No surprise.

DOGMAN

I'm sure Jesus loves violence in his name.

"One recent e-mail from Mirecki to members of a student organization referred to religious conservatives as "fundies," and said a course describing intelligent design as mythology would be a "nice slap in their big fat face." Mirecki has apologized for those comments"
No need to apologies for saying something thats true. What ever happened to "turn the other cheek". Christian my ass.

"Professor Assaulted by Intelligent Designers" Well, it just couldn't have been Yves St. Laurent.

There you have it! Proof these cretins are animals descendent from apes!~

We need God to start intelligently re-designing some of these christian thugs.

What kind of a 3 year old beats up a professor because he had a different idea? I wouldn't even beat ward churchills fat ass. Why bludgeon what can be ignored and ridiculed?

The real irony here is that these thugs were attempting to defend a religion that preaches tolerance and love. They need to read the bible more carefully.

Coco- LOL. it all makes sense now... The professor stole their bananas.

"What kind of a 3 year old beats up a professor because he had a different idea?"
Same kind of guys who were opposed to "jewish science" in Germany in the 1930s?

The other side is more subtle. If you claim to believe in God, you just won't get hired.

Not that I'm choosing sides, but there is a great deal of [i]ideological cleansing[/i] going on in what was once "Higher" education.

"If you claim to believe in God, you just won't get hired."

Got any information to back up this statement?
I didn't think so.

"If you claim to believe in God, you just won't get hired."

OK, Paleo, now you can start moving your money (one stack at a time) to where you've put your mouth. Information, please. Non-anecdotal would be better than, "I had a friend who said s/he believed in (pick the divinity of your personal preference) and there was a thorough going over the case and it was proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the reason s/he didn't get the job was because s/he believed in (pick the divinity of your choice)." Thanks.

Come on girls, leave paleocon alone, he has desert lag.
Paleo,
Why do you need two screen names? Do you have split personalities? When you're feeling like a racist you choose Paleo and when you are feeling really dumb you choose "Expectingreign"?
I just don't get why one poster needs multiple handles. My only conclusion is that the poster is embarrassed of their views so they change identities, but even that is a stretch because we are all anonymous anyway.

Sounds like an Australopithecus attack --

H

I just don't get why one poster needs multiple handles.

Ditto. Why be stupid in two places when it takes less effort to do it in one? :)

I think some people here use name B to compliment name A. Weird.

Naaa
That was KansasPatheticus.
Mentally identical to IslamicusStupidius, but they use different drugs.

Yeah, the Cro Magnums were all at the strip club when the attack occured

H

Got any information to back up this statement?
I didn't think so.

Posted by rastacyborg at 2005-12-06 09:45 AM | Reply

"Mirecki told the student newspaper, The University Daily Kansan, that he spent between three and four hours at the hospital. He said his injuries included a broken tooth."

Perhaps he can use the tooth to create Son of Nebraska Man?

Just a helpful suggestion...

H

RCADE- I noticed that the deleted comments sections appears to NOT list who has been banned and for how long.

Just not banning anyone lately? Hard to believe given that half a dozen Rex posts in a row are there.

That only reflects temporary suspensions. Users who are banned permanently are listed as 'visitor' on their user pages.

"What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Many of the claims of the PC crowd are based on mere proportions as proof of discrimination"

Bullshit.

I just don't get why one poster needs multiple handles. My only conclusion is that the poster is embarrassed of their views so they change identities, but even that is a stretch because we are all anonymous anyway.

Posted by 101chairborne at 2005-12-06 09:53 AM | Reply

Paleo, you ust caled 101 a liberal?

I do believe them's fightin' words.

Bullshit.

Posted by revdarko at 2005-12-06 10:07 AM | Reply

Paleocon,

I wouldn't really accept a high percentage of athiests as proof, unless we're talking really high like 90%. I would consider documented legal action against universities over discriminatory hiring practices, especially in the case that the university loses.

So, all I need to do is show that there is a higher percentage of Atheists among college professors than in the general population, right?

Show it.

But, it is true, there is a lower percentage of fundis among college professors than in the general population.

"Funny how there are demands of "proof" when I express my common-sense views"

Paleo, "common-sense views" are often the same as "conventional wisdom," and neither is necessarily equivalent to "facts," "truth," or "proof."

Please, easy on the goosing.

On a different note...Has anyone ever asked themselves why there have been so many Evolution frauds? If Evolution really occured there should be massive amounts of obvious evidence out there. So where is it?

Horace

The Nazis believed God was on their side too. So do the Iranians, the Palestinians and every terrorist on the planet. These Christains are terrorists. That was a terrorist attack.

I can tell you that if someone walked in my office in response to a job opening and told me they were an atheist, I would not hire them.

I do not ask job applicants in interview what their religious beliefs are. But if an atheist freely offers their beliefs; I don't want them around no matter how qualified they are.

