Juan Williams Channels Chris Matthews, Grills Pawlenty on Evolution in Debate
During Thursday night's Republican presidential debate in South Carolina, Fox News contributor Juan Williams moved away from the pressing issues of national security and the economy to ask former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty: "Do you equate the teaching of creationism with the teaching of evolution, as the basis for what should be taught in our nation's schools?"
Perhaps Williams had caught the end of Thursday's Hardball on MSNBC only hours earlier, when, as NewsBusters Scott Whitlock reported, host Chris Matthews listed some of the questions he would like to ask the Republican presidential hopefuls, including: "Question to Mr. Candidate, do you believe in evolution? Are you a fundamentalist who believes in the Bible as written? Has man been around millions of years or, say, just about 6000?"
In the debate, Williams avoided such inflammatory language, but pressed: "Do you personally equate a faith-based theory with scientific inquiry?" Pawlenty responded: "The approach we took in Minnesota is to say that there should be room in the curriculum for study of Intelligent Design. Didn't necessarily need to be in science class, it could be in a comparative theory class. But we didn't decide that at the state level. We left that up to the local school districts, and the communities, and parents in that area. I think that's a reasonable and appropriate approach."
After Pawlenty went on to give some thoughts on a previous question about the role of unions, Williams followed up by arguing: "I understand, Governor, but you didn't answer my question about what you believe about teaching creationism in the schools. What do you believe, Governor?" Pawlenty reiterated: "I believe that should be left up to parents and local school districts and not to states or the federal government."
Hopefully Matthews was watching Fox News Thursday night, he must have been thrilled.
Here is a transcript of Williams's exchange with Pawlenty:
10:03PM ET
(...)
JUAN WILLIAMS: Governor Pawlenty, when you served as governor of Minnesota you named an education commissioner who equated the teaching of creationism with the teaching of evolution. Do you equate the teaching of creationism with the teaching of evolution, as the basis for what should be taught in our nation's schools? And I ask that in this sense, do you personally equate a faith-based theory with scientific inquiry?
TIM PAWLENTY: Well, Juan, the approach we took in Minnesota is to say that there should be room in the curriculum for study of Intelligent Design. Didn't necessarily need to be in science class, it could be in a comparative theory class. But we didn't decide that at the state level. We left that up to the local school districts, and the communities, and parents in that area. I think that's a reasonable and appropriate approach.
If I might just add something relating to your previous question. You know, I grew up in a meat-packing town, as I mentioned earlier, I was in a union for seven years. My family is a union family. My brothers and sisters, many of them work in unions to this day or have worked in unions. And so I understand this issue. We're not against hardworking men and women. They need jobs in this country.
What we're against is government intervening in the market and with businesses to the point where they say, 'We're not even growing jobs any more because the government's discouraging us so much, making it so expensive, delaying it so often, we're just out of the job market and that's the absolute wrong direction. And it's not about bashing unions. It's about being pro-job. And you can't be pro-job and anti-business, that's like being pro-egg and anti-chicken, it doesn't work.
WILLIAMS: I understand, Governor, but you didn't answer my question about what you believe about teaching creationism in the schools. What do you believe, Governor?
PAWLENTY: I believe that should be left up to parents and local school districts and not to states or the federal government.
(...)
- Kyle Drennen's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Bigoted question
Submitted by nkviking75 on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 5:42pm.
My answer would have been, "Are you a religious bigot who assumes that people who hold certain beliefs are idiots and don't deserve the right to run for office? Are your scientific beliefs so shaky that no one can question them? Are you aware that the Constitution bans a religious test for office? Do you believe in evolution, and if so, should Fox take away your prominent position in the national media?"
“Always love your country — but never trust your government!" -- Bob Novak (1931-2009)
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Precisely!
Submitted by mzk1 on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 9:46am.
Heresy trials, that's what these things are. Read Sarah Palin's encounter with the McCain team; she clearly know more about the science than they did!
What's the problem?
Submitted by The Irishman on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 9:54am.
People have just as much of a right to know a candidate's position on evolution as we do their religious beliefs. I could not see myself voting for someone who sees more validity in Creation than Evolution.
You are the problem.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 10:03am.
You hide behind a new identity every 2 months thus fooling people into believing you are a new individiual. You then demand honesty and respect from others when you clearly deserve neither
Why should we be honest with you? You have never shown us the tiniest bit of respect or honesty. And yet you demand it from us.
•You have been banned repeatedly for hostility to other users including stalker type references to women's children prior to your 15th account.'
•You have used multiple open accounts as sock puppets, talking to each other to give yourself the appearance of having others agree with you when no honest person will. You are doing it now with the buttercup815 account. Now. As we speak you, you have multiple accounts open.
•You lie by pretending to be a completely different person when you open a new account. You refuse to admit it is indeed you with a new moniker. Instead you make up stories claiming to be black or Polish or now Irish. It is a lie when you do it.
•You engage in misdirecting tactics to cover your true identity. We know you are accutely aware of proper spelling and then you intentionally misspell in one of your accounts to misdirect. You fill in the subject line (although rarely do you do it properly) You stopped double spacing. Or use 2 periods instead as with your buttercup815. All modifications to your style intending to throw us off track of exactly who you are.
•You fail to see the utter dishonesty, the moral failing in your tactics of covering your identity. Sure, everyone here is anonymous. But no one lies about who and what there are. They just neglect to give enough personal details to expose their real names. But you, you actively promote yourself as someone other than what you are. Pretending to be black or female or have children or some other career or race. You LIE and why do you lie? To keep an account open in some desperate pathetic attempt to have contact with real people, honest people.
•You continue to lie even when caught dead to rights, insisting over and over you are not here for the 18th or 19th or 23rd or 25th time. In effect, you treat us like we are stupid and cannot see that it is indeed you. Everyone has a style of posting, writing, composing, a rhythmic flow of words. Everyone has a fairly fixed internal dictionary of words. Just as everyone could recognize Shakespeare were he to suddenly pop up from the grave and start posting as NotFrancisBacon, we can see it is you after a sufficient number of posts. And yet you LIE and act as though we are the ones just making crap up to abuse some poor little liberal.
•In short, you have never given us any reason TO be honest with you. Or give you the tiniest ounce of respect due either a stranger or someone that appears to be honest with us.
I'm realizing
Submitted by The Irishman on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 11:24am.
If I read the first and last sentences of your posts first, I notice that I have previously read pretty much the exact same thing. I gather the rest of your post is full of similar redundancies.
Okay, after a quick skim I see you're still convinced I'm buttercup, despite clear differences I even explained. I imagine you're picturing me in a master control room with a dozen monitors and a different Newsbusters ID for each. Sheesh. Your paranoia and anger is comical.
Yes. You aleady said that didn't you during a previous account?
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 11:38am.
I don't do this for you Retard. i do it to warn the other users. I don't get a rat's short hair whether you read my posts or not.
Go away Retread. You. Are. Not. Welcome. Here.
I see
Submitted by The Irishman on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 11:41am.
Is this because I denied your buddy request?
Stupid asks a question again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 11:47am.
You see me playing your troll game Retard?
Dead Zippers (to JWF): I don't read your posts. I don't click your links. You word bully. Blah Blah Blah.
Dead Zippers (when JWF is not around): JWF! JWF! JWF! JWF! Braaaaack.
Awww. Still butt hurt about about your ADK account getting banned.
#26Uh, you friended me. I've
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Wed, 12/22/2010 - 1:28pm.
Uh, you friended me. I've never sent a friend invite.
This means what?
Submitted by The Irishman on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 12:04pm.
I mean... What does this mean???
I'm going to head out and buy a sledgehammer now. I have a cinder block wall to knock down today and some cement to break up. I'll check in occasionally.
Just use your head
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 12:24pm.
And save the money on a sledgehammer.
Do you or do you not swear allegiance to Gaia?
Submitted by MidAmerica on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 5:57pm.
Evolution, Global Warming, a woman's right to choose.... these types of Liberal topics are out of bounds for questioning. If you do not accept the total dogma without question then you are anti-scientific ( just a modern way of calling you a heretic).
Exactly right. They are the
Submitted by mattm on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 6:39pm.
Exactly right. They are the priests of a religion based on psuedo-science and illogic.
MidAmerica
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 1:43am.
Evolution is a liberal topic?
Are you serious?
Evolution - like gravity - is
Submitted by HD1974 on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 7:19am.
Evolution - like gravity - is not a matter of belief. Creationism should be considered the Conservative equivalent of global warming, a lie created to further a sinister purpose. It's nothing to the God I believe in to take 15 billion years to make and perfect His creation, to make us humans descend from primates and who are you to question His timing or to belittle His design? The same way I will not vote for anyone who believes in global warming I will not vote for anyone who believes in creationism and, even worse, insists on teaching such nonsesn in a classroom as if our kids weren't lagging enough behind the rest of the world in education. Tim is out of the running as far as I'm concerned.
Liberal questions
Submitted by metaphorsbwithu on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 7:14pm.
Always expect these kinds of questions if you are a conservative or Republican.
I think Democrats and liberals should get equal treatment:
Do you believe in the right of Israel to exist?
Do you believe Jesus is God in the Flesh and physically rose from the dead?
Do you support gay marriage?
Do you believe in the public funding of abortions? Even late-term?
What was "Mann's Trick"?
How much is a trillion dollars? Be specific! ;-)
Teach them both, for ether could be correct
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 7:16pm.
What's wrong with equating Creationism with Evolution? Nether theory has ever been proven correct, so ether one could be true, or, more likely, partially true. The truth could even be a combination of the two competing theories. So, what's the big deal?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
I'll bite
Submitted by The Irishman on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 7:44pm.
Because one is based on study and one is based on faith.
Do you think all students should be required to take Creationism classes? Evolution is a small part of 1 year of high school science study, not a dedicated class as is suggested for Creationism above. Because Creationism is Christian based will similar classes be available to cater to students of other religions? Do atheists just go to study hall?
Teach evolution, creation, and teach kids to think for themselve
Submitted by nkviking75 on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 8:12pm.
You say creatiionism is based on faith. But there are a lot of books and seminars out there that not only mention faith but raise serious questions about evolution. And the usual response is, "That's not science." But isn't science supposed to be about questioning and probling?
There are ways of teaching creationism without tying it to a particular religion, such as "Some people believe there is scientific evidence to suggest that the universe was created by some sort of Supreme Being (or Beings)." And then one could mention the creationists' side of the story. This is one great way to teach students to think for themselves. Let them hear both sides in a fair debate and let them decide what they believe. BTW, though I'm a creationist, I don't believe kids should be kept from hearing about evolution.
“Always love your country — but never trust your government!" -- Bob Novak (1931-2009)
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
One question
Submitted by The Irishman on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 8:21pm.
Is it not true that Creationism is is rooted in Christianity and the belief that God created the universe? That is my understanding.
All religions have their own Creation myths and belifes
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 9:33pm.
All religions have their own creation myths and beliefs. Even the oldest surviving religions, Buddhism and Hinduism, have their own Creator, and those are religions that predate Christianity by many thousands of years. The funny thing is that I learned that in grade school back in the late 60's when schools weren't afraid to teach religious subjects. The school even invited a Native Indian (as we called them then) tribe so we could discus their religious beliefs, among other things.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
I read the Bible in english
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 05/07/2011 - 8:55am.
I read the Bible in english class, there's nothing wrong with that. I consider it to have been a very important part of my education, because as an atheist I was unlikely to get exposed to the content of the bible on my own, especially at that age. But no one said-- there are two ways of looking at the world, the Bible is one, and physics is the other. Pick.
There's nothing in any school curriculum or set of state standards right now that prevents a science teacher from mentioning alternate ideas about where we came from. The problem with mandating time for discussion of intelligent design and other creation theories in science classes is that it puts those theories on equal footing with evolution. In cultural studies class, they can be on equal footing. In a biology class, they really shouldn't be. One is scientific, and one isn't. And it sets up a weird false dichotomy between faith and science that seems completely at odds with religious leaders' desire to have faith integrated with modern life. You can't do that by going head to head with science, it won't work. They are different spheres of knowledge and ideas, and if you want them to coexist you need to let them have their areas of primacy.
And what do you learn in Atheism 101?
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 05/07/2011 - 9:10am.
Curricula Day 1 - How to harass Christians on their beliefs.
Curricula Day 2 - Continue to harass Christians on their beliefs.
Curricula Day 3 - Where to find Christians to harass them on their beliefs.
Curricula Day 4 - Go for the blood. Throwing stones at Christian children.
Curricula Day 5 - Become a teacher. Propagandize Christian children against their parents.
Curricula Day 6 - Get internet savvy. Seek out Christians online to harass.
Curricula Day 7 - Can't be convincing. Make up in volume for what you lack in intelligence.
Curricula Day 8 - Make those posts long. Harass Christions with long long long screeds.
Curricula Day 9 - Learn to live alone in your atheist spinsterhood.
Class taught by Spinsterbear
As an example
Submitted by The Irishman on Sat, 05/07/2011 - 10:00am.
I have yet to see you post a word that reflects a position you take on religion, aside from bashing anyone and everyone who doesn't support Christianity as if we are some sort of threat to you. Are we threatening?
Whatever nwahs.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 05/07/2011 - 10:54am.
Not playing your troll games. I only interact with people on their first 6 accounts.
Oh look. Did you forget about YOUR harassment of Christians here?
++++
9 Dead Zippers LIES again. Damnable LIES.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 11/27/2010 - 5:24pm.
No one said you are trying to find Jesus. READ IT AGAIN.
You harass Christians here and then claim you are just trying to understand.
When it is pointed out you harass Christians. Suddenly you claim to be a misunderstood little atheist.
No one else on the planet can get away with the harassment you conduct under the cloak of atheism.
• Jews can't harass Christians like this and claim to be just trying to find peace.
• Muslims can't harass Christians like this and claim to be just trying to find peace
• Hindus can't harass Christians like this and claim to be just trying to find peace
•Buddhists can't harass Christians like this and claim to be just trying to find peace
•Sikhs can't harass Christians like this and claim to be just trying to find peace
•Shintos can't harass Christians like this and claim to be just trying to find peace
•Rastifarians can't harass Christians like this and claim to be just trying to find peace
•Scientologists can't harass Christians like this and claim to be just trying to find peace
•Zoroastrians can't harass Christians like this and claim to be just trying to find peace
SO KNOCK IT THE FRELL OFF YOU FRELLING FREAKSHOW.
LEAVE. THEM. THE. FRELL. ALONE.
I don't think I harass
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 05/07/2011 - 7:21pm.
I don't think I harass Christians here or anywhere else. I don't actually feel the need for everyone to believe the same things I do. Many Christians do feel that need, though I understand that is motivated by a desire to be charitable and help people in most cases. I need my students to understand the major theoretical advance that underpins the entirety of modern biology, but they can believe whatever they want.
Once again this statement, I
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 05/07/2011 - 7:53pm.
Once again this statement, I don't actually feel the need for everyone to believe the same things I do. Many Christians do feel that need, reveals you arrogance. It also reveals that you are bigoted against Christians.
Didn't I just say, in the
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 8:37am.
Didn't I just say, in the second half of the sentence, that I understand that desire has a good motive? I'm not bigoted against Christians, I just think it is strange to complain that I try to convert people to my belief system when 1) I don't, and 2) your belief system does! I don't think it's a bad thing, but the Vet apparently does, which I think is odd.
So if I were to say black
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 8:48am.
So if I were to say black people dance well/run fast/are prone to crime, you wouldn't find those statements bigoted? Because I sure would. Classifying a group of people on what you say is a positive characteristic is one step away from classifying them on a negative characteristic.
Just curious, are you willing to say islam tries to convert people? Do you go on website with a lot of muslims and argue their religion with them?
Well, I've personally had
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 8:58am.
Well, I've personally had Christians show up at my house, stop me on the street, etc and try to convince me they are right. I've never had a Muslim try to convert me, but that is probably just a matter of limited numbers of Muslims in this country compared to Christians. I don't know if evangelism is part of the Muslim faith, but I don't believe I'm entirely mistaken to say it is a part of many (notice I've never said all, that's the difference between my statement about Christians and yours about black people) people's Christian faith. Feel free to correct me if you have a problem with the word "many," or think in fact that no Christian people ever try to convert others.
Mamabear,
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 7:12pm.
So your unfamiliar with the whole Muslim thing of convert or die?
As I said, my lack of
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 8:59pm.
