“It’s Just a Flesh Wound…”

Looks like the Discovery Institute fools are still at it:

The Discovery Institute is finding some good in the December ruling by a federal judge that intelligent design could not be taught in a Pennsylvania school district.

“The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) sued to keep a few students in Pennsylvania from hearing about intelligent design, and as a result, they made sure everyone in the world heard about it,” said Stephen Meyer, director of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, which produces studies and reports about intelligent design.

Publicity wasn’t the only benefit of U.S. District Judge John Jones’ ruling. The decision five months ago is helping this Seattle think tank refine the way it promotes intelligent design as a challenge to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.

Bruce Chapman, founder of the institute which is the country’s primary supporter of intelligent design, said Jones’ ruling, which equated intelligent design with biblically based creationism, has been misread.

“We have problems on both sides,” he said. “There is no doubt that many conservative and liberals alike – if they have not studied the matter – mix up the science issue with religion.”

Putting aside the fact that if ANYONE is trying to mix religion and science, it is the folks pushing a view that an ‘intelligent designer’ created everything, I find it personally amusing that they consider this a PR ‘win.’ This Seattle Times piece shows a much more chagrined Chapman:

“Dover is a disaster in a sense, as a public-relations matter,” said Bruce Chapman, a former Seattle city councilman and founder of the Discovery Institute, the country’s primary supporter of intelligent design. “It has given a rhetorical weapon to the Darwinists to say a judge has settled this,” he said.

It ain’t over till it’s over, right, Bruce? This also startled me:

Leading conservative commentators — including talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh and syndicated columnist Cal Thomas — say the judge’s decision shows that intelligent design is a failed strategy in the effort to bring religion into the public schools.

“Let’s make no mistake,” Limbaugh said on his radio show. “The people pushing intelligent design believe in the biblical version of creation. Intelligent design is a way, I think, to sneak it into the curriculum and make it less offensive to the liberals.”

Rush Limbaugh, making sense.

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit

225 replies
  1. 1
    canuckistani says:

    Rush is trying to make sense, but he isn’t quite there. Intelligent Design is just as offensive to thinking people of all political stripes as Creationism is. Maybe more so, as it tries to disguise itself in the trappings of science. At least Creationism is honest superstition.

  2. 2
    Jack Roy says:

    Whoa! Completely surprised by that Rush quote.

  3. 3
    Pb says:

    I used to listen to Rush, now and then, 15 years ago, and I thought he was quite good at what he did, and very amusing sometimes, just so long as you remember that it’s all for entertainment purposes only, just like phone psychics.

    And really, what idiot wouldn’t know that, for all the times he talked about having “half my brain tied behind my back and talent on loan from God”? His regular listeners, apparently.

  4. 4
    Marcus Wellby says:

    “Let’s make no mistake,” Limbaugh said on his radio show. “The people pushing intelligent design believe in the biblical version of creation. Intelligent design is a way, I think, to sneak it into the curriculum and make it less offensive to the liberals.”

    How about “less offensive to thinking people”? I don’t know a single person, liberal or conservative, that supports this bullshit.

    And spare me the school prayer insanity. Once schools are churning out students that can compete with the rest of the industrialized world we can talk about adopting prayer. Right now they need to worry about things like math and science. Now, if you want to dedicate some of your Sunday school time to physics and algebra we might be able to cut a deal.

  5. 5
    Steve says:

    Is Rush a religious person? I guess I assumed he was like all the other conservative opinion leaders who see religion as a tool to manipulate the masses. It certainly doesn’t sound deeply devout to talk about “the biblical version of creation,” as though there were other versions.

  6. 6
    Larry says:

    it is the folks pushing a view that an ‘intelligent designer’ created everything

    And bananas prove it.

  7. 7

    Rush isn’t a religious person. Like most conservatives, he just uses religion when it suits his argument.

  8. 8
    Registered Independent Joel says:

    Marcus Wellby said, “I don’t know a single person, liberal or conservative, that supports this bullshit.”

    You sound like that lady who didn’t know anyone who voted for Nixon. You need to get out more. If nothing else, try hanging out at some of the better conservative discussion boards. Even Cathy Young’s forum has a guy who wrote “There is no evidence that evolution has occured.” A view that is not shared by Cathy herself, nor any of the other commenters as far as I could tell.

    But creationists are not at all hard to find, if you just get out of your lefty cocoon once in a while.

  9. 9
    Jim Allen says:

    It certainly doesn’t sound deeply devout to talk about “the biblical version of creation,” as though there were other versions.

    Far be if from me to defend Limbaugh, but most religions have their own versions of creation, and only Christianity and Judaism use the Bible.

  10. 10
    Jim Allen says:

    Although, to be sure, those other religions are not trying to get their versions taught in schools.

  11. 11
    Pooh says:

    Even Cathy Young’s forum has a guy who wrote “There is no evidence that evolution has occured.” A view that is not shared by Cathy herself, nor any of the other commenters as far as I could tell.

    Was it Revenant? He’s never believed anything he hasn’t seen with his two eyes, and not always then.

  12. 12
    Pooh says:

    Though not to disagree with your underlying point of course, there are a lot of creationist types out there, they don’t go around wearing Pastafarianism on their sleeves.

  13. 13
    yet another jeff says:

    Yeah, but seeing people rant about ID on a message board isn’t the same as face to face with Believers. Harder to find actual people that support it than it is to find it on message boards and blogs.

    Then again, if by “get out of your lefty cocoon” you mean “go to a fundamentalist church”, you might be onto something.

  14. 14
    Sstarr says:

    Here’s a very revealing Seattle Weekly article detailing the history of the Discovery Institute.

    Money quote from the article:

    “Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its damning cultural legacies,” he wrote. He went on to detail a 20-year plan to replace “materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God,” and to replace materialist science with a new scientific paradigm “consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.”

    You would think this mission would be obvious to any journalist who studied the Discovery institute or it’s personnel for more than a few seconds.

  15. 15
    Zifnab says:

    Far be if from me to defend Limbaugh, but most religions have their own versions of creation, and only Christianity and Judaism use the Bible.

    That’s the honestly intellectually hilarious thing intelligent designers repeatedly will fold under. They absolutely refuse to define who the intelligent designer is, how he acts, where he exists, or how long/often he puts for his noodly appendages.

    If you say, “Could it be aliens?” they’ll consede that the intelligent designer could, in fact, be aliens. “Could it be a flying Spagetti monster?” Sure, anything’s possible.

    If there’s one thing that delineates ID from actual science, it’s all the questions ID proponents don’t ask and refuse to answer. I’ve never met a physics major that hasn’t drooled at the opportunity to put forward his view on String Theory, the Big Bang, neutrinos, the speed of light, or any of the other physical phenomenon we’re only beginning to comprehend. I’ve never met an ID scientist even remotely willing to discuss the edges of his scientific theory.

  16. 16
    Don says:

    Rush Limbaugh, making sense.

    Hey, even broken clocks are right twice a day.

  17. 17
    Marcus Wellby says:

    Marcus Wellby said, “I don’t know a single person, liberal or conservative, that supports this bullshit.”

    You sound like that lady who didn’t know anyone who voted for Nixon. You need to get out more. If nothing else, try hanging out at some of the better conservative discussion boards. Even Cathy Young’s forum has a guy who wrote “There is no evidence that evolution has occured.” A view that is not shared by Cathy herself, nor any of the other commenters as far as I could tell.

    But creationists are not at all hard to find, if you just get out of your lefty cocoon once in a while.

    Joel, do you struggle to be such a dipshit, or is it natural? I said “I don’t know a single person, liberal or conservative, that supports this bullshit”

    I am not talking about what I read on blogs — those aren’t people I “know”. As for “lefty” cocoon, that is just laughable. I know far more conservatives than “lefties”.

  18. 18
    Nikki says:

    And bananas prove it.

    That was such a stupid theory. I’d like them to try to explain how mangoes are intelligently designed. They aren’t easy to peel, the seed is WAAAAYYY too big and unbelieveably sloppy to eat.

    Then again, the taste of a ripe one alone is enough to make one believe in God.

  19. 19
    SeesThroughIt says:

    At least Creationism is honest superstition.

    Great point. One of the more pernicious things about the complete bullshit of ID is that its proponents are unbelievably dishonest. Look at the quotes John cited–bemoaning the mixing of science and religion when that’s precisely what ID is? Shut the fuck up.

    I can’t wait for the Scrutator Bunch to join this thread. Then we’ll be getting some Grade-A stupidity!

  20. 20

    “Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its damning cultural legacies,” he wrote.

    Yes. This was the argument Williams Jennings Bryant had towards Evolution as well back in the day.

    It’s particularly disturbing how shallow the minds are of some people. Evolution directly supports Capitalism. But if you go through the readings of the wingnuts, they repeatedly claim that Communists embraced Evolution and that was the cause of their massacres.

    The thing is none of them are at all related. It’s just a bunch of fucking excuses.

    Russians are terribly racist and have been for centuries. The country encompasses dozens of different cultures. But only pure Russians are regarded as important. All other cultures are not Russians. Similarly, Russians don’t have a whole lot of sympathy for people who cannot support themselves(elderly, insane, handicapped, etc.). This latter attitude comes from their lack of wealth.

    In fact if you look at our country, it has been the increase of overall wealth that we have seen concern for those who cannot care for themselves. Nothing to do with evolution, capitalism, communism. Everything to do with what the society is capable of.

    Which goes right back to David Hume’s argument that Morals are Sentiments that have to do with survival of the society. Which just bugs these wingnuts to no end, because they can stand Humeism.

  21. 21
    Pb says:

    Nikki,

    I personally liked the car analogy idiocy. It went something like this:

    Cars are designed.
    Cars have windows, windshield wipers, squirters…
    People have “windows, windshield wipers, squirters” (eyes, eyelids, tears) — all these miraculous similarities to cars, which are designed!
    Therefore… People must be designed!

    The obvious response, of course, is that we know that people came first, and manufactured cars, which explains all the similarities, but anything past that simply does not follow. In fact, from their ridiculously vague ‘argument’, you might think that perhaps people and cars had the same designer, or perhaps that cars could have designed people.

  22. 22
    Halffasthero says:

    Intelligent Design is a non-partisan issue. People on both sides of the spectrum think it is crap. Rick from Right Wing NutHouse badmouthed it non-stop as I recall. And justifiably so.

    I am surpised to see intelligent commentary from Rush.

  23. 23
    SeesThroughIt says:

    or perhaps that cars could have designed people.

    In Soviet Russia, cars do design people!

  24. 24
    Damned at Random says:

    If ID was a science-based movement, Discover Institute would be funding a research program to identify the designer.