"There is a lower percentage of fundis among college professors than in the general population."

Two responses come to mind:

There is a lower percentage of morons among college professors than in the general population.

Or

Depends on the College.
Bob Jones, Oral Roberts, etc.

"I wouldn't really accept a high percentage of athiests as proof, unless we're talking really high like 90%."

But this does support the theory that atheists are smarter than Xtians. I think those rednecks were just jealous.

There are plenty of idiot savants with the moniker of professor.

"So where is it?"

It's called the fossil record.
There are hundreds of thousands of specimens. Try to get out more.

The Nazis were self-conscious pagans, Buffy. While everyone knows they hated the Jews, it is a fact that the Christians were next on the list. Hitler could not stand to have anyone committed to a source of authority outside the Reich.

Horace

If Evolution really occured there should be massive amounts of obvious evidence out there. So where is it?

Umm, in science books?

Fewer Biblethumpers in acadamia simply because they are not that smart.

"Has anyone ever asked themselves why there have been so many Evolution frauds? ...Posted by Horace"

Good question, although it does immediately bring to mind another: Has anyone ever asked themselves why there have been so many religion frauds?

(Answer: yes)

Nice fantasy there, Horace.
Gott Mit Uns, baby!!

I do believe it is illegal to ask on employment applications or during interviews, the religious views of the applicant. I think employers would get their ass sued off for asking such questions. I think paleocons "common sense" is peculiar to himself.

The fact that most college professors are atheists is not proven, but if it were it would just show that the most educated and intelligent people on the planet are atheists.

I wouldn't claim most college profs are atheists.

OK ZAT, since you know so much: If there are so many proofs of Evolution, why have there been so many outright falsifications? Why not take one of the 'hundreds of thousands of specimens' and use them? No reason to falsify what is apparently all around us -- correct?

You have to admit if what you are saying is true then falsifying even one makes no sense! The fakes themselves testify to the LACK of evidence. Can't you see that? Or are you too blinded by the religion called Evolution?

In other words, there are not hundreds of thousands of proofs -- just that many examples of animals who lived and died.

The problem with Evolutionists is that so many of you don't know the theory well enough to even realize what would stand for proof and what wouldn't.

No Evidence = NEED for fakes. Is there any other reasonable explanation?

Please wake up and pull off the blinders, Zat!

Horace

Unbelieveable.
I'm going to sleep.

"Gott Mit Uns"

"God With Us"
Engraved, at Hitler's request, on the belt buckles of the German army.

Why were Niceville & 2ndCrusade in Kansas?

Most of the fakes were made to make money or get notoriety.

Facts are the earth is more than 6,000 years old. Facts are the earth is billions of years old and the universe is billions of years older than the earth. Those facts alone make the bible false.

Nothing stays the same--everything changes--nothing is permanent. Life adapts--evolution is common sense. Change or die.

Why were Niceville & 2ndCrusade in Kansas?

Posted by briwo at 2005-12-06 10:39 AM | Reply


Gee thanks for being a Kansan I want You to know that ruined My appetite for today Thanks.

Larry

Gee thanks for being a Kansan I want You to know that ruined My appetite for today Thanks.

Larry

Posted by LarryMohr at 2005-12-06 10:42 AM | Reply

Hookers everywhere can rest easy for at least a couple of days...So can grocery stores.

Box Itch,

can tell you that if someone walked in my office in response to a job opening and told me they were an atheist, I would not hire them.

That's unamerican. Granted it's retarded for the guy to bring it up during an interview. Two wrongs don't make a right though.

"I do believe it is illegal to ask on employment applications or during interviews, the religious views of the applicant."

Don't know about private universities, but I suspect the civil rights laws apply to them as well (?!). A public university that asked applicants about their religious views would get its collective ass sued for mucho dinero. You can't ask on applications or during interviews about: religion, sexual orientation, number of kids, wives/husbands, why they want to leave where they are, why they want to come to wherever you are, none of that stuff...and absolutely nada about religion and political affiliation. Maybe that's why some of the Cons applying for jobs keep shouting their views from the rooftops, so they can claim "discrimination" in cases where the only discrimination at work is the choice not to hire another academic moron.

Fuck You 101Chairborne You are a useless sack of shit You know that.

Larry

"No Evidence = NEED for fakes. Is there any other reasonable explanation?"

Horace - I think it's quite reasonable to explain this by saying you are an idiot. You claim that there are many fakes, when this is not the case. There are a FEW examples of people who fabricated pre-homo sapiens remains in an attempt to gain notoriety for themsleves, not to fill your imaginary holes in the fossil record. As in a jigsaw puzzle, we use the known pieces of fossil evidence and their context to predict the "picture" of evolution before all the pieces are in place. I think it's safe to say that even when viewing a partially completed jigsaw puzzle, we can get a pretty good idea of what the completed puzzle looks like. Same goes for evolution. If you can't live with this, I suggest you start praying to your god for a quick end.

