Familiar Insanity From UD

They're making satire a tough business.

Where does the concept of "less evolved" come from? It certainly doesn't come from anything that Darwin wrote, or any evolutionary biology of recent times.

You could see this coming when Dembski bailed. They've sunk to Van Daniken's level, obsessing over geometric figures and deformed children. ID is dead.

Where does the idea that human beings are related to apes come from? It comes straight from Darwinism.

Actually, the fellow who grouped apes and humans together as primates was a creationist.

"Epic fail" is getting worn out when applied to UD.

I also bet all the money in my pockets against all the money in your pockets that the idea of black people as semi-primates predated Darwin by a good bit.

Blaming racism on "Darwinism", how cute! This charming little statement only reveals how clueless Mr. Sibley, like others on the far right, really are. The cartoon was about racism, not evolution, but he and his ilk get away with this garbage by blaming it on someone else, typical. Oh, and Mr. Sibley, humans being related to apes isn't an "idea", it's a fact, confirmed by both fossils and D.N.A. (a topic you should study some time!)

science will NEVER PROVE evolution from one species to another,instead it will KEEP throwing assumptions or theories out there until they realize none of it they can prove then they will come up with another idea.INSTEAD OF MISLEADING OUR CHILREN WITH SOMETHING THAT CANNOT BE PROVED,THEY SHOULD NOT WASTE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS YEAR AFTER YEAR AND HELP STARVING CHILDREN RIGHT HERE IN OUR VERY OWN COUNTRY.I KNOW CHILDREN WHO HAVE MORE COMMON SENSE THAN ANY LEADING SCIENTIST.I HEAR THAT SCIENTISTS ARE THROWING NEUTRONS OR ELECTRONS AT EACH OTHER TRYING TO SEE IF THEY FORM NOTHING,IT WILL BE PROOF THAT OTHER DIMENSIONS EXIST.WHEN TWO THINGS COLLIDE YOU GET MANY OTHER PIECES, NOT NOTHING,YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE A SCIENTIST TO UNDERSTAND THAT,EVEN MY 9 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER KNOWS THAT.SUCH A HUGE WASTE OF MONEY THAT CAN BE PUT TO HELPING HOMELESS OR STARVING CHILDREN,EVEN THOSE WHO ARE FOR EVOLUTION SHOULD AGREE WITH THAT.I SHOULD HOPE

fisherman: Something has gone terribly wrong with your keyboard. Your computer has a VIRUS, PROBABLY. OH MY GOD! NOW MY COMPUTER HAS IT! THANKS A LOT!

Modusoperandi:

fisherman: Something has gone terribly wrong with your keyboard

"Something has gone terribly wrong with his brain" is more like it.

fisherman:

science will NEVER PROVE evolution from one species to another,instead it will KEEP throwing assumptions or theories out there until they realize none of it they can prove then they will come up with another idea.INSTEAD OF MISLEADING OUR CHILREN WITH SOMETHING THAT CANNOT BE PROVED,THEY SHOULD NOT WASTE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS YEAR AFTER YEAR AND HELP STARVING CHILDREN RIGHT HERE IN OUR VERY OWN COUNTRY.I KNOW CHILDREN WHO HAVE MORE COMMON SENSE THAN ANY LEADING SCIENTIST.

religion will NEVER PROVE god exists and loves us,instead it will KEEP throwing dogma or fatwas out there until they realize none of it they can prove then they will come up with another idea.INSTEAD OF MISLEADING OUR CHILREN WITH SOMETHING THAT CANNOT BE PROVED,THEY SHOULD NOT WASTE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS YEAR AFTER YEAR, SODOMIZING ALTAR BOYS, BEING CLOSET GAYS AND HONOUR-KILLING THEIR OWN WIVES/DAUGHTERS, AND HELP STARVING CHILDREN RIGHT HERE IN OUR VERY OWN COUNTRY.I KNOW CHILDREN WHO HAVE MORE COMMON SENSE THAN ANY LEADING PRIEST/MULLAH/RABBI/TELEVANGELIST/FUCKTARD.