As I said, my lack of experience with Muslim evangelism probably has to do with the fact that I don't encounter many Muslims, so I didn't say one way or the other if I think they try to convert people. However, I have met SOME Muslims, and I can tell you that if they were trying to kill me they were both subtle and ineffective.
stupidbear
Submitted by MrShy on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 10:23pm.
Well, I've personally had Christians show up at my house, stop me on the street, etc and try to convince me they are right. I've never had a Muslim try to convert me...
How many Muslims have tried to kill you? I'll answer that for you. UNTOLD NUMBERS.
So, a Christian here or there showed up at your house with a pamphlet? And you had to say "thanks but not interested" and close your door? And another Christian, or two or four, stopped you on the street asking if you found God?
My heart goes out to you.
I've had tens of thousands (that's the LOW estimate) of Muslims literally try to kill me. They've tried to kill you, too. Oh, and thousands of them have already succeeded at killing people just going about their day. They've opened their doors, or run into a bomb-strapped Muslim, and they've died.
Let me know if you.... still. don't. get. it.
- Shy Vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Ler me help you Shy*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 11:28pm.
Since 9-11, the US has had 30 unsuccessful terror attacks by radical muslims. One was successful at Ft. Hood.
World wide, there has been 14,000 successful terrorist attacks with thousands dead.
In the middle east and Africa, the death from muslim attacks have been majority Christians. Yesterday in Egypt, 12 dead, 230 wounded because of a rumor that a girl from a muslim family had converted to Christianity and was hiding in the Coptic Church.
My google search took awhile but I will have to get back to you. I have not yet found Christian terrorists that has killed thousands of Muslims unless you count Obama and Bush as terrorists.
If you want to find death
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 8:31am.
If you want to find death counts for Christian terrorists you have to look to India, where they are killing Hindis and vice versa, and have been for hundreds of years. The numbers are horrifying, just as numbers for these sorts of conflicts always are.
1) I don't mind in the least
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 8:30am.
1) I don't mind in the least people trying to convert me. Apparently, other people like the Vet mind people trying to convert others to their cause. All I'm doing is pointing out the hypocrisy of that complaint. I've never once been rude to any of those people who come and try to talk to me about religion. I think them for their effort and politely explain that I'm not interested. I take the pamphlet, wish them a nice day, and then throw the pamphlet out after their gone. Sometime I read it, but not usually.
2) Terrorists who bomb planes and buildings are not trying to kill me because I'm an atheist, they are trying to kill me because I'm American. They killed Muslims on 9/11 too. You really think that that attack was an attempt to convert us all to Islam? That's insane!
I suppose this makes you bigoted against atheists
Submitted by The Irishman on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 8:53am.
That is if we're simply making accusations without explaining as much.
If you finished mamabear's quote there is nothing insulting about it.
It's Sunday, Zippers. Quit picking on the Christians.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 8:58am.
.
Get a life
Submitted by The Irishman on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 9:02am.
.
Pot. Kettle.
Submitted by NC Cop on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 9:04am.
Pot. Kettle.
Precisely
Submitted by The Irishman on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 9:07am.
Says the guy whose first post on the thread doesn't even address the topic.
Nonsense, Irishman---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 1:25pm.
The post was addressed to YOUR post, and given your penchant for accounts, usernames, and desperate need for attention - witness those very things - NC's post addressed YOU, which is obviously the topic every single time you post.
MD
Unlike you, Zippers, I actually have a life outside of NB.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 11:52am.
This will be my second and final post of the day.
We'll check your score tomorrow.
Irishman
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 7:10pm.
So it's ok to paint a group of people with a broad brush if you say it's a pretty broad brush? My point was that once you ok doing that, you've ok'd painting groups of people with a not so pretty broad brush. Variant liberals always telling us that's wrong? Well, not really. They only say it's wrong when it suits them.
You really love your
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 9:17pm.
You really love your selective outrage. Here are some other statements from this thread you could object to if you don't like broad brushes:
Liberals are "the priests of a religion based on psuedo-science and illogic."
Liberals "only say it's wrong when it suits them."
Liberals "can believe whatever they want and hide those beliefs any way they want."
"White Liberals see themselves as the protectors of non-Whites who are always a victim without the protection of White Liberals. Which means, of course, that White Liberals see themselves as superior to non-Whites."
"Many religious people consider science aboslute truth"
"There are people of faith who use crap arguments to dismiss certain scientific theories"
"Half of the people in the country don't believe in evolution, yet if you don't you're like Galileo being brought before the Church for contradicting established science (Aristotle)"
"The government doesn't want you to think there is a power greater than they."
"This foolishness of evolution was started by people who don't want to be held accountable for their actions, or who don't want to feel guilty for poor behavior."
Those are all general statements about groups of people. Some of them have factual support, some don't. Some I agree with, some I don't. But why do you think it is okay for everyone else on this thread to paint a group of people with a broad brush, pretty or otherwise? Maybe it is just about whether you like the sentiment or not.
Nobody is forcing you to read them
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 9:26pm.
Leave it to a lib to use privet citizens as an example of how their Gov behaves.
Our Gov, and Media, and others ridicule the Right, all day, everyday. But your feelings are hurt because your on a site that monitors the liberal stupidity. You, as always are completely "out to lunch"
You do know that both the
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 8:33am.
You do know that both the government and the media are made of people, right? THEY'RE MADE OF PEOPLE!
And?
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 9:26am.
And so is Soylent Green.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
It is because you hold
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 9:39pm.
It is because you hold yourself above us all, which was the point of my post to you.
So when I make general
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 8:35am.
So when I make general statements about others it is because I hold myself above others, but when people you agree with make general statements about others it is because... they're right? They think they are worse than the people they are complaining about? They are just trying to help their fellow man? They are compelled by moral certainty?
Seriously, a little honesty and reflection would look good on you.
nkviking75
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 1:46am.
There is a scientific way of incorporating a supernatural being - as in a being beyond empirical description - you know, the basis of science - into science?
Really?
Care to elaborate on that?
Ted
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 9:22pm.
I thought Genesis was written before Christ was born. See what happens when you cut history class?
Religious history class?
Submitted by The Irishman on Sat, 05/07/2011 - 10:16am.
They didn't teach that in public school. Did you go to private school?
Besides, what does this mean anyway? Creation supporters aren't exactly pushing for the Hindu explanation of the creation of man.
Ted
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 7:22pm.
Pretty sure you said creationism is a Christian concept. I was pointing out that there were no Christians during the time when Genesis was written. Maybe it's a Hebrew concept? I don't know, but it certainly didn't originate in Christianity.
Sorry you were so confused about that. I'll try to keep my responses to your posts at a lower grade level.
No it's fine
Submitted by The Irishman on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 9:52am.
I've got a college degree so if it seemed I was dumbing myself down it was for your benefit.
Are you familiar with the history of the term "creationism?" It wasn't coined until the 19th century. Ever since it's been closely associated with Judeo-Christian literal interpretation of Genesis.
So while you are correct in the Genesis predates Christianity, the concept of creationism and the accepted definition have less to do with the origins of the scripture than the ideas of Christianity. Ever hear the phrase Muslim Creationist?
Ted
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 2:48pm.
Maybe you oughta use that college degree for what it's worth- wiping your a$$- because apparently you think that the inclusion of a word in the dictionary is the first time the concept has ever been used.
Let me try this one more time- and I'll try to do it in a way that Dollar General graduates can understand:
The concept of creationism -in a nutshell- is the belief that man was created by a higher power. That concept was written in the book of Genesis- long before Jesus Christ, and Christianity was born. Creationism -regardless of when someone put an English name to it- was conceived by persons outside of, and prior to the Christian faith and is therefor, not a Christian concept. Christians subscriber to it, however, which is apparently where your confusion comes in. Since you're an admitted atheist, and apparently not all that intelligent, I understand why you're struggling with this.
Mathematics is not a Christian concept either, though it is true that many Christians subscribe to it.
Damn your dense.
Finally
Submitted by The Irishman on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 2:57pm.
The "look at how much smarter I am cuz I have faith" closer.
Having already conceded to the facts you've laid out in this post I can only guess you posted this to proclaim victory.
If you had any sense of honesty whatsoever you'd stop playing around and admit that you want Christianity taught in school. Make no mistake, Creation is about Christianity.
Next time you're whining about people attacking your religion I'll remind you of how incredibly bigoted you are towards those who frighten you most: atheists.
the faith closer
Submitted by Agnostic on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 3:28pm.
It is atheist like you that keep me claiming to be only agnostic. You concede that everything the previous poster was correct then make a couple of things up in order to be insulting - nice job.
Just curious if you don't mind answering, which term for creationism where you referring to since there are several different schools of thought (forgive the phrase it doesn't mean it is being taught in public schools) on the subject. I'm all for schools going back to teaching reading, classic literature, writing, arithmetic, economics, science/scientific methods, physical education and economics. The truth is that until they can prove or at least give an example of how a living organism can evolve from one species to another then there should be as much time given to Darwinism (not to be confused with evolution or adaptation) as Creationism in any of its many forms.
Theories are great and they have their place but teaching the scientific methods of testing theories and teaching students how to think for themselves and communicate their thoughts through various media would be more helpful to the students and the society as a whole.
Is this the game you want to play?
Submitted by The Irishman on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 3:37pm.
We can make this all about insults or we can make this about content. You obviously care more about the insults (as the other poster does) than about the subject matter.
You want to do some belief bashing? I have some thoughts on agnosticism as well.
As always, Zippers, everyone wants to hear your thoughts.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 4:57pm.
So tell us why atheists are superior to agnostics.
This should be one for the ages... if you have the balls, that is.
Wait. I thought the 25 time retread liked the game of attrition.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 5:05pm.
guttermouth's 15 account: That you continue to obsess over this as if God himself has commanded you to disrupt every thread in a twisted, immature game of attrition. We're all over it. Everyone but you.
PS: Looks like I won that one. YOU WERE BANNED. Oh and I won the 16th account, 17th account, 18th account, 19th account......
Don't you have a park bench at a children's park reserved somewhere? It is what you do best. Threatening women and their children. You go face to face with men, you lose just like the sissy milquetoast mollycoddle you are.
Now. Go away Dead Zippers. All you do is play internet troll games.
The Irishman belief?
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 11:09am.
You consider having it pointed out that you insulted someone by assuming arguments never made after agreeing with their post an insult.
Not to be insulting in any way but that is pretty thin-skinned and for what it is worth there was no insult meant just pointing out an observed inconsistency.
As hinted at I am truly an atheist but also a borderline agnostic because it doesn't matter to me if there is some sort of supreme being and there is definitely no reason in my opinion to look down on someone because they have faith; especially if that faith is helping them be a better person than they could do on their own. However, if you choose to rail against agnosticism I think it might be quite interesting.
As a point of concession there is a huge difference between what a belief system means to an individual and it is societal ramifications. How people have used religion for a bases in wars and as a fulcrum to control societies is a different discussion than the one being attempted here, IMHO.
No
Submitted by The Irishman on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 12:37pm.
I agreed with the facts introduced in bkeyser's post, and only the facts. I did not say his post was factual in its entirety, I merely agreed that there were factual points. I did not start the insult game, I entered it when I was called upon.
Furthermore, I'd like you to find even one example where I have degraded someone because of faith. If you feel like it, compare that to the degradation of atheism. And if you're interested we can even discuss evolution.
Yes, Irishman -
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 1:01pm.
I would be interested in a discussion about evolution as long as we don't stray too OT. Also, I didn't accuse you of degrading anyone because of faith but perhaps due to the typed medium we are using there was a miscommunication on your intent with the original post to which I responded.
Evolution has only been proven to the point of a survival tool and as of yet has been able to support an hypothesis that explains the creation of different species that doesn't require as much faith as some religions. At this level it is my opinion that evolution should be taught in schools. Not as the "final answer' to the creation of all of nature but as an adaptation device that provides the source material for 'survival of the fittest'.
That's better. Thanks.
Submitted by The Irishman on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 1:45pm.
And my apologies if I misunderstood your intent. ; )
First off, evolution has passed the hypothesis stage and lives in theory, accepted truth in the science community. I can understand and do agree that evolution is not yet scientific law, but the evidence overwhelmingly supports the theory.
I suspect the majority of people here believe parts of the theory, but no matter the proof persuading them that human evolution has occurred (as opposed to the Creationist theory) will be impossible.
Hypothesis to theory,
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 2:47pm.
Evolution as a process is a theory. Evolution as an explanation of creation is a hypothesis. There has been a blurring of the definitions over the years and it has not helped the general debate of the issues. I would doubt that most Creationist would object to evolution being taught in schools as an explanation of how separate species evolve and adapt over time. Generally, not entirely, it is only when evolution is used as an explanation for all of life creation that the Creationist get upset.
You have the Old Earth Creationist (OEC) and the Evolutionary Creationist (EC) that each have a distinct hypothesis that allows for the theory of evolution combined with the faith of a supreme being. Since the creation of life itself and the advancement of life through various species is still an unknown it really should not be taught in schools as a science. Evolution and adaptation are theories that should be taught to the limitation they only show the evolvement of different species. Everything else belongs in religious or certain types of philosophy classes, IMO.
Since the origin of life and the forming of new species still requires faith under the Evolutionist's model then the theories of the Creationists, OECs and ECs must be taken as equally valid or invalid depending upon your preference.
Hypothesis of a different sort
Submitted by The Irishman on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 4:33pm.
Actually evolution as a whole is considered a theory, while the origins of life, a separate issue that relates to evolution, is considered a hypothesis; specifically the RNA world hypothesis, which claims highly energetic chemistry produced a self replicating molecule 4 billion years ago.
But in discussing the evolution of humans explaining the origin of life is not necessary, as it happened billions of years before the genus homo first appeared. For sake of argument, assuming God did create the earth 4+ billion years ago, it does not explain the evolution of humans over the past 2 million years, nor does it explain the fossil record of our ancestors dating back roughly 7 million years in the case of Sahelanthropus tchadensis. Yeah, that's right. To anyone paying attention I'm sticking to the 7 million year claim.
Evolution and adaptation are theories that should be taught to the limitation they only show the evolvement of different species. Everything else belongs in religious or certain types of philosophy classes, IMO.
I disagree. The origin of life is a scientific study and belongs in science class from a scientific perspective. Is it taught as absolute truth? I don't believe so, but I haven't been in a classroom for quite some time.
We accept a number of scientific theories as truths (matter, gravity, chaos, germ), so using the term "theory" to undermine evolution isn't good enough. As long as scientists continue to study evolution and origins the results belong in the classroom. Creationism, as philosophical study, is fine. But I think it's less about Creationism and more about getting the religious foot in the classroom door.
For a chuckle, take a look at these theories of our origins.
Tedish, Stick to pushing Plug-in cars as Non plug in.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 5:36pm.
Irreducible complexity in it's current state, of study would not be possible without
Major advancements in science. Darwin never saw this.
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
Sure a flagellum motor can be torn apart and used for other things, likewise a windshield motor can be altered to act like a solenoid.
So how about that failed experiment of Abiogenesis...2 3 or 4 billion years ago ...
Abiogenesis was once commonly called ‘chemical evolution’,2 but evolutionists today try to distance evolutionary theory from the origin of life.
Lets also consider that
Oxygen: enemy of chemical evolution
Keep pluggin there Ted.
You Didn't Build That.
Hmph
Submitted by The Irishman on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 6:06pm.
I was having trouble making any sense out of your post until I clicked the 2nd link, which led me to an Intelligent Design website telling a story about the claim of one scientist who completely debunked evolution all by himself.
Apparently the scientist doesn't understand what evolution means, as his entire argument relies on the absence, and NOT the required inclusion of mutation, genetic recombination, or gene flow that defines evolution.
The mouse trap example is laughable. Evolution doesn't mean removing the brain from a human to see if it can still live, and it doesn't mean removing a part from a mousetrap to see if it will still work.
Agnostic and Irishman
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 4:59pm.
The distinction between hypothesis and theory is one of degree and not kind.
Scientific models can be judged according to a spectrum of criteria including of how well they are supported by empirical evidence, how well they fit with other models, how concise they are, how wide their scope of applicability is and even on how philosophically appealing they are.
The point at which someone decides a hypothesis becomes a theory is an arbitrary one and from what I've seen, most scientists don't worry about these kinds of labels.
How else would you explain the fact that Newton's "Law" of Gravity got replaced by Einstein's "Theory" of General Relativity?