Larry,
Boy that didn't take long! Most people on diets don't get cranky for at least one day.
BTW, I just sold all of my Kansas based fast food stocks!

"No Evidence = NEED for fakes. Is there any other reasonable explanation?"

That would explain religion allright.

There are tons of fossil evidence;
Literally; Including the common ancestors of apes and humans.

Next time Horace visits a museum to see a brontosaurus skeleton, maybe it will fall on him.

Next time Horace visits a museum to see a brontosaurus skeleton, maybe it will fall on him.

Naw, Zat, he's got a piece of the True Cross, Jesus' blood and ashes from Moses' burnt bush in an amulet around his neck to protect him.
And a Jesus bobble-head on the dash of his pickup truck.

"Next time Horace visits a museum to see a brontosaurus skeleton, maybe it will fall on him."

Yeah, but he'll be going to that creationist/Impossible design museum, so the skeleton will be a fake. Probably made out of popsicle sticks and those little bread wafer thingys.

Buffy, I have actually spent time reasearching the topic of nazi religion as opposed to getting all my info from Liberal blogs and bathroom walls.

The Nazis were busy creating a so-called "Volk" Religion, ie 'people's' -- that recapitualted the Nordic theories of the gods. In fact, Hitler erected gigantic buidlings to use as worship centers for this reborn faith. Mass meetings were held in these places, and it could best be described as neo-pagan.

Like all politicians, Hitler co-opted the symbology of religions like Catholicism and Protesetantism to help draw the credulous. But Hitler was vociferously opposed to use of the Bible as a sourcebook.

If Hitler was so Christian, how do you explain the Bonhoffer phenomenon?

The groups targetted by the Nazis were Jews, Homosexuals (after Kristalnacht), Gypsys, Catholics, Jehova's Witnesses, Protestants, Thespians, the Physically Deformed or Unsound, etc.

The religious sentiments of the Fuhrer were influenced by such thinkers as Nieztche, Hegel and Wagner. None of these men were fundamentally or ideologically Christian. Nietztche probably had the most influence, and Hitler was on an Ubermansch (Neitzchean Superman) quest of destroying all past religions and creating a new German super religion that superceded all previous belief systems.

Aryan mysticism was the religion. It was crackpot, of course, but Hitler was trying to build up a country that was 100% German in all of its ideals and influences.

Hitler's own religious sentiments were occult oriented. He was deeply influenced by Guido von List who was a mystic of the type associated with Theosophy and the Golden Dawn. In fact, Rudolf Hess reported while spending 9 months in Landsberg prison for sedition with Hitler, Adolf frequently went into the corner to confer with dark powers. Hitler was certainly an occultic mystic at heart.

Ironically, the one religion that was sympatico with the Nazis was islam, especially in the quest to rid the world of Jewry. This has been well documented.

Horace

Don-ohrea, the first move by any Evolutionist in response to the non-Evolutionist is to claim they are an Idiot, Moron, Retard, Fool, etc. This is what I believe is called claiming 'Higher Ground.' I guess there is some profound psychological transformation that occurs after identifying your opponent as mentally defective. But I do salute your name calling. Well done, Don!

Now then, I can say to everyone else -- just because someone disagrees with your ideas, it doen't mean they are mad, bad or dangerous to know! (I am not claiming Byron in my camp, btw) What if every single iconoclast in human history had been immediately smothered, stabbed, immolated, etc.? Maybe it would be Don's kind of world, but not mine. We'd still be arguing over who gets the last deer leg over the cave fire.

But what about the Piltdown Man & the Peking Man? What about Ernest Haekel's faked drawings? How about the out-of-sync horse family that is mispresented? What about the famous 'Pepper Moths' and how that 'experiment' was falsified? Etc, etc.

Don, personal insults aside your argument doesn't achieve too much outside of boasting. Perhaps you should pray to the god of Evolution to provide you more wisdom and a better evolved brain?

Horace

But this does support the theory that atheists are smarter than Xtians. I think those rednecks were just jealous.

Posted by dontardo at 2005-12-06 10:18 AM | Reply

"Perhaps you should pray to the god of Evolution to provide you more wisdom and a better evolved brain?"

One's as good as another. Except that neither seems to be pickng up the phone.

"But what about the Piltdown Man & the Peking Man?"

That's the best you can do?

What about the entire fields of evolutionary biology, paleontology, archaeology, geology, physics and astronomy?

Another one using computers claiming science is bogus. Horace, why call you names? You demonstrate your gross ignorance constantly.

Why do I get the feeling that "Intelligent Design Adherents"(I can't possibly imply they're Intelligent) Should be caged? Could it be because sooo many of them are violent animals?