Sounds more like it to me.

Ernest Hemmingway, Virginia Woolfe, William Shakespeare, Geoffrey Chaucer, William Butler Yeates. What do all these great wordsmiths have in common? They never wrote in all caps.

Modusoperandi,thank you for the reply,you made a valid point about some churches misusing their ranks to abuse children,but not all churches are that way.and i admit all science is not bad either,some science is out there that proves good things.the fact is no matter what you say or i say we stand firm in what we believe in or any other person who believes what they believe in.as for your virus,i suggest you not visit this site again,you will get the same virus.everything comes from something not nothing.some science says that before the universe existed there was nothing, all of a sudden nothing exploded,impossible.or the big bang theory,if something explodes,science HAS PROVEN that the things coming from that exploded thing all spin in the SAME direction,why then do other planets or universes spin in the opposite direction.now science is saying the universe is flat or circular,which is it? too many assumptions in some science.

Re fisherman

Mr. fishermans' reply is so incoherent that it is difficult to respond to it. Just as a suggestion to Mr. fisherman, he might take a course in constructing coherent and logical English sentences before attempting to comment in that language on scientific issues.

It must be so easy to be a science-worshiping atheist. You folks can just deny-deny-deny the noses on your own faces because you liars think no one will hold you accountable. God knows differently, of course...

The facts are simple. Racism is the result of the Darwin cult's dogma. The Holy Bible states, clear as day, that mankind shares a pair of common ancestors in Adam and Eve. Do the math: one shared set of common ancestors equals common descent of all humanity. We're all created in the image of God and we're all equal.

Then that liar Darwin came onto the scene and claimed that human beings evolved from monkeys. Not one set of monkeys, mind you, but multiple sets - monkeys from all over the world just happened to mutate into a single species, albeit with different characteristics in different regions. Uh-huh. Thank the Good Lord these are YOUR beliefs and not mine... I'll take what the Bible says over this nonsense any day, thank you very much.

You can have your hoax science and follow your god Darwin. It won't save your soul. Good Americans know that it is the lying left which is full of the real racists, as racism is the ultimate fruit of your sick evolutionist doctrines. Anyone with more than rocks in their head can see that liberal policies like welfare and affirmative action are the direct result of latent liberal racism.

Liberals = atheists = Darwinists = racists. End of story.

By the way - good posts Fisherman.

You know that you're getting under their skins with the truth when they can't address what you have to say but instead find it necessary to make fun of you and resort to ad hominem attacks.

Re Charles Rayney

Mr. Rayney is so completely full of prunes that refuting his idiotic claims is childs play.

Then that liar Darwin came onto the scene and claimed that human beings evolved from monkeys. Not one set of monkeys, mind you, but multiple sets - monkeys from all over the world just happened to mutate into a single species, albeit with different characteristics in different regions.

This is complete nonsense.

1. Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor.

2. Humans did not evolve directly from the common ape/human ancestor. There were a number of intermediates and side branches. Australopithecus Amanesis, Australopithecus Afarensis, Australopithecus Africanus, Pithanthropus Robustus, Pithanthropus Boisai, Homo Habilis, Homo Ergaster, Homo Erectus, Homo Heidelbergensis, Homo Neanderthalis are a partial list of the hominids that preceded our species, Homo Sapiens. Currently, the ancestral relationships are considered to be:

Amanesis -> Afarensis -> Habilis -> Erectus -> Sapiens.

3. Mr. Rayneys' characterization of Charles Darwin as a racist is a god damn lie. Mr. Darwin, as has become evident from the recent release of his correspondence, was a strident foe of slavery, unlike the religious bigots who used portions of the unholy piece of filth called the bible to support slavery.

SLC -

It's rather sad that you have to resort to mis-characterizing my points and what I said to refute me. Typical Christ-hating atheist rhetoric. The vitriol in your response is characteristic of those with an emotional aversion to the truth.

1. Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor.
Semantics. You know full well that any "common ancestor" you evolutionists can come up with is far more similar to a monkey than it is to any human being.
2. Humans did not evolve directly from the common ape/human ancestor. There were a number of intermediates and side branches. Australopithecus Amanesis, Australopithecus Afarensis, Australopithecus Africanus, Pithanthropus Robustus, Pithanthropus Boisai, Homo Habilis, Homo Ergaster, Homo Erectus, Homo Heidelbergensis, Homo Neanderthalis are a partial list of the hominids that preceded our species, Homo Sapiens. Currently, the ancestral relationships are considered to be:
Amanesis -> Afarensis -> Habilis -> Erectus -> Sapiens.
Yawn... you get an "A" for effort, but this is simply more semantics shrouded in scientific jargon.
Ultimately, you believe that human beings descended from a common ancestor with modern apes, a common ancestor which, when examined objectively, is much more like an ape than a human being. Where are all of the other species which sprouted off of this "ancestral lineage" as recently as Homo Erectus or Homo Neaderthalis?
How is it that ape-like descendants could proceed from your "primordial monkey", if you will, while similar sub-human remnants and developments from the Human line are nowhere to be found?
3. Mr. Rayneys' characterization of Charles Darwin as a racist is a god damn lie. Mr. Darwin, as has become evident from the recent release of his correspondence, was a strident foe of slavery, unlike the religious bigots who used portions of the unholy piece of filth called the bible to support slavery.
My goodness, I appear to have touched a nerve by attacking your blessed prophet. Don't worry, I'll be sure not to make any comics depicting his sacred image.
I did not call Darwin a racist. I said Darwin was a liar and the father of one of the biggest lies to be foisted on the modern world. Please try to be a little more critical in your reading.
My implication was that modern racial theory finds its roots in Darwinian thought. Believe it or not, most modern white supremacists are post-Christian in their thought. I know it will be a shock to your tender sensitivities, but the Nazi Germans were post-Christian as well. This was their main reason behind supporting eugenics programs to create their unholy "ubermensch." You will find plenty of neo-nazis running around advocating the same policies, minus the Christian imagery that Hitler and other German Nazis used to attract the loyalty of Christian Germans.
How does it make you feel to call God's word an unholy piece of filth? Such hatred. I'll bet you even consider those of us who follow it to be less-than-human, in a sense.
Your true colors are showing.

Re Charles Rayney

1. Well, Mr. Rayney is correct in one instance. The common ancestor of apes and humans indeed far more resembled an ape then a modern human.

2. Mr. Rayney is perturbed about my characterization of the unholy bible. Tough noogies.

3. Mr. Rayney is bored by the enumeration of the many hominid species. I am equally bored by the 4th rate literature in the unholy bible.

4. Mr. Rayney implies that Hitler got his racist views from reading, "On Origin of Species." Hitler didn't have to read that particular text to arrive at his antisemitic conclusions. He need only have read the diatribes of Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism (rather interesting because Hitler was at least nominally a Roman Catholic). Luthers' commentary is worse then anything in Mein Kampf. Excerpts of Luthers' ravings are in the link below. Of course, his adversaries in the Roman Catholic Church at the time weren't much better.

http://www.awitness.org/books/luther/on_jews_and_their_lies_p2.html

5. I can only agree with Richard Dawkins relative to the Judeo/Christian nonexistent deity:

"Yahweh: "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unplesant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser, a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.""