  25. 25
    Eural says:

    Slightly off-topic but relevant:

    My favorite creationism argument appeared in the local paper here (Columbia, SC) recently. An enraged writer was attacking the new evidence of a transitional fossil find. His point? It didn’t prove anything because it was just the scientists’ opinion that it was a transitional find, therefore it wasn’t really scientific evidence. He went on to say that any evidence you find to support the evolution side will always just be based scientific opinion so it can’t be scientific evidence….Wow. Mindblowing….

  26. 26
    scs says:

    I’ve never met an ID scientist even remotely willing to discuss the edges of his scientific theory.

    That goes both ways. I’ve never met (or read) an evolution scientist who had one good explanation for “irreducuble” complexity, or was willing to talk about it other than “trust us”, or also just making fun of the question. So, how does science explain the conundrum that a new feature is selected for without a system in place to make use of this new feature? In fact, I had to make up my own theory, which I called “layering” to try and explain it to myself -now that’s sad! ID might be mostly fiction, but evolution science ain’t all it’s cracked up to be either. Scratch the surface on it and you’ll see.

  27. 27
    demimondian says:

    In Soviet Russia, cars do design people!

    But in Korea, only old people design people…

    Hey, has anybody seen this today? And I thought all the lunatic fringe FUD about operating systems was anti-MS…

  28. 28
    Ryan S says:

    That goes both ways. I’ve never met (or read) an evolution scientist who had one good explanation for “irreducuble” complexity,

    That’s because its a ID term and not a evolutionary one. It is also almost competely arbitrary one at that. What is it that you are claiming that is irreducibly complex?

  29. 29
    Detlef says:

    scs,

    Fine!
    Just introduce ID to every American science student.
    Give them an “A” whenever they can´t answer a real scientific question but answer it with “an intelligent designer did it”. Knowledge and research is not needed, “an intelligent designer did it”.

    I´m not an American so – in the end – it´s not my problem. You want to teach ID? Be my guest!
    Just remember that an “intelligent designer” won´t pay your foreign debts. If foreigners decide that your scientific research is nothing more than “an intelligent designer did it”, prepare to life in a third world country sooner or later.

  30. 30
    scs says:

    Knowledge and research is not needed, “an intelligent designer did it”.

    Well I think a lot of evolution science comes down to, “Trust us. An intelligent scientist will discover it someday.” I see them both with flaws.

  31. 31
    scs says:

    What is it that you are claiming that is irreducibly complex?

    How does a new part get selected for without a system to back it up? Does a whole system develop together? Does a new part just happen to lock into an old system? Is it a gradual development of breaking away? That is the “concept” if not the existence of irreducible complexity, and as any evolutionary scientist will tell you- not yet figured out.

  32. 32
    Joey says:

    Well I think a lot of evolution science comes down to, “Trust us. An intelligent scientist will discover it someday.” I see them both with flaws.

    Do you see gravity with flaws as well? Evolution is a fact. You can witness it happen. The only thing debatable is the method through which it occurs, and even then we’re almost positive that it’s natural selection. Everybody with a working knowledge of evolutionary science (And by that, I mean they’ve actually studied it, taken courses on it, etc., not just read something about it in the newspaper) believes it. This isn’t a debate. It’s a group of idiots commenting on something they don’t understand, and another group of people trying to prevent the idiots from spreading their idiocy onto their children.

  33. 33
    scs says:

    The only thing debatable is the method through which it occurs, and even then we’re almost positive that it’s natural selection

    We’re talking about cellular development here. A minor detail perhaps to you, but not to me.

  34. 34
    scs says:

    It’s a group of idiots commenting on something they don’t understand

    By the way, with that definition, we could include most evolutionary scientists, as they admit they have no clue about many issues dealing with biological development.

  35. 35
    jg says:

    I’ve never met (or read) an evolution scientist who had one good explanation for “irreducuble” complexity, or was willing to talk about it other than “trust us”, or also just making fun of the question.

    Irreducible complexity is only a valid concept in a linear world. Where one process directly effects another and where one could easily walk a process from its current state all the way to its beginning. The real world isn’t linear, its chaotic. You can’t take an organ like an eyeball and walk it backwards in a straight line to its first ever appearance in a lower form. You can’t take an organism like man and see all the way back to his origins. You can only make judgements based on available data. New data can change previous conclusions also. Id simply tries to offer an absolute answer to questions where there really isn’t enough available data to answer the question. They hold this up as proof of sciences’ flaws yet its actually the beauty of science. Its a pursuit of knowledge. ID, like religion, says stop the pursuit the answers are known. keep in mind that if we al believed in ID and saw no reason for scientific pursuit we wouldn’t be having this conversation. The computer is a result of science.

  36. 36
    jg says:

    scs Says:

    It’s a group of idiots commenting on something they don’t understand

    By the way, with that definition, we could include most evolutionary scientists, as they admit they have no clue about many issues dealing with biological development.

    But they are trying to find out. Instead of giving up and saying God did it they are trying to find it out. You have a problem with that?

  37. 37
    scs says:

    Instead of giving up and saying God did it they are trying to find it out. You have a problem with that?

    Yes I do, if it means squelching and ridiculing all questions that people ask about their science. Hardly a scientific spirit.

  38. 38
    scs says:

    ID, like religion, says stop the pursuit the answers are known.

    That’s not what I got from it. It basically says, “show us the money” first, then we’ll get behind it. It encourages MORE explanation- as compared to the sweeping under the rugs that current scientists do now.

  39. 39
    Francis says:

    scs, you really don’t want to go head-to-head with PZ Myers. Read about 6 months of postings on Pharyngula and Panda’s Thumb, then come back and tell us about what professionals do and don’t know.

  40. 40
    jg says:

    scs Says:

    Instead of giving up and saying God did it they are trying to find it out. You have a problem with that?

    Yes I do, if it means squelching and ridiculing all questions that people ask about their science. Hardly a scientific spirit.

    It doesn’t mean that.

  41. 41
    Pooh says:

    Man, we’ve missed SCS’ particular and spectacular brand of unreason around here.

  42. 42
    ppGaz says:

    Man, we’ve missed SCS’ particular and spectacular brand of unreason around here.

    That’s like missing a sinus infection.

  43. 43
    jg says:

    scs Says:

    ID, like religion, says stop the pursuit the answers are known.

    That’s not what I got from it. It basically says, “show us the money” first, then we’ll get behind it. It encourages MORE explanation- as compared to the sweeping under the rugs that current scientists do now.

    ID says ‘show us the money’ first? What does that even mean? ID says simply that evolution is wrong, a designer created the complex lifeforms and anyone pursuing other avenues is wasting their time.

    Scientists don’t sweep things under the rug, they look at things under the rug and try to figure out how they got there.

  44. 44
    jg says:

    squelching and ridiculing all questions that people ask about their science

    For a second think about it from thier point of view. How many questions are being asked that have either no foundation in science so therefore are impossible to answer scientificaly or are based on bad science. Theres a lot of people in this country who got passing grades in high school science and think they can question ascientist. If you were a scientist wouldn’t you get a little aggravated being asked questions that make no sense? Wouldn’t you get tired of fielding questions that can only be answered by first having to point out that the questioner doesn’t understand the material they are asking about? Its got to be frustrationg knowing that if the people asking the question had just a little scientific knowledge they wouldn’t be asking the question. A good example is the people who believe we faked the moon landings because we can’t see any stars in the pictures on the moon. In order to answer the question NASA must first teach people how cameras work, which if they had already known that would preclude them from needing to ask the question.

  45. 45
    ppGaz says:

    Instead of giving up and saying God did it they are trying to find it out. You have a problem with that?

    Yes I do, if it means squelching and ridiculing all questions that people ask about their science. Hardly a scientific spirit.

    Dudes …. that is spoof. Either that, or what is generally referred to in Internet flame wars as “willful ignorance.”

    Objecting to “trying to find out?” C’mon, get serious.
    Not even the Flat Earth Society can sound that stupid.

  46. 46
    scs says:

    If you were a scientist wouldn’t you get a little aggravated being asked questions that make no sense?

    A true scientist would be able to distinguish between a question that makes no sense and a question that does. The question of the “concept” (in quotes, mind you) of IR, central to ID, is a question that makes sense, especially since scientists say they are looking for the solution to that question themselves. To ask that question is not a frivolus pursuit, and as the popular media squelches asking that question, they are the ones engaged in stifling scientific debate. ID, with all its flaws, is opening up questions.

  47. 47
    ppGaz says:

    A true scientist would be able to distinguish between a question that makes no sense and a question that does.

    A spoof snake handler now lectures us on “true science?”

  48. 48
    SeesThroughIt says:

    A true scientist would be able to distinguish between a question that makes no sense and a question that does.

    That’s why true scientists don’t waste their time with the creationist claptrap of ID.

  49. 49
    scs says:

    A spoof snake handler now lectures us on “true science?”

    And you got double secret spoofer information from whom? DougJ? GOP4ME?

  50. 50
    scs says:

    That’s why true scientists don’t waste their time with the creationist claptrap of ID.

    That’s why true scientists have the cellular developmen of evolution nailed. Oh wait. Never mind. An intelligent scientist will discover it someday- that’s all we need to know.

  51. 51

    I started reading THE END OF FAITH.

  52. 52
    Steve says:

    Doesn’t that kind of ruin it? Shouldn’t you have started from the beginning?

  53. 53
    Andrei says:

    ID, with all its flaws, is opening up questions.

    Bullshit. ID is attempting to squelch scientific inquiry and any question that follows natural scientific steps towards more discovery. The point at which someone claims “Well some Intelligent Designer did it” is the same point that one stops asking questions.

    You’d best do yourself a favor and read up on the persecution of Galileo. Follow the path of IDers at your own risk. And stop kidding yourrself.

  54. 54
    tBone says:

    demi – great link. I especially liked this:

    Unlike Windows, which is a mature commercial product which is normally included with every new computer, Linux is given away.

    followed later by:

    If you see a company using Linux, it may be that they have not paid for this software.

    Not to mention:

    And guess what software Osama Bin Laden uses on his laptop?
    If you guessed it was Linux you would be 100% right. Osama uses Linux because he knows designed to counterfit DVDs, curcumventing the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, and defraud companies like Disney.

    And I thought Scrutator was over the top. Right-wing spoof sites seem to be a real growth industry.

  55. 55
    demimondian says:

    I was expecting the “author” to accuse bin Laden of using OpenBSD on his laptop — it’s full of crypto to keep theose gawd-feerin’ Murikans out, and, its logo is a DEMON, to boot!

  56. 56
    ppGaz says:

    And you got double secret spoofer information from whom? DougJ? GOP4ME?

    Barney the Dinosaur?

