact-based, probing and puckish mind. Yet he has an either/or mentality on evolution. Well, I ain't a creationist and I am not convinced by evolution. Don't make me a creationist just because I don't believe your gospel.

B) I take Darwin to be the fount of evolutionary theory. I have read him. I have not read most of the others except for Gould and Dawkins and, most importantly, Stove. To me evolution IS Darwin and all the rest are footnotes.

Darwin said:"EVERY SINGLE ORGANIC BEING may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase its numbers" Origin of Species

It is the premise to natural selection and I have demonstrated that it is wrong in humans.

1082 Tigger2005  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 7:58:04pm

re: #1064 Cato

Natural selection makes no distinction between attributes and activities. Right now large predators in Australia are dying out from eating poisonous frogs. Those predators who don't like frog meat will live and those who do will die out. Yet these activities I listed have not died out and abortion has probably increased, at least since Roe. They are obviously negative for procreation. Is this a world Darwin's theory describes?

Again, you are just not getting it. There are 5 billion freaking people on this planet. They are intelligent, they can alter the environment to suit themselves, and many of them are not involved in a day-to-day struggle for survival. There is no REASON for non-reproductive activities or abortion to die out. There's not enough selective pressure. This does NOT mean that we are not still subject to evolution, that it is no longer applicable to us, that it is not still acting on us.

1083 NoWhereAlaska  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:01:12pm

re: #1070 Cato

Is there anything more global than the military, religion, selfishness and altruism, and substance dependency? I think the digestion of milk the more particular.


I don't see a coherent thought in there.
So a direct question: Do you recognize the example cited (regarding lactose tolerance), as evolution working within the human species?

1084 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:01:35pm

re: #1081 Cato

To me evolution IS Darwin and all the rest are footnotes.

And if I said Newton is gravity and all the rest is footnotes, I would be making just as much sense as you.

1085 Charles Johnson  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:02:59pm

After countless hours spent trying to talk sense to creationists, I speak from experience when I say: you folks are doing a great job refuting the stupid points made by 'Cato,' but don't expect fanatics like this to ever become rational. They're true believers, in the sense that there is absolutely nothing you can show them that will change their minds.

You're not wasting your time; there are some people whose minds are still open on this subject, and there's a chance that they might come around. You won't see them comment here, and they may not ever make it known, but the seeds are planted.

But the ones who spend hours spewing talking points and vitriol -- they're lost to reason, and you're never going to get anything rational out of them.

And many of them know exactly what they're doing. They're practicing apologetics, and they have no intention of really considering your arguments.

1086 USBeast  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:04:19pm

"It is the premise to natural selection and I have demonstrated that it is wrong in humans."

Cato

No, you have not.

1087 Cato  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:06:16pm

re: #1074 Charles

re: #1078 Naso Tang

You two can't get over that I am unconvinced of evolutionary theory in some contexts, yet not a creationist. I am sure Charles, that people are quite perplexed that you believe in liberal democracy yet are not a liberal. If you aren't a liberal you must, perforce be a fascist, right?

1088 USBeast  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:11:42pm

re: #1087 Cato

re: #1078 Naso Tang

You two can't get over that I am unconvinced of evolutionary theory in some contexts, yet not a creationist. I am sure Charles, that people are quite perplexed that you believe in liberal democracy yet are not a liberal. If you aren't a liberal you must, perforce be a fascist, right?

Sophistry, pure sophistry.

Tell me, dear Cato, do you actually believe in anything or are you just a shill for those who do?

1089 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:12:14pm

re: #1085 Charles

apologetics

Wow, and here I thought this was just a term used for moonbats.

It's a damned science!

1090 sprucepinehollow  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:13:01pm

re: #1073 Tigger2005

"There is no "requirement" that evolution leads only to selfish, ruthless, cowardly, sex-seeking, baby-making individuals. Consider the beehive. Thousands of the bees are sexless worker drones. Others are warriors who, if the hive is attacked, will instantly sacrifice themselves in an attempt to save the queen bee."

Depends on whether you are talking about atheistic evolution or theistic evolution. Atheism can have no moral or ethical compass because there is no right or wrong, good or bad in a system made up of beings that live alone in an absurd universe. Logically, atheistic evolution must lead to nihilism. Any attempt to define purpose or meaning is a dead end.

Regarding bees... The workers are females. They are not sexless. There are no warriors, only guards at the entrance of the hive. Every spring the hive sends out many queen bees, and the males (called drones & have no stingers) mate once with one queen. Their penis breaks off inside the queen and it's all over for the drone. The drones that don't mate hang around for the summer, then in the early fall the female workers drag them out of the hive. The drones all starve to death and the hive creates more drones in the spring.

I can't see how anyone who has worked worked with bees can accept atheistic evolution. The complexity of a hive is beyond belief and is a good example of what molecular biologist Michael Behe and others call irreducible complexity. Take out a key component and the whole system fails.

The beehive though, is a great example of what a darwinian world should look like. Ruthless killing and mating that is biologically driven toward survival.

One other thought for those atheistic evolutionists who are worried about our polluting, overpopulating, overheating and misusing our world. IF we are no more than highly evolved animals, then we are just doing what comes natural. Everything from litter to nuclear waste is as natural as fresh dew drops on a leaf. Why do you give a rats @ss if we blow ourselves to hell and back. We are just acting like humans.

1091 NoWhereAlaska  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:14:15pm

re: #1060 Naso Tang

I found only that it didn't sound like what Coulter preaches, but I also said I didn't think much of what was said. The poster I disagreed with liked it.


It was the opposite of what Coulter preaches.
I gather that you don't have much involvement with organized religion. When I see a segments of conservative protestants, accepting science (evolution as fact) and then trying to fit their beliefs into a larger framework that includes science as well as their own belief systems, than I see hope for intelligent synthesis. Thus I liked the orientation of the passage.

1092 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:14:29pm

re: #1087 Cato

re: #1078 Naso Tang

You two can't get over that I am unconvinced of evolutionary theory in some contexts, yet not a creationist. I am sure Charles, that people are quite perplexed that you believe in liberal democracy yet are not a liberal. If you aren't a liberal you must, perforce be a fascist, right?