SLC-

1. Well, Mr. Rayney is correct in one instance. The common ancestor of apes and humans indeed far more resembled an ape then a modern human.
Thank you for admitting that I made the better point on the bigger issue you were feebly trying to argue. It's nice to see that even a truth vilifying God loather can be honest once in a while - and I say that with all Love.
2. Mr. Rayney is perturbed about my characterization of the unholy bible. Tough noogies.
Hey, if you want to insult God's Holy Word here on Earth, the very incarnation of Truth, Good, and Holiness, be my guest. It certainly does not perturb me. After all, you're the one who will get to spend eternity frying in hellfire, not me.
Incidentally, however, your despising of the Holy Bible is merely reflective of your greater aversion to what is true. I mean, if you spend the better part of your life trying to justify man-made rationalizations of how life came to be in order to avoid the ramifications of the existence of God, it is only reasonable that you're going to hate the truthful Word of that God as well.
3. Mr. Rayney is bored by the enumeration of the many hominid species. I am equally bored by the 4th rate literature in the unholy bible.
Although I was certainly bored by the parading of mythical creatures with names from a dead language that no one even speaks anymore, that was not why I yawned. I yawned because you were merely making the same semantic argument which characterized the argument which preceded it.
If it is any consolation, I did offer you an "A" for effort. I notice, however, that you did not address the rest of my response. Typical atheist smokescreens and dishonesty.
As for your boredom with the Bible, that does not surprise me. People who possess a fascination with fantasies and imaginary hypotheses tend to be bored by the plain truth.
Mr. Rayney implies that Hitler got his racist views from reading, "On Origin of Species."
Let's see, where to start with this utter mis-characterization of what I pointed out. First, you really need to work on your contextual reading skills. I never said that Hitler, or any Nazi for that matter, picked up a copy of Darwin's work and came to believe that racism was the logical conclusion. The development of concepts within human societies simply does not work that way.
Hitler's policies were developments of concepts which already existed in Germany at the time. Germany was already a rather industrialized secular society when he rose to power. Antisemitism was already rampant in Germany at the time - Hitler and his Nazis were not the first to suggest that the Jews were responsible for the German defeat after the first World War. Likewise, to ideas relating to social evolution that would direct the Nazi Agenda were not formulated by Hitler or his Nazis. Concepts such as Social Darwinism and Eugenics were outside what Darwin himself put forward, but were rather developments inspired by what he had initially proposed and built upon it.
German National Socialism was about a lot more than anti-semetism. The driving force behind Nazism was the concept of the ubermensch, which in turn was based upon a development which had occurred from concepts put forward by Nietzsche. Through eugenics programs which were developed according to social darwinist thought, the Nazis wanted to "evolve" the German race into a sort of "Over race" that would rule the world. The Jews were simply seen as a taint in the German race which would need to be removed before greater development could be achieved.
So, did Hitler pick up a copy of "Origins of Species" and formulate the Nazi master plan? No. Did Hitler develop an ideology around concepts which had developed in popular secular thought at the time, concepts which were initially based in Darwin's theology of evolution? You bet.
Unless, of course, you want to argue against the popularity of eugenics and Social Darwinism in mainstream secular thought at that time. You'll fail, but please, be my guest.
By the way, I've noticed your fascination with insulting the literary and moral value of the Holy Bible at every opportunity you find. I'm sure, of course, that you are well aware that you are insulting literature which developed from and is central to the very identify of the Jewish people. Approximately 3/4ths of that "fourth rate book", as you put it... and certainly Genesis and the majority of the harsh parts. You are, in a very real sense (and I have dear Jewish friends who will support me in saying this) insulting Jews to the very core of their identity.
I am truly starting to wonder if anti-semetism is simply a basic characteristic of Darwinist faith in general.

Shorter Charles Rayney:

*rant* *rant* *rant* *concern trolling*

Like they say on the interwebs, "STFU n00b!"

Re Charles Rayney

1. I notice that Mr. Rayney did not respond to my characterization of Martin Luther. Apparently, he is an unperson to Mr. Rayney. Not surprising, considering that his contribution to German antisemitism is far greater then any of the individuals named or implied by Mr. Rayney. By the way, Mr. Rayneys' claim that the ideas of Charles Darwin were responsible for the Holocaust, although patently absurd, is completely irrelevant as to their scientific validity. Just, for example, as the events of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have no relevance as to the validity of Albert Einsteins' theory of relativity.

2. Mr. Rayney claims the various hominids I listed are mythical. I have a flash for Mr. Rayney, they are far more real then his mythical deity and the mythical deitys' equally mythical son, Joshua of Nazareth.