  57. 57
    Beej says:

    scs,

    The questions you ask about irreducable complexity are only valid questions if there is such a thing as irreducable complexity. Who coined the term? Who stated that evolutionary science can’t account for it? Who says that the inability to explain it is a flaw in evolutionary science? If the answer is the Discovery Institute, isn’t it possible that there are motives here which have little or nothing to do with science and everything to do with advancing a particular religious agenda? Think about it.

  58. 58

    Hey, has anybody seen this today? And I thought all the lunatic fringe FUD about operating systems was anti-MS…

    Christ, I think Linux is a piece of shit, but man that article is pathetic.

    And guess what software Osama Bin Laden uses on his laptop?

    LOL! She forgot to mention the FBI mole Robert Hanssen! At least that one is documented.[warning: Link to WorldNetDaily, may cause your brain to turn to mush.]

  59. 59
    Mike says:

    …make it less offensive to the liberals.”

    They weren’t trying to make it less offensive to liberals, they were trying to make it more acceptable to Supreme Court Justices.

  60. 60
    Nikki says:

    OMG, PB, you watched the whole thing?!! Do you need a hug?

  61. 61
    scs says:

    The questions you ask about irreducable complexity are only valid questions if there is such a thing as irreducable complexity.

    Wrong. Questions about evolutionary cellular development are valid, no matter what you call it. That you just stated that, and seem to have no desire to get an explanation, just illustrates the incomplete scientific grasp and lack of scientific curiousity that most people have on this subject, unfortunately coupled with a strong adherence to pc dogma.

    Who stated that evolutionary science can’t account for it?

    Most evolutionary scientists. Well, actually to put it more accurately, most evolutionary scientists admit they have no good detailed explantion yet for what some call complexity. If they can’t explain it, they can’t really account for it now, can they? That’s why I believe we need more to hang our hat on before we consider it conquered territory.

  62. 62
    ppGaz says:

    That’s why I believe we need more to hang our hat on before we consider it conquered territory.

    So, it’s like a doorknob?

  63. 63
    scs says:

    Putting aside the fact that if ANYONE is trying to mix religion and science, it is the folks pushing a view that an ‘intelligent designer’ created everything,signer’ created everything,

    Hmmm. Who created the first matter? The first atom? The first energy? Space? Until I hear a good scientific explantion for that, I’m going to keep my mind open on that one too.

  64. 64
    ppGaz says:

    Until I hear a good scientific explantion for that, I’m going to keep my mind open empty on that one too.

    You should proofread more.

  65. 65
    scs says:

    just illustrates the incomplete scientific grasp and lack of scientific curiousity that most people have on this subject, unfortunately coupled with a strong adherence to pc dogma.

    I’m going to quote myself here. I think this lack of scientific curiousity by most people reminds me of the Terri Schiavo issue. Everyone was crowing the PC party line about PVS and how Terri was gone, her brain basically mush, brain dead, without even bothering to read up on the lastest research on the subject of PVS, easily available on the internet, that PVS was a complex condition, with some significant signs of degrees of cognition in many patients, even in very severely brain damaged patients. This lack of scientific understanding includes John, who quoted the source of his scientific information on the subject from newspaper editorialists and political bloggers, and yet somehow saw fit to make fun of others on the subject who knew more than he did, because of what Maureen Dowd or someone wrote. It just shows me how easily people fall into line into group think. Very frustrating.

  66. 66
    rbl says:

    Who created the first matter? The first atom? The first energy? Space? Until I hear a good scientific explantion for that, I’m going to keep my mind open on that one too.

    Big Bang. It is hypothesized that the negative gravitational potential energy may perfectly balance out the positive mass energy, meaning that the total energy of the universe may be zero. And if you ask where the BB came from anyone who understands a bit of general relativity will justifiably laugh at you. But yes, scientists are continually revising their understanding of the moments after the BB, understanding more and more.
    And, just in case, BB is established “fact” about as much as fact can be established in science. IE evidence points toward it, no other theory comes close to explaining the universe as well as the big bang, etc.

  67. 67
    rbl says:

    I think this lack of scientific curiousity by most people reminds me of the Terri Schiavo issue. Everyone was crowing the PC party line about PVS and how Terri was gone, her brain basically mush, brain dead, without even bothering to read up on the lastest research on the subject of PVS

    Of course, it does turn out that her brain was basically mush, or rather, that most of it wasn’t there, having atrophied long ago.

  68. 68
    ppGaz says:

    I’m going to quote myself here.

    You should never put the punchline first.

    And on PVS? That was the issue on which you pissed away the very last of the credibility you had conned for yourself here. I seriously doubt that anyone has ever made a greater ass of themselves here than you did on the Schiavo topic.

    You know, part of good spoofing is being subtle enough not to be obvious and blow your cover.

  69. 69
    Steve says:

    I don’t care what you read on the Internet, you still can’t think without a brain.

  70. 70
    canuckistani says:

    There comes a point in any scientific discipline where you have to admit that the problem is basically solved. If you went around telling astronomers that the earth was flat and the universe revolved around it, you’d be lucky to get your ass kicked. Same with biology. 150 years worth of evidence all point to evolution. You can quibble about details, but when you come around here telling us that science is wrong because a book of myths tells you otherwise, you don’t get credit for having an open mind. You get credit for being an ignorant sap, and the fact that you don’t understand the what you’re talking about is not evidence for irreducible complexity.

  71. 71
    stickler says:

    Everyone was crowing the PC party line about PVS and how Terri was gone, her brain basically mush, brain dead, without even bothering to read up on the lastest research on the subject of PVS, easily available on the internet, that PVS was a complex condition…

    The “PC party line” was pretty much proven when the coroner opened up Terri Schiavo’s cranium and found half her brain gone. Did you get that particular memo?

    There’s “irreducible complexity” and there’s “bullshit.” Does it not bother you that the people who shoveled tons of the latter your way on the Schiavo case are the same folks who are shoveling tons of the former, too?

  72. 72
    vetiver says:

    scs: Go here to find out what working scientists, i.e., not Maureen Dowd, have to say about, y’know, science. The linked page discusses “irreducible complexity;” once you’ve had your fill there, go to the home page to find answers to your other questions. (Hint: abiogenesis /= evolution.)

    Once you have something other than “I don’t get it” to refute decades of documented evidence and productive experimentation across many scientific disciplines, please do let us know.

  73. 73
    RSA says:

    ID, with all its flaws, is opening up questions.

    If this is true (which it’s not, but for the sake of argument), then these questions should be posed and answered in the scientific literature, not in grade school classrooms. If I have a new, iconoclastic idea in physics, but no peer-reviewed publications to support it, do I go to the local school board and try to get my idea taught to sixth-graders? Of course not. Why do IDers try it?

  74. 74
    vetiver says:

    scs: Go here to find out what working scientists, i.e., not Maureen Dowd, have to say about, y’know, science. The linked page discusses “irreducible complexity;” once you’ve had your fill there, go to the home page to find answers to your other questions. (Hint: abiogenesis /= evolution.)

    Once you have something other than “I don’t get it” to refute decades of documented evidence and productive experimentation across many scientific disciplines, please do let us know.

  75. 75
    vetiver says:

    scs: Go here to find out what working scientists, i.e., not Maureen Dowd, have to say about, y’know, science. The linked page discusses “irreducible complexity;” once you’ve had your fill there, go to the home page to find answers to your other questions. (Hint: abiogenesis /= evolution.)

    Once you have something other than “I don’t get it” to refute decades of documented evidence and productive experimentation across many scientific disciplines, please do let us know.

  76. 76
    vetiver says:

    scs: Go here to find out what working scientists, i.e., not Maureen Dowd, have to say about, y’know, science. The linked page discusses “irreducible complexity;” once you’ve had your fill there, go to the home page to find answers to your other questions. (Hint: abiogenesis /= evolution.)

    Once you have something other than “I don’t get it” to refute decades of documented evidence and productive experimentation across many scientific disciplines, please do let us know.

  77. 77
    vetiver says:

    And I’ll keep saying it until you get it!

  78. 78
    Richard 23 says:

    awww, scs (aka spoofyconspoofy) went beddy bye.

    teh shame.

  79. 79
    ppGaz says:

    Hmmm. Who created the first matter? The first atom? The first energy? Space?

    You just smoked a joint, didn’t you?

  80. 80
    scs says:

    God you’re a liar ppgaz. Remember when you had to take back your misguided assertions that all PVS situations were the same, all completely brain dead, after I quoted some research articles? How can you make fun of Bush when you are the liar who can’t admit he’s wrong? You have no credibility at all, and less sense to be embarassed about it. I tried to find that same article for you but couldn’t find it. Found this article by Cal Tech instead. Some exerpts:

    http://assc.caltech.edu/VS_ANB2002.pdf

    Objective assessment
    of residual brain function is difficult in patients with severe brain injury because their motor
    responses may be limited or inconsistent (Laureys
    et al., 2002b). In addition, consciousness is not an
    all-or-none phenomenon but should rather be conceptualized
    as a continuum between different states
    (Wade and Johnston, 1999). There is also a theoretical
    limitation to the certainty of our clinical diagnosis,
    since we can only infer the presence or
    absence of conscious experience in another person

    (Bernat, 1992).

    A vegetative state is said permanent
    when one predicts that the patient will not recover.
    This distinction was introduced by the American
    Multi-Society Task Force on PVS in 1994 to denote
    irreversibility after three months following a nontraumatic
    brain injury and twelve months after
    traumatic injury (Fig. 1). However, even after these
    long and arbitrary delays, some patients may
    exceptionally recover
    . Hence, the American
    Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine advocated to
    abandon the term “permanent” in favor of simply
    defining the duration of the vegetative state
    (American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine,
    1995).

    In our opinion, the residual cerebral
    plasticity of some vegetative patients has been
    largely overlooked by the medical community and
    deserves further investigation
    (Laureys et al.,
    2000f). The challenge is now to identify the conditions
    in which, and the mechanisms by which, some vegetative patients may recover consciousness.

    All of this is exactly what I was saying, and contrary to the uninformed opinions around here. Maybe Maureen Dowd and co. need to do a little research first.

  81. 81
    scs says:

    By the way, there’s more where that came from. The UK research article I quoted last time was even better, because it had studies on brain imaging of PVS patients, and finding signs of sensory responses in the brain scans of even some severely PVS patients. Just do a google search and you’ll find more. Science research articles are where you get the latest knowledge, not Maureen Dowd.

  82. 82
    Pooh says:

    Do you ever tire of bringing up the same lame arguments, not listening to the rebuttals, getting huffy when people’s patience with you runs out and then go to bed feeling persecuted…ahhhhh, never mind. My question was complex, but reducibly so.