I am perfectly happy to concede that you are not a creationist in the simplest sense. They at least are not confused.

1093 USBeast  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:14:36pm

re: #1089 Naso Tang

Wow, and here I thought this was just a term used for moonbats.

It's a damned science!

I'm sure your adjective is correct.

1094 Charles Johnson  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:15:37pm

re: #1090 sprucepinehollow

Here we go with the 'irreducible complexity' sham again.

They're relentless.

1095 jaunte  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:15:53pm

re: #1090 sprucepinehollow

I'm glad your impulses are restrained by the fear of punishment or the hope of reward.

1096 yelnats  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:16:56pm

re: #1081 Cato


Darwin said:"EVERY SINGLE ORGANIC BEING may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase its numbers" Origin of Species

It is the premise to natural selection and I have demonstrated that it is wrong in humans.

Um... as far as I am aware, most humans are trying to increase in numbers, and it is working fairly well. Not every human is striving to reproduce, but you need a variety of traits for natural selection to work with. The variety of people in society is just as important as the variety of cells in the human body. (some cells are noble, and go to war to die and protect other cells)

I don't see any way that humans are breaking in rules. Maybe you need to take some time to learn about other species.

1097 NoWhereAlaska  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:17:08pm

re: #1087 Cato

re: #1078 Naso Tang

You two can't get over that I am unconvinced of evolutionary theory in some contexts, yet not a creationist. I am sure Charles, that people are quite perplexed that you believe in liberal democracy yet are not a liberal. If you aren't a liberal you must, perforce be a fascist, right?

Oh Boy, off on another tangent. Why don't answer my question.

1098 Jim D  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:17:57pm

re: #1094 Charles

And don't forget evolution = atheism.

1099 Cato  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:17:57pm

re: #1083 NoWhereAlaska

Yes, lactose tolerence is an example of evolution in action in man. Now, what of it? No theory can be established, as distinct from being confirmed, just by the cases it successfully explains. It does not matter how many cases there are or how well the theory explains them. For there may be many cases which the theory not only does not explain, but in which the observable facts are the very opposite of what the theory leads one to expect. That is the way evolution of the Darwinian sort currently stands.

1100 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:19:38pm

re: #1091 NoWhereAlaska

It was the opposite of what Coulter preaches.
I gather that you don't have much involvement with organized religion. When I see a segments of conservative protestants, accepting science (evolution as fact) and then trying to fit their beliefs into a larger framework that includes science as well as their own belief systems, than I see hope for intelligent synthesis. Thus I liked the orientation of the passage.

Yes, as I said, it was not a standard Coulter/Creationist tome, but it was a confused one, as if asking "what do we do about this strange thing of which I am made aware?" Kind of in the line of my newest vocabulary addition, Apologetics.

1101 Charles Johnson  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:20:03pm

re: #1087 Cato

You two can't get over that I am unconvinced of evolutionary theory in some contexts, yet not a creationist.

I don't believe you're being honest.

1102 Jim D  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:20:25pm

re: #1099 Cato

It does not matter how many cases there are or how well the theory explains them.

There it is. Evidence doesn't matter.

1103 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:22:27pm

Currently reading 'Monkey Girl', and despite my time on LGF threads covering evolution and ID, I'm utterly stunned by the openly dishonest tactics of creationists that were used in Kansas and Dover. Shameless and shamful.

1104 yelnats  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:23:27pm

re: #1096 yelnats


I don't see any way that humans are breaking in rules.

Oops, I made a typo. That typo didn't benefit my chances survival, so it must mean evolution is a bad theory.
("in" should be "the")

1105 NoWhereAlaska  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:23:28pm

re: #1099 Cato

Yes, lactose tolerence is an example of evolution in action in man. Now, what of it? No theory can be established, as distinct from being confirmed, just by the cases it successfully explains. It does not matter how many cases there are or how well the theory explains them.

For there may be many cases which the theory not only does not explain, but in which the observable facts are the very opposite of what the theory leads one to expect.

That is the way evolution of the Darwinian sort currently stands.

So what evolutionary changes have you seen in the species Homo Sapiens that are in opposition to evolutionary theory?

1106 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:24:52pm

re: #1099 Cato

Yes, lactose tolerence is an example of evolution in action in man. Now, what of it? No theory can be established, as distinct from being confirmed, just by the cases it successfully explains. It does not matter how many cases there are or how well the theory explains them. For there may be many cases which the theory not only does not explain, but in which the observable facts are the very opposite of what the theory leads one to expect. That is the way evolution of the Darwinian sort currently stands.

More gobbledygook. The words "established" and "confirmed" as you use them here show that you don't understand the basic definition of the lexeme "theory".

1107 sprucepinehollow  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:27:29pm

re: #1095 jaunte

I fear no punishment and deserve no reward.

1108 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:28:28pm

re: #1099 Cato

For there may be many cases which the theory not only does not explain, but in which the observable facts are the very opposite of what the theory leads one to expect.

Cite one.

1109 Charles Johnson  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:28:49pm

I have the distinct feeling that we're approaching a "burn in hell!" moment.

1110 Basho  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:29:28pm

re: #1103 Sharmuta

Everyday Sharmuta is reading a new book and making me feel benighted.

1111 jaunte  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:29:30pm

re: #1107 sprucepinehollow

Talk to the hand.

1112 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:29:54pm

Charles- I don't know if you've read 'Monkey Girl', but I hope I'm not over the line in saying I think it would make a great book thread.

1113 USBeast  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:30:13pm

re: #1106 Cato the Elder

More gobbledygook. The words "established" and "confirmed" as you use them here show that you don't understand the basic definition of the lexeme "theory".

Righteous words. Si vale, bene est.

1114 Cato  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:30:19pm

re: #1101 Charles

Charles you now have my email address. You can look me up on the internet in both my law firm and private equity group. With a name like that and an academic record like mine, do you really think I'm a creationist? Moreover, if you send me your address, I will have Amazon send you a copy of David Stove's book, "Darwinian Fairytales". Read it and tell me it doesn't cause you to rethink your beliefs.

1115 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:31:50pm

re: #1114 Cato

Right- because Coulter is a lawyer herself, and there's just no way an educated woman would make creationist comments.