Horace,

Take some advice from an ally, your Uncle Lurchy. RUN! You really pissed the assertive atheist, neo-lib trolls off with that one.

You will be vilified, bashed and beaten. Your IP will be blocked and your type-key suspended for at least three days.

I will pray for you.

Perhaps you should pray to the god of Evolution to provide you more wisdom and a better evolved brain?

Great line though! Can I use it in the future? I will give you proper credit.

I don't mind receiving a good going over. But I have to admit I am AMAZED at how quickly Evolutionists start the cheapshots.

I have been reading up on the anti-Evo's books since this latest brouhaha started. I bought 6 books at once to better digest their ideas -- about a month ago. They have some very well put together critiques of Darwin & Co., but when I read the reviews by the Evos, half or three quarters is just personal vitriol and attack. I was surprised the defense wasn't better organized or spirited.

Makes you think the anti-Evo's must be onto something!!

Horace

Ok, Ok...I repent.

In fact, to prove I understand Evolution, I will now buy a Chihuahuah & a Great Dane & also allow fruitflies to take over my kitchen unmolested!

Yours in sackcloth & ashes

Horace

"But what about the Piltdown Man & the Peking Man?"

Amazing. You've managed to prove my point that you're limited to a few examples where the goal was personal acclaim, not the advancement of science. Apparently you have a hard time getting past these obviously frauds and seeing the bigger picture. You might be a literate historian (as evidenced by your earlier posts), but you're not much of a scientist. The fact that someone fakes evidence to support a theory doesn't make the theory any less valid. If it did your god would have been done in by the virgen Mary appearing via tortilla, grilled cheese sandwich, dirty window, etc. The evidence supporting evolution is out there, but like with any puzzle, you have to actually look at the pieces to put it together. You obviously don't care to do this, and only choose to accept points that validate your outdated beliefs in imaginary beings. I'm sorry if I've somehow offended you by calling out your ignorance with respect to evolution, but as a representative of the scietific community I'm gotten a little tired of creationalist BS, and would prefer if you keep it in church.

The beating the professor got makes me glad there are thousands of miles of Internet between us and the Rightwing Fundamentalists on this site.

I rarely feel it's the fault of the victim upon whom a violent crime is perpetrated. But in the case of this professor, I can't help but think he made himself an "attractive nuisance" by sending out e-mails belittling fundies.

Nothing justifies violence. And there's freedom of speech. But in this case, he kind of asked for trouble, don't you think? He must have had a lapse of memory about how deeply buried in the Bible Belt Kansas is.

"half or three quarters is just personal vitriol and attack."

If you call dissecting and refuting someone's poorly established, unverifiable argument vitriol, then you're right. Despite your readings, it's fairly obvious that you don't have a firm grip on science. This may explain why you prefer the historical explanation of things.

PeaNUT,
I have seen plenty of Leftwingers here threaten physical violence. Usually towards me. Justsomepud, Alexandrite, Punchyourface, AK47/The Truth, and today some clown in another thread threatened Boaz.
How many rightwing threats have you seen via this site?

Also, the tit for a tat (what is a tat and how do I get one?) crowd failed to mention the numerous "assaults" by the leftwingers. I suppose that the pie throwing and property damage and assaults by them are just as reprehensible?

"I suppose that the pie throwing and property damage and assaults by them are just as reprehensible?"

You've got to admit pie throwing is pretty funny.

Actually Don, your 'Virgin Mary Taco' may be the great Eureka! moment of your life. Shall I subtly suggest a call to Taco Bell world headquarters?

Don, didn't your Momma teach you not to call other people names? It is mystifying to me that a group that seems to crave respect and legitimacy acts like such, for lack of a better term, Troglydites. How does this aid science?

You are a 'scientist'? If you are a real research scientist working in the field of Evolutionary study, you will realize that what I am claiming is true. There are HUGE HOLES in Evolution that have not gotten smaller since Darwin, but more massive.

The reason there has to be fraudulently created 'missing-links' is there are no missing links that have ever been clearly discovered or identified. On a second point that proves the first, the psychological explanation as to why Evolutionists attack the anti-E's is that they KNOW there are many problems with the theory & the have NO ANSWERS to them.

Paul Feyerabend was a brilliant philisopher of science who claimed that today's science runs off of myths, not unlike that of Promethues creating fire, etc. Yes, of course we know much more than the Greeks, but there is still a place where knowledge stops and we are not sure of what the answers are. Therefore we need myths to create the illusion of the sufficiency of science.

Evolution is in trouble because it claims to have more facts, better theories and truer information than rival claims -- BUT IT DOESN'T!!
HORACE

Hans,
You strike me as a pseudo-intellectual elitist who is ashamed of his homosexuality and lashes out against anyone with religious beliefs.

Being a bigot will not make you a tough guy.

"...lashes out against anyone with religious beliefs."