  83. 83
    scs says:

    Do you ever tire of bringing up the same lame arguments, not listening to the rebuttals,

    Sorry, as much esteem I have in the opinions of the vaunted BJ bloggers, I find other sources such as medical research journals a little more pertinent, and take my knowledge from those. No offense.

  84. 84
    stickler says:

    Scs, I’m going to type this once. Slowly.

    There were differences of opinion about Terri Schiavo’s condition while she was still alive. Some folks thought she’d get up and dance the rumba if proper treatment were adopted; other folks said she was in a PVS and half her brain was gone. I will admit: I sided with the latter folks, since they seemed reputable, the courts accepted their view, and they weren’t given airtime by Sean “I Lie for a Living” Hannity.

    But reasonable people could have agreed to disagree about this.

    Then, as we’re all aware, Terri Schiavo died. And her body was autopsied by the state coroner. And when he opened her skull, lo and behold, her brain was half-gone.

    Terri Schiavo suffered severe, irreversible brain damage that left that organ discolored and scarred, shriveled to half its normal size, and damaged in nearly all its regions, including the one responsible for vision, according to an autopsy report released yesterday. […] Schiavo’s brain damage “was irreversible . . . no amount of treatment or rehabilitation would have reversed” it, said Jon R. Thogmartin, the pathologist in Florida’s sixth judicial district who performed the autopsy and announced his findings at a news conference in Largo, Fla.”

    This is kind of chilling. But it’s also “science.” We had two competing theories: 1) She’s actually not in a PVS; 2) Half her brain is gone, and she’s not sentient anymore.

    She died, the coroner autopsied her, and as plain as medical science can make it, theory 2) was proven RIGHT.

    Do you understand, given this damning evidence, how ridiculous it makes you look to still be arguing about her condition?

  85. 85
    Beej says:

    vetiver,
    Interesting links. Hope scs reads them. And oh, by the way, scs, I don’t believe I “stated” anything much. Most of my previous post was in the form of questions.

  86. 86
    joshua says:

    Do you understand, given this damning evidence, how ridiculous it makes you look to still be arguing about her condition?

    Not just “no,” but “hell no.”

    For fuck’s sake, once the evidence for evolution got too thick (the link to talk.origins, natch), scs went back to the Schiavo well. Honestly, if anything is a ban-worthy offense, it’s this. Ignoring evidence and abandoning a thread once you’ve been proven wrong is one thing, but this is another entirely.

    Yes, PVS is, like most medical conditions, a very complex (har) topic. Terry Schaivo, unfortunately, was not (har, har).

  87. 87
    ppGaz says:

    God you’re a liar ppgaz.

    Not only am I not a liar, I basically paraphrased John Cole. I think he told you that you were embarassing yourself.

    Get a grip, you deranged sociopath.

  88. 88
    tBone says:

    Of course, it does turn out that her brain was basically mush, or rather, that most of it wasn’t there, having atrophied long ago.

    C’mon, let’s keep this on topic instead of making gratuitous personal attacks on scs.

  89. 89
    Pb says:

    Nikki,

    No, I just sort of skipped around–I totally missed the banana thing, in fact.

  90. 90
    Paul L. says:

    John Cole/Tim F..
    Any chance of a posting about this?
    1st Quarter GDP: 4.8%
    Remember this?
    Economy Cooling

  91. 91
    Brian says:

    Get a grip, you deranged sociopath.

    Speaking of deranged sociopaths, ppGaz reminds me of this woman.

  92. 92
    scs says:

    Do you understand, given this damning evidence, how ridiculous it makes you look to still be arguing about her condition?

    God you people are thick. You can only extract the most simple ideas from an argument. I was not arguing about Terri’s actual condition upon autospy. I was bringing up the ignorance of people on scientific and medical issues such as PVS who made their decisions based on insufficient science or medical knowledge. They are too lazy to do a google search on it and instead follow Maureen Dowd’s medical expertise. I include John Cole in that who said I was “embarrassing” myself, because I had the gaul to bring up the issues I highlighted in the CalTech article above, when he was the one in sore ignorance on the topic, believing in the common myth espoused by political newspaper columnists that PVS is total cortical death. He was not even big enough to apologize for that, or admit his ignorance, because as soon as I brought out the research articles, he responses turned into deafening silence.

    However now that you brought it up, I will go into the issue of the autospy as well. If you read the latest research, medical research is discovering even SOME people in the most SEVERE form of PVS, such as Terri’s, have some degree of cortical funstion left, and this would not be visible with a look at the brain such as in an autopsy, but only through PET scans and other studies. Let me put it like this for you all, can you tell if a computer works just by looking at it’s hard drive? No, the best way is to turn it on and run tests. For you all to claim that any autopsy is definitive on the subject of brain function shows MORE ignorance in the topic of brain research. I mean come on, that’s basic. Terri did have severe damage it’s true, however, that in and of itself does not show if any function remained in the 30% of the cortex she had remaianing. Again, to repeat for the slow people here, there is NO, I repeat NO definitive test we have today to perfectly judge the consciousness levels of any brain damaged person. If you don’t believe me, do a google search.

  93. 93
    tBone says:

    Again, to repeat for the slow people here, there is NO, I repeat NO definitive test we have today to perfectly judge the consciousness levels of any brain damaged person.

    The second we do have such a test, though, you should be first in line. There must be some underlying medical condition that compels you to repeatedly post utter horseshit.

  94. 94
    scs says:

    For fuck’s sake, once the evidence for evolution got too thick

    Again, I am dealing with thick people here. I am not arguing the existence of evolution, dumb ass. I am arguing that evolution science does not, as of yet, have detailed information on cellular sytemic evolutionary development, which is a fact. I am also arguing that this lack of knowledge is kind of a big deal, not some minor detail that some would have you believe, and that ID’ers are right to bring up questions on getting more details on this topic. I am arguing that many people are not aware of this lack of knowledge and are not aware about what evolution scientists know and what they don’t know. Again, I am not arguing about the evidence for evolution. You are so afraid to lose a debate you have to twist it into something it is not. Sad.

  95. 95
    scs says:

    There must be some underlying medical condition that compels you to repeatedly post utter horseshit.

    Do a google search man. I don’t have time to do your learning for you.

  96. 96
    ppGaz says:

    There must be some underlying medical condition that compels you to repeatedly post utter horseshit.

    It’s called Diarrhea of the Mouth.

    scs is the poster child, the textbook example, and the official spokesman for the victims of this terrible affliction.

    In the same family of illnesses as Tourette’s, I think.

  97. 97
    ppGaz says:

    Again, I am dealing with thick people here.

    This is where you make your “I am sent to heal the thick” speech again?

  98. 98
    ppGaz says:

    ID’ers are right to bring up questions

    To whom? Over and over again, just because they don’t like the answers?

  99. 99
    scs says:

    Okay here’s something for you all about autopsies, and for John as well. I remember bringing up Dr. Sanjay Gupta from CNN to John as a good source to explain my ideas, but I couldn’t really find much from him on the CNN site to back up my claims- the search on him came out empty basically even though I knew he was on TV a lot. John then brought up two quotes to support his side from Gupta and acted like he totally busted me. However as I was just doing a google search I saw some things from Gupta in CNN transcripts. Here they are.

    GUPTA: Well, you know, this is an important concept. I’ve talked to some of the doctors on background and they talk about persistent vegetative state patients having islands of consciousness, meaning that they may have times when they do seem to be a little bit more aware, a little bit more conscious than other times.

    Typically, when you talk about PVS, you’re talking about a wakeful unawareness. And that’s going to be the state most of the time. But every now and then you may see a glimmer of something else

    GUPTA: Yes, I mean, you know, the thing about it is a persistent vegetative state in and of itself is defined as a state of wakeful unawareness. Is that going to be the same exact state every single minute? Most of the neurologists we’ve talked to said there might be these islands of consciousness. The brain is somewhat complicated when it comes to these things and none of the neurologists I’ve spoken to talk in absolutes, which is part of the difficulty here, obviously.

    But the islands of consciousness, intermittent times when maybe there’s a flicker of something.

    DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: …
    What was sort of striking to me was you had two neurologists who both examined her and very much the same way, and arrived at just dramatically different conclusions. One said she clearly was not in a persistent vegetative state, and could be rehabilitated significantly to the point where she could speak. And the other one said she was close to brain dead. So I think what Dr. Gomez just said, maybe there are varying degrees of persistent vegetative state. This is sort of a soft underbelly of neuroscience. There aren’t a lot of absolutes here — Wolf.
    GUPTA: Great question. We’ve been talking to neuropathologists around the country about this. I can say this with some degree of confidence, that we’re going to know a lot more than we do now about what areas of the brain that were affected and what those parts of the brain actually did. Take a look on the left, Wolf. That is a healthy brain. The brain on the right was the brain of a person who was known to have persistent vegetative state. Even the layperson can see a dramatic difference here. Lots of loss of areas of brain tissue.

    But I think every neuropathologist we’ve talked to said they would take one step back from saying conclusively, even with this best evidence of and autopsy, actually looking at the brain itself, that we can say clinically she was in a persistent vegetative state. So we may never know the answer absolutely .

    Read it and weep. And John I want an apology. I think you are the one who may have embarrassed yourself.

  100. 100
    scs says:

    Over and over again, just because they don’t like the answers?

    Yes, because questions are good when the answers are not known, or when people act like important questions are not important because they don’t know the answers.

  101. 101
    ppGaz says:

    Yes, because questions are good when the answers are not kn

    Are you saying that the probability of evolution is diminished by this putative uncertainty about cell division, or whatever you are pimping today?

    If that’s the case, are relevant sciences looking into it?

    If so, what exactly is the role of the “question asking” snake handlers here? Selling more Christian Bookstore materials, or advancing actual science?

    In other words, you derganged moron, are you going to assert that ID is actually promoting science?

  102. 102
    Par's Parrot says:

    I include John Cole in that who said I was “embarrassing” myself, because I had the gaul to bring up the issues I highlighted in the CalTech article above, when he was the one in sore ignorance on the topic, believing in the common myth espoused by political newspaper columnists that PVS is total cortical death.

    Pssst….it’s “gall”. Sorry to interrupt your efforts in instructing all of us about neuropathology. Carry on.

  103. 103
    Krista says:

    Oops. Sorry. Forgot to change the name back from when we were discussing Par R’s parrot’s posting abilities. Thank heavens I’m not into spoofing. I’d be terrible at it.

  104. 104
    Bawk says:

    Bawk!

    Stop making fun of me.
    Stop making fun of me.
    Stop making fun of me.

    Bawk!