1116 USBeast  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:31:56pm

re: #1109 Charles

I have the distinct feeling that we're approaching a "burn in hell!" moment.

And the nominations are...

1117 Cato  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:34:53pm

re: #1108 Sharmuta


Already have -- altruism, alcoholism, existence and expansion of.

1118 Cato  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:36:38pm

re: #1115 Sharmuta


Coulter does not practice law -- she sells books. I don't believe SHE believes what she says.

1119 USBeast  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:36:41pm

re: #1117 Cato

Already have -- altruism, alcoholism, existence and expansion of.

Rubbish, complete and utter.

1120 Basho  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:38:02pm

That leads to an interesting article:
[Link: www.skeptic.com...]

In this week’s eSkeptic, our regular contributor Kenneth Krause reviews the latest research on altruism, most notably that of primate research in controlled experiments in which both monkeys and apes are given choices to cooperate or compete against game partners in exchange scenarios, with implications for human research in this area.
1121 jaunte  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:38:06pm

Alcoholics never reproduce. Neither do altruists. So those traits are never passed to another generation.
/

1122 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:39:16pm

re: #1114 Cato

Charles you now have my email address. You can look me up on the internet in both my law firm and private equity group.

Ah, a lawyer. That explains the tendency to footnotes and circumstancial evidence.


//

1123 Basho  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:40:17pm

re: #1121 jaunte

True... in college guys like me who never went to bars nor bought anyone drinks were always getting the girls!

1124 Charles Johnson  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:40:53pm

re: #1114 Cato

Charles you now have my email address. You can look me up on the internet in both my law firm and private equity group. With a name like that and an academic record like mine, do you really think I'm a creationist? Moreover, if you send me your address, I will have Amazon send you a copy of David Stove's book, "Darwinian Fairytales". Read it and tell me it doesn't cause you to rethink your beliefs.

David Stove? Ooohhkay. Believe it or not, I'm familiar with David Stove's work. Oddly enough, he's a favorite of the intelligent design crowd, and has no credibility whatsoever as a critic of evolution. He's a philosopher -- and regarded as an outlier and a renegade even in that discipline, completely unqualified to render scientific opinions.

Your claims not to be a creationist are not smelling any better by recommending "Darwinian Fairytales."

1125 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:41:04pm

re: #1117 Cato

I see- you have a fundamental issue with what scientific evidence means. You have proposed a rhetorical argument. They do not withstand scientific scrutiny.

1126 USBeast  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:41:51pm

re: #1121 jaunte

Alcoholics never reproduce. Neither do altruists. So those traits are never passed to another generation.
/

Your sarc tag saved your progeny. Aren't you proud? ;)

1127 Charles Johnson  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:42:37pm

re: #1112 Sharmuta

Charles- I don't know if you've read 'Monkey Girl', but I hope I'm not over the line in saying I think it would make a great book thread.

It's an excellent book; have it on the Kindle. I may do a book thread with several books in that vein.

1128 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:43:03pm

re: #1121 jaunte

Alcoholics never reproduce. Neither do altruists. So those traits are never passed to another generation.
/

Alcoholics can never remember the condom and altruists want to spread the seed for free, so everyone will be alcoholic altruists eventually. AA as they say.

1129 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:45:14pm

re: #1127 Charles

I laughed out loud (literally) when I read of the Kansas "trial" where none of the ID proponents had even read the Majority Report.

1130 Charles Johnson  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:47:40pm

I'm always amused when people think I'm not aware of the issues surrounding the creationism/evolution wars. I've been following this topic for more than 20 years.

1131 Tigger2005  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:48:14pm

re: #1081 Cato

A)Don't make me a creationist just because I don't believe your gospel.

It is not my gospel, and I have never called you a creationist.

B)To me evolution IS Darwin and all the rest are footnotes.

Except it's not, and they aren't.

Darwin said:"EVERY SINGLE ORGANIC BEING may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase its numbers" Origin of Species

It is the premise to natural selection and I have demonstrated that it is wrong in humans.

OK, Darwin could have been wrong about that. As we've learned more about nature, it doesn't appear to be entirely true among animals either. Evolution is a pretty complicated and messy thing, perhaps far moreso than Darwin imagined, and the theory continues to be expanded and refined. I think it's probably more accurate to say that MOST organic beings (but by no means every single one) are striving just to stay alive one way or another.

But since you consider "Darwinism" and "evolution" as synonyms, and regard all the expansions and refinements to the theory since Darwin as mere "footnotes," this allows you to convince yourself that evolution doesn't apply to humans. Meanwhile, the rest of us understand that evolution does not begin and end with Darwin. It seems to me that YOU are the one who are taking his every statement as gospel.

1132 Basho  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:49:02pm

re: #1129 Sharmuta

I think they should just report what they read, for brevity's sake.

1133 Tigger2005  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:50:07pm

Wow, what a pile of steaming shit you dropped here.

re: #1090 sprucepinehollow

"There is no "requirement" that evolution leads only to selfish, ruthless, cowardly, sex-seeking, baby-making individuals. Consider the beehive. Thousands of the bees are sexless worker drones. Others are warriors who, if the hive is attacked, will instantly sacrifice themselves in an attempt to save the queen bee."

Depends on whether you are talking about atheistic evolution or theistic evolution. Atheism can have no moral or ethical compass because there is no right or wrong, good or bad in a system made up of beings that live alone in an absurd universe. Logically, atheistic evolution must lead to nihilism. Any attempt to define purpose or meaning is a dead end.

Regarding bees... The workers are females. They are not sexless. There are no warriors, only guards at the entrance of the hive. Every spring the hive sends out many queen bees, and the males (called drones & have no stingers) mate once with one queen. Their penis breaks off inside the queen and it's all over for the drone. The drones that don't mate hang around for the summer, then in the early fall the female workers drag them out of the hive. The drones all starve to death and the hive creates more drones in the spring.

I can't see how anyone who has worked worked with bees can accept atheistic evolution. The complexity of a hive is beyond belief and is a good example of what molecular biologist Michael Behe and others call irreducible complexity. Take out a key component and the whole system fails.

The beehive though, is a great example of what a darwinian world should look like. Ruthless killing and mating that is biologically driven toward survival.