Merry Christmas to you as well, my good friend Stopthebox_Itch.

Hans

"Hans,
You strike me as a pseudo-intellectual elitist who is ashamed of his homosexuality and lashes out against anyone with religious beliefs.

Being a bigot will not make you a tough guy.

Posted by stopthebox_itch at 2005-12-06 12:10 PM | Reply"

YOWZA! And all that deeply penetrating, uncannily insightful analysis just over an electrical mojo line! Sheeeeeit! Imagine what Itchy could do if he lived in Real Life?

Merry Christmas to you, Hans.

Keep Christ in Christmas. He is the reason for the season.

Old Fart Sailor,

What part of my life don't you think is real?

I find it hard to believe that the right can sit there and accuse the left of sympathy for the terrorists when it's their kind that goes out an does the terrorizing.

They didn't want the class taught, they terrorized somebody and got their way. I guess because of the religous right, the terrorists did win.

"BUT IT DOESN'T!!"

Poor misguided Horace. ID/creationism isn't attacked because of flaws with evolution, it's attacked because it is total bullshit. This is the fundies first defense: imaginary beings exist because evolution is flawed. While your understanding of evolution is flawed, thus supporting imaginary beings in your head, the science of evolution is unmistakeable. Claims are made, and evidence is used to support/verify these claims. The lack of your special "missing links" does not detract from the fact that the theory is well supported by available physical evidence. The fact that you don't believe it doesn't make it any less so, it just suggests you lack the capacity to grasp the concept. The same cannot be said for your imaginary friend, who is supported by NO evidence. When you creationists get some new, more imaginative talking points, bring them by and we'll discuss.

"They didn't want the class taught, they terrorized somebody and got their way."

CS - This group of people uses many different strategies in their effort to push their religion into our public lives. The main goal of the ID movement is to put their religion on an equal footing with science. This is a ludicrous idea to almost all scientists, but is being pushed by the fundi-rists because they see science as a threat to their faith. Which it is, because science looks for the verifiable truths, of which supernatural beings are not. I'd be happy if they kept their beliefs in church and left the rest of us alone, but they can't seem to get that.

"Makes you think the anti-Evo's must be onto something!!"

Separating you from your money.

Horace--All those fakes you mentioned were exposed by scientists--not religious people---scientists. Science searches for facts, and the facts show the bible is false. Hitler was a Christian--you can't hide the documents--they are there for all to see.

So a guy who dislikes "fundies" says he gets beat up by them and everybody flat out believes him?

"What part of my life don't you think is real? Posted by stopthebox_itch at 2005-12-06 12:16 PM | Reply"

Well, perhaps the part where you're pulling out a description of a person that brands them "a pseudo-intellectual elitist who is ashamed of his homosexuality and lashes out against anyone with religious beliefs," admonishes "Being a bigot will not make you a tough guy" (expert witness, undoubtedly), and then intones: "Merry Christmas to you...Keep Christ in Christmas. He is the reason for the season."
Yeah, those parts for starters.

Don, how do you explain the prominent and brilliant scientists who dismiss Evolution? For instances Sir Fred Hoyle, or Dr. Michael Denton?, or Not everyone who disagrees with Evolution is a crackpot, are they?

For instance, a fierce critic of lazy Evolutionary thinking was Stephen Jay Gould. Gould was so bothered by the holes in the Evolutionary fossil record that he championed Punctuated Equilibria, a theory that states Evolution occured in mcirobursts that would need no fossil record to support they happened so quick.

How do you explain smart people working in the field who find it unconvincing? Moreover, you must be aware that many critics are not ID or even theistic in any way. They just can't abide the holes and awaiting the 'missing link' *finally* arriving like some Second Coming!

Horace

Buffy, it is quite easily researched that Hitler was creating a Volk Religion based upon paganism.

But I defer to your wisdom -- what part of Hitler's agenda was 'Christian' in any obvious method, manner or ideology?

If you could answer that without deferring to broad and vague statements, historical reductions supposedl tying the Crusades or the discovery of the new World, or ad hominem attacks against religion, it would be appreciated!

Horace

Homer, the way this guy described his attackers, driving a truck and muttering anti-E stements, I had the same feeling. He made them fit the stereotype so well. yet where is the hard evidence of this attack?

Who says this guy can't have made this attack up to gin up support for Evolutionists & show what monsters the anti-E's are?

It wouldn't be the first time a fraud was perpetuated to further 'science'...

Horace

If I were Satan, I'd find no better way to destroy Christianity than having people wrap themselves in it an commit attrocities.

Intelligent Design is a distraction. It is more "anti-genesis" than plain old Evolution.