  105. 105
    Pb says:

    Paul L.,

    It’s better than the 1st quarters of 2004 and 2005, but not by that much; still, it means nothing in a vacuum:

    First-quarter GDP performance was boosted by increased government spending on reconstruction in the wake of last year’s devastating hurricanes on the Gulf Coast. Federal government spending shot up at a 10.8 percent rate, a sharp contrast to the 2.6 percent rate of decline in the fourth quarter.

    The broken window fallacy, working for you!

    Also:

    Among companies reporting robust earnings, Chevron Corp. (CVX: chart) posted 49% profit jump to $4 billion, or $1.80 per share on 31% revenue growth of $54.6 billion.

    Higher prices for oil and gas will hurt the average American and slow the economy in general–but not if you’re Chevron!

  106. 106
    scs says:

    Are you saying that the probability of evolution is diminished by this putative uncertainty about cell division, or whatever you are pimping today?

    No. I am saying that people should not act like it’s wrong to ask questions about the issues within evolution. And yes it’s gall. I somehow thought that word had origins in Gaul (like French), but I was wrong.

  107. 107
    gratefulcub says:

    Late to the party, is this really a Schiavo discussion? I thought that was over. Isn’t there another white woman to exploit?

  108. 108

    After all this time, it’s still not clear to me what Evolution has to do with Creation.

  109. 109
    Bawk says:

    I am saying that people should not act like it’s wrong to ask questions about the issues within evolution

    It depends on whether the people asking are engaged in a process which employs science to seek the truth, or whether they are just asking questions because they are out to heckle the scientists.

    ID’ers are hecklers, not truth-seekers. The questions you refer to are just props in a harangue when they ask them.

  110. 110
    ppGaz says:

    I am saying that people should not act like it’s wrong to ask questions about the issues within evolution

    It depends on whether the people asking are engaged in a process which employs science to seek the truth, or whether they are just asking questions because they are out to heckle the scientists.

    ID’ers are hecklers, not truth-seekers. The questions you refer to are just props in a harangue when they ask them.

  111. 111
    Darrell says:

    Isn’t there another white woman to exploit?

    Ah yes, with the left, it’s ALWAYS all about race and class exploitation.

  112. 112
    ppGaz says:

    Ah yes, with the left

    Here to bash some queers, Darrell?

  113. 113
    gratefulcub says:

    ID, with all its flaws, is opening up questions.

    Not really. Evolution has holes that are yet to be filled, that doesn’t invalidate what is known. It takes time to recreate the history of the world.

    The reverse should be happening. Evolution, with all its flaws, should be opening up questions about creationism.
    But that’t the problem isn’t it? That is why ID had to be created.

    Inherited Ideas are Curious Things

  114. 114
    Krista says:

    That’s right Darrell. It’s who we kooks are. (Just wanted to save you some time, hon.)

  115. 115
    gratefulcub says:

    Ah yes, with the left, it’s ALWAYS all about race and class exploitation.

    Oh Darrell, lighten up. That was just a little friday afternoon snark poking fun at the Schiavo dead enders.

    But, are you trying to say the Schiavo debacle wasn’t used by many conservatives, and by used I mean exploited. Frist? DeLay?

    And, do you think they would have done it if she weren’t white?

  116. 116
    Darrell says:

    That’s right Darrell. It’s who we kooks are

    Which so many of you prove everyday, right here, with your own words in these very BJ threads

  117. 117
    scs says:

    It depends on whether the people asking are engaged in a process which employs science to seek the truth, or whether they are just asking questions because they are out to heckle the scientists

    I guess that’s true. I don’t think the original founder of ID, (what was his name, Behar?) set out to do that. I think he was just a microbiologist asking questions. But maybe the movement may have been used by some to do that since. Still doesn’t negate the questions though. Well Darrell’s here. He can take over for me. I have errands to do anyway.

  118. 118
    ppGaz says:

    Which so many of you prove everyday, right here, with your own words in these very BJ threads

    Darrell’s own words in these very BJ threads.

    You were saying, Mister Homophobe?

  119. 119
    canuckistani says:

    After all this time, it’s still not clear to me what Evolution has to do with Creation.

    Excellent question. If I were a religious person, I might assume that while God created the universe, He used the mechanisms we are familiar with in cosmology and biology, and that there would be no discrepancy between the creation and evolution. However-

    When people talk about Creationism, then we are in the realm of fundamentalists who will not admit the possibility that the Bible is wrong on any question. Evolution contradicts the timeline derived by counting the ages of the begats, therefore must be wrong. ID is a Trojan Horse; it discredits evolution, and therefore, by perverse logic, is evidence for Creationism. Although as far as I can tell, no honest and knowledgable person believes in ID.

  120. 120
    Darrell says:

    But, are you trying to say the Schiavo debacle wasn’t used by many conservatives, and by used I mean exploited. Frist? DeLay?

    Define “many” and “exploited” in that context. Because virtually every single time I hear a leftist talk about this, it’s nothing but narrow simpleton worldviews in which rich politicians shamelessly exploit the ignorant masses using religion and hot button issues.

    Please prove me wrong and tell me you have something more

  121. 121
    tBone says:

    Do a google search man. I don’t have time to do your learning for you.

    I tried. “What+the+fuck+is+wrong+with+scs” yielded some interesting but ulimately unhelpful results.

  122. 122
    gratefulcub says:

    Ah yes, with the left

    Which so many of you prove everyday, right here, with your own words in these very BJ threads

    Wow, I have been promoted, with the rest of the leftist BJ commenters. WE are now the voice of THE LEFT. Move over M Moore, make room for Gratefulcub, coming to a theater near you (as long as you live on a coast, I will not, I repeat will NOT enter flyover country)

    Should we make an acceptance speech?

  123. 123
    ppGaz says:

    Please prove me wrong

    Okay

  124. 124
    Krista says:

    Well Darrell’s here. He can take over for me.

    You’re on, Darrell. What do you think about Intelligent Design? Do you agree with scs…she certainly seems to think that you do.

  125. 125
    ppGaz says:

    What do you think about Intelligent Design?

    I believe that Darrell has stated that he thinks evolution is for queers.

  126. 126
    gratefulcub says:

    rich politicians shamelessly exploit the ignorant masses using religion and hot button issues.

    Yes.

    politicians (Delay Frist Bush flying in from Crawford) shamelessly (Frist diagnosing her from TV clips as the “only doctor in the Senate”) exploit (to gain electoral popularity with their base) the ignorant masses (their base) using religion (We believe in god and a culture of life except for war and the death penalty) and hot button issues (culture of death, activist judges)

  127. 127
    Darrell says:

    Do you agree with scs

    About what? She seems to raise a number of reasonable questions and she seems very sincere. I haven’t seen her making many declarations here.. she typically just raises questions.

    What statements of scs are you referring to?

  128. 128
    ppGaz says:

    She seems to raise a number of reasonable questions and she seems very sincere.

    Were you sincere when you wrote this>

  129. 129
    Darrell says:

    gratefulcub, you mention 3 politicians out of countless numbers (“many”?), who may or may not have had sincere concern about the plight of Ms Schiavo.. you offer no evidence to the contrary. You refer to those concerned with the fact that Schiavo was starved to death as “ignorant”.. you definitely belong in the ‘reality based’ echo chamber community

  130. 130
    Darrell says:

    tBone, I note that you harass and ridicule scs.. funny though, that you never say a word about ppgaz who is a pedantic whackjob. Why is that?

  131. 131
    Krista says:

    Darrell – none in particular. She seems to feel overall that proponents if ID are seeking to open our minds, and that scientists are seeking to close our minds. That’s the gist that I got out of it, anyway. And, when she stated that you were here can could “take over” for her, implying that your opinions/attitudes were identical to hers, I will admit that it piqued my curiosity to see if she was right, or if there are topics on which your opinions would diverge.

  132. 132
    ppGaz says:

    who may or may not have had sincere concern about the plight of Ms Schiavo.

    As they have shown about the thousands of people in similar situations every day, Mister Homophobe?

  133. 133
    gratefulcub says:

    you mention 3 politicians out of countless numbers

    The president of the United States
    The majority leader in the House
    The majority leader in the Senate

    Emergency session of Congress to ‘save’ Terry. The president cut his vacation short to come back to DC to sign the bill.

    Quality over quantity. I didn’t want to name all the asshats that went along with them, Ds included.

    who may or may not have had sincere concern about the plight of Ms Schiavo

    Why aren’t these very concerned men trying to save anyone else?

    You refer to those concerned with the fact that Schiavo was starved to death as “ignorant”..

    Actually, you used the word ignorant. I applied it to Bush’s base. I’m sticking with it, because they are either ignorant or complicit.

    And yes, they had to be ignorant of the fact that the doctors knew more than Dobson. Her doctors are not in the field to ‘starve’ people for kicks.

  134. 134
    Krista says:

    And, when she stated that you were here can AND could “take over” for her,

    Sorry. It serves me right for trying to do three things at once.

  135. 135
    Darrell says:

    I will admit that it piqued my curiosity to see if she was right, or if there are topics on which your opinions would diverge.

    By and large, I don’t think much of the ID movement. Having said that, there do seem to be some scientists which seem very closed minded on the issue of evolution, and some ID propenents engaged in a sincere search for truth

  136. 136
    ppGaz says:

    Having said that, there do seem to be some scientists which seem very closed minded on the issue of evolution, and some ID propenents engaged in a sincere search for truth

    Says our resident expert on Open Mindedness

  137. 137
    gratefulcub says:

    tBone, I note that you harass and ridicule scs.. funny though, that you never say a word about ppgaz who is a pedantic whackjob. Why is that?

    Since I am the new voice of the left, I can now respond to posts that are directed at anyone on the left.

    Why would I go after ppGaz when there is someone here that says homosexual men can’t be trusted to spend the night in the woods with boy scouts because their gayness will force them into becoming molesters.

  138. 138
    tBone says:

    tBone, I note that you harass and ridicule scs.. funny though, that you never say a word about ppgaz who is a pedantic whackjob. Why is that?

    Because ppGaz has a basic understanding of science and the scientific method, and he doesn’t spout ridiculous bullshit about ID and Schiavo on thread after thread despite having his arguments torn to pieces countless times. If he starts doing that, I’ll be first in line to harass and ridicule him.

  139. 139
    Darrell says:

    Why would I go after ppGaz when there is someone here that says homosexual men can’t be trusted to spend the night in the woods with boy scouts because their gayness will force them into becoming molesters

    Are you suggesting that it is anything other than mainstream opinion of an overwhelming majority of parents, that they would object to letting their young boys go on an overnight camping trip with an openly homosexual scout leader?