One other thought for those atheistic evolutionists who are worried about our polluting, overpopulating, overheating and misusing our world. IF we are no more than highly evolved animals, then we are just doing what comes natural. Everything from litter to nuclear waste is as natural as fresh dew drops on a leaf. Why do you give a rats @ss if we blow ourselves to hell and back. We are just acting like humans.

1134 jaunte  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:50:18pm

re: #1131 Tigger2005

"all the expansions and refinements to the theory since Darwin"

That would be a lot of reading...

1135 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:50:30pm

re: #1129 Sharmuta

I laughed out loud (literally) when I read of the Kansas "trial" where none of the ID proponents had even read the Majority Report.

I hate to express ignorance, but neither have I. What is the significance, or must I go to Google?

1136 NoWhereAlaska  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:52:22pm

re: #1117 Cato

Already have -- altruism, alcoholism, existence and expansion of.


Okay Alcoholism (evolution at work): Those humans who have their origins in areas where there is a long term use of alcohol have less alcoholism, than those from other areas of origin, such as Native Americans and northern Europeans. The evolutionary process has been working in mankind in that area for millenia.
Next Altruism: I am not sure what your take is on altruism, are you expecting it to have a positive or negative impact on evolution.

1137 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:53:50pm

Cato Junior:

I'm still waiting for your rebuttal of my rebuttal here:

#969

1138 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:54:18pm

re: #1132 Basho

I think they should just report what they read, for brevity's sake.

Read Monkey Girl, and you'll find they were only there to support ID. When the lawyer who agreed to serve as council for "Darwinists" finally asked one of these ID proponents if they'd read the Majority Report, all of them said "no". They were just their to support the Minority Report, which called for ID.

But then- the veterans of LGF ID threads are well aware of this creationist tactic- disregard anything that conflicts with the pre-existing view of creationism and Biblical literalism.

1139 Basho  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:54:43pm

You know... the reason why beer is so widespread in the world is because for a long time it was one of the few safe things to drink. The process that go into its creation kills off the bacteria and such...

Beer drinkers have been selected!

1140 jaunte  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:54:58pm

Today, Texas Governor Rick Perry reappointed Don McLeroy Chairman of the State Board of Education:

State Board of Education Chairman Don McLeroy was reappointed to a new, two-year term by Gov. Rick Perry on Friday. McLeroy, a Republican from College Station, has been on the board for nearly a decade and is one of seven members closely aligned with social conservatives.

McLeroy, a dentist, was on the losing end of a controversial board vote last month to scrap a longtime state requirement that high school teachers cover so-called "weaknesses" in the theory of evolution in science classes. McLeroy was successful in getting the board to adopt a weaker rule backed by evolution critics that says students must consider the "sufficiency or insufficiency" of Charles Darwin's tenet that living things have common ancestors. Science teacher groups will try to eliminate that requirement in a final board vote on new science curriculum standards in March.


[Link: trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com...]

1141 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:55:18pm

re: #1090 sprucepinehollow


Depends on whether you are talking about atheistic evolution or theistic evolution.

We, I, would be interested to know the origin of the term atheistic/theistic evolution. I actually have never heard it posed in that way.

Is there an atheistic and a theistic nature?

1142 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:56:27pm

re: #1136 NoWhereAlaska

Okay Alcoholism (evolution at work): Those humans who have their origins in areas where there is a long term use of alcohol have less alcoholism, than those from other areas of origin, such as Native Americans and northern Europeans. The evolutionary process has been working in mankind in that area for millenia.
Next Altruism: I am not sure what your take is on altruism, are you expecting it to have a positive or negative impact on evolution.

Don't beat about the bush. Let's go straight to the anal part.

1143 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:59:17pm

re: #1139 Basho

You know... the reason why beer is so widespread in the world is because for a long time it was one of the few safe things to drink. The process that go into its creation kills off the bacteria and such...

!

I've heard that before. Being somewhat practically inclined, I think it was just because of the buzz. It took a long time before Pasteur got to the bacteria part.

1144 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 8:59:19pm

re: #1142 Naso Tang

Don't beat about the bush. Let's go straight to the anal part.

Dammit, I shouldn't have used the word "rebuttal" so loosely!

1145 NoWhereAlaska  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 9:00:15pm

re: #1142 Naso Tang

Don't beat about the bush. Let's go straight to the anal part.

Okay, those with anal cavities are more fit, and more likely to survive than thost that don't.

How is that?

1146 USBeast  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 9:00:15pm

re: #1128 Naso Tang

Alcoholics can never remember the condom and altruists want to spread the seed for free, so everyone will be alcoholic altruists eventually. AA as they say.

Altruists are more likely to to spread free condoms to alcoholics than alcoholics are likely to know what an altruist is. Let's hope there are altruistic alcoholics out there willing to spread free condoms.

1147 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 9:01:16pm

re: #1135 Naso Tang

The Kansas Board of Education was due to re-write the standards in the late 90s. The Majority Report supported empirical science, the Minority Report supported the ID line of reasoning, with the usual "teach the controversy" rhetoric. The KSBOE, loaded with creationists, proposed a "trial" to pit evolution against ID. The Kansas science community refused, but the trial went on with one lawyer who finally agreed to represent science. Not a single "witness" called to support the ID side had even read the Majority Report, they had only been brought in to support ID.

1148 Basho  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 9:01:17pm

My 1,000th karma point has been given to me by NoWhereAlaska. Congratulations!

I'd like to dedicate this momentous occasion to Taqiyyotomist, who had written:

Downdinging was never so satisfying. Thanks, Basho.

"I wasn't born with enough middle fingers."--some satanist rock star

-Taq

Also, I'd like to thank Darwin, for not making it impossible to follow a religion, but for making it possible not to follow one. Happy 200th birthday!

1149 NoWhereAlaska  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 9:04:31pm

re: #1148 Basho

My 1,000th karma point has been given to me by NoWhereAlaska. Congratulations!

Hmm, maybe I should reconsider...

1150 Basho  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 9:04:46pm

re: #1143 Naso Tang

I've heard that before. Being somewhat practically inclined, I think it was just because of the buzz. It took a long time before Pasteur got to the bacteria part.