Seriously Ted
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 4:30pm.
I'm not sure whether your post was in reply to me or whether you mis-clicked. I don't have a clue where you got your assumptions from.
I'm also not sure if your concession was the part where you dumbed down to my level -forgoing your awesome college degree, or the part where you went off on the Hindu tangent, but in either case, I don't really see that as a concession.
As for Creationism being about Christianity- are you saying "Christianity" as a euphemism for any religion other than atheism? Because my point was that Creationism was popularized by Jews long before the time of Christ. Since Christians far outnumber Jews, I can see why you're still confused, I guess. I'm sure that theologians could find examples of Creationism in other religions and mythology; again, long before Christians got organized.
And no, I never professed to wanting Christianity taught in schools. I don't adhere to the literal translation of the Bible, and in fact, I'm not a practicing Christian. I haven't been for more than 30 years when I was confirmed into the Lutheran church at age 13. I do think, however, that since evolutionism is not a proven science any more than creationism, AND, if you're someone in my camp who believes that both could be possible, then both should get equal mention -in context- in public schools.
I'm also not sure where you found bigotry toward atheists in my comments since all I was doing was needling you about your Christianity generalization. I hope you didn't get mad and break your pencil or something.
You're so sensitive.
Think about it
Submitted by The Irishman on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 5:12pm.
You decided it was easier to question/mock my intelligence than to stick to the subject. Oh yes, it's innocent enough at first:
See what happens when you cut history class?
Sorry you were so confused about that. I'll try to keep my responses to your posts at a lower grade level.
Maybe you oughta use that college degree for what it's worth- wiping your a$$-
Let me try this one more time- and I'll try to do it in a way that Dollar General graduates can understand:
Since you're an admitted atheist, and apparently not all that intelligent, I understand why you're struggling with this. It was this slight that illustrated your opinion of atheists.
So if you're ready to get back to the subject matter, I'll ask which version of Creationism you support: Man was created on Earth, or Man was created in Paradise? And for the record, there is a great deal of proof behind the theory of evolution, much more so than creationism.
Alright Ted
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 7:00pm.
Since your feelings seem to be hurt, I'll explain my comments:
First, I entered into the discussion by saying that the concept of creationism wasn't conceived by Christians; at least, that's what I was trying to say. The crack about skipping history class was to insinuate -jokingly- that you're chronology was wrong; not to be relevant to the public school issue. I may have been a little too vague about that, I suppose.
Then you came back with a crack indicating that I was incoherent in my thought process. "What does that mean anyway..." Saying that out loud with the emphasis on "mean" certainly makes the comment seem at least as disparaging as my cutting class comment. Touche.
My comment about your confusion was on par with the ongoing insult parade. Nothing more, nothing less.
Your "dumbing down" comment followed suit. No problems here, I'm not easily offended; though I'm picking up on your sensitivity. You then go on to say that creationism has nothing to do with scripture. Huh? It's Christian, but has nothing to do with scripture?
Obviously your waving of you college degree was thoroughly unimpressive at the point, so I suggested you put it to better use.
Your touchiness really showed there; possibly some sort of self-image issue? So you then project a position from which I'm supposedly basing my opinions that you first find beneath you, and second, was entirely false. Then, typical of the lefty losing an argument, you call me a bigot.
Finally, I mocked your intelligence because you projected the "creationism concept" on Christians, which to you, is inferior to your atheism. Yet it was not conceptualized by Christians so I pointed that out. I have remained on that topic for the entire length of my comments to you.
As for this last comment, I'm no religious scholar as I mentioned above, but I believe that Genesis contends that man was created on earth, in God's image. Not in Paradise, wherever that is. And I agree that fossilized evidence supports in some ways the evolution of man, though that in no way disproves the theory of creationism. As I said, unless you believe the literal translation of the Bible -that man was created in one day- than it's quite reasonable to say that God created man to evolve and adapt to a growing and changing environment. I know many Christians don't hold with that position, though I'm not one of them. There are many holes in the theory of evolution, the biggest being "where did the first cells come from?" Even the theoretical big bang doesn't explain what was there before it.
So quit your whining, stop acting like your feelings are hurt -because frankly, I don't care and it'll get you no sympathy on this site- and simply admit you either mispoke or were flat out wrong about the origins of creationism; that was the only issue I broached with you this time. And feel free to point out factual errors in my comments as you see fit; I'm neither perfect nor omnipotent. And I can take it.
Sensitivity
Submitted by The Irishman on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 7:46pm.
Sensitive? Hardly. Just pointing out your inability to have a discussion without making it personal.
Now, yes, I would like to correct the inaccuracies in your post. Obviously the idea of creation predates Christianity. You'll notice I posted that earlier, probably even yesterday. The origins of Creationism is not being debated. And all religions have their own version of Creation. But neither you, nor anyone else on this site is willing to admit that the Creationism you're advocating is based on teaching Christianity. Islam teaches man was created in paradise. Is that part of the Creation curriculum you were imagining?
You then go on to say that creationism has nothing to do with scripture.
What? Huh? Is that what I said?
the concept of creationism and the accepted definition have less to do with the origins of the scripture than the ideas of Christianity
Ah, that's more like it. Precisely my point. When Creationism is discussed in this country it is the Christian telling of our origins. Through and through, page after page, I see plenty of scripture quoted and a healthy amount of the Bible's explanation for man's creation, yet no other religions are mentioned. No other origins.
Your dismissive statements regarding atheism - if you'd like to clarify I will retract my accusation, but it sure looks to me like you rank atheists at the bottom of the intelligence scale. Nowhere did I place atheism or various religions above Christianity, so that claim is crap.
When Creationism is discussed
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 8:32pm.
When Creationism is discussed in this country it is the Christian telling of our origins.
See, that's exactly what I was noting as factually incorrect. If you consider the Genesis version of creationism as the most commonly held belief, than that is decidedly a Jewish telling of our orignins in that Jews wrote it. Before Christians existed. Before Christ.
As with mathematics, Christians have subscribed onto that as well, but it was most notably a Greek development; also before Christians and before Christ. And as with mathematics, Christians telling of creationism usually do so without altering the storyline; it's not like today's "Christian" version of creationism has a whole bunch of added Christian goodies to it that significantly alter the tale.
____________________________________________________________________________
Now- all that I've said prior to this has been by memory, and as I said, I'm not a practicing Christian. So I took a moment and looked it up.
Evolution: The modern theory concerning the evolution of man proposes that humans and apes derive from an apelike ancestor that lived on earth a few million years ago. The theory states that man, through a combination of environmental and genetic factors, emerged as a species to produce the variety of ethnicities seen today, while modern apes evolved on a separate evolutionary pathway.
Creationsim: 19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Now tell me Ted, outside of the non-defined "time", how do these two versions vastly differ?
bkeyser
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 8:41pm.
Ooooh! Oooooooh! Pick me! Pick me!
I know the answer to this one.
(Doing my best Horshack imitation)
Sure hydro
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 8:41pm.
go right ahead
bkeyser
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 8:49pm.
Creationism has a supernatural agent as its primary cause while evolutionary theory assumes only natural agents.
Do I win something?
hydro
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 9:40pm.
Well, that is a difference, but my point to Ted was that by either scenario, we could've ended up exactly where we are.
However, for playing the game you have won an exciting weekend excursion to Galapagos --or trade it in for what's behind door number two!
bkeyser
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 10:41pm.
I know you were emphasizing the similarities - I just felt like budding in.
And can I take a year's supply of Rica-A-Roni instead?
Ah hydro
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 11:00pm.
No problem at all. I've seen some of your epic battles in this area so I was prepared to be enthralled. I was a little surprised at the brevity.
Is that still the San Fransisco Treat or is it Nancy Pelosi?
bkeyser
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 11:46pm.
I haven't gotten many nibbles with the bait I've left here so I thought I'd impose on your conversation with The Irishman - but decided to be laconic while doing it.
I'd actually take a year's supply of Baconators over Rice-A-Roni but I'm pretty sure that would kill me.
HDM ...
Submitted by NL207 on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 7:47am.
"evolutionary theory assumes only natural agent"
Where did the natural agents come from? The creationists have an immediate answer to this question. Do you?
NL207
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 12:23pm.
Nope, I don't.
There are speculative ideas in science about where the universe came from (which is what I think you are ultimately asking regarding the origin of all natural agents) - but they are just guesses.
And, of course, none of them incorporate supernatural agents since that isn't allowed in science.
But who knows what time will bring with regard to science's ability to answer this question.
I know creationists have an immediate answer. In fact, I'm pretty sure all forms of creationism - past and present - have and do despite some forms of creationism being inconsistent with others. But like the speculations in science, they are just guesses. Using the term "answer" doesn't make them correct.
On exams, I don't hand out 100% credit for simply giving an answer. It has to be correct as well.
On exams, you know what the correct answer is ...
Submitted by NL207 on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 3:49pm.
since it was you who asked the question. Neither the question nor the answer you score as correct are 100% free from human error : your human error.
"There are speculative ideas in science about where the universe came from" Translation for other readers : Science does not know where the Universe came from.
Let's return to the proposition that man evolved from prior forms of life through the action of one or more 'natural agents'. Postulating this is true leads us to two immediate questions : how did these natural forces come to be and where did the precursor life come from? An obvious answer to the second question presents itself : the precursor life to Humans was derived from these same natural forces acting upon even earlier life forms. And this even earlier life form? Where did it come from? Natural forces acting upon a successively more primitive life form. proof by induction.
If our postulate is true, then Human life was created by natural forces acting iteratively upon the most primitive life form possible .... apparently Darwin was right. Or was he? Where did the most primitive form of life come from?
I think most readers can see where this is going : a proof by induction that there was a moment of Creation at some time in the past which produced the measurable Universe as we observe it today. --> The creationists are at least 50% right.
NL207
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 4:11pm.
Yea - like I said - science doesn't know where the universe came from. I didn't think a translation was necessary.
As for the proposition that a scientific explanation for the origin of life is predicated on the assumption that only natural agents are involved - you do know that ALL of science is predicated on this assumption that the systems they study are driven by natural agents, right? There's nothing particularly peculiar about scientists, who are trying to come up with a scientific explanation for the origin and development of life, making use of it.
As for your "proof by induction". First, proof by induction is only a legitimate form of proof (as in logically consistent) in the form of mathematical induction, which obviously doesn't apply here.
Second, I'm pretty sure your argument isn't an example of induction - I think it's an argument based on causation. As I understand it, induction involves making generalized statements based on a finite number of statements - something which, strictly speaking, isn't allowed from a logical standpoint. For example, asserting that all electrons have a certain mass based on a finite number of empirical observations.
As to your argument, I'm no biologist or anything, but I'm pretty sure a scientist devoted to the idea of natural agents (which they pretty much have to do if they want to do science) would have to work from the view that natural agents can generate organic material from inorganic material.
In other words, the "moment of Creation" (capitalization aside) is a natural, and not a supernatural, one.
>Sigh!<
Submitted by NL207 on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 5:05pm.
The process of creating new species out of old species by means of mutational differentiation can be viewed as an interative process, where each iteration produces a successive, new species. If we view this as the mathematical progression, which it most certainly can be, then induction is applicable here. Perhaps your inabiliy to see this is rooted in a view of humans as an endpoint in this sequence. That is illogical. If the same natural forces continue to exist and humans are life forms, then there will be successive iterations of this process to come, and if not derived from homo sapiens for reasons of extinction, then from some other life form.
Simple question : where did the inorganic materials that natural processes converted into organic material come from? Perhaps Barack Obama went back in time and pulled them out of his arse?
I did not say the moment of Creation is shown by my argument to be supernatural in origin. That would make the Creationists 100% correct, would it not? I merely attempted to show that a causal chain if indeterminate length can be establsihed linking a moment of 'creation ' to the present. Therefore there was a moment 'creation'. The creationists are shown to be 50% correct when they argue that God created the Universe.
NL207
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 5:37pm.
My ability to distinguish between mathematical induction and inductive reasoning (and I guess now we should throw in iteration) isn't related to my views on human evolution - they are based on what the definition of those terms are.
Look, I'm willing to grant that maybe you are using these terms loosely to make a point. But if you are going to use certain terminology which has a very precise meaning, you can't jump on me for disagreeing with you if it looks like you are using them incorrectly.
And honestly, I'm having trouble getting what your point is and what you mean about Creationists being 50% correct. What exactly are they correct about? That there was a moment of creation? I'm pretty sure evolutionists believe the same thing (though through natural causes, of course). That God created the universe? How do you get that from your argument?
You're argument seems to be little more than a first cause argument. Where did the first organic material come from? - Well, it must of come from inorganic material. - Well, were did the first inorganic material come from? - Well, maybe the Big Bang. - Well, where did the Big Bang come from?
It's a weak argument and all it does is require that a proponent of the scientific approach acknowledge that they don't have all the answers. And that's not much of a concession, in my opinion.
The choice seems to be between acknowledging that you don't have all the answers and asserting that you do but aren't able to prove it.
And really man - given that you and I have always gotten along and given how long we have both been here, I really don't think I deserve you sighing at me :)
Easy
Submitted by The Irishman on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 9:23am.
And since hydro gave one answer I'll give the other:
Evolution is based on scientific study while religion has none.
In the case of the Bible, it's merely written. And that is considered truth, and you don't get to question it. Evolution has been studied for 150 years and scientists continue to provide support to this theory through research and discovery. The Bible says so, and it's so. There is nothing to prove, nothing to disprove. In other words, religion gets a freebie as evolution continues on with the fight.
Ted
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 4:17pm.
I stand by my earlier comment- you're so dense. Read the words. Consider both versions a storyline, and tell me how they substantially differ.
I don't know when Genesis was written, but I can be pretty sure it was well before the science of evolution was derived. The fact is that evolution, if true, could substantiate creationism. As hydro said, creationism adds the element of the supernatural to the process- an element that is otherwise ignored or remains unexplained in the science of evolution. Your either purposefully ignoring this or too dense to pick up on it- your call.
Finally, I'm not going to discuss this further with you on this thread (you can create a forum if you like to continue, though I suspect that won't happen), but I saw your little comments to agnostic about insults. Because I believe you to be what you've claimed in the past as a California family man, I find it increasingly curious that you come across on these pages more like a 10 year old girl. You need to get some thicker skin there Teddy- stop channeling your daughter or your niece or the little girl next door -it's embarrassing.
bkeyser
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 4:28pm.
To chime in (yet again), I'd just like to comment on your statement that supernatural agents are ignored or unexplained in the science of evolution.
No scientific model - in any area of study - can make use of supernatural agents since it would render the manner in which testable empirical predictions or explanations are derived from these models (or theories) completely useless.
Science can't, by virtue of its method, ever make use of supernatural agents since supernatural agents, by definition, have unknowable empirical properties.
So yes science ignores such agents. My point is that it has to.
hydro
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 7:43pm.
My point wasn't that science should include the supernatural in it's findings, of course that's illogical in the realm of science. It is rather that religion says A, B, and C happened because of X; science says A, B, and C happened and has no explanation for the origins of A. That A and B vary between the two is debatable, but both science and religion agree on C.
Does that make sense?
bkeyser
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 2:57am.
Makes sense to me.
I suppose we can debate about what you mean by "origins" and whether science is able or supposed to deal with that question, but I'll leave it at that.
(for some reason, Forest Gump came to mind as I wrote that)
LOL. How can anything be "personal" with you, Zippers?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 8:51pm.
About the only identity you haven't tried here yet at NB in your 24 reincarnations is Tibetan yak herder.
Now that would be
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 8:55pm.
impressive if he could pull that off
Nothing there. Sorry.
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 8:58pm.
Hmmm. It's no secret that I don't believe in God, yet I don't see all that much bigotry towards atheists here on NB. If anyone should have been the target of such bigotry, it surely would have been I.
Yet I have no complaints to make.
Want to try to loft another accusation at the religious community here on NB?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
As small part? HAH!
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 9:29pm.
"Evolution is a small part of 1 year of high school science study"
No it is NOT! It is a multi-year, incredibly ingrained "study" in every single "biology," and just about every "science" class, throughout your entire public school attendance "lifetime." I don't know about you, but I was first introduced to Evolution in the first grade, when we were out picking up dead leave for "pressing.", and those Evolution lessens extended into High School biology classes.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
→ Evolution is racist
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 9:37pm.