The important thing to consider is that the greatest threat to America is BushCo and the greatest threat to Christianity is NeoCons. Not suprising that NeoCons hate Jimmy Carter, who walks the talk. Or the UN, that, although flawed is a good tool for nations to resolve conflict without war. Or the ACLU which tries to protect people from abuse. All the groups and people they hate are forces for good. They also hate some bad people who are inconvenient. But who you hate does not define how good you are.

Who do the NeoCon's love?

But I'm not a Christian -- so I think Bush is just a tool of power loving psychopaths whose time will soon pass. Hopefully, Bush will be most useful as a warning to others for how not to live a life or to use power.

Ok, you know what? I was just watching you people argue, but now I'm puting down a few words.

I'm not american nor live in the US, so this is really none of my business. Anymay, I find this Intelligent Design thing quite disturbing. Not really for the theory itself, but for the way it's being put.

Evolution is a THEORY. It means it's incomplete, not proved and lacking research and more evidence. The reason it's so largely accepted is because it's the best explanation so far for the origin of species. Cientists assume that so they have something so start on. If a more solid theory apears, this one will be droped and the new one will replace it.

I don't think ID is that solid theory. If evolutionism has holes, ID has a lot more. All I've seen it's defendents do so far is point the problems with evolution and say ID is not impossible. Very cientific.

Just to finish, I must say that attacking anyone's personal faith is ridiculous and in my opinion, imoral. Discussing God's existence and purposes is a religious and filosofical issue, not a cientific one. That's what faith is all about: believing without proof.

Speaking of frauds, I bet Horace bought stock in a cold fusion startup.

I bought all the anti-E & ID books I could find at B&N and am reading them. I can't classify myself as ID because I don't presume to understand it till maybe I get finished.

Alternatively I find Evolution wholly unpersuasive for the radical amount of variety in the natural world. For instance, I just started studying and trying to memorize a certain kind of tree found in my area. There are so many different types that I am staggered and now despair of memorizing all of them like I thought I would be able to easily do.

And that's just one tree...

Horace

ps, here is W Dembski's page, a guy who is at the center of the debate. I have only visited a few links so I can't vouch for it:

From Paul Feyerabend:

Consider the role science now plays in education. Scientific "facts" are taught at a very early age and in the very same manner in which religious "facts" were taught only a century ago. There is no attempt to waken the critical abilities of the pupil so that he may be able to see things in perspective.

At the universities the situation is even worse, for indoctrination is here carried out in a much more systematic manner. Criticism is not entirely absent. Society, for example, and its institutions, are criticized most severely and often most unfairly and this already at the elementary school level. But science is excepted from the criticism. In society at large the judgment of the scientist is received with the same reverence as the judgment of bishops and cardinals was accepted not too long ago.

The move towards "demythologization," for example, is largely motivated by the wish to avoid any clash between Christianity and scientific ideas. If such a clash occurs, then science is certainly right and Christianity wrong. Pursue this investigation further and you will see that science has now become as oppressive as the ideologies it had once to fight.

Do not be misled by the fact that today hardly anyone gets killed for joining a scientific heresy. This has nothing to do with science. It has something to do with the general quality of our civilization. Heretics in science are still made to suffer from the most severe sanctions this relatively tolerant civilization has to offer. Knowledge Science and Relativism (1999) p.182

"I would be able to easily do."

Four billion years results in a bit of variety.

Wrong again Horace.
Do you just make this shit up or do you listen to Rush first?
When was the last time you were in a physics teaching lab?

Zat, your shorthand is a bit hard to follow. Could you clearly indicate what you are responding to so it does not remain inscrutible?

Thanks

horace

Are you a physics teacher, Zat? If you were would that mean your opinion was above criticism?

Let me put this question in perspective Zat -- if a Minister or Pastor weighs in on religious matters does this mean no one can contradict him? Does it mean his position is right by definition? Is his opinion on religion assumed to be so deep & learned as to defy contradiction? Of course not!

Conversely persons like you would immediately begin to scream 'bias'!! Of course scientists are incapable of bias being 100% purified by their training.

This difference is why a lot of lay people do not trust the statments of scientists and 'experts' like yourself. Then sens of condescension, arrogance and self-regard is unbounded on topics like this cannot bode well for the openmindedness that is supposed to animate scientific endeavors.

Horace

This should read...

This difference is why a lot of lay people do not trust the statments of scientists and 'experts' like yourself. That the sense of condescension, arrogance and self-regard is unbounded on topics like this cannot bode well for the openmindedness that is supposed to exemplify & animate scientific endeavors.

Horace

"Wrong again Horace." Wrong about what, Zat? Or more likely you are always right so details are irrelevant -- regardless if anyone outside of your mother knows to what you refer!

"Do you just make this shit up or do you listen to Rush first?" Nice ad hominem. Of course not being a proctolgist I'm unfamiliar with the feces in question as well as you. Congrats on being a polyglot, Monsieur Transverse-C! And if I answer for Rush, will you in kind answer for Joseph Mengele, a world famous experimenter?