It's possible. I heard it in one of those tourist TV shows, and wouldn't put it pass them to spread myth and such.

1151 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 9:05:26pm

re: #1130 Charles

I'm always amused when people think I'm not aware of the issues surrounding the creationism/evolution wars. I've been following this topic for more than 20 years.

More than 20 years? You are obsessed. /

1152 lostlakehiker  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 9:07:39pm

Re: 869 and others

The only way that humans, in thousands of seemingly random locations, could possess the exact retroviral DNA found in another species is by inheriting it from a common ancestor.


This sounds logical, but it is mistaken. The point of finding retroviral sequences in chicken genomes, human genomes, monkey genomes, etc., is that at some point, viral DNA, which DOES insert itself in animal cells and commandeer the machinery of the cell to replicate viruses, inserted itself into an egg or sperm cell, but failed to take over.

After all, this has to happen from time to time, or we'd all be dead.

Now, say the modified egg gets fertilized, and the offspring have ready-made ID charts for that virus. Identification Friend v Foe is facilitated. The offspring are less vulnerable to the outside, enemy virus. Presto, we have Darwinian liftoff!

It's bizarre, but the evidence has piled up. DNA from outside our own lineage shows up in our genome, and that's how it got there. Of course, this is rare; most of our genome is not viruses gone tame.

1153 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 9:08:33pm

re: #1145 NoWhereAlaska

Okay, those with anal cavities are more fit, and more likely to survive than thost that don't.

How is that?

Depends on the fit of the cavities.

1154 Basho  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 9:09:28pm

re: #1142 Naso Tang

Don't beat about the bush. Let's go straight to the anal part.

That's what she said!

(sorry)

1155 NoWhereAlaska  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 9:10:26pm

Is the discussion over for tonight?
Has Cato left?
Maybe I should take this time to start work on my taxes. I wonder if I can get away with ignoring a lot of income. Probably not, I am not a democrat.

1156 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 9:11:51pm

re: #1150 Basho

It's possible. I heard it in one of those tourist TV shows, and wouldn't put it pass them to spread myth and such.

Actually, you're right. Beer, because of its alcohol content (much higher in ancient days) was less likely to spoil than stored grain. The Egyptians used it for that reason, as well as for the buzz, and because it kept the workers happy.

They don't call it "liquid bread" for nothing!

1157 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 9:13:41pm

re: #1155 NoWhereAlaska

Is the discussion over for tonight? Has Cato left?

I think he's gone to look for evidence.

Either that, or the discussion evolved to quickly for him to handle...

1158 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 9:13:48pm

re: #1152 lostlakehiker

Re: 869 and others


This sounds logical, but it is mistaken. The point of finding retroviral sequences in chicken genomes, human genomes, monkey genomes, etc., is that at some point, viral DNA, which DOES insert itself in animal cells and commandeer the machinery of the cell to replicate viruses, inserted itself into an egg or sperm cell, but failed to take over.

After all, this has to happen from time to time, or we'd all be dead.

Now, say the modified egg gets fertilized, and the offspring have ready-made ID charts for that virus. Identification Friend v Foe is facilitated. The offspring are less vulnerable to the outside, enemy virus. Presto, we have Darwinian liftoff!

It's bizarre, but the evidence has piled up. DNA from outside our own lineage shows up in our genome, and that's how it got there. Of course, this is rare; most of our genome is not viruses gone tame.

So we are all chimeras perhaps.

In a way that is even more of a fuzzy feeling than thinking we came from monkeys.

/

1159 jaunte  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 9:14:16pm

re: #1156 Cato the Elder

They don't call it "liquid bread" for nothing!


[Link: www.tk421.net...]

1160 NoWhereAlaska  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 9:15:18pm

Speaking of Beer. A friend of mine was the wife of a veterinarian. Her doctor had recommended that she have one beer a day during lactation. But no other alcohol. She asked her husband why he would make that recommendation. His response was: "for the same reason we give grain to milk cows."
They are no longer married.

1161 Basho  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 9:15:39pm

Thanks for the clarification, Cato the Elder. I have to be heading to bed now. Good night everyone!

1162 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 9:15:53pm

re: #1159 jaunte

[Link: www.tk421.net...]

Linky no worky...

1163 jaunte  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 9:17:21pm

re: #1162 Cato the Elder

Sorry, don't know what happened.
(.wav file of Homer Simpson enjoying beer).

1164 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 9:18:09pm

re: #1163 jaunte

Sorry, don't know what happened.
(.wav file of Homer Simpson enjoying beer).

Mmmm...beeeeeer.

1165 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 9:18:27pm

Homer and beer

Youtube Video
1166 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 9:19:14pm

re: #1156 Cato the Elder

Actually, you're right. Beer, because of its alcohol content (much higher in ancient days) was less likely to spoil than stored grain. The Egyptians used it for that reason, as well as for the buzz, and because it kept the workers happy.

They don't call it "liquid bread" for nothing!

No doubt the fact that the buzz was storeable helped, but I doubt it was the main motivation, and anyway who would let good fresh beer sit for long?

However, levity aside, there are plenty of other examples of fermentation storage of food on the same principle. On different sides of the planet we have kimchi and "sour herring" for example. The latter being known from Scandinavia to Palestine. Personally I prefer the Scandinavian variety.

1167 jaunte  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 9:20:23pm

re: #1164 Cato the Elder

Mmmm...beeeeeer.

"Interfering with Darwin's theory since the Pharaohs."

1168 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 9:21:42pm

re: #1167 jaunte

"Interfering with Darwin's theory since the Pharaohs."

And you know who saved Pharaoh? That's right- Joseph. A Jew.

It's a Zionist plot!

1169 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 9:24:05pm

re: #1166 Naso Tang

... On different sides of the planet we have kimchi and "sour herring" for example. The latter being known from Scandinavia to Palestine. Personally I prefer the Scandinavian variety.

Me too. But I draw the line at lutefisk.

1170 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 9:25:04pm

re: #1169 Cato the Elder

Of course. It's Norwegian.

1171 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 9:26:40pm

Well, good night, lacerti. Took my first real walk since the sprained ankle last week, and now I'm going to sleep and see how sore I am in the morning.