But liberals can believe whatever they want and hide those beliefs any way they want.
They had no qualms at all calling Bush a chimp, did they?
As I recall
Submitted by The Irishman on Sat, 05/07/2011 - 9:47am.
And here we discuss the different curriculums of various school districts:
Freshman Year: Earth Science
Sophomore Year: Biology (a section of this class is Evolution)
Junior Year: Chemistry
So when I was in school, yes, evolution was a small section of sophomore year, when we weren't dissecting worms, frogs and pigs.
Senior Year
Submitted by Red Jeep on Sat, 05/07/2011 - 9:54am.
Physics.
Personally
Submitted by The Irishman on Sat, 05/07/2011 - 10:01am.
I bowed out before chem. Just not my path.
Ever hear of Theology?
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 9:39pm.
Ever hear of Theology? That's the study of religion. There's even college courses in Theology. The study of Creationism is part of that Theology. So, it's much more than just "faith," as you keep insisting.
Besides, Evolution isn't a "study." It's a theory. School kids study the theory of evolution, so why shouldn't they also study the theory of Creationism?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
CobraMan
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 1:53am.
Isn't Relativity a "theory" as well?
How about Quantum Field Theory?
Pretty sure that's a "theory" too.
Hold on. Since science is based on induction, doesn't that pretty much make every scientific endeavor a "theory"?
As in not 100% provable?
But since Relativity and Quantum Field Theory don't seem to conflict directly with your religious views, I suppose those are OK, right?
Guttermouth has never talked about this before.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 9:49pm.
Oh wait. He has.
Guttermouth: There's a nice way and a not so nice way of calling out Creationism believers...
Do atheists just go to study hall?
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 10:59pm.
No. To HELL.
Hah!
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 05/07/2011 - 8:56am.
Hah!
Which is funny
Submitted by The Irishman on Sat, 05/07/2011 - 10:01am.
Since only a few days ago it was declared humans have no right to declare another to hell.
Darwin stated that if any part or parts of his theory
Submitted by nonncom on Sat, 05/07/2011 - 9:04am.
were proven incorrect, than the whole theory would have to be taken as incorrect.....if he were here today, he would retract much, if not all, of his theory.....there is still no fossil evidence linking man to evolution of the species from a lower form.....an inconvenient truth?....however, there is evidence of intelligent design....perhaps aliens?....or was it God....
Darwin is dead
Submitted by The Irishman on Sat, 05/07/2011 - 10:10am.
But his theory continues to hold true. Evolutionary research has been able to follow Darwin's theory because it has yet to be disproven. As scientists continue to research in the field of evolution each new piece of information fits appropriately and definitively along the lines of what is already believed as truth. In other words, the study of Evolution has yet to contradict itself.
Tell us about your God TickTackToe again Guttermouth.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 05/07/2011 - 10:59am.
#30 We do have tracings of
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 4:18pm.
We do have tracings of transitional life forms everywhere.
Tiktaalik is a prime example.
Though I'd love to hear where you get your facts.
I'm ready
Submitted by The Irishman on Sat, 05/07/2011 - 11:03am.
Whenever you're ready to introduce facts.
Untrue from the start
Submitted by wyogator on Sat, 05/07/2011 - 11:31am.
Ever heard of Louis Pasteur? He proved that life only comes from life...not from non-life. The principle of spontaneous generation was then proven obsolete. Without spontaneous generation, you can't have an evolutionary beginning to life on earth. Therefore, evolution is disproven at its, pardon the expression, "genesis".
Most every "proof" or example of evolution that we are given by the scientists are changes within a species and the already existing genetic range of that animal. Darwin's finches had changing beaks, but they were still finches. The peppered moths may have favored different colors through natural selection, but they were still moths. We have irradiated fruit flies for generation after generation, and have caused some mutations along the way, but nothing that put them on the path to be anything other than a fruit fly.
This is bait and switch. We are told that these small changes are evolution when no new genetic info has actually been created. These small changes are then extrapolated into large changes with long periods of time as the magic ingredient with no proof whatsoever. Mutations cannot create useful new structures and new animals.
Intelligent design simply says that the absolutely stunning and remarkable and intricate design seen in nature could not create itself by purely random processes. Pure logic.
If you put a frog in a blender and liquified it, how long would you have to wait for it to become a frog again? Every single element, mineral, enzyme etc of a frog it there...but it would never happen, would it? It is equally impossible to think that any other form of life could create itself either. The hurdle from non-life to life is simply too great. Even the very simplest life form must have the structure and capacity to reproduce, respirate, and consume food. It needs the structures and enzymes to process that food and turn it into useful energy and process and discard waste.
Not happening...
www.africaourownhome.org
Very good
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 05/07/2011 - 11:46am.
Adapting is not evolution. I have made this point before, not as well as you though.
Evolution is not an answer to
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 05/07/2011 - 7:48pm.
Evolution is not an answer to the question of the origin of life on earth, only how that life changes through time. Evolution has nothing to say about where life started. I may believe that science will eventually find a material answer to that question, but there is nothing about the concept of natural selection that assumes it will. The main contribution of evolution to the question of origins is the fact that it implies there could have been a single event that started life. Evolution means we don't have to explain how every single extant species was created on its own, but it doesn't supply the answer to what that initial event was. So the corollary to your point is that there is nothing about evolution that prevents religious people who believe in God from also believing in evolution.
CobraMan
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 1:42am.
I guess you missed my comment in that other thread.
The difference isn't one of faith or one of truth - it's a matter of method.
Science doesn't incorporate supernatural agents. Creationism does.
That's kind of a big difference.
Do you agree?
Too bad, hyrdro
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 12:10pm.
That the forums got wiped out [again].
I remember your most excellent thread on this topic, too bad it's gone up in the ether (along w/the year and a half long discussion of health care "reform", alas).
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Blonde
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 1:24pm.
I know. We lost a lot of really good discussions in the switch over.
The forum post you just reminded me of is still there but the formatting is all messed up and, of course, all the comments are gone.
I'm half thinking of putting up another one which addresses science in general. I find myself typing the same things over and over again because of what seem to be pretty common misconceptions about what science is and what it isn't.
Duh
Submitted by russedav on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 7:30pm.
But of course dear arrogant Juan doesn't believe his lessers, parents and local governments, should or even can decide anything for themselves not given by his elite cronies (you know, that "inalienable rights" thing they hand down that they scoop out of their [insert name of party mascot]).
Juan
Submitted by Jerry Mack on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 8:01pm.
Previously I had my doubts that Juan Williams was a college graduate. Now I have doubts that he graduated from High sshool.
Juan just doesn't know what
Submitted by redfish on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 8:16pm.
Juan just doesn't know what he's talking about when he equates Creationism with Intelligent Design and then from there implies its just a argument based on faith not logic.
Those are assumptions a lot of people have though which really aren't true. ID doesn't even challenge evolution, it only challenges a certain account of evolution that assumes randomness and chance. Things like irreducibility complexity are fair, logic-oriented critiques.
Science is as much about theory as it is about empirical fact, and I support students reading theoretical arguments by Darwin, Lamarck, Alfred Russell Wallace, Teilhard de Chardin, Gould, Dawkins, and even Behe (ID). Let students have critical discussions about theory. It would only help them, not hurt them.
What's so great about evolution?
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 9:19pm.
What's so great about evolution anyways? Evolution sure seems to have given us Humans the raw end of the stick. Take the human foot as an example. Millions of years of evolution and this is the best natural selection could come up with? Something half way between a hand and a hoof? Come on! I mean, really, we had to invent shoes just to keep our own feet from getting damaged in the natural world!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Such posts
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 11:01pm.
Should go down in de-feet.
People seem to forget...
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 10:19pm.
People seem to forget that Religion, like Evolution, is based upon the study of the natural world. The only difference between the two are their particular conclusions.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
If......
Submitted by MidAmerica on Fri, 05/06/2011 - 10:39pm.
...evolution is a natural fact then there is every reason to believe that there may very well be differences between the races. Ask your Liberal friends why evolution isn't happening with humans.
Of course as Conservatives we observe the ingrained sense of superiority (racism) exhibited by White liberals towards the non-Whites. White Liberals see themselves as the protectors of non-Whites who are always a victim without the protection of White Liberals. Which means, of course, that White Liberals see themselves as superior to non-Whites.
Actual study of evolution
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 05/07/2011 - 8:59am.
Actual study of evolution would teach you why that conclusion is wrong. That's EXACTLY why we have to teach it, because a shallow understanding of evolution leads to wrongheaded, socially harmful ideas.
What does it teach you? That
Submitted by redfish on Sat, 05/07/2011 - 11:34am.
What does it teach you? That there aren't differences between races? That evolution isn't about progress but adaptation?
Actually, that's exactly why we need to discuss theory when discussing evolution, because there is more than one answer to those things. Those are theoretical questions (the second being a metaphysical question) rather than empirical questions. People need to have intelligent answers on them, but it only comes from discussion of theory and discussion of philosophy.
The whole reason there's agitation on this issue in the first place is because evolutionary theory has been used to push values and attack what are considered "socially harmful ideas". Stephen Jay Gould for instance insisted that anyone believing evolution wasn't random would use it to support racism, so attacked Teilhard de Chardin and tried to connect him to all sorts of racist groups he wasn't connected to and implicate him in hoaxes, smearing him and trying to ruin his reputation.
Well, genetics teaches us
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 05/07/2011 - 7:44pm.
Well, genetics teaches us that there is more genetic variation within a single race than there is between races. So given that variation is both the raw material and eventual outcome of natural selection, it doesn't seem like there's much to be made of races. The only taxonomic entity that is biologically real is the species, and we are clearly all the same species.
But even if there were difference between the races, evolution would have nothing useful to say about what to do about it. A smaller gene pool is a weaker one, so trying to shape the human race is a stupid thing to do. And science cannot give us answers to moral questions.
There are theoretical questions about evolution, but even in college I have to simplify some of those in order to get the basic concept across. In my animal behavior class I have a strict "no group selectionist arguments" rule because I am constantly battling the tendency of students to come up with "good of the species" answers to the questions I ask them to think critically about. I try to explain that the rule is one that they can break later, because group selection may have some real insight to offer us, but for now the most important thing is that they learn to let go of romantic notions about how nature works and look at things through an evolutionary lens.
Teaching this stuff is complicated! And I know there's no point in trying to say that here, because everyone on NB thinks monkeys could teach our kids just fine. We could pay them in bananas and save billions of dollars in education funding. Hurrah!
"Well, genetics teaches us
Submitted by redfish on Sat, 05/07/2011 - 11:31pm.
"Well, genetics teaches us that there is more genetic variation within a single race than there is between races."
But see, that itself is a statement rooted in theoretical assumptions. How do you measure difference, and how do you determine how significant a difference is? There are many ways to answer that. After all, we're 96% the same as chimpanzees, yet that 4% ends up making a huge difference. There's a popular line of thinking, and there are many critics to that point of view.
When it comes to theory, students tend to only hear the most popular point of view, in my experience that in turn tends to be shaped by ideology, and thats why I think there's a debate about how evolution is taught.
I'm not a geneticist, quick
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 8:52am.
I'm not a geneticist, quick disclaimer, but I don't think measuring difference is terribly complicated. What does that difference mean in terms of function is a thorny subject. But when you are teaching biology in public schools, the idea that you have the time and ability to present every theoretical argument in enough detail to let their relative merits and flaws become innately obvious to students without supplying some perspective yourself as the teacher is incredibly naive.
I try to make the point that while they should listen to their textbooks, because they represent the best thinking that scientists have done on these subjects, they should also keep in mind that every single sentence in that textbook is a placeholder. It is a placeholder for huge volumes of scientific material, raging debates that still aren't quite settled, and a thousand questions that still remain to be answered. Ideally, we'd teach every subject from the primary literature. But I think you'd have a hard time finding even the most brilliant scientist who was deeply familiar with the primary literature in every subject covered in your standard biology class. So how are we supposed to expect students to do that?
Also, I reject the idea that the only difference between natural selection and ID is that one is popular and one isn't! There are serious theoretical flaws in ID, and creationism, and I don't for one second think that the reason there is a debate about whether ID should be in the classroom comes from its scientific merit.
What I mean about difference
Submitted by redfish on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 10:37am.
What I mean about difference is that there's also a theory out there that essentially race doesn't even exist biologically -- that its a social construct --- because of the statistics you cited. But its based on comparing the presence of single, individual genetic markers, while that might not be best way to define what race is.
There are seriously flaws in saying natural selection explains all of evolution. I don't agree with the conclusions of ID, and I don't treat every premise seriously, but I think its critique of the natural selection point of view, and the point of view that evolution could have occurred based on completely random mutations, is fair. I think a lot of scientists misunderstand the point of the "irreducible complexity argument". Its basically an argument against chance, not against evolution... and I think 'irreducible complexity' could even explain why we haven't been able to recreate life in a lab.. because there are too many conditions to replicate that we can't.
ir-recreatable complexity is
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 3:24pm.
ir-recreatable complexity is not the same as irreducible complexity! We have imperfect knowledge of the past, so our inability to recreate the exact conditions does not mean that the event couldn't have happened.
There are gaps in our ability to explain all of life with evolution by natural selection, but no pieces of evidence that directly refute the theory. ID when applied to anything other than the attack of the alternate theory turns out to be a "just so" story, something that a strictly adaptationist approach to the study of life can also lead to. We have to be careful about taking as proof things that fit a theory. Theories are not proven by evidence that supports them, they are disproven by evidence that contradicts them.
As far as I can tell, imperfections in nature disprove ID, until someone can come up with a form of that theory which incorporates all of the entirely senseless things that exist. Neither natural selection nor ID are proven by things that work, make sense to us, and seem to have logical function, because those pieces of evidence support both theories.
What I'm suggesting is not
Submitted by redfish on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 3:44pm.
What I'm suggesting is not that we'd need complete knowledge of the past, but that the conditions of the past aren't re-creatable.
But I just think thats an extension of what irreducible complexity suggests. I don't think the point of ID is that there are no mistakes in nature, but that there is some fundamental order in the way things work (in the way chemicals can be structured, and so on), that help promote a certain end. So evolution is "given a push" by natural tendencies. Remember Behe's primary interest is in microbiology. I think ID has a good critique of the idea that it could be completely random and by chance. I don't agree with the opposite assertion that must, if not by chance, be by design, though. I don't think the disproval of one theory means that the opposite theory is correct.
I've read a lot of 19th century biological theory which is referred to as "teleomechanics", because it suggests that there's a teleolgical nature in the way things develop. I don't agree with everything from that school but there are a lot of interesting ideas. Also, Teilhard de Chardin had interesting arguments about how consciousness plays a role in evolution and I think some things have already proven him correct (studies on symbiosis, etc).
But again, un-recreatable
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 9:46pm.
But again, un-recreatable does not mean false. The fact that we can't recreate something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We couldn't recreate the earth, either, but we have a pretty good idea it exists.
You say that ID doesn't mean there are no mistakes in nature-- really? It doesn't? Where do those mistakes come from, if all of this is the work of a creative agent, particularly an omniscient, omnipresent, all powerful supernatural agent? Why are some mistakes made and not others? Why does every motile cell use the same 9-by-2 organization of structures, while there are many different kinds of eyes, each of which works entirely differently? Why do some snakes have two lungs that work, and some have one that works and one that is a shriveled, useless lump? Why do birds and flying insects achieve the same functional result using such different mechanisms?
Natural selection has answers for these questions, but as far as I can tell, ID does not. And the thing that most makes me mistrust ID is that it doesn't seem to care that it doesn't have answers. It isn't looking for any. All it exists to do is try to poke holes in evolution. You have Behe, who believes in macroevolution and speciation, but disbelieves tiny changes in cellular structure, and Dembski and others who believe in microevolution but not macroevolution, and yet they don't argue with each other. When evolutionists disagree, they argue violently-- just listen to what Dawkins' colleagues have to say about him! The fact that these "scientists" don't bother to figure out who has it right makes me highly mistrustful of their honest desire to learn about the world. I think they are agenda driven, not looking for truth.
Genetics teaches nothing,,,,
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 05/07/2011 - 11:30pm.
It is an inanimate abstraction. As such, it can never be the subject in any action.
Teachers teach, or at least they used to before the NEA came along. Students learn. Teachers teach genetics. Students learn genetics. Genetics does not teach anyone anything. In that regard, is shares something in common with the Department of Education..