"When was the last time you were in a physics teaching lab?" Actually Zat I am taking a break from my particle accelerator to have this highly cultured and urbane dialogue with you now.

Much obliged.

Horace

"There are so many different types that I am staggered and now despair of memorizing all of them like I thought I would be able to easily do."

Again with the talking points. "Things are so complicated that it's impossible that they could have evolved that way." The actual fact is that things are so complicated that YOU can't wrap your mind around it, and thus contribute it to some divine inspiration.

"How do you explain smart people working in the field who find it unconvincing?"

If you are refrring to those few "scientists" that subscribe to ID, then yes they are crackpots, and their peers have documented them as such. Anyone who wholely discounts evolutionary theory and claims to be a scientist is a crackpot. Steven Gould was an ardent supporter of the concept of evolution, and if you read his work instead of comsulting Dembski's talking points you would know this. Maybe start with "Mayonaise and the Origin of life". Their may be some differing explanations as to exact mechanisms, but overall the fact that things evolved and continue to evolve is pretty well established. I know the pretend science of ID probably sounds sexy to you, but in the real world it's still BS.

"Of course scientists are incapable of bias being 100% purified by their training."

But you see Horace, that's where peer review comes into play. If Zat writes a scientific paper, it's first read by a panel of scientists in Zat's field before it's even published. Once published, it's scrutinized by anyone who reads it, and if there's something wrong then Zat willed get called on it. This peer review tends to eliminate biased works. Since ID "scientists" don't ever publish anything in scientific journals, they escape peer review, and can publish the biased garbage that they pass of on the ignorant as science. Try again.

Oh, Donnyboy, wow -- I'm so sorry to not have your grasp of flora. And exactly how much of the physical world have you memorized familt, genus, species, characteristics, etc? When you do you will understand what I am getting at and not be such a knee-jerk and uneducated smartass.

I happen to know Gould outside of Dembski. Is it possible, Donnyboy for you to not spend all of your time insulting and presuming? Or is that simply the effect one gets when they take: thirdd rate mind + real world = bigot? I guess so!

I think I understand Gould better than you, by the way.

If you want to launch an all out intellectual fight, your on. You'll be buried faster than Khrushchev slamming a podium with his shoe could ever imagine. Please make my day!

In honor of Mars, Horace

ps, I bet you and your Mayonaise of Life have a particularly fetid interpretation, you sad sack.

"Another one using computers claiming science is bogus. Horace, why call you names? You demonstrate your gross ignorance constantly."

I think the above was a reference to our discussion yesterday. Using a computer to convey an idea is irrelevant in this debate--it's a red herring.

Secondly, I never once said science was bogus. That is your word and idea--thanks for proving my point about the limitations of language and memory. I simpled expressed a basic philosophical point--science like all bodies of knowledge is based on assumptions. Some of them are:

1) That there is an objective reality.
2) That our senses are accurate and sufficient instruments to measure reality
3) That language can accurately convey truth.
4) That memory is reliable.

You may be comfortable accepting all of these, and for the most part, I am too. However, I recognize an assumption when I see it. And I know enough about epistemology to know that no one, scientists, philosophers or theologians have it all wrapped up. Humility is a virtue, but then ethics is outside the domain of science. A scientists cannot prove that humility exists.

Moreover science and the scientific method uses inductive rather than deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning never comes to a proof just increasing probability of any given statement.

Science may offer our best method for understanding reality, but any philosopher worth his or her weight in salt can see it is not infallible.

You really should get out more.

(Don't you like the last line? I picked it up from you. It allows me to end my comment with a certain tone of, self righteous, smugness--it would seem that the fundamentals don't have the market cornered on that one. I am sure you appreciate it.)

Cheers

But I defer to your wisdom -- what part of Hitler's agenda was 'Christian' in any obvious method, manner or ideology?

If you could answer that without deferring to broad and vague statements, historical reductions supposedl tying the Crusades or the discovery of the new World, or ad hominem attacks against religion, it would be appreciated!

Horace

Posted by horace at 2005-12-06 01:33 PM | Reply

OK, so you know the answer to your own question, then you attempt to cutoff the most obvious and blatant answers, then you ask for an answer?

Hitler was much like early Christianity in that it was either 'your're either with us or you're against us...and dead'. What part of the Crusades ('Torture and Murder sprees' is more like it) would you call 'vague'??

"I'm so sorry to not have your grasp of flora."

Horace - It's not the flora that's eluding your grasp, it's the fact that ID as an alternative to evolution is a laughable concept. Your blustery retorts are entertaining (in a sad way), but your sole response is to attack me for attacking you, instead of providing any credible evidence with which to bolster your absurd claims. You spew ID talking points, then attack me for debunking them. You claim to "understand" Gould, yet use his hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium to debunk evolution in general, when it's obvious it doesn't. My guess is that you like to read, but I think you have gotten in over your head. Maybe for starters you should have an intellectual discussion with that tree you're so fascinated by. I'm sure it could teach you a thing or two.