If Cato Junior comes back, give him a beer.

1172 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 9:26:56pm

re: #1038 Cato

I believe examples to BE evidence.

Ah- I see I was correct. You think a logical argument is enough for scientific evidence. I hate to burst your bubble, but it's not. It might be legal, it might be philosophical, but it's not science to propose an argument without supported empirical evidence.

1173 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 9:29:56pm

re: #1172 Sharmuta

Ah- I see I was correct. You think a logical argument is enough for scientific evidence. I hate to burst your bubble, but it's not. It might be legal, it might be philosophical, but it's not science to propose an argument without supported empirical evidence.

Yes! Lawsuits, especially jury trials (as lawyer Cato knows), are based on rhetoric, not facts. Anyone who's ever sat on a panel with 11 other idiots knows that.

1174 Cato the Elder  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 9:30:50pm

re: #1173 Cato the Elder

Yes! Lawsuits, especially jury trials (as lawyer Cato knows), are based on rhetoric, not facts. Anyone who's ever sat on a panel with 11 other idiots knows that.

Meant to add: And science is not a jury trial.

But the creationists keep trying to make it one.

1175 jaunte  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 9:32:28pm

Goodnight all.

1176 NoWhereAlaska  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 9:33:36pm

Good night! Will dis-cuss another night with you'll.

1177 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 9:36:30pm

re: #1173 Cato the Elder

Yes! Lawsuits, especially jury trials (as lawyer Cato knows), are based on rhetoric, not facts. Anyone who's ever sat on a panel with 11 other idiots knows that.

Which is the game we have been playing this evening. Time for a vote?

/ just kidding, the vote is long cast.

1178 Achilles Tang  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 9:37:06pm

Me too.

1179 Tigger2005  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 9:44:22pm

re: #1090 sprucepinehollow

I can't see how anyone who has worked worked with bees can accept atheistic evolution. The complexity of a hive is beyond belief and is a good example of what molecular biologist Michael Behe and others call irreducible complexity. Take out a key component and the whole system fails.

The beehive though, is a great example of what a darwinian world should look like. Ruthless killing and mating that is biologically driven toward survival.

But ... but ... first you say that the beehive is an example of "irreducible complexity" and thus a sign of the existence of a Designer/Creator. THEN you say it's "a great example of what a darwinian world should look like. Ruthless killing and mating that is biologically driven toward survival." Well, in spite of the exceptions, there IS quite a lot of ruthless killing and mating in the world. So what does this demonstrate? That this IS, in fact, a "darwinian world" and that anything non-darwinian about it is a sign of God's existence? OR, that the great Designer deliberately designed the behive, in all its ruthless deadly complexity, just like that? In that case, did the Designer also design germs and viruses that kill us in all sorts of creative ways? Or is that the result of sin and the Devil's meddling? It's all very confusing!

One other thought for those atheistic evolutionists who are worried about our polluting, overpopulating, overheating and misusing our world. IF we are no more than highly evolved animals, then we are just doing what comes natural. Everything from litter to nuclear waste is as natural as fresh dew drops on a leaf. Why do you give a rats @ss if we blow ourselves to hell and back. We are just acting like humans.

I have tried and tried until my head hurts to understand this reasoning. I have tried until my head feels like it's about to explode. I just don't get it. I don't get how they get from here to there. That being alive and conscious means nothing if it's the result of "undirected" processes. That being "no more" than highly evolved animals means that nihilistic behavior is "natural." That if we evolved we shouldn't care about our planet or our own survival. That if we evolved we can't have any concepts of right or wrong, good or bad, or make judgments or have ethics or a moral compass. I mean, I'm an atheist and I accept evolution and I just don't feel any of that.

Look. Let's say you accept that there is no God and that human life emerged through completely natural, mindless evolutionary processes. Yet, observing human societies, you see that they have laws, morals, ethics, that many people behave altruistically and cooperatively and try to do the "right" thing.

So what do you do? Do you shout, "No! No! This is all wrong! You're all supposed to be fighting and killing and raping each other like the highly evolved but savage animals you are, because life is meaningless!" or do you say "Well, I guess I'm wrong, there is a God and evolution (at least the "godless" sort) is wrong no matter how much evidence there is for it"?

Or is there, perhaps, a third option? Perhaps you could say that, evidentally, morals and ethics, altruistic behavior and cooperation, as well as the need for meaning and purpose, are just as much a part of our evolutionary heritage as our more violent and selfish and pleasure-seeking impulses, that they aided our survival just as much as those more primal instincts? (Darwin certainly believed this.) And perhaps you might also consider that, even though most humans find meaning and purpose in life through a belief in "higher powers," this does not require that one who does not believe said higher powers must regard life as utterly meaningless, or that he/she cannot seek meaning and purpose, morals and ethics, through reason?

1180 Sharmuta  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 9:56:50pm

re: #1173 Cato the Elder

Yes! Lawsuits, especially jury trials (as lawyer Cato knows), are based on rhetoric, not facts. Anyone who's ever sat on a panel with 11 other idiots knows that.

Yes- seems the lawyers can't distinguish between legal evidence and scientific evidence, legal arguments and scientific arguments, or why one can hold up under scientific scrutiny and another can't. Really- it places Judge Jones in that much more worthy a light that he could see through the crap and make the decision he did.

1181 Salamantis  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 10:13:25pm

re: #1081 Cato

A) About Charles, I hold him in the highest esteem. The Rather letter, Iranian trick photography and his general outlook are markers of a fact-based, probing and puckish mind. Yet he has an either/or mentality on evolution. Well, I ain't a creationist and I am not convinced by evolution. Don't make me a creationist just because I don't believe your gospel.

B) I take Darwin to be the fount of evolutionary theory. I have read him. I have not read most of the others except for Gould and Dawkins and, most importantly, Stove. To me evolution IS Darwin and all the rest are footnotes.

Darwin said:"EVERY SINGLE ORGANIC BEING may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase its numbers" Origin of Species

It is the premise to natural selection and I have demonstrated that it is wrong in humans.