Yea, by the way the news
Submitted by redfish on Sat, 05/07/2011 - 11:29pm.
Yea, by the way the news media talks about it, most people think genes represent actual base-pair sequences, while they don't. They refer to something abstract.
I'm curious what you mean by
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 8:42am.
I'm curious what you mean by that... how are they "abstract?" If you mean that they are more than just base-pair sequences, or that often we can determine that something is partially based on genetics but don't yet know the base-pair sequences, fine. But I don't think either of those makes the idea of a gene an abstract concept.
We do have a very simplified view of what it means to say that something is "genetic," fueled by a dilletant scientific press that insists on headlines like "gene for aggression found!" much to the great frustration of biology teachers everywhere!
Exactly what you said.. that
Submitted by redfish on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 10:46am.
Exactly what you said.. that even as people use 'genes' to refer to something in the genotype, because you don't know exactly how what we're labeling as a gene works, you can't exclude environmental influences. It becomes especially a thorny issue when you deal with claims about genes for personality traits. The press of course simplifies it, but it starts with scientists who sort of push the claim gently in their papers.
Having spoken at great length
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 10:54am.
Having spoken at great length with the scientists whose claims end up in those papers, I assure you they are not happy with how they are portrayed. Several of my colleagues have literally one reporter they will even agree to speak to when they discover something, because they get so tired of having their claims overblown.
Scientists are trained very carefully not to make more of a result than it really is. Scientific papers are full of qualifiers and complications and further questions and continuing debate, all of which are washed out when the popular press gets ahold of something it finds titillating.
Personally, I think scientists should get some public relations training as part of their education so that they have the tools to try and head that kind of thing off before it gets started. Communication tends not to be most scientists' strong suit!
Really!
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 11:06am.
"Communication tends not to be most scientists' strong suit"
I doubt you know ANY real scientists. It's clear to anyone who reads the drivel you post here you know nothing of science either.
So true!
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 9:02pm.
Amen, brother. It is clear to me that hippiebear is a pseudo-intellectual that takes great joy in hearing herself sound smart.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
What am I saying here that
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 9:37pm.
What am I saying here that you find pseudo-intellectual?
Answer
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 9:28am.
Virtually everything you type on NB.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
What makes the sentiments and
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 4:47pm.
What makes the sentiments and ideas expressed here pseudo-intellectual?
In other words
Submitted by The Irishman on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 9:36am.
Dumb yourself down if you want to reach them. Apparently some of the terminology you've been using has been somewhat confusing to lesser intellects.
Laughable
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 1:52pm.
You really need to speak for yourself. You are an even bigger pseudo-intellectual than hippiebear is.
And you are very sorely mistaken if you think using a polysyllabic lexicon constantly makes you an intellectual. hippiebear's major problem is that she feels her way through life. Your problem is that you are extremely bossy; an authoritarian.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
yeah yeah yeah
Submitted by The Irishman on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 1:56pm.
You're smart, mamabear and I are stupid. Got it. But I don't know how an anti-authoritarian can be authoritarian.
Actually...
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 5:00pm.
Actually you don't get it. YOU were the one insisting that hippiebear "dumb down" her language to appeal to the rest of us, not I. The only thing I said is that she is pseudo-intellectual. I say that because she prefers to feel her way through life.
I'm not all that smart but smarter than you think.
In that last sentence, are you suggesting that you are anti-authoritarian? Because if you are, then that's a laugh!
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
So let me get this straight.
Submitted by The Irishman on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 5:19pm.
Just so I understand that position you're making. Calling mamabear a pseudo-intellectual is in essence calling her stupid. And when NL207 proclaimed mamabear knows nothing about science you chimed in with an enthusiastic "So true - Amen brother."
So basically you get to call people stupid, but others aren't.
Is that the point you're making?
Now on to the second part. What do you think you know about me? And what the hell makes you think I'm authoritarian? Is it because I've been questioning authority my entire life? Love to know.
For Ted/One/Whatever you will call yourself next week...
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 11:18pm.
No, I am not calling her stupid. Being a pseudo-intellectual means a bit more than that. I don't even think hippiebear is stupid. Her ideas are stupid. The way she arrives at thinking they are great ideas is stupid. Is she stupid? I don't think she is.
Onto the second part, as I seem to have touched a nerve. If you don't want me to call you an authoritarian, or don't want people to form opinions about you, simply re-evaluate your positions and your approaches to life. Or simply stop posting on NB. I wouldn't know one damn thing about you if you never showed up here.
You selectively question authority. You SAY you question authority but you in fact love it and revel in it.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
What aspects of the ideas
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 1:23am.
What aspects of the ideas I've expressed here, or the way I think about them, are stupid?
Now here we are
Submitted by The Irishman on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 9:02am.
Stuck where we were before. You called mamabear pseudo-intellectual. She's been asking for an explanation, what about half a dozen times now? You called me authoritarian, and after I asked for an explanation you resort back to your triumphant stand ("touched a nerve"), nary an explanation in sight.
Is it that you have opinions with no foundation?
There is only one dictionary in all of trollietown.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 9:08am.
Put in a request and you will get to borrow it in a week. Then you can understand the words monkeypeople throw out there. In the meantime, SHUT UP Dead Angry Black Zippers. Monkeypeople don't explain common words because they have access to dictionaries. Monkeypeople get paid more than $5 an hour that you keep whining about in another blog. Did you finally look up the word retread or milquetoast yet? Or do they confuse you still?
Take a number
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 8:47pm.
Actually, I DO have a foundation for my opinions, and will be happy to demonstrate, but as you do not pay my bills (nor does hippiebear), you have to yield the right of way to those who DO pay my bills.
Both of you can just keep on barking orders at me but you are both going to have to wait. Besides, your barking orders is enough of a demonstration, I think, of your bossy, authoritarian streak - for the moment.
Get in line, take a number.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Take as long as you need
Submitted by The Irishman on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 8:54pm.
I'm in no hurry, nor I presume is mamabear. Asking you to explain your accusations is hardly a demand.
Irish
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 8:57pm.
I would suggest not holding your breath as you await a reply.
It's 2-1 kiddo
Submitted by The Irishman on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 9:03pm.
Just sayin. ; )
In that case....
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 11:37pm.
You will have to share the normal trolling fee. $2 Troll Stupidz an hour gets split into .66 Troll Stupidz per troll using troll math.
"The only thing I said is
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 6:06pm.
"The only thing I said is that she is pseudo-intellectual."
What makes the things I am saying here pseudo-intellectual?
Oh, cmon, NL.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 9:10pm.
Now tell me your community doesn't have invite-a-scientist-pot-luck-dinner-nights like Prof. SubaruBear has.
Oh, the heady discussions go on to all hours of the morning.
All you have to do to make
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 9:42pm.
All you have to do to make friends with scientists is go to grad school, it really isn't complicated. These days, most of us go to bed at reasonable hours!
Huh?
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 5:01pm.
Hmmm...I go to grad school and don't meet scientists...
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
My comment was off-hand, as
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 6:09pm.
My comment was off-hand, as was the jibe I was replying to.
Do you really need me to explain how I met other scientists? I can, if you are feeling confused by the subject.
Students enrolled Liberal Arts
Submitted by NL207 on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 5:26pm.
Education programs do not meet Scientists.
You WERE an Ed major, were you not?
Um, the grad school of liberal arts?
Submitted by The Irishman on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 5:33pm.
What is that, a doctoral degree?
Universities, historically, staff a great number of scientists, many of whom are grad students working on fellowships and internships within research labs and hospitals.
So it's pretty easy. Just talk to a fellow student.
Tell me about all the
Submitted by NL207 on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 6:10pm.
education majors hanging around the Hospital and Research Labs looking for some action ...
There aren't any. The Liberal Arts majors hang out at the off-campus bars.
And, I saw you on an earlier thread, telling RedJeep that you never took high school chemistry or physics. This places you outside the science community. So how is it you would know anything about what goes on within it?
Simply
Submitted by The Irishman on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 6:14pm.
Some people choose to continue to learn after high school. Earth Science and Bio were it for me in high school, but I did take additional classes in college such as biology and geology. And I read.
Am I qualified now?
"education majors hanging
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 1:26am.
"education majors hanging around the Hospital and Research Labs looking for some action ..."
Oh give us a break! Is this really worth griping over? Attend graduate school at any major research university and you will meet people studying all sorts of different things. The graduate division will have events for all graduate students, and newsletters, and workshops on teaching, and every grad student on campus will show up to any venue with free food, etc.
The idea that it would be difficult for someone with an education degree, which I don't even have, to meet scientists is stupid.
Huh?
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 8:49pm.
I talk to fellow students all the time and I don't run into scientists here, though we undoubtedly have them here.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Students enrolled in
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 6:09pm.
Students enrolled in education do meet scientists, but I have a PhD in biology. So meeting scientists was kind of unavoidable for me!
I've read some papers myself,
Submitted by redfish on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 12:27pm.
I've read some papers myself, and yes they make a lot of qualifiers and point out a lot of complications. But even in the case of personality traits they use a lot of language like "most likely some part is genetic and some part is environmental", even in cases where I think its possible to explain it as entirely environmental. The entire point of such a paper is meant to suggest some evidence for the genetic point of view, so its somewhat leading to begin with.
I wouldn't impugn the scientists, I just think, in this instance, the question of how personality is formed is a matter of theory and not empirical science. And I think its bad habit of science in general to treat everything as an empirical question. I'm being critical of the culture of science more than anything.
I've also seen how papers I've read got translated into press reports, and its true that it gets simplified.. but its hard for me to put the entire blame on reporters.
I think it is interesting
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 4:15pm.
I think it is interesting that you think scientists go too far in saying "most likely some part is genetic and some part is environmental," when you are perfectly happy to go much farther yourself by saying that you think some things are entirely environmental! Very few things are entirely one or the other, that whole nature vs. nurture has long ago been proven a false dichotomy.
Sure, because I don't think
Submitted by redfish on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 4:44pm.
Sure, because I don't think its an empirical question.
I think when they say some part of it is genetic they'e making assumptions they aren't creating a good argument for, they're just pointing to empirical data without any foundational theory.
In my view, if you come to a conclusion on personality traits that its "part genetics, part environment" that is probably best read to mean that its all environment. Its just that the genetics are part of the environment at some point, and help condition the mental state the same as any other environmental factors. Take breeds of dogs. Small dogs behave in different ways than large dogs, but it isn't because a gene is telling them how to behave, its because their psychology is based on how they relate to the world.
It sounds like you just have
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 5:17pm.
It sounds like you just have a different definition of "genetic" that the field of behavioral science does, then. I mean, if "genetic" means "environmental," then what do YOU mean when you use the word?
These days, in animals, we can actually watch translation of specific genes and gene complexes in the brain as behavior changes. Honeybees change their behavior through their lives, taking on different jobs as they get older. That behavioral change is accompanied by changes in the structure of the brain that occur in response to particular proteins coded by genes that we've identified. 17 of them, if memory serves. Environment also plays a part, in that the genes are activated by a hormone that is suppressed by social contact, thus causing the age structure of the colony to respond to the environment. If you just call all of that "environmental" and pretend it is all the same thing, it seems to me like you lose understanding instead of gain it.
The example I gave above with
Submitted by redfish on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 7:01pm.
The example I gave above with dogs is something I'd consider a good case of how if you just did a heredity study, something that could show up as genetic really might nothing to do with gene translations and might be completely incidental. Any case where embodiment influences psychology.
When we move to people, more and more we move in that direction, because of all of the social and cultural factors of being human.
Honeybees, ants, and hive insects in general are not a good analogy for humans, their thinking is a lot more social and a lot less individual. Teilhard de Chardin has a good discussion on that in fact -- he places people and bees as being on two extremes of a spectrum, saying they're end products of two different evolutionary processes.
People have hormones also, but there's a case you could make that our hormones don't lead us, we lead our hormones. With people there's a mind-body problem to take in consideration.
I'm afraid this conversation will go way off track though...
What you are describing in
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 9:49pm.
What you are describing in dogs is epigenetics. If genes determine their size, and size determines their "psychology," then indirectly genes are involved in their behavior. The interaction between genes and the environment is a separate factor, related to both inputs but not dissolvable into them.
Anyway, you are right, we are getting off topic. Having not delved much into philosophy myself, I'd be interested in the titles of some of the books you've been reading. I may never get to them-- too much stuff I get paid for to read, but you never know!
And thank you for a reasonable, well-informed argument. It's always refreshing and greatly appreciated.
If you mean specifically
Submitted by redfish on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 10:48pm.
If you mean specifically philosophy books that deal with biology issues, there are two that I've read so far so I can only recommend those to you:
The Phenomenon of Man, by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
A Jesuit priest writing in the 1930s, Teilhard de Chardin describes evolution as a process leading to increasing complexity, driven by consciousness and other internal forces as much as by environmental forces. Consciousness in turn always moves things to a certain end.
Philosophy of the Unconscious, by Eduard von Hartmann
This book popularized the idea of the "unconscious" and would have been a major influence on Freud. Von Hartmann tried to reconcile two competing theories: that of Hegel, which said that the world is a rational, ordered process, centered on consciousness, and that of Schopenhauer, which said that people are driven by blind will, order is accidental, and consciousness is an illusion. He spends a lot of his book talking about metaphysical concepts, but also goes into discussions of nature. He points to how there are formative impulses in nature, how different patterns repeat themselves in evolution; how you can see the same patterns in algae that you see later in plants, for instance. He also talks about you can see instinctive behavior and a type of primordial "consciousness" in plants.
There are more that I want to look into reading.
Of course mamabear goes straight to the hive.
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 2:39pm.
A hive mentality is exactly where liberals would have us.
Individuality!!!! Pshawww.
Eusocial insects are
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 4:48pm.
Eusocial insects are fascinating creatures, whether you like individuality or not! The stuff we continue to learn about them is mind-boggling.
Remember the full title of Darwin's treatise?
Submitted by wyogator on Sat, 05/07/2011 - 11:27am.
"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life"
It actually supported racism...that some races must be more evolved than others. A logical extension of evolutionary theory.
As a result, there were many displays like this one from the 1800's into the 1900's:
"In 1906, socialite and amateur anthropologist Madison Grant, head of the New York Zoological Society, had Congolese pygmy Ota Benga put on display at the Bronx Zoo in New York City alongside apes and other animals. At the behest of Grant, a prominent eugenicist, the zoo director William Hornaday placed Ota Benga displayed in a cage with the chimpanzees, then with an orangutan named Dohong, and a parrot, and labeled him The Missing Link, suggesting that in evolutionary terms Africans like Ota Benga were closer to apes than were Europeans. It triggered protests from the city's clergymen, but the public reportedly flocked to see it.[6][13]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_zoo
www.africaourownhome.org
You should read about Alfred
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 05/07/2011 - 7:46pm.
You should read about Alfred Russle Wallace, who co-discovered the theory of natural selection with Darwin. It's a long story, but in a nutshell he eventually broke with Darwin, and said humans were divinely created, because he was less of a racist than his other British contemporaries. Now THAT sparks an excellent class discussion!
Juan, what is the pathological significance of your brain?
Submitted by acaiguana on Sat, 05/07/2011 - 8:02am.
Or in other words, are you nuts?
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana notes from the Underground' (Soon to be at theaters near you)
My Reply
Submitted by Maestroh on Sat, 05/07/2011 - 8:43am.
"Aren't you the same guy who four years ago said that it didn't matter if the current President attended the church of an American-hating preacher for 20 years because what really mattered were his ideas on the economy? Here are my ideas on the economy..."
In response to the rehearsed
Submitted by Maestroh on Sat, 05/07/2011 - 8:50am.
In response to the rehearsed line of "you didn't answer my question," the response is, "Because it had nothing to do with what the voters care about, which is minimal govt interference. Education is primarily a local issue and needs to be handled there rather than some bureaucrat in Washington telling them what to do."
Yawn. The numbers are in!
Submitted by Red Jeep on Sat, 05/07/2011 - 8:55am.
ONE percent of America watched this show. 3.2 million viewers.
(One developing story ignored by the MSM: Compared to past decades, few watch television anymore. A debate on Rush's radio show would be heard by 5x's+ as many ears.)
God created heaven and the earth.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Sat, 05/07/2011 - 9:25am.
From then to now evolution happened.
There, settled.
Science should be taught in
Submitted by deerjerkydave on Sat, 05/07/2011 - 12:04pm.