Common-S, Christianity essentially refers to Christ and His teaching. In what sense was Hitler trying to establish or further these?

Conversely, there is hard evidence that Hitler was planning on replacing the religions of the Book, ie Judaism, Catholicism, Protestantism, etc. with a Volk religion. This was based upon a mystical arianism taken from Guido von List.

By the way, did you even bother to look up that name? I find that after being challenged here and then responding with specific names, places, events, people, etc. that no one bothers to do any due dilligence.

Hitler was not a Christian, but whether he was attempting to invoke the name of Christ and the Church is undoubted. Did you think it was fair when they interviewed Jeffrey Dahmer and asked him -- Why -- and he said he believed in Evolution? Is it fair to then tie him to Darwin?

FYI, 'early Christianity' is not what you claim. It was oppressed, not oppressive. Christians died for refusing to abandon the faith. It was only after governments got involved that non believers were persecuted.

Show me where Christ or the Apostles espoused anything resembling the Crusades or Naziism?

I can show you where Hitler said he hated the Bible, that the church was going to become Germanized or Naziized or cease to exist, and where he often put his faith in pagan oracles, mystical sources, and the like.

Horace

NARF!

I'm sure Jesus loves violence in his name.

Look Don, I appreciate your pity -- but it's misplaced. You really ought to hold that in reserve for yourself. You are the one blocking and tackling for an ideology coming apart at the seams. A set of beliefs that is so sensitive and leaky that it can afford to brook no opposition or allow any dissent.

You, like many Evolutionists have only contempt for those whom disagree. You cross the line when you begin the insults. And like many Darwinists you can't wait to debase your opponent. You have to start off with insults, lest anyone think you have the tiniest shred of respect for the opposition.

I provided a fair amount of evidence for what I was saying, like the faked examples of 'evolution.' Then someone replied that the fakes were discovered by 'Science'!! You create a platonic version of Science that can do no wrong.

I also pointed out the false examples of Evolutionary Pedagogy. The thing is, at least in this forum if you have no answers for a troubling question or fact, it is simply ignored. And then the person using them is pilloried for producing no facts.' Yet, if you examine the posts you will see I brought up real life fakes and problems and they dismissed out of hand.

You provoked whatever attack you claim to have received by your intemperate and childish disrespectfulness, and certainly deserved more of it. I don't use talking points, by the way. I am simply reading the books. Are you so incapable of a point-by-point response as to have to call what I named problems as talking points'? Just for your edification being a scientist' if you actually are one, or an Evolutionist doesn't make you smart. It simply means you follow the masses of the group you aspire to belong to.

This mysticizing and triumphalizing of the discipline is also misplaced. There is no such thing as Science, Donnyboy, only persons using the Scientific Method. In other words, your god has no clothes, and you turn your back on the method itself in order to defend the idol. Why not drop the pretense and the pretended, made-up superiority and come back to earth?

I certainly do study the natural world for the sheer enjoyment of it and I am sad you are so cynical and also dull of imagination that all you can think is 'fake' when you are challenged.

I made clear that I was studying the books of the anti-Evolutionists and didn't claim to be an IDist, or even know everything they believed. But in your hurried, smug and careless way you grouped me in with them.

I quite rightly quoted Gould where something he believed seemed to go against the regular Evolutionists, a group whom you seem to fall in with. Certainly there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, the more I interact with supercilious yet intellectually vacuous individuals like you, the more I see how truly devoid of original thought or independent thinking the Evolutionists are.

Long live the god Darwin & his minions!

Horace

Ps, In over my head'? Hahahaha!

"A set of beliefs that is so sensitive and leaky that it can afford to brook no opposition or allow any dissent."

Horace - you can dissent against physical evidence supporting evolution all you want. It still doesn't change the fact that you don't understand it.

"You, like many Evolutionists have only contempt for those whom disagree. "

Not contempt - more like the pity you described earlier. You've made up your mind that you're not going to agree, and from that vantage point dismiss all facts regarding the subject while ignoring the lack of evidence that supports your case.

"Yet, if you examine the posts you will see I brought up real life fakes and problems and they dismissed out of hand."

I think we agreed that there were fakes, but whereas you think they somehow disprove evolution, I see them as proving that some people will do anything to get attention. Someone else brought up the point that the fakes were discovered via science, similar to how science is used to support evolution.

"In other words, your god has no clothes,"

While you may see science as a god challenging your beliefs, I look at it more as the body of infomation gathered and confirmed via the scientific method. There is no god, only a set of rules by which all matter behaves, unlike the mysticism you suggest. If you didn't have such a hard-on for disproving a