    You seem to be pretending, like a phony, that such opinion is not very prevalent and mainstream

  140. 140
    Darrell says:

    Because ppGaz has a basic understanding of science and the scientific method

    You make think that is the case, but he has never demonstrated such ‘understanding’ of science in any thread that I’ve seen

  141. 141
    gratefulcub says:

    Darrell,
    I really do want to argue that point, but I am not going to be the reason this thread ends up in a Boy Scout discussion.

    This is a creationism bashing thread.

  142. 142
    Darrell says:

    Example of ppgaz demonstrating his deep understanding of scienc and the scientific method:

    I believe that Darrell has stated that he thinks evolution is for queers.

  143. 143
    gratefulcub says:

    Darrell,
    Still curious about this:

    you mention 3 politicians out of countless numbers

    The president of the United States
    The majority leader in the House
    The majority leader in the Senate

    Emergency session of Congress to ‘save’ Terry. The president cut his vacation short to come back to DC to sign the bill.

  144. 144
    Darrell says:

    Darrell,
    I really do want to argue that point, but I am not going to be the reason this thread ends up in a Boy Scout discussion

    Hey, you raised the issue, not me. Take responsibility. I only responded to what you wrote. And your accusation is phony as hell given that an overwhelming majority of parents feel the same way as I do about the matter

  145. 145
    Darrell says:

    Emergency session of Congress to ‘save’ Terry

    Who says they weren’t sincerely concerned for her life? Admit it, you haven’t a clue

  146. 146
    Sstarr says:

    Really, the final word on intelligent design is the movie Time Bandits. Plants were designed by mischevious, theiving dwarves. Which explains ragweed.

  147. 147
    gratefulcub says:

    Hey, you raised the issue, not me. Take responsibility. I only responded to what you wrote. And your accusation is phony as hell given that an overwhelming majority of parents feel the same way as I do about the matter

    i know I raised it, that is why I refused to go further. It would be my fault if that is where this thread headed.

  148. 148
    gratefulcub says:

    Admit it, you haven’t a clue

    I have hundreds of ‘clues’, and they all lead to grandstanding.

    Do you really believe the motivation was concern for Terry Schiavo?

  149. 149
    Darrell says:

    Do you really believe the motivation was concern for Terry Schiavo?

    What do you believe their motivation was? What did they have to gain?

  150. 150
    gratefulcub says:

    What do you believe their motivation was? What did they have to gain?

    politicians (Delay Frist Bush flying in from Crawford) shamelessly (Frist diagnosing her from TV clips as the “only doctor in the Senate”) exploit (to gain electoral popularity with their base) the ignorant masses (their base) using religion (We believe in god and a culture of life except for war and the death penalty) and hot button issues (culture of death, activist judges)

    Short term memory loss?

  151. 151
    tBone says:

    You make think that is the case, but he has never demonstrated such ‘understanding’ of science in any thread that I’ve seen

    I’d like to argue the point, Darrell, but I have an appointment to go bang my head against a brick wall. Carry on without me.

  152. 152
    gratefulcub says:

    What do you believe their motivation was? What did they have to gain?

    I answer yours, answer mine:

    Do you really believe the motivation was concern for Terry Schiavo?

  153. 153
    ppGaz says:

    Are you suggesting that it is anything other than mainstream opinion of an overwhelming majority of parents, that they would object to letting their young boys go on an overnight camping trip with an openly homosexual scout leader?

    You seem to be pretending, like a phony, that such opinion is not very prevalent and mainstream

    Do you agree with the opinion, or not?

    The stubject is not what is mainstream, Darrell. The subject is you. What do you think about it?

  154. 154
    ppGaz says:

    Because your original declaration was not that the idea was “mainstream,” it was that the idea made sense; the opposite was “nuts.”

    Can you not say what you mean?

    Do you think that gay scout leaders are in and of themselves a threat to boy scouts?

    Or not?

  155. 155
    gratefulcub says:

    Just couldn’t leave it alone could ya? I don’t blame you, I just didn’t want it to be my fault.

  156. 156
    Darrell says:

    Putting aside the fact that if ANYONE is trying to mix religion and science, it is the folks pushing a view that an ‘intelligent designer’ created everything

    I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that this kind of arrogance is what rankles scs. Does one really need to put God in quotes, as if only the dumbest among us could possibly believe in any sort of ‘intelligent designer’?

    Evolution is a very useful theory, but if you want to follow the scientific method, then be honest, evolution assumes that life evolved from nonliving matter. Any of you scientific method types see even a teensy weensy problem with that?

  157. 157
    gratefulcub says:

    Darrell, you aske questions and make statements, then when questioned, you change the subject back to scs?

  158. 158
    Darrell says:

    I answer yours, answer mine:

    You never answered my questions. What was their motivation? Manipulating their ‘ignorant’ base is not an answer. What did they have to gain? seriously. Again, you never answered

  159. 159
    ppGaz says:

    Does one really need to put God in quotes,

    Can you show me where in mainstream ID literature the “intelligent designer” is asserted to be “God?”

    Can you explain why putting “intelligent designer” in quotes translates into the idea that only “the dumbest among us” could believe in it? Where did you get that idea?

    And why won’t you answer the questions about gay scout leaders, Darrell? Are you not man enough to stand up for your assertions?

  160. 160
    Darrell says:

    Do you think that gay scout leaders are in and of themselves a threat to boy scouts?

    I can say with confidence that an overwhelming percentage of parents would not want their young boys to go on overnight camping trips with openly homosexual men. The fact that such statements are controversial to you demonstrates what an extremist you truly are

  161. 161
    gratefulcub says:

    As far as the ‘intelligent designer’ being in quotes:

    Why am I supposed to be tolerant and respectful to people trying to ‘save my soul from eternal hell fire and damnation,’ while they aren’t respectful of my atheism? They can tell me, in a round about way, that I am so bad and full of sin, that the creator of the universe is going to send me to hell for eternity, but I am being disrespectful if I put ID in quotes?

    That being said, I have never been anything less that respectful to others religious beliefs, I just don’t think they are more legitimate than mine. If they can state flatly that god is real, I can say she isn’t.

  162. 162
    docG says:

    From Darrell:

    Are you suggesting that it is anything other than mainstream opinion of an overwhelming majority of parents, that they would object to letting their young boys go on an overnight camping trip with an openly homosexual scout leader?

    You seem to be pretending, like a phony, that such opinion is not very prevalent and mainstream

    Have to agree with Darrell. Since 65% of Scout troops are sponsored by churches, the Mormon church sponsoring the most, it is very likely that the majority of scout parents are uncomfortable with gay scout leaders. This majority opinion, however, does not prove in any way that gay males are more prone to molesting boys that straight males. The Supreme Court has ruled that Scouts can discriminate against gay scout leaders, so its really a legal non-issue. By the way, Reform Jewish leaders are asking member synagogues to drop Scouting over this issue. Care to respond to these people, Darrell?

  163. 163
    Darrell says:

    Can you show me where in mainstream ID literature the “intelligent designer” is asserted to be “God?”

    So tBone needs to bang his head against the wall over scs, but ppgaz incoherent obsessive rantings go without comment… got it

  164. 164
    ppGaz says:

    I can say with confidence that an overwhelming percentage of parents would not want their young boys to go on overnight camping trips with openly homosexual men. The fact that such statements are controversial to you demonstrates what an extremist you truly are

    You fucking lying piece of shit. I asked you what you thought, not what you assert an “overwhelming percentage of parents” think.

    Do you think that bigotry is okay if a lot of people practice it?

  165. 165
    gratefulcub says:

    What did they have to gain?

    For Christ’s sake, you aren’t this dense. you know exactly whay I am saying.

    They used a hot button issue to curry political favor with their base. They thought it would make them more popular. They were mistaken, but that was their motivation.

    Now, do you believe they were strictly concerned about Terry Schiavo and that was their only motivation? I know you don’t.

  166. 166
    ppGaz says:

    but ppgaz incoherent obsessive rantings

    Answer the question, you lying weasel.

  167. 167
    Darrell says:

    By the way, Reform Jewish leaders are asking member synagogues to drop Scouting over this issue. Care to respond to these people, Darrell?

    I’ll be the Orthodox Jewish leaders take the 180 degree opposite point of view? Care to respond to those people docG?

  168. 168
    gratefulcub says:

    Can you show me where in mainstream ID literature the “intelligent designer” is asserted to be “God?”

    IDers swear that the ‘intelligent designer’ doesn’t mean God. That is how they try to get it into schools.

  169. 169
    ppGaz says:

    Nobody asked you what Jewish leaders think.

    I asked you what you think.

    Is it this, or not?

    Are you a homophobic bigot, or not?

  170. 170
    tBone says:

    be honest, evolution assumes that life evolved from nonliving matter.

    *bzzt* wrong answer, Darrell.

  171. 171
    gratefulcub says:

    Now, do you believe they were strictly concerned about Terry Schiavo and that was their only motivation? I know you don’t.

  172. 172
    ppGaz says:

    IDers swear that the ‘intelligent designer’ doesn’t mean God.

    Exactly, which is why Darrell’s grotesque weasel job here is looking uglier and uglier.

  173. 173
    Darrell says:

    Now, do you believe they were strictly concerned about Terry Schiavo and that was their only motivation?

    I believe many of them were sincerely concerned with her situation, as were millions of Americans. Over the objections of her parents, she was starved to death. Even vote-hustling politicians could be sincerely bothered by that.

  174. 174
    tBone says:

    Can you show me where in mainstream ID literature the “intelligent designer” is asserted to be “God?”

    So tBone needs to bang his head against the wall over scs, but ppgaz incoherent obsessive rantings go without comment… got it

    I thought ppGaz’s question was pretty straightforward. I notice you changed the subject instead of trying to answer it. Why is that, I wonder?

  175. 175
    ppGaz says:

    I believe many of them were sincerely concerned with her situation

    What evidence do you have for that, given their lack of demonstrated concern for the thousands of patients and families in similar straits all the time …. long before, during, and long after “her situation” was in the news?

    Doesn’t the evidence clearly show that you are dead wrong?

  176. 176
    Darrell says:

    bzzt wrong answer, Darrell.

    No? then explain for us the right answer

  177. 177
    ppGaz says:

    No? then explain for us the right answer

    Answered many times, most recently here in the last few minutes?

    Aren’t you paying attention?

  178. 178
    Darrell says:

    IDers swear that the ‘intelligent designer’ doesn’t mean God. That is how they try to get it into schools.

    If that’s the case, then who then do the IDers claim the identity of the intelligent designer to be

  179. 179
    gratefulcub says:

    I believe many of them were sincerely concerned with her situation, as were millions of Americans. Over the objections of her parents, she was starved to death. Even vote-hustling politicians could be sincerely bothered by that.

    You use ‘starve’ for rhetorical emotional effect.

    millions of Americans were sincerely concerned.

    Do you want Congress making these decisions or families?