Science should be taught in science classes as science understands the world, right or wrong. For those who want creationism taught in public schools, that's the unfortunate nature of a secular government monopoly over the education system.
People who want creationism taught in schools (myself included) should focus their efforts into overthrowing government run schools and replacing them with a voucher system. The U.S. Supreme Court already ruled that the use of vouchers in religious schools is constitutional. We just need to change the education systems in our various states. A vote on vouchers has been tried in a number of states including California and even Utah but has failed in every instance due to the teachers unions. America's kids are held hostage but we need to do a better job of breaking out of that and returning CHOICE to America's education system.
------------------------
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. -James Madisondeerjerkydave
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 2:05am.
I'm interested in your take on this.
What to you distinguishes science from other studies?
Do you think that science is an attempt to understand the world in purely materialistic terms - and so can't allow supernatural agents since doing so would render the methods of deduction based on empirically knowable properties of the systems studied useless - or do you think it's a secular government conspiracy to brainwash people into accepting that there is no God?
I look forward to your insight on this.
If you look at what people write....
Submitted by mzk1 on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 9:40am.
it is often circular reasoning. One gets these arguments -
For example: If evolution didn't occur, then where did we come from?
Or: Document A describes a miracle, so it must be historically inaccurate.
This sort of "science" is not agnostic (as it should be), it is basically faith-based. It is theology, not science.
We don't allow God or Miracles in science.
We then reason based on the above.
Then we say science disproved God or Miracles (or Creation)
No good scientist will ever
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 10:20am.
No good scientist will ever tell you that science has disproven God. At best, science can provide a material explanation for phenomena that doesn't require God, and can then insist that following Okham's Razor means we should no longer rely on God for those explanations, but it can't disprove God.
Then there are a lot of bad scientists out there
Submitted by mzk1 on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 2:25pm.
But that is like saying no good christian can be an anti-semite. There are clearly a lot of both sorts.
Sure, but it isn't science's
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 4:17pm.
Sure, but it isn't science's fault that there are bad scientists, any more than it is Christianity's fault that there are bad Christians.
mzk1
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 1:19pm.
It isn't clear to me how your post addresses the issue of whether creationism should be taught as a science or not.
Criticizing evolution doesn't make creationism true by default and it certainly doesn't turn it into a scientific theory.
And as mamabear points out, science says nothing about God. Since science doesn't say anything about supernatural agents, like Miracles and God, it can't possibly be used to "disprove" Miracles or God.
no, it doesn't
Submitted by mzk1 on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 2:29pm.
But too many scientists and especially science enthusiasts make this argument. No, it isn't "real science". But "real science" is an unknowable, abstract concept.
Also, if you disallow one possibilty the results will be skewed. But I wish what sometiems passes for sciense or history really would say nothing about God. But often it basically assumes atheism or materialism.
Many religious people consider science aboslute truth. I wish the type of science often practiced would be worthy of that trust.
mzk1
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 2:43pm.
You are correct in that there are scientists who make statements in the name of science which they can't possibly justify. In other words, they are basically expressing opinions which fall outside the realm of science and attempt to use science to give them weight.
But that is a criticism of some scientists, not a criticism of science itself. There are people of faith who use crap arguments to dismiss certain scientific theories (like the argument that the second law of thermo contradicts evolution) but that doesn't mean that the religion they hold to is fundamentally rotten as a result of their actions.
I'm not sure what you mean by the statement that " "real science" is an unknowable, abstract concept" or why you put quotes around "real science". Maybe you could elaborate?
In my experience most people - religious or otherwise - view science as absolute truth. That just reflects a lack of understanding of what science is about. As I indicated to Blonde in another post here, I've been thinking of putting up a forum topic about science to try to clarify some of the misconceptions I see about it.
I am tired of these heresy trials......
Submitted by mzk1 on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 9:34am.
Sarah Palin had to pass one of these Heresy tests also. I have no religious problems with evolution, but I do have scientific (statistical) problems with it. Half of the people in the country don't believe in evolution, yet if you don't you're like Galileo being brought before the Church for contradicting established science (Aristotle). The constitution itself (not the Bill or Rights) prohibits religious tests from being used for federal office, and I for one would appreciate bigots like Maher and Mathews listening to that!
Creation
Submitted by truckinmann on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 10:18am.
To say that science proves evolution is hogwash. Ask any scientist to prove evolution. They can't! The science actually points more to creation than evolution, but that's not where the government grants that support scientists come from. The government will not appropriate funds to the scientists who show science supports creation because that would mean the government is supporting "Church" and not be up to their standards of separation of church and state.
Science wise lets look at the theory of evolution:
The fossil record has no evidence of evolution. There are no fossils anywhere of any species that show a creature in the process of evolving. When you look at the earths strata (thats different layers of the earths crust) There are no fossils below the Cambrian layer of strata. So this is considered where life started. The cambrian period, so surely there must be some single cell organisms evolving into multicell multi organ creatures right? Wrong. There are only fossils of fully developed animals and fish and plants and bugs. No evidence of actual evolution. Even Darwin acknoledged this in his writings. Now lets look at another form of evidence you'll never hear brought up by these "scientists" If somehow a single cell critter evolved into a multicell mutiorgan creature, What are the odds that at that very same time another creature evolved exactly like the other one did at the same time and the same place but of the opposite sex, so they could find each other and procreate? We're supposed to believe that this happened millions of times to account for all the different species, Yeah right! Now what about that first creature evolving? This cell that evolved into a creature, was there a womb for it to grow in? Was there a chicken to sit on the first chicken egg? Where did the infant mammal get it's milk from? How does a creature that takes years to grow enough to actually take care of itself survive? The answer is obvious. It doesn't. Now look at the first cell of life that they say started it all. It's a carbon based lifeform because that's what all our life is. When it came into being, what did it eat? There wasn't any food source as nothing but rocks and sand existed. Carbon based life needs carbon based foods. In other words we need something that was alive at some point to eat to convert to energy to survive. The only way life could have started for mammals and other creatures is they had to start out full grown with the knowledge of what to eat and what not to eat seeing as if the first of some kind of animal ate the wrong thing they could die and end the species chance of survival.
Lets look at another scientific fact based on math:
A single cell creature like the amoeba has over 200 different proteins lined up in a specific order on the strand of DNA If these are not lined up in the exact order you have nothing. It cannot be a living amoeba. Now if this still dead strand of DNA , which has somehow formed itself, could change the way the proteins are lined up one time every second till it gets the right order, how long would it take to cover all the different possibilties. (Think of it as drawing lottery numbers but with 212 different numbers) The answer is staggering! 1 with three hundred zeros after it, years! just to get the alingnment right. This still does not add the life to the DNA or the rest of the matter it takes to form this cell. Scientists figure our universe is between 15 and 20 billion years old. That's only 9 zeros. You tell me how all the different forms of life we have on our planet just happened by "accident" in this short amount of time. Our history that can be proven dates back about 6 thousand years. In this time there has been no creature species that has evolved into another species. Yes there are mutations within species. Dogs are a great example of this. You have chihuahuas and you have great danes. Both hugely different in appearance, but both are still dogs. You could take sperm from the chihuahua and impregnate the great dane and the great dane would have puppies. (The other way around would kill the chihuahua) This just shows mutation among species, but it does not change the species. There is no evidence anywhere of a species changing to a different species, and this is a thorn in the side of evolutionist scientists. They still cannot point to any fossil or animal or plant and say they have proof that it "Evolved" from a different species.
Closing I'll just say this as I did at the beggining of my diatribe, follow the money! There are no government grants to prove creation, even though it is a far more likely way that brought us into existence. The government doesn't want you to think there is a power greater than they. This foolishness of evolution was started by people who don't want to be held accountable for their actions, or who don't want to feel guilty for poor behavior. The scientific community will kick out any scientist who practices under the theory of creation. This has happened at many universities throughout the world. When one of their scientists shows evidence of creation they are "Black Balled" from the scientific community and all funding is pulled from them. Science is supposed to look at all the "FACTS" and then come up with a theory based on everything they know. Not so with the evolutionists. Any evidence they see supporting creation is swept under the rug and whoever found out about it is chastised or kicked out. Evolution is not science, it's only a theory, and a very weak one at that!
Oh dear, where to
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 10:37am.
Oh dear, where to begin...
Transitional fossils: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Early evolution and the fossil record: the fossil record is strongly biased towards hard things, because they fossilize more easily. Also, we have plenty of examples of colonial single-celled organisms, which is a logical intermediate step between single and multi-celled organisms
The fact that you assume the first form of life had to eat, despite the fact that millions of species alive today don't, is a sign that you might want to study some biology before you start trying to analyze it! Same thing with sex. Asexuality is a very common thing, and probably used to be more common.
You assume that historic organisms had the same amount of DNA as today's organisms, despite there being no reason to think that. We have seen how the genome expands through translation errors, just look into the speciation of rhododendrons. Every time that happens, you get a doubling of genetic material, which creates redundancy which can then be acted upon by mutation without threatening the functional portions of an organism's genome. It is not that hard to see how doubling gets you to a large genome pretty quickly.
6000 years is the blink of an eye in terms of the age of the earth. We have been capable of understanding and looking for evolutionary changes for an even smaller portion of that time. The fact that there have been no drastic changes in evolutionary lineages during our brief moment of global consciousness is, unfortunately, meaningless. There have been plenty of speciation events, though, just not ones that are big enough to impress you.
Finally, I would love to know what you consider "evidence" of creation. Both creation and natural selection can explain things that appear to be designed, functional, surprisingly fit and synchronous. However, only natural selection can explain the things that DON'T make logical sense. Whale pelvic bones, vestigial snake lungs and limbs, your appendix. I would love it if intelligent design would propose some actual theoretical framework to try and explain the patterns left behind by the Creator, but they studiously avoid doing so. Instead, they base their argument entirely on missing evidence for parts of evolution. That is a losing game, assuming that the amount of human knowledge about the world will increase over time and not decrease!
truckinmann
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 1:12pm.
Ask any scientist to prove Relativity or Quantum Mechanics. Guess what? They can't.
You see, science makes use of this thing called induction which doesn't allow for 100% proof.
Also, care to explain how science - which does not and cannot, by virtue of its methodology, use of even comment on supernatural agents - lends support to creationism which has a supernatural agent as its central premise?
But you are right - I'm sure the reason creationism isn't include in science has nothing to do with the fact that it isn't a scientific theory - I'm sure it's a grand, worldwide conspiracy by all of the world's governments (you do know that evolution is used and worked on my scientists all over the world, right?) to prevent people from believing in God.
And yes, evolution is "only a theory". So are Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and the laws of thermodynamics and just about every other model used in science.
Brilliant observation.
So Hydro
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 9:27pm.
Can you name any gov monies that are allowed for the studies of creation? I doubt there are, because of the so called "Separation of Church and State". This site in particular has had this discussion at great depth and length, And neither side can claim any hint of a victory as far as I can tell.
Your semantics about theory isn't very impressive either.
You see, science makes use of this thing called induction which doesn't allow for 100% proof.
This seems to contradict this:
Also, care to explain how science - which does not and cannot, by virtue of its methodology, use of even comment on supernatural agents - lends support to creationism which has a supernatural agent as its central premise?
You seem to suggest that faith plays no part in science. That is false. Folks of faith carry it with them in their studies, work, pleasure, and yes teachings. My physician said a prayer right before my surgery. I work in an environment full of Physics PHD's and other scientist. Some have faith, some dont.
Now, while I find this debate interesting, I am bright enough not to pretend I know it all. My theory, a creator that can create the living being's on this planet, can surly let them evolve.
Boudin
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 10:39pm.
What grant money has to do with the question of how science works or why science doesn't make use of supernatural agents isn't clear to me. Maybe you could clarify?
Maybe I should explain what induction is. Induction involves making a conclusion (usually a generalization of some sort) based on a finite set of given statements (like observations) which goes beyond the situations covered by those given statements. It isn't a logically valid step which means it introduces possible error. The vast majority of scientific theories make use of it and consequently can't be proven to be 100% true.
How exactly am I playing semantics here? The above statement is something you can read about in pretty much any basic book on the philosophy of science. Would you like some references to verify this?
As for science and supernatural agents - as I said, science can't incorporate supernatural agents into it's theories since - by definition - supernatural agents don't have empirically verifiable or knowable empirical properties. Consequently, any theory which incorporates such agents can't be used to make unique, empirically verifiable predictions which can then be used to test that theory.
How exactly does that contradict the fact that science uses induction?
As for the fact that many scientists are people of faith - so what? I know this already. As someone who works in physics I tend to, you know, run into other scientists from time to time. In fact, most of the physicists in my department are people of faith.
But they don't incorporate their faith directly into their scientific research. It isn't like I'll pick up one of their papers and see that they have attributed a certain stellar process or some high energy particle interaction to God. And the reason why is for the reason stated above.
Conservatives should do this
Submitted by Rusty Shackleford on Sun, 05/08/2011 - 8:28pm.
Conservatives should do this at the upcoming Democratic debates. They should hold up a copy of The Communist Manifesto and demand to know if they disagree with the teachings of Marx?
Oh come on, there's a strong chance we're going to see some Democratic debates this time as well. I'm sure that socialist party would love to dump that turd of a President.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Matthews: The Joy Behar of MSNBC.
Bill Maher: The Joy Behar of HBO.
Paul Krugman: The Joy Behar of The New York Times.
Conservative != Christian
Submitted by Coldsnap on Mon, 05/09/2011 - 12:16am.
Look, plain and simple talk here:
-I want the government to stop costing us so much
-I want stronger penalties for people who abuse the social safety nets we create
-I want the government to cut back on the amount of aid we send to other countries provided that amount can first help us get on solid ground. (place the oxygen mask on yourself BEFORE you place it on any children.)
-I want everyone to have their own religion, but to get it OUT of the serious discussions before the country.
Look, I don't care if you worship a jar of pickles in your spare time, but please stop weaving your religious beliefs into what we're talking about here. So what if State X wants to do Y to your book/class/etc? Does that stop you for teaching your kids about the jar of pickles at home? No.
The reason the Democrats will continue to poke people in their soft spots when it comes to religion is that your public statement about your belief in the magic jar of pickles instantly makes you a nut case in the eyes of Athiests, Agnostics, etc. It taints the good you might have regarding the fiscal well being of the country and becomes the story. Simply keep it private and move on to the harder questions.
I know, some of your religions give you self-serving Achievement Points for referring friends. I get that. I did Catholic for 16 years until I was old enough to drive my parents car away from mass, thus ending my 16 years of chanting. But please, the debate is NOT the place to score papal points.
Newsbusters, keep your eye on the prize. Country health first please.
A little bit of Christmas magic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS4G2f2Xy3w
What is it with liberals???
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 2:50pm.
They support a theory that almost by definition, ascribes higher evolution to certain races over others. Certainly, this application of Darwin's theory is evident in the early days, (good ole days libs?) of evolution.
They support a certain "right" that sees most of the damage being done in the minority communities, (especially in the black community, whose number are well below where they would be without the liberal "right" to an abortion).
They support a welfare state that enslaves the poor, and perhaps not coincidentally, disproportionately affects minorities as well.
And they get away with calling us the racists!!!! It's truly maddening.
"They support a theory that
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 4:53pm.
"They support a theory that almost by definition, ascribes higher evolution to certain races over others"
Wrong. Absolutely 100% wrong. Evolution makes no judgments about some species or parts of species between better than others. There is no such thing as "higher evolution"-- evolution is pass/fail. If you are still around, you pass. If you aren't, you failed. There is no moral judgment about anyone being better or more evolved than anyone else.
We tend to think more highly of complexity, but that is entirely our human bias. By evolution's standards, a single celled amoeba is just as successful a species as a human. If we want to give moral weight to natural characteristics, that is our choice. We get the blame for those stupidities. There are no cop outs by blaming it on "nature" or "evolution," no matter how badly bigots might want there to be.
Fine
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 5:33pm.
"They support a theory that almost by definition, ascribes higher COMPLEXITY to certain races over others"
Better now?
Still seems like a racist theory, or at least one that can be, (and has been), used by racists to prove their superiority.
What is it that you think
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 6:15pm.
What is it that you think evolution considers more complex about one race than another? I honestly can't think of anything that would qualify.
Just about any set of ideas can be used to support bad behavior. People who use evolution to justify bigotry are exactly the same as people who use religion to justify bigotry-- they twist the meaning of complicated ideas to suit their own selfish, stupid, destructive urges.