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

Stove made a career aout of attacking everybody; not just Darwin and malthus, but also Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos, Paul Feyerabend, Immanual Kant, David Hume...anyone and anything where he could perhaps ignite a controversy and boost his book sales. He was known as a professional controversialist. And the lion's share of his attacks, including all of his attacks upon evolutionary theory, have been subsequently discredited by soberer minds.

1182 Sloppy  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 10:21:09pm

Mencken wrote some outrageous stuff, but I read and re-read him for the humor and style. Same with Coulter. Not that she's in his league.

1183 Salamantis  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 10:22:43pm

re: #1090 sprucepinehollow

"There is no "requirement" that evolution leads only to selfish, ruthless, cowardly, sex-seeking, baby-making individuals. Consider the beehive. Thousands of the bees are sexless worker drones. Others are warriors who, if the hive is attacked, will instantly sacrifice themselves in an attempt to save the queen bee."

Depends on whether you are talking about atheistic evolution or theistic evolution. Atheism can have no moral or ethical compass because there is no right or wrong, good or bad in a system made up of beings that live alone in an absurd universe. Logically, atheistic evolution must lead to nihilism. Any attempt to define purpose or meaning is a dead end.

Regarding bees... The workers are females. They are not sexless. There are no warriors, only guards at the entrance of the hive. Every spring the hive sends out many queen bees, and the males (called drones & have no stingers) mate once with one queen. Their penis breaks off inside the queen and it's all over for the drone. The drones that don't mate hang around for the summer, then in the early fall the female workers drag them out of the hive. The drones all starve to death and the hive creates more drones in the spring.

I can't see how anyone who has worked worked with bees can accept atheistic evolution. The complexity of a hive is beyond belief and is a good example of what molecular biologist Michael Behe and others call irreducible complexity. Take out a key component and the whole system fails.

The beehive though, is a great example of what a darwinian world should look like. Ruthless killing and mating that is biologically driven toward survival.

One other thought for those atheistic evolutionists who are worried about our polluting, overpopulating, overheating and misusing our world. IF we are no more than highly evolved animals, then we are just doing what comes natural. Everything from litter to nuclear waste is as natural as fresh dew drops on a leaf. Why do you give a rats @ss if we blow ourselves to hell and back. We are just acting like humans.

Behe's "irreduceable complexity" has proven to be all too reduceable. The instinctual behavior of bees is, like the dam-building behavior of beavors and the flocking of birds and schooling of fish, cases where the re-iterative interplay between a few simple instinctual rules can cause apparently complex behavior. Entire civilizations have lived under developed ethical systems for millennia in the absence of theistic belief; for instance Buddhists, Taoists and Confucians. And contemporary cognitive psychology is revealing much about our sources for ethics:

[Link: pinker.wjh.harvard.edu...]

1184 Salamantis  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 10:34:24pm

re: #1139 Basho

You know... the reason why beer is so widespread in the world is because for a long time it was one of the few safe things to drink. The process that go into its creation kills off the bacteria and such...

Beer drinkers have been selected!

The other reason is that fermentation frees otherwise unobtainable calories from rundimentary grains. Just like cooking helps to break down foods to make their proteins and nutrients more absorbable.

1185 Bill K.  Fri, Feb 6, 2009 11:01:02pm

Anti-intellectual claptrap like this, by too many conservatives, is among the reasons the right is presently in disrepute. Anti-evolution for the right is what the 9-11 truthers are to the left.

At the base of both is a willful desire to avoid the facts of reality. Since they have no facts to stand on they try to make up for it with stale sarcasm, mind numbing obfuscations and high decibel bellowing.

The anti-evolutionists make the right look like ignorant rubes which in turn undercuts their arguments when they get it right. Who is going to listen to some conservatives arguments about the global warming scam when yesterday he was claiming Darwinism lead to Nazism?

Ann Coulter used to be quite funny once especially when describing the foibles of the left but has become increasingly shrill in recent years when writing about abortion, religion and now her disdain of evolution.

1186 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sat, Feb 7, 2009 12:57:37am

re: #1085 Charles

After countless hours spent trying to talk sense to creationists, I speak from experience when I say: you folks are doing a great job refuting the stupid points made by 'Cato,' but don't expect fanatics like this to ever become rational. They're true believers, in the sense that there is absolutely nothing you can show them that will change their minds.

Hardcore troofers, to their very marrow.

1187 Cato  Sat, Feb 7, 2009 3:28:13am

re: #1124 Charles

re: #1181 Salamantis

"Familiar with" Stove, or have you actually read him? A lawyer knows weasel words when he sees them. Creationists may like him, but he doesn't like them.

Yes, Stove is acerbic, influenced mostly by Hume. But since so many of the people you mention disagree with one another, it is no surprise Stove disagrees too. It is the nature of critical thought to disagree. And since Ayn Rand made the point that Kant made the world safe for creationists, I thought you might appreciate his vivisection of old Immanuel.

re: #1185 Bill K.

You know 9-11 truthers are mad, and almost every normal person recognizes that it was jihadi scum who took down the towers. But there are also normal people who say, "While the hijackers took down the towers, the government was negligent in not identifying it was going to happen in light of the information they had." That is not trutherism, yet it implicates the government in plausible ways.

1188 Tigger2005  Sat, Feb 7, 2009 4:23:05am

re: #1187 Cato

1189 Tigger2005  Sat, Feb 7, 2009 4:24:22am

re: #1187 Cato

It is the nature of critical thought to disagree.

It is not the nature of critical thought to disagree merely for the sake of disagreeing.

1190 Cato  Sat, Feb 7, 2009 8:11:38am

re: #1182 Sloppy

If you are nostalgic for HLM then read PJ O'Rourke.

1191 Cato the Elder  Sat, Feb 7, 2009 9:15:54am

Since you're back and still arguing to no point, Cato Junior, I'm asking for the second time: Will you reply to my #969?

You adduce all these things (abstinence from procreation, pregnancy interruption, non-procreative sex, sharing) as somehow refuting or invalidating evolution in humans. I show that all these (with the possible exception of the second) are widely seen among animals. By your reasoning, you would have to exclude those species from evolution. Do you?

You state over and over that for you, Darwin is evolution, and everything that came after a footnote. Your words. This is just ridiculous. Darwin posited the theory; it has been added to and enriched by succeeding generations. Your position is like saying that economics was founded by (say) Adam Smith, and everything since then can be ignored. Not a very scientific attitude. In fact, without inferring anything about your religious views, I'd say it fits one definition of the word fundamentalist.