    When you get married, you start a new family (you married?). At that point, my wife makes those decisions, not my parents. The doctors were right, the courts were right, the pols were wrong and grandstanding. It was in the midst of their war on activist judges, and they saw this opportunity to create a buzz before Just Us Sunday.

  180. 180
    ppGaz says:

    If that’s the case, then who then do the IDers claim the identity of the intelligent designer to be

    You don’t know anything about ID and the movement behind it, do you?

  181. 181
    gratefulcub says:

    If that’s the case, then who then do the IDers claim the identity of the intelligent designer to be

    THEY DON’T! That is how they try to get it into schools. IF they say that it is God, they have no chance in court.

    WE all know it is God, they know it is God, but they say that it is just some ‘intelligent designer’ because it is too complex not to be.

  182. 182
    ppGaz says:

    The cannot claim that the designer is God without blowing their cover and basically peeling off the phony ID wrapper from its creationist foundation.

    You knew that, right Darrell? Tell me you knew at least that much before you opened your queer-baiting mouth?

  183. 183
    Darrell says:

    You use ‘starve’ for rhetorical emotional effect

    That was precisely what happened to her. Those who deny or minimize this fact are being dishonest.

    Do you want Congress making these decisions or families?

    Well, in this case there were conflicting family interests. On one side were her parents who had cared for her daily. And on the other side was her husband who had ‘moved on’. I’m not saying he didn’t have rights.. all I’m saying is that it’s not a simplistic as your statement suggests: Congress making family decisions and all

  184. 184
    ppGaz says:

    Well, in this case there were conflicting family interests. On one side were her parents who had cared for her daily. And on the other side was her husband who had ‘moved on’. I’m not saying he didn’t have rights.. all I’m saying is that it’s not a simplistic as your statement suggests: Congress making family decisions and all

    Excuse me? Yes, it was and is just that simple. The “conflict” you refer to is a matter for the courts in our system …. always has been, is now, and will be in the future. You cannot have legislatures intervening in individual peoples’ lives.

    But why are we listening to the brain farts of a guy who doesn’t know the first thing about the topics he talks about here, and thinks boy scouts should not go camping with queers?

    Who the fuck are you to be teling us anything, Darrell?

  185. 185
    tBone says:

    No? then explain for us the right answer

    Abiogenesis, which is not the same thing as evolution.

  186. 186
    gratefulcub says:

    all I’m saying is that it’s not a simplistic as your statement suggests: Congress making family decisions and all

    It is that simple. Families make these decisions with their doctors. If the families have legitimate differences of opinion, they must go to the courts. The courts are the final arbiter in the situation. They review medical testimony in detail, weigh differing testimony, and use 200 years of case law.

    The governor, and then the Congress, stepped in and over ruled the courts. not only over ruled them, but publicly attacked them for being ‘activist judges’ killing Terri. They devalue the judicial system in the process.

    The rule of law is important.

    Jeb, W, Delay, and Frist didn’t have the right to over rule the courts (separation of powers and all). They didn’t have the moral right to either. They didn’t carefully weigh medical testimony, and they didn’t have the expertise to anyway. Then Frist diagnoses her from TV clips?

    Families make these decisions. If necessary, the courts do it. Tom Delay NEVER makes these decisions.

  187. 187
    Darrell says:

    Abiogenesis, which is not the same thing as evolution.

    Thanks for the link. It was good. I don’t know.. seems to me the basis of evolution revolves around life coming from nonliving matter. Trying to separate the two doesn’t seem very scientific

  188. 188
    tBone says:

    seems to me the basis of evolution revolves around life coming from nonliving matter. Trying to separate the two doesn’t seem very scientific

    From the article, Darrell:

    The important thing to remember is that evolutionary theory is a scientific theory about how life has developed — this means that it begins with the premise that life already exists. It makes no claims as to how that life got here. It could have developed naturally through abiogenesis. It could have been started by a divine power. It could have been started by aliens. Whatever the explanation, evolutionary explanations begin to apply once life appears and begins to reproduce.

  189. 189
    gratefulcub says:

    the origin of life is certainly an interesting topic, but it is not a part of evolutionary theory

    Evolution is a theory about how life ‘evolved’ and new species were created, and how we got from there to here, not about the creation of life.

  190. 190
    Darrell says:

    Excuse me? Yes, it was and is just that simple. The “conflict” you refer to is a matter for the courts in our system

    I pity your narrow simplistic worldview. The Schiavo case was a difficult one, because her husband had in fact moved on with another woman and family, abandoning Terri, although he had not technically divorced her. It was only this technicality which gave him legal power over her fate.

    I find most on the left to be very dishonest when debating this issue. From their dishonest objections to pointing out that she was actually starved to death (which is precisely what happened to her), to their phony pretending that this was some sort of cut-and-dried case without special conflicting circumstances.

    But you all are the ‘reality based’ ones, right?

  191. 191
    Halffasthero says:

    Darrell, I will give you this. You do manage to endure a lot of attacks from many directions with mre grace than I ever could.

    I don’t know that I agree with you that parents would object to a gay Scout leader anymore. I have family members and their friends in school who, by all accounts, are completely unfazed by sexual orientation anymore. And I can only assume they hawe parents who are passing this on. If they aren’t, then I would say the kids have less growing up than the parents do.

  192. 192
    ppGaz says:

    The Schiavo case was a difficult one

    Gee, Darrell, do you think that might explain the several hundred pounds of court papers? The mountain of case work and the long series of proceedings?

    What are the courts for, Darrell? Deciding which roommate should have to pay for the couch their dog chewed up, like on your afternoon tv shows?

    How do you think the fucking country gets by day in and day out in these “difficult” cases, Darrell?

    Why should anyone here listen to the “opinions” of a weasely shithead who won’t answer a couple of simple and direct questions about his beliefs, Darrell?

  193. 193
    Andrei says:

    I love it when guys like Darrel try to pull this shit in public…

    The Schiavo case was a difficult one, because her husband had in fact moved on with another woman and family, abandoning Terri, although he had not technically divorced her.

    Emphasis mine. So he “abandoned” her after dealing with that tragic loss for how many years Darrell?

    Then Darrell turns right around and says this with a straight face:

    I find most on the left to be very dishonest when debating this issue.

    I laugh my ass off until I realize guys like Darrell are actually allowed to vote in this country.

  194. 194
    gratefulcub says:

    Simplistic worldview? Heh.

    This case was difficult. There were many unique aspects. The husband had moved on, but it had been a decade and the doctors told them long ago that there was no recovery coming. It was difficult.

    Yes, she was actually starved to death. If it were up to me, they could have administered a drug that would have allowed her to die peacefully instead of wasting away (even though I don’t think it mattered because her brain had wasted away)

    It was difficult, that is why we use the courts to go through the massive amount of evidence and testimony. It allows the parents to present their case, it allows the husband to present his.

    The Congress and Jeb Bush hijacked this situation. They had no right. They weren’t qualified. This is an issue for the courts. Maybe, possibly, the state. But never the federal government. What ever happened to the small government out of my life conservative republicans?

  195. 195
    ppGaz says:

    I don’t know that I agree with you that parents would object

    The question to Darrell is not about “parents”, it’s about whether HE would object.

    And refusing to answer it is not “grace,” it’s patently dishonest and manipulative, like everything Darrell does here.

    He needs to answer the fucking question.

  196. 196
    gratefulcub says:

    He needs to answer the fucking question.

    He has. Go back to the original post, he is the one that says it. He has a problem with gay scout leaders because they are more likely to molest boys that straight men. He avoided the issue of whether we can trust straight men with young girls in the woods.

  197. 197
    ppGaz says:

    He has. Go back to the original post

    Well, he won’t stand behind the original post. He has tried to reframe it in terms of what “most people” might think.

    But this is about what HE thinks. The question before him is a simple yes-or-no proposition. He doesn’t need any room to maneuver here. He either thinks that it isn’t safe to send the scounts out with a gay scout leader, or it isn’t. He either bases his view on a bigoted view of the issue, or on the behavior of the scout leader, which is the proper basis for the decision. The law is about behavior, not beliefs and preferences.

    If Darrell wants to exclude people on the basis of their beliefs, good for him. All he needs to do is say so. Nothing difficult about it.

    Darrell has been playing this game here for as long as I’ve seen him, which is about a year. He operates from a bigoted, narrow worldview and accuses everyone else of being bigoted and narrowminded.

    His gaffe on the scouts just exposes him for what he is.
    A liar.

  198. 198
    gratefulcub says:

    Well, that was great fun.

    But, I have the Cubs Tivo’d, Jerry in the CD player, and it is 72 and sunny with a slight breeze. It’s friday, and I have places to be with rings on my fingers and bells on my shoes.

  199. 199
    gratefulcub says:

    I know ppGaz, I just like getting you on a rant by agreeing with you.

  200. 200
    tBone says:

    I have places to be with rings on my fingers and bells on my shoes.

    You better not be going to a Scout meeting, then – most parents would frown on that, you know.

  201. 201
    ppGaz says:

    I know ppGaz, I just like getting you on a rant by agreeing with you.

    Heh. A technique my wife has used for years to defeat me.

  202. 202
    Brian says:

    A technique my wife has used for years to defeat me.

    Someone actually married you?? Goes to show that there’s someone for everyone.

  203. 203
    scs says:

    and thinks boy scouts should not go camping with queers?

    Let me put it like this. Would Girl Scounts have the ability to block adult men going camping with young girls and sleeping in their tents? If so why? It’s really deep down because men are mostly sexually attracted to women, and to take precautions to any sticky situations, men are not included. Why should it be different with gay men?

  204. 204
  205. 205
    Ryan S says:

    Let me put it like this. Would Girl Scounts have the ability to block adult men going camping with young girls and sleeping in their tents? If so why? It’s really deep down because men are mostly sexually attracted to women, and to take precautions to any sticky situations, men are not included. Why should it be different with gay men?

    This argument is somewhat mute anyway as when I was in scouting NO adults where allowed to sleep in the same room or tent as us, of either sex.

  206. 206
    Chris Johnson says:

    scs Says: How does a new part get selected for without a system to back it up? Does a whole system develop together? Does a new part just happen to lock into an old system? Is it a gradual development of breaking away?

    In computer models of evolutionary systems, what happens is this: the building blocks for things like ‘new parts’ or new behaviors sort of churn around uselessly, not combining in the right way. The organism is at a ‘plateau’ and its performance doesn’t increase steadily, even as evolutionary pressure from the environment increases.

    Then, a point is reached when enough members of the population have the ‘building blocks’ and some are lucky enough to stumble upon a useful new part, new behavior, that is marginally more successful. This concentrates the presence of the underlying ‘genes’ making the new thing still more likely, and a rapid growth in ability results, bringing the organism to a new plateau of performance.