You do realize I'm yanking your chain a little here
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 9:46pm.
Based on a back and forth we had months about some fly or mosquito that adapted to live underground being a different species from the above ground variety.
I ribbed you about humans being of different species because inabilities to leave their environments, as that was one of the criteria for species differentiation. Couple that with the comments above, and I thought it was funny. :)
Still, liberals due seem intent on "keepin' a brotha down".
Sorry, but you have to
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 1:29am.
Sorry, but you have to understand where I'm coming from-- if I assumed every statement conservatives made here that sounded absurd to me was actually a joke, I'd do nothing but tell you guys how hilarious you are!
... that was a joke, of course, not everything you say sounds absurd. Just an awful lot of it :)
mamabear,
Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 3:01pm.
"of course, not everything you say sounds absurd. Just an awful lot of it"
Ditto - but I like your posts anyway
RESTLESS 1
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 2:49am.
I'll use this as an excuse to comment on how mamabear is treated around here.
Unless I'm unaware of some major arguments where she acted totally out of bounds, it's beyond me how she puts up with the crap she does here.
I remember when she first showed up here and thinking that she could be someone who might be able to offer some substantive arguments from a different point of view - not some post and run troll and not some jerk who's here just to get a rise out of people with a string of stupid canned liberal bromides.
But what I've seen is beyond me. She's obviously willing to engage in real arguments and yet I see her constantly belittled and insulted with juvenile name calling and dismissive remarks. And despite that, she continues to come here and engage folks who aren't just out to insult her in actual debates.
I honestly don't know why she puts up with it.
Try another look Hydro.*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 10:56am.
Why does mamabear, Jer, and that lil userofathousandpostnames keep coming back to NB?
My question is one for thought, not a reply.
Well think of it this way, cajun...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 11:41am.
Why did Billy Sunday go to skid row?
[Just jokin', dear...don't hit me.]
Jer
Lil?
Submitted by The Irishman on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 12:33pm.
Sorry toots, nothing lil' 'bout me.
Te' homme*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 1:33pm.
I was not referring to your physical size nor the number of your posts names.
WTH?
Submitted by The Irishman on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 1:53pm.
What's with this infatuation with the french language? Am I to believe your post means anything more or less when you go french? Are you french?
American not French*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 2:54pm.
No deddy, I am not French. I am an American of cajun decent. Cajun language is a french patois and certain phrases in cajun are very much a part of our ordinary speech and conversation. If my occasional use of cajun terms disturb you, then I shall cease using them in any reply to YOU.
And for further clarification, please review my previous post.
cajun---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 7:59pm.
The Irishman knows why you speak as you do; he merely asked as a deflection because he forgot to play either insulted or innocent when you referred to him as "Lil userofathousandpostnames".
MD
shucks Matthew*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 8:08pm.
I did not realize my insult was that well hidden but then again, there ya go...;-) It's not just a cajun thing, being too subtle with an insult is my mama's fault.
Good evening cajun
Submitted by cocodrie on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 9:24pm.
I think I would like your mama. She done good.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Hello Coco
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 9:33pm.
Nice to here from you. Are you folks expecting any high water in your Bayou?
Cocodrie*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 9:43pm.
Good evening mon ami. Like Boudin, I await your reply on the high water. I am sure you both have heard heavy rains are coming, tomorrow they open the Morganza. Looks like we are going to be a part of history again. Prayers for those at risk.
The grislybear appears to have---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 7:53pm.
masochistic tendencies. :o)
MD
The psuedo scientist
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 8:38pm.
Mamabear's "scientific" studies and arguments have been questioned and shown to be filled with flaws. This makes her arguments anything but substantive. Her arrogance is obnoxious and irritating.
I wish she would go away and NOT put up with it.
I
Feel free to attack any of
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 05/11/2011 - 10:45pm.
Feel free to attack any of the arguments I'm bringing to the table here.
No one has "shown" that the studies I use are filled with flaws. Several people have stated that, and you choose to believe their assertions over mine. That's your prerogative, but we've never actually looked at the data in a study and evaluated if the criticism is valid, so you are just choosing to believe, as an example, the guy who feels the same way about gay people as you do. That is the easy thing to do when faced with a debate.
The idea that my arguments aren't "substantive" because someone managed to criticize a particular scientific methodology that I used for support is hilarious. You latched onto the finger length example because I acknowledged the criticism, which was the professionally honest thing to do. I didn't agree with it, but I didn't dismiss it out of hand. Apparently, in Radical1979's world, listening to criticism and reevaluating the strength of one's assertions makes arguments weaker and less substantive!
The appearance of ANY evidential support in one of your posts would be an unhoped for miracle, flawed or not! As for putting up with it, I have a great time at NB and there are lots of nice people here I enjoy arguing with. You, on the other hand... well, you and I approach the world very differently. I, for instance, think that it is immature to interject into a conversation just to insult someone, and that attacks should be about ideas, not people. You appear to disagree.
Liberals who venture here and expect---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 12:20am.
warm hugs and kisses are fools.
Then again, I have met few liberals who are not fools even if they don't expect warm hugs and kisses.
You would think that a liberal articulate enough to present a cohesive "argument" would understand that they are dealing with conservatives who do not agree with liberal ideology -
but I see that grislybear uses the extremely trite, tired, and lame troll excuse that Rad brings no 'evidential support' to the table, meaning, I suppose, that Rad has nothing to use but her opinions and name calling, which is both untrue and out and out crap -
so, since like generally attracts like, and this is a conservative site, do libs show up here as liberals thinking maybe they are going to change a conservative's outlook and gain a convert for their side; are they here to impress others with their awesome intelligence and way with words; are they looking to pick some low hanging fruit when a conservative makes the national news with a screw-up; or do they hang around because they know their bullsh*t pisses off conservatives, but they can avoid actually having to beard the lion in his den; or are they all, like the man of a thousand usernames, just attention whores, even if the attention is, say, less than exemplary?
MD
I have no idea what Rad has
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 9:56am.
I have no idea what Rad has to use in a discussion, I can only comment on what she chooses to use. Name calling is a favorite. Everyone is welcome to an opinion, but if you are going to level insults you should make sure that they don't look a lot better on you than they do on the person you tried to stick them to.
If you want substantive discussion, bring some. If you don't want to add to substantive discussion, then stop whining that other people aren't. I don't think that's much to ask.
I've never asked for kisses and hugs. I know that's a tried and true horse in the liberal-insult stable, but it doesn't ride. I like to argue ideas, that's the only explanation I need to give for being here. I know mostly liberals in real life, which provides less opportunity to really see what the other half of the country thinks. If you want to cast aspersions, I could ask all kinds of similar questions about people who choose to spend their time in echo chambers, prefer not to have to hear dissenting voices, and go to the internet to get pats on the back from others who are happy to reinforce their mutual worst tendencies.
But I wouldn't do that, because I don't believe it is wise to judge someone you don't know, particularly when they are only doing exactly what you are doing yourself! Also, I'm an optimist, and a believer in the power of information. I hope that some people here bother to come because they like to know more about the world. I do think that opinions should be informed. I am informing mine by coming here and listening to you, and I'd like to think that having liberals here and on other similar sites means that more people will hear that side of the debate.
You, grislybear, are far too preachy---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 10:14pm.
for a liberal who just likes to argue.
You may think that your world view, if listened to by all conservatives, would be not only eye-opening, but beneficial; but to me, you are just another liberal dipshit who desires to see a world formed and run in such a way that I wouldn't live there if granted the position of Grand Panjandrum.
MD
Ditto
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 10:17pm.
For me!
"You may think that your
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 11:15pm.
"You may think that your world view, if listened to by all conservatives, would be not only eye-opening, but beneficial; but to me, you are just another liberal dipshit who desires to see a world formed and run in such a way that I wouldn't live there if granted the position of Grand Panjandrum."
Well in that case, I would just like to say thank you. I may not be beneficial to you, but you are absolutely beneficial to me. I learn all kinds of interesting things about the way conservatives think about the world, how they construct their arguments, etc. Thanks for all the help. I really appreciate it, and I intend to stick around and keep learning everything you have to teach :)
Dont bother,
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 8:42pm.
I intend to stick around and keep learning everything you have to teach :)
Considering what you have learned so far, I dont know why?
idiot lefty
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 10:26pm.
Does it occur to you that this is not a site where we get information, but where it is discussed? And that I, for one, hear enough liberal nonsense on the news to make me ill. Then to come here and have libs argue the same old bull shit is annoying. Added to that, is the condescension you bring to the table...
Well, if you don't want to
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 10:50pm.
Well, if you don't want to hear different opinions, it sounds like NB isn't the right community for you. But never fear, the internet is a big place. You could even create your own private website where only conservatives you invite can come to tell you what you already know. I say go for it, live the dream!
idiot lefty
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 10:56pm.
Oh my how comical, YOU are trying to tell ME that NB isn't for me? Delusions of grandeur indeed!
Well, only one of us seems to
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 11:08pm.
Well, only one of us seems to be unhappy about the type of debate they are forced (?) to engage in here on NB, and it isn't me!
Maybe you could just avoid me and the other liberals. We wouldn't mind.
An avowed liberal---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 10:59pm.
inviting a conservative to leave NB's because it may not be the right community for them.
You branching out into comedy, there, grislybear?
Did you miss Rad's point that "different opinions" is your terminology?
To some conservatives, what you call "different opinions" is nothing more than the same old tired liberal BS.
You ain't coming up with anything new, novel or enlightening.
MD
I'm simply pointing out that
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 11:11pm.
I'm simply pointing out that if she doesn't like listening to liberal opinions, then she shouldn't be engaging in an open community. Anyone can come here. Apparently, she is really unhappy about that. You kind of sound unhappy about it too... maybe if you ask really nicely, she'll invite you to join her new website with no liberals allowed!
You, grislybear, do not have it in you---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 2:21am.
to "simply" point out anything.
From branching out into comedy to doing 25 cent psychological evals now, you're just a bunch of go everywhere and do everything, aren't you?
I guess a better description would be "irritated by" rather than "unhappy with" when it comes to liberals.
Liberals, to me, are like mosquitos - irritating.
That is why I have no liberal friends and why I don't hang out where I would actually have to speak to one face to face.
For all your self-important, supposedly knowledge imparting posts here at NB's, it is obvious to me that you hang out here either because you enjoy being an irritant or you are an attention junkie.
You sure as hell aren't converting anyone here with the liberal pus you spew as though it were the nectar of the gods.
MD
I should be pretty easy to
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 8:45am.
I should be pretty easy to avoid if I'm that irritating. I think I participate in, what... one out of every twenty or thirty stories on NB? And yet you always seem to find your way into the conversation. Hmmm, if I didn't know better, I might suggest that you like having someone to argue with the same as I do...
Don't place such a high premium, grislybear---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 6:18pm.
on your own importance.
I swat at all mosquitos.
Some, though, survive, to be yet again, an irritant.
Amazing how you libs all eventually bring up a conservative poster's "always finding a way into the conversation" as a means to justify stating that we are desirous of being argumentative, when in all likelihood, the conservative's only intention is to point out how much disgust is felt when you libs start in spouting your BS.
MD
MD
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 6:25pm.
Kind of funny how some of us conservative posters always find our way into the conversation, on what is, as mamabear likes to point out, an open and conservative website.
I participate in a very small
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 6:34pm.
I participate in a very small number of threads, yet they always end up including you two. Either that is because you comment on every thread on newsbusters, we share the same interests, or you check up to see where I'm commenting and follow me to those threads. I don't really care which it is, but it seems strange to complain about how much you dislike interacting with me when you are either going out of your way to find and interact with me, or at the very least are unwilling to put even a tiny amount of effort into avoiding me. I'm easy to avoid, maybe you should give it a try. It sounds like you would both be happier.
Funny
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 6:40pm.
I've been trying to avoid you like the plague. But sometimes the tripe you spill and arrogance that accompanies it are to much for me. Definately the insult to cajun, couldn't be left unanswered.
Rad--
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 8:34pm.
I probably comment on 95% of NB threads; and if grislybear happens to be there - so be it.
She sure as hell has a high opinion of herself, though, and cannot seem to grasp the fact that the liberal garbazz she posts on a conservative site is going to attract conservative comments and rebuttals like wildflowers attract bees.
She appears to believe that those of us here who actually don't care for what she has to say are in actuality, enamored of and with her.
That, however, ain't the way of it.
I respond because I care neither for what she propounds nor how she states it.
Liberals are dipsh*ts.
Period.
MD
I don't think you like what I
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 10:48pm.
I don't think you like what I have to say, or me, but I do think you like telling me that. Otherwise, why bother?
You
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 11:03pm.
Think?
Who
knew?
You are right, grislybear---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 05/14/2011 - 4:18am.
in that I don't like liberal ideology, and I especially don't like anyone who supports or favors abortion outside the medical necessity/rape parameters.
I can respect your right to have a different viewpoint; but that said, to me, liberals are so strange and so far out in left field that I just wouldn't be comfortable in physical proximity to them.
As far as my interaction with you, I refer you back to the mosquito analogy.
MD
Show me
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 10:03am.
Where it says only conservatives are allowed to use this site.
You got it backward again 25 time retread troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 11:23am.
This site is for people still working on their FIRST account.
Users found to be using multiple accounts or allowing others to access their accounts may also be banned without notice.
One brain. One account. And you are now 24 times over the limit.
Never said that, Irishman---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 10:03pm.
but thanks for spitting up on your bib.
MD
idiot lefty
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 10:22pm.
How do you know I haven't researched those "studies" you've referenced? In your typical arrogance you choose to make assumptions about me.
However, having satisfied myself that you're willing to cite studies with flawed methodology, I don't feel the need to research EVERY pile of crap you lay out.
And if you weren't so arrogant I wouldn't call you on it all the time. I despise being spoken down to by someone who isn't very bright.
Eggs---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 10:30pm.
Zackly.
Libs do tend to orate from on high, don't they?
MD
If you evaluated the quality
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 05/12/2011 - 11:05pm.
If you evaluated the quality of the finger length studies for yourself, then I owe you an apology. In my defense, though, you never brought any of your insight to the discussion, so there's no way I could know. As I pointed out to matthew, I can only judge you on the way you actually behave here. If you have secret knowledge you don't share, I can't be expected to know.
So I'm curious, what criticism did you find particularly compelling? I believe it was Breedlove's paper from Nature (2000) we were discussing at the time. Can you remember what aspect of the criticism you researched and agreed with?
Subtlety isn't your strong
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 10:05am.
Subtlety isn't your strong suit is it?
Probably not, no. Are you
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 1:42pm.
Probably not, no. Are you now saying you didn't research the studies yourself, after implying that you did? I'm just looking for a straight answer here, because if I misrepresented the amount of effort you put into our conversations then I intend to issue you a sincere apology.
I'm not going to get into a
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 6:19pm.
I'm not going to get into a discussion with you about this because I looked at the studies quite awhile ago. Since then I've had to get a new laptop, and have lost my bookmarks. I've also had several, shall I say, life altering events since then. I don't have the energy or interest in reviewing those studies again, which is what I would have to do. I cannot recall in detail what my objections were to the methodology. I don't get involved with those issues on a daily basis.
No apology necessary. However, in my case, please don't make assumptions.
Surely you can remember
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 6:48pm.
Surely you can remember something, it wasn't that long ago. Humor me with one minute of thought, and tell me what your criticisms were of the study. I haven't looked at it since then either, but I can still remember the criticisms Dr. Sam brought to the table. What were your ideas?
Here, here's the paper:give it a quick look to refresh your memory. It's a Nature article, so it's less than two pages long, should take about ten minutes to glance at it and remember what you found so disturbing the first time around, right?
What about "no" do you not
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 6:48pm.
What about "no" do you not understand?
Here: I think you are lying
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 11:00pm.
Here: I think you are lying through your teeth. I don't think you read those studies.
Now, I invite you to prove me wrong. If you think opinions only deserve respect when they are substantive, then put something real where your mouth is and show me why I should respect your opinions. If you really don't want to do that, then don't presume to call me out for not being substantive enough for you.
I don't care what your standard for good enough is, I just want you to hold yourself to the same. The part I don't understand about "no" is how you can say it with any self-respect.
As if you ever
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 11:23pm.
Recognized the truth.
You get away with a ton of miss information around here, to call someone else a liar is pathetic to say the least.