Please answer my post. Failure to do so will be seen as capitulation on your part. And not just by me.

1192 Ziggy Standard  Sat, Feb 7, 2009 9:49:28am

re: #1124 Charles

Your claims not to be a creationist are not smelling any better by recommending "Darwinian Fairytales."

And that's the second 'non-creationist' in the last few days who has invited us to read this book. (The last one was that nutter who ranted for 30 hours without a break on the Ben Stein thread).

1193 Ziggy Standard  Sat, Feb 7, 2009 9:58:17am

re: #1187 Cato

Bogus idiotard tactic no 503:

The solitary unsung genius whom we MUST read or forever wallow in ignorance. It doesn't matter what we know from all the other thinkers in the world - unless we read this one - which incidentally has ID'ers drooling all over it on amazon reviews - we aren't qualified to speak.

1194 Haverwilde  Sat, Feb 7, 2009 11:04:55am

As I read some of Cato's posts, it looks like there is a blending of evolutionary theory (ala Darwin) and a healthy infusion of non-scientific 'Social Darwinism' (which is more akin to the social near-sciences of psychology and sociology).
Regarding abortion: if every member of species did it, they would become extinct. But individual members? I have had chickens that destroyed their eggs, and rabbits that ate their young.
Regarding non-procreative sexual behavior: If all humans limited themselves to it, the species would become extinct. But there are indications of non-procreative sexual behavior in animals- monkeys, my dog tries to 'hump' my leg.
Regarding altruism: If a person lays down his life for his family/town/country is that somehow against evolution theory? It is a behavior that may or may not enhance the species. But in the animal world there is similar behaviors. A mother bear Will charge a much large bear to protect her young. And yes sometimes, she dies. But as a behavior it appears to be beneficial to the brown bears as a species.

1195 Salamantis  Sat, Feb 7, 2009 11:16:46am

re: #1187 Cato

re: #1181 Salamantis

"Familiar with" Stove, or have you actually read him? A lawyer knows weasel words when he sees them. Creationists may like him, but he doesn't like them.

Yes, Stove is acerbic, influenced mostly by Hume. But since so many of the people you mention disagree with one another, it is no surprise Stove disagrees too. It is the nature of critical thought to disagree. And since Ayn Rand made the point that Kant made the world safe for creationists, I thought you might appreciate his vivisection of old Immanuel.

I have read the article you were citing without attribution till I busted you on it:

[Link: www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org...]

It is not the nature of worthwhile critical thought to gratuitously, baselessly and illegitimately disagree. That is the modus operandus of a professional shit-stirrer, who makes book sales money feeding the naive, credulous and gullible the red meat of their favored flavor, while other more astute yet less lowest-common-denominator popular scholars refute his controversy-prompting claims in relative obscurity.

re: #1185 Bill K.

You know 9-11 truthers are mad, and almost every normal person recognizes that it was jihadi scum who took down the towers. But there are also normal people who say, "While the hijackers took down the towers, the government was negligent in not identifying it was going to happen in light of the information they had." That is not trutherism, yet it implicates the government in plausible ways.

Truthers wanna blame Dubya. They get all upset when one mentions that it was a Clinton-era Justice Department official, Jamie Gorelick, who erected the wall between the FBI and the CIA, that forbade intelligence-sharing between them, and thus prevented either of them from individually seeing all the dots they collectively possessed to connect.

1196 Salamantis  Sat, Feb 7, 2009 11:48:06am

Human society, composed of self-consciously aware humans, is moral, and should be, unlike the natural world, which is amoral, and is ruled by the law of fang and claw, as Dawkins himself pointed out:

[Link: www.naturalhistorymag.com...]

excerpt:

Many people cannot bear to think that they are cousins not just of chimpanzees and monkeys, but of tapeworms, spiders, and bacteria. The unpalatability of a proposition, however, has no bearing on its truth. I personally find the idea of cousinship to all living species positively agreeable, but neither my warmth toward it, nor the cringing of a creationist, has the slightest bearing on its truth.

The same could be said of political or moral objections to Darwinism. “Tell children they are nothing more than animals and they will behave like animals.” I do not for a moment accept that the conclusion follows from the premise. But even if it did, once again, a disagreeable consequence cannot undermine the truth of a premise. Some have said that Hitler founded his political philosophy on Darwinism. This is nonsense: doctrines of racial superiority in no way follow from natural selection, properly understood. Nevertheless, a good case can be made that a society run on Darwinian lines would be a very disagreeable society in which to live. But, yet again, the unpleasantness of a proposition has no bearing on its truth.

Huxley, George C. Williams, and other evolutionists have opposed Darwinism as a political and moral doctrine just as passionately as they have advocated its scientific truth. I count myself in that company. Science needs to understand natural selection as a force in nature, the better to oppose it as a normative force in politics. Darwin himself expressed dismay at the callousness of natural selection: “What a book a Devil’s Chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low & horridly cruel works of nature!”

Sal: And yet, although societal memetic evolution moves much faster than does genetic evolution in humans, genetic evolution nevertheless proceeds apace, and is in fact accelerating:

[Link: www.reuters.com...]

1197 geir  Mon, Feb 9, 2009 12:48:25pm

re: #547 Cato

It is integral to Darwin's theory of natural selection, a theory which purportedly applies to every species, that behaviors that hinder an organizism's ability to compete for survival or reproduction be ruthlessly weeded out. If Darwin's theory of evolution were true, there would be in every species a constant and ruthless competition to survive. What ruthless thing have you done today to eat or breed? You see, human life isn't like that.

In fact, human life contains altruism, alcohol, anal intercourse, abortion and other behaviors that shorten lives or lessen the number of children people have, and that is just the A's. These behaviors have not been ruthlessly weeded out, and some are in fact on the increase. This is the inexplicable that you guys "forget". Darwin is fine for pines and cod, but not for me. The bottle of MacCallan at my desk disproves Darwin.

You think alcohol is lessening the number of children people have? You're doing it wrong.


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
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
4 weeks ago
Views: 441 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1