    Repeat as necessary.

    ‘Irreducible complexity’ means you can’t make use of half an eye. However, if everybody has a slim chance at an eye anyhow (or a vague hint at one), and the lucky winners are better at surviving and reproducing, suddenly the chances of getting an eye go up- and once the first suggestion of a new thing is in place, survival of the fittest kicks in.

    Yeah, half the genes of an eye aren’t much use. But nobody says you can’t have them anyhow. Think in terms of populations, not in terms of plucky little organisms trying to grow an eye cell.

  207. 207
    ppGaz says:

    Why should it be different with gay men?

    Behold your Balloon-Juice righty commentariat, ladeeze and gentlemen.

    Darrell, and scs.

    Between the two of them, a brain the size of a walnut.

  208. 208
    scs says:

    This argument is somewhat mute anyway as when I was in scouting NO adults where allowed to sleep in the same room or tent as us, of either sex.

    Yeah that’s true. I was in Girl Scouts for one year and it didn’t happen. I wasn’t sure about Boy Scouts though. Just a little anecdote, I knew a gay guy who was active in the scouts up till his teens. He said you wouldn’t believe all the sexual activity that went on with older men there. He engaged in it and he enjoyed it. That’s how he launched his gay life. So it’s not just a phobia.

  209. 209
    scs says:

    In computer models of evolutionary systems, what happens is this

    I’m sure Chris is Lines (and prob DougJ), who told us before he did evolutionary modeling. Didn’t you also tell us that your computers models fritzed right out of the box because there were so many possibilities, it fried your program? Seems there still may be more to learn.

  210. 210
    tBone says:

    It’s really deep down because men are mostly sexually attracted to women, and to take precautions to any sticky situations, men are not included.

    Yes, it’s much better if the sticky situations stay strictly between the ladies.

  211. 211
    scs says:

    the building blocks for things like ‘new parts’ or new behaviors sort of churn around uselessly, not combining in the right way.

    Then if they are not useful, why aren’t these parts deselected, as is one of the main tenets of evolution , explaining our basic lack of differences.

    Then, a point is reached when enough members of the population have the ‘building blocks’ and some are lucky enough to stumble upon a useful new part, new behavior, that is marginally more successful. This concentrates the presence of the underlying ‘genes’ making the new thing still more likely, and a rapid growth in ability results, bringing the organism to a new plateau of performance.

    So a new part develops, and then voila, these useless parts that are just lumering around, happen to connect up to form a functioning system? Seems odd to me.

  212. 212
    scs says:

    I knew a gay guy who was active in the scouts up till his teens.

    By the way, I meant through his late teen, not till his teens.

  213. 213
    tBone says:

    Just a little anecdote, I knew a gay guy who was active in the scouts up till his teens. He said you wouldn’t believe all the sexual activity that went on with older men there. He engaged in it and he enjoyed it. That’s how he launched his gay life. So it’s not just a phobia.

    I think every controversial issue should be decided by asking “What does scs’ anecdotal life tell us we should do?”

  214. 214
    Brian says:

    In light of the Schiavo part of this thread, this caught my eye today. Is there a culture of death out there, or is life just a matter of cost/benefit?

  215. 215
    scs says:

    I think every controversial issue should be decided by asking “What does scs’ anecdotal life tell us we should do?”

    Actually if you were a good debater, you would come back with the statement that this activity is going to happen anyway, whether you let gay men in or not – as it obviously did according to my friend, even though gay men were not allowed back then.

  216. 216
    stickler says:

    He needs to answer the fucking question.

    PpGaz fundamentally misunderstands what’s going on here. No, Darrell doesn’t need to answer the question … Darrell needs to avoid answering the question. You have pinned his homophobia to his hide, and if he owns up to it what little cover he still has is blown.

  217. 217
    Ryan S says:

    ‘Irreducible complexity’ means you can’t make use of half an eye. However, if everybody has a slim chance at an eye anyhow (or a vague hint at one), and the lucky winners are better at surviving and reproducing, suddenly the chances of getting an eye go up- and once the first suggestion of a new thing is in place, survival of the fittest kicks in

    Of Course, you can make use of half an eye. If, fact most organisms with eye’s can’t really see worth a damn.

    Cats for instance cannot see fine detail at all. They see everything fuzzy and out of focus. A mouse at any distance is just a grey smudge.

    Slug’s ‘eyes’ can only sense lightness and darkness.
    Sight is one of the first senses to evolve and looking a the various way more primative organisms see is a good look at how such a system evolved.

  218. 218
    jg says:

    Over the objections of her parents, she was starved to death.

    She wasn’t starved she was dehydrated. Starving a person takes months. Take away the water and they’ll last about a week.

    So a new part develops, and then voila, these useless parts that are just lumering around, happen to connect up to form a functioning system? Seems odd to me

    You’re simplifying a compley system you don’t understand. You think because you don’t understand it, that you have questions that appear to poke holes in the system, that you have invalidated the system and given new weight to ID. But ID doesnt’ answer the question either in any way that is confirmable. To say it was designed because its so complex that we can’t conceive of how it works is to walk away from scientific inquiry. To posit an explanation that isn’t testable is to leave science behind and enter the realm of the supernatural. This is why ID isn’t science and why scientists can’t evaluate its merit on a scientific playing field. Not because scientist don’t agree with it. But because it doesn’t fit into the definition of science. You can’t test it.

  219. 219
    jg says:

    Sight is one of the first senses to evolve and looking a the various way more primative organisms see is a good look at how such a system evolved.

    There are some species of fish who’s ‘eye’ is simply a group of cells on the fishe’s head that react to light. When the cells sense light the fish goes shallow to snack on its favorite day food. When it stops sensing light the fish knows to go deep. That’s one example of a ‘half eye’ that is very functional. Discovery Channel rocks.

  220. 220
    Jcricket says:

    You’re simplifying a compley system you don’t understand. You think because you don’t understand it, that you have questions that appear to poke holes in the system, that you have invalidated the system and given new weight to ID.

    As polite as scs is, there’s no use attempting to get her to “see the light” on this issue. Numerous people have either logically argued or, better yet, pointed her to detailed scientific refutations of every objection she has ever raised about evolution over the past year. She either refuses to read these refutations out of willful ignorance or can’t understand them because they’re too complex. In fact, I can’t remember a time when scs has said something like, “I went to the site you recommended, and after reading the arguments refuting IC, I disagree because of some other information here…”

    The TalkOrigins, Phyrangula and Panda’s Thumb web sites provide more than enough thoroughly researched evolutionary science to utterly destroy any “plausible sounding” ID theories, like irreducible complexity. Why should we have to repeat 100 years of evolutionary research, or even repeat the work of compiling the lists of the research relevant to the question? If 15 years worth of refined information from some of the best scientific minds in the world can’t convince SCS, no pedestrian arguments from us fever-swamp denizens will be any help.

    Interestingly, I think scs’s continued attempt to use “seems weird to me” to “refute” (in her mind) complicated scientific evidence that obviously contradicts what she believes is a very common reaction. I’ve see a lots of people who would rather believe an explanation they can understand (often one that is black/white) than an explanation that is more complicated, supported by the evidence, but requires an advanced degree to understand. In my opinion, the pathological need to reduce for science to “understandable” chunks and the use of “gut reactions” to judge the veracity of an argument are examples of weak critical thinking skills.

    For example, I don’t exactly understand the mechanics germs cause disease, but I’m perfectly happy with the germ theory of disease. 100 years of evidence clearly show it to be more correct than the “imbalance of the 4 elements in your system cause disease” theory, or the “impurities of blood” theory. I don’t think most people understand that scientists can’t physically see certain particles. In fact, if they knew this, they might say, “those particles must not exist”. However, scientists have experiments to show that the existence of those particles is the best explanation for phenomenon they have observed, and the existence of those particles proves useful in making predictions that help us understand other scientific findings. That’s science. It’s not about who has the best “sounding” explanation, or the one that can be “best understood by the public”.

    So to it is with evolution. If this were 150 years ago, I’d say “Jury’s still out, Let me see the evidence”. In the past 15 years I’ve been following the “evolution vs. creation” debate I’ve seen more than enough direct evidence (individual papers), summary evidence (talk-origins FAQs) and legal testimony (Dover case) to know that the “Jury is no longer out. The evidence is there and it is overwhelming”. There are literally no aspects of ID or creationism outside of the “origin of life” (abio-genesis) that are open for the level of scientific debate that necessitate keeping an “open mind” for alternate theories.

    Refusal to come down on the side of evolution doesn’t make you a bad person, but I’m not going to give people “props” for willful ignorance or spend time trying to convince them of anything.

  221. 221
    ppGaz says:

    Didn’t you also tell us that your computers models fritzed right out of the box because there were so many possibilities, it fried your program? Seems there still may be more to learn.

    That’s right, if the computer goes phhhht,
    you must acquit.

    That’s how we know OJ isn’t the real killer evolution isn’t the real explanation.

  222. 222
    canuckistani says:

    Well spoke, jCricket, well spoke.

  223. 223
    tzs says:

    scs, as a physicist myself I have to say the level of “gee, I just don’t understand it so it must not be true” that you demonstrate after we have pointed REPEATEDLY to places that provide the evidence required is just, well…stupid. It’s like I said I could’nt believe in the Theory of Relativity and then refused to go to the library.

    And if you really don’t believe that evolution exists, please put your money where your mouth is and never get an update on any flu shot or anything like that. And don’t worry about antibiotic-resistant microbes, after all, since evolution doesn’t happen, they obviously can’t occur, either.

    And that “li’l ol’ me, I just need some more information” schtick you keep pulling gets old. How in the heck do you answer tests in high school? Don’t you ever learn anything?

  224. 224
    scs says:

    scs, as a physicist myself

    DougJ, get a life please. And improve your reading comprehension while you’re at it.

  225. 225
    scs says:

    Again, I am dealing with thick people here. I am not arguing the existence of evolution, dumb ass

    Look JCricket, if you are too dumb to understand a simple sentence I’ve written MANY times (see above), you are obviously too dumb to discuss any science topic with. Again, I believe in evolution, however, I do believe that evolutions science has a lot to nail down in terms of cellular evolution. Why do I believe that? Because I am taking the word of evolutionary scientists who honestly admit they don’t have a very good solution for what some people call “complexity” and other cellular issue. If I had time I’d do a google search for you and quote multiple research articles by scientists I’ve read, but feel free to do it yourself. I’m sorry if I take the word of evolutionary scientists that I have read up on over you, whoever you are. But again, if you are too dumb to read a blog post correctly, you are too dumb to debate with.

Comments are closed.