You are the epitome of dis-information. And no I wont do jack for you.
Unless you have a flat on the highway
Not again!*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 05/13/2011 - 11:40pm.
Mamabear says cajun is a jerk and now Ms Rad is lying through her teeth. And you wonder why you are often the target of insults. You are the Queen of Insults. You know very little of Radical1979 if you accuse her of lying.
Here is an intended insult. You need some professional help. Angry, demeaning, arrogant, argumentative, aggressive, rigid, closed minded and obsessive.
CALLING DRSAMHERMAN......EMERGENCY!!!
Don't forget uncaring about the monkeypeople.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 05/14/2011 - 12:38am.
To quote buttercup815 quoting The Vet: She don't fill in the subject line so we have to read her Stupid twice.
Yep, I was just about to mention that
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 05/14/2011 - 12:52am.
But I, wait?
Look at this Boudin*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 05/14/2011 - 12:59am.
I'm grieving
Hey cajun
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 05/14/2011 - 1:04am.
Go expat, gf.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
I am right their with you Duece
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 05/14/2011 - 1:44am.
My voice
God, please bless Etta
"You get away with a ton of
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 05/14/2011 - 9:33am.
"You get away with a ton of miss information around here"
Assuming you mean "misinformation," I invite you to join Rad in proving that. I'm happy to be called out if I'm misinforming people about science, but I want you to back that assertion up with some actual examples. I'll take valid criticism, but not random whining because you don't like the fact that I have something to bring to the table and you don't.
As the Vet would say "prove it."
Shut up Spinsterbear.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 05/14/2011 - 2:14pm.
No one cares. Go away. And you can't even quote me right Idiot. Source it. Bring a quote here from someone smarter, with a real name, and reputation to uphold. Idiot. You can't remember a simple thing like that but we are to expect you to be wicked smart about everything else huh?
Wait... do you want me to
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 05/14/2011 - 5:37pm.
Wait... do you want me to quote you, or someone smarter, with a real name, and reputation to uphold?
Sorry, you totally asked for that one!
Quotes from you:
You were severely misrepresenting what I said. I can say you were DEAD WRONG. No wait. I PROVED IT. Now kindly start proving some of the crap you are trying to lay on me.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/dave-pierre/2011/02/05/lat-falsely-attacks-...
You saw me extensively source. Prove it. Little Butt Hurt Diaper Troll.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/erin-r-brown/2011/02/03/glee-sex-songs-and-...
Is that better?
oh look. Spinsterbear wants to make it about me.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 9:28am.
Wow. Trolls never do that. I iz so surprised.
Spinsterbear:...back that assertion up with some actual examples...As the Vet would say "prove it."
You use a quote from me as an example of telling people to bring in a link with examples.
I then tell you I don't say that to tell people to bring links with examples. I tell people to "source it".
You then bring 2 quotes. The first one is not an actual quote of me saying "prove it". I say "I proved it" in that quote. FAIL. FAILUREBEAR FAIL.
The second one is me telling a LYING troll that never links anything of any value if he does link something at all that I SOURCED extensively. FAIL. FAILUREBEAR FAILS AGAIN. What did spinsterbear expect? I drop the source word six times in a paragraph?
I TELL TROLLS TO SOURCE IT LIARBEAR. I OVERWHELMINGLY TELL TROLLS TO SOURCE. WHY DO I DO THAT? BECAUSE I WANT TROLLS TO SOURCE IT.
How dishonest is spinsterbear?
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 9:37am.
Spinsterbear says I tell people to "prove it" I say no, I tell people to source it. She then brings a quote where I say "prove it" to a troll. But wait boys and girls. What do I say in the subject line of the quote she brings?
#276 Source it then little Sissy troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 1:36pm.
You saw me extensively source. Prove it.....
Let's see, I say "prove it" so I don't end up repeating the same thing over and over, that being SOURCE IT, the very first two words in my post.
Utter Utter Utter Dishonesty. And Stupid as well for thinking we would not go back and look.
Wow. All I have to do to
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 10:16am.
Wow. All I have to do to justify using you as an example of someone who says "prove it" is to find a quote of you saying "prove it." I did that. I don't really care what else you say in those posts, that's beside the point. You like people to prove their accusations by bringing source material, which is what I would like Radical1979 to do, so I'm not misrepresenting you at all.
LIE. LIE. LIE.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 10:27am.
"As the Vet would..."
You did not say As the Vet HAS SAID ONCE OR TWICE. Would. Would. Would. Would. Would say. Would. Would. The Vet WOULD say.
LIAR. I proved you to be the lying little scum you are Again. You can't even accept you got a simple little thing wrong. Instead you LIE.
When you ask people to source
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 10:56pm.
When you ask people to source things, you are asking them to prove something. That's why you want the source, right? As evidence. I'm asking for evidence. I didn't put quotes around "prove it" the first time because I considered it a paraphrase of your usual cry for evidence when someone makes an accusation. But you got picky, so I found a quote. You've said it, many times, in many ways. I found those quotes in the first five search results, I can keep looking. How many times do I have to show you saying "prove it" before it is acceptable for me to use the word "would?"
Phweet.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 11:04pm.
You lose spinsterbear. You said "would". Live with it. YOU LIED.
So how many quotes do I have
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 11:44pm.
So how many quotes do I have to bring? I'm gathering more, so I'd like to know when it is okay to stop. Five? Ten? How many is enough to prove that you sometimes use the phrase "prove it."
The first 2 you brought failed horribly.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 11:53pm.
You did not say "sometimes" in your original post, did you LIAR? You said WOULD.
Why don't you get some more and put it in your first ever woodshed post. Then pack sand. Pack it tight. Pack it hard. And as always, leave it smooth.
So how many then? How many
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 05/16/2011 - 12:32am.
So how many then? How many justifies the use of "would". I'm up to... 17 if you include variants where you say specifically what you would like the person to prove. Is that enough? Or should I keep going?
Post them spinsterbear.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 05/16/2011 - 12:55am.
Show the world how little we care about you. Stupid trolls think they can blackmail me with idiocy.
See the bottom of the thread
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 05/16/2011 - 8:52am.
See the bottom of the thread
One of the best things about
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 05/14/2011 - 10:31am.
One of the best things about being an adult is not having to answer to people I cj
choose not to answer to. You have twisted things away from YOUR behavior into declaring I must now argue about some b.s. studies you posted quite awhile ago that were knocked down by Doc Sam. I'm not playing your games. I know who I am. Your name calling, spin, and mind games prove to me who you are.
This is about my behavior.
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 05/14/2011 - 5:13pm.
This is about my behavior. You made an accusation that I bring bad science to arguments and am thus not substantive enough. I'm asking you to back up your accusation by actually demonstrating that it is true.
If you can't do it, then just admit it and I'll leave you alone.
Ding ding mamabear*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 05/14/2011 - 5:31pm.
Remember this link? We question your sources because even insiders question the credibilty of their own work.
Beautiful reply, cajun---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 05/14/2011 - 5:46pm.
just beautiful.
grislybear will be right back to wordsmith her way around that article while she tiptoes through the liberal tulip field.
I have my fingers crossed for you there at home.
Atchafalaya - neat word.
MD
First, I don't want to know
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 05/14/2011 - 5:49pm.
First, I don't want to know if anyone in the world can bring a good reason to discount those studies, I want to know if Radical1979 can. Nice of you to help her out, but that doesn't really make her look good. Second, that is a general condemnation of a lack of conservatives in academia and the social sciences. It says absolutely nothing about any individual studies and their merit or lack thereof, particularly not biology research.
It is a very important piece of information that has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Scientists should always question their own work. The reason Rad latched onto the finger examples and has continued to harp on them is that I made the mistake of responding in an honest way and not dismissing the criticism completely. I guess I forgot the maturity level of my audience, but acknowledging that criticism could be valid is not the same as admitting defeat. Rad thinks I should be admitting defeat, at least in that case, and I want her to bring a good reason why I should. If she can't, I want her to stop insisting that everything I say forever after is crap because of that example.
Good for thee but not Ms Rad*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 05/14/2011 - 5:59pm.
How could you forget the " maturity level of your audience"? We should excuse your faulty memory but not Ms Rad.
For your information, I am officially a boomer. In other words, childhood is gone, been there done that, and I believe I am at a phase of life where I pretty much say what I dam* well please.
Adolescents are usually the ones self absorbed, narcissistic and arrogant. Maturity usually comes quickly with humility and real life experiences but generally not to those in an isolated ivory tower.
I will quote my mother: you start out as a pain in the ass, when you get old, you become a pain in the ass. what you do in between tells who you are.
I think that crowing over a
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 8:40am.
I think that crowing over a victory that consisted simply of someone acknowledging the possibility of criticism is immature. I don't care where the person who did it comes from or how old they are.
No idiot lefty
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 05/14/2011 - 6:23pm.
You are so wrong, on many levels. Due to your sick leftist philosophies you believe I must delve into this argument that was laid to rest months ago, despite my telling you that I will not. It is not an admission of defeat, nor does it prove you right.
What it proves, once again is your arrogance in declaring what someone else must do. I will quote The Vet myself, go pound sand.
Well, if you don't want to
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 8:39am.
Well, if you don't want to delve into previous discussions, then feel free to point out where I have brought faulty science and un-substantive claims to THIS discussion. The only reason I didn't ask for that in the first place was because I got the distinct impression that your accusation stemmed primarily from the previous debate, so I though that would be easier for you.
I don't care what you bring, but bring SOMETHING SOMEWHERE!
Gotta love the irony
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 10:39pm.
I'm just not talking about what you want me to talk about, which is too bad for you. Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-bozell/2011/05/14/bozell-column-commo...
Keep dodging, I'm not going
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 10:56pm.
Keep dodging, I'm not going to stop asking you to back up your accusation that I'm not substantive.
Hypocrit
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 11:08pm.
Ask, demand, whatever. I'm not one of your students you can impel to do anything. I gave you reasons for not wanting to discuss science right now, the more you push the more I laugh. Especially with the post I just copied. Precious.
If that was a post wherein I
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 05/16/2011 - 12:34am.
If that was a post wherein I made an accusation against someone and then refused to back it up, it would be very ironic. But it's not.
grislybear, you are a liberal, therefore some---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 05/14/2011 - 7:03pm.
conservatives are going to view your opinions as either crap, pap, or a slap, at common sense.
As a lib, you suffer the mishap of thinking you are dispensing words of wisdom.
Your liberal opinions, though, being claptrap when expounded on this site, have you playing the role of a sap.
MD
nice! You should have
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 8:42am.
nice! You should have performed at the White House :)
No need to go to the White House, grislybear---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 11:23pm.
cuz if I want any inane, ideological, liberal BS input, I can get it from reading liberal posts right here at NB's.
Plus, I have the added comfort of doing so from my favorite chair.
Plus, I don't have to rub elbows with nasty, phony, lying, liberal politicians; nor sycophantic Obama ass kissers.
Life in that regard, is good.
MD
PROVE THERE IS SOME KIND OF
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 05/16/2011 - 8:58am.
PROVE THERE IS SOME KIND OF LONG TERM DAMAGE THAT COMES REMOTELY CLOSE TO YOUR INITIAL STATEMENT ABOUT DEVASTATION
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro/2011/04/20/cnn-anchor-shocked-co...
Why don't you prove I was making a direct comparison since you want to keep repeating that as well.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro/2011/04/20/cnn-anchor-shocked-co...
Prove the Nazi talk is on EVERY NIGHT like Mr. Socarides said. Your crypto bull won't get you out of this one. PROVE IT. You said she lied. PROVE IT.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-nolte/2011/01/27/selective-editing-jon...
Trying to squeeze out of you and your new buddies LIES. Now PROVE it is on EVERY NIGHT.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-nolte/2011/01/27/selective-editing-jon...
Still waiting for you to prove I lied.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/04/27/bob-schieffer-says...
Come on nwahs. You say I am lying ALL the time. Post the truth nwahs. Do it. Post the truth. Tell everyone how untrue my posts are. Prove it nwahs. Surely you can do that.
Don't be a sissy. Post the cold hard truth. I iz big fat word bully liar. You sez it all the time nwahs. Prove I lied here.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/christmas-charity-3.html#ixzz1MU9bAI3e
That's right, just one. Now prove otherwise, or...or...or...
Eh, screw it. Just make up more lies.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/christmas-charity-3.html#ixzz1MUA0TKWj
Knock it off with the butt hurt sissy whining. You see me whining Sissy? If my sources are so wrong, PROVE IT. After all, I PROVE where your sources only tell half the story.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2011/02/28/open-thread-heritage-an...
You think I am lying. Go find it for yourself. Prove it is not Gazoo. I don't have to prove anything. My name is Tenebrous and I can just tell you to go find it yourself rather than you know, actually proving anything. Prove Gazoo did not take human form and impregnate Ann Dunham. Gazoo can take human form and sign paperwork just like a human. Prove it. I made the assertion. YOU HAVE TO PROVE ME WRONG. After all, the best conspiracy theories are impossible to prove. Prove it you big lying liar liar. Prove Gazoo did not take the form of Barack Hussein Obama Senior. Prove it. Do it.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2011/04/20/birther-obsessed-...
Congress nor law enforcement authorities did not make the accusation. YOU DID.
...torture (an actual criminal offense) that was going on...
Back up your claims, LIAR. PROVE IT.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/11/25/roger-ebert-celebr...
Retard. PROVE THERE WAS ACTUAL TORTURE GOING ON.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/11/25/roger-ebert-celebr...
SOURCE IT. Show us all where Fox News is pushing the "Ground Zero Terror Mosque" as a controversy to make money.
Prove it LIAR.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/alana-goodman/2010/10/14/cry-babies-view%E2...
GtSLGT: ...the constant refrain from Fox and conservatives that Obama is a socialist...
Prove it. Now. Back it up.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2011/03/31/soros-grantee-aids-so...
Prove how the viewers of Fox News translate to pubic opinion which has LARGE CONSEQUENCES.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2011/03/31/soros-grantee-aids-so...
Now. Prove he lied. You gonna go throwing accusations around. BACK IT UP. Where is the lie?
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2011/03/31/soros-grantee-aids-so...
I said PROVE IT. NOW. Prove that believing something is far-fetched is the same thing as COMPLETELY DISBELIEVING IT.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2011/03/31/soros-grantee-aids-so...
Now, this list includes when you said "prove XYZ" and named the specific thing you wanted proven, and in one I think you are pretending to be someone else, but it was a little hard to tell. However, there are plenty of times when you only said "prove it." Or, sorry, PROVE IT. This list only goes back to the beginning of 2010, so if you'd like I could perform a quick estimate based on these numbers of how many times you have probably said "prove it" in your whole history at NB. Would you like me to do that, or are you willing to admit that you use the phrase now?
Best of The Vet boys and girls.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 05/16/2011 - 10:15am.
Someone owes me $10. Told you I could get a troll to spend 4 hours digging up the best of The Vet quotes.
A troll won't spend 5 seconds filling out the subject line but will spend 4 hours looking at the Best of The Vet.
Oh trollie. One of those is me quoting a post from another troll. You really aren't very bright. I said Best of The Vet not Best of The Vet quoting someone else.
I said one of them was you
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 05/16/2011 - 6:40pm.
I said one of them was you pretending to be someone else. So only count the other 16, if you'd like. Is it okay for me to say that you "would" use the phrase "prove it?"
Who are you talking to Retard?
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 05/16/2011 - 7:14pm.
You will spend four hours digging up the Best of The Vet. And yet you can't manage to actually respond to a post, instead opening up another thread in the blog. Still can't fill out the subject line either, wazzamatter, not enough sleep?
By the way, The Best of The Vet committee does not meet for another 2 weeks. I really don't see that getting into the official Best of The Vet rolls unless you make a big push to the committee itself.
Tell us trollie. How does it feel? Really. Tell us. You do it so so so so so much. How does it feel having it get done done to you?
Hey. Hey trollie. You did not convince me yet. Why don't you spend a few more hours digging up the Best of The Vet entries.
Don't be dense, I asked you
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 05/16/2011 - 9:48pm.
Don't be dense, I asked you to go to the bottom of the page so it wouldn't be so skinny. It was a long list. You really are losing it aren't you? Do you want to tell me if I successfully justified my invocation of your name, or do you want to rail madly about nothing for a little while longer?
Rail about nothing?*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 05/16/2011 - 9:57pm.
Remember mamabear, it takes two to tango.