3. I have equal contempt for both the Hebrew and Christian bibles, as well as the Koran. They are all 4th rate works of fiction. In that, I differ from fellow atheist Richard Dawkins who maintains that the bible has some literary quality.

4. Just as a matter of curiosity, does Mr. Rayney think that the earth is 6,000 - 10,000 years old? If so, not only does he dismiss all of modern biology, he also dismisses all of modern physics and modern cosmology. Some hat trick.

Yawn.
SLC again misses history.
Hitler was targeting Christianity next. Read his works. He was plain and clear. It is not right to only employ the convenient pieces of history.

Martin Luther is not representative of all of Christianity.

Darwin's racism was, at best mixed. (We've been through that before. (Much like John Kerry -- we was but he wasn't.) Sort of like the anti-Jewish (anti-Israel, the Jewish nation) rampages over on HuffPo. Few movements are ever as monolithic as many would prefer.

It is amazing how the brand "concern trolling" can be used to stifle dialogue.

Enjoy,

Collin

Re Collin Brendemuehl

I have a flash for Mr. Brendemuehl. Martin Luther was the founder of Protestantism. His antisemitic rantings were most influential in conditioning the German people to accept Hitlers' ravings.

Mr. Brendemuehl apparently has been in hibernation of late or he would have heard about Charles Darwins' vehement opposition to slavery in recently released letters. However, just as Johannas Starks vehement antisemitism has no bearing on his Nobel Prize winning contribution known as the Stark effect, whatever racist views Darwin had have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the theory of evolution.

FO -
Typical evo-fascist behavior. You cannot address what I have to say, so you insult me, call me a troll, and try to censor me.
Outright fascist behaviors such as the ones displayed by yourself are the sign of a weak and limited mind. Why don't you go do the human race a favor: go climb a tree and fall out of it.
SLC -
1. I notice that Mr. Rayney did not respond to my characterization of Martin Luther. Apparently, he is an unperson to Mr. Rayney. Not surprising, considering that his contribution to German antisemitism is far greater then any of the individuals named or implied by Mr. Rayney.
Martin Luther is not the "Darwin" of Protestantism, so to speak. He was not the founder of the movement. Research into the writings of early Christians up through the medieval period reveal that the concepts he expressed regarding the Christian religion certainly predated him and were hardly novel. He merely existed at the right time and place (Germany, after the invention of the Gutenburg Press) to break through the Romanist repression of those ideas in order to restore key ideas to Christian thought.
Luther was also wrong about a great many things. While the man was admittedly antisemitic in much of his thought, he no more invented antisemitism than Adolph Hitler did. Antisemitism was a common attitude prior even to his time. He did not popularize a new outlook, but rather expressed a viewpoint that was already existent at the time.
Try doing as much research into history as you do into your goofy little theory of evolution - you might learn a thing or two.
By the way, Mr. Rayneys' claim that the ideas of Charles Darwin were responsible for the Holocaust, although patently absurd, is completely irrelevant as to their scientific validity. Just, for example, as the events of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have no relevance as to the validity of Albert Einsteins' theory of relativity.
If you will read what I actually said, I explicitly made note that Charles Darwin, along with his theories, were INDIRECTLY responsible for Nazi EUGENICS, which is a far cry from saying that Darwin was responsible for the Holocaust! Now, I know this might be hard to grasp for one who spends most of his or her considerable brain power rationalizing an irrational theory like Darwinism, but there was far more to the Nazi movement and Nazi ideology than simply antisemitism and the holocaust.
The focus of the Nazi movement was to take what they considered to be the best of the best that the human race had to offer and refine it. Nazis believed that Germans were the most fully evolved among the European races, which, in turn, they believed were the most fully evolved among humanity as a whole. Through eugenic programs and policies, they wanted to refine the German race into an even higher level of evolution. Their primary principle was that if Nature could develop a race like the Germans through millions of years of evolution, efforts directed by human intelligence could achieve greater success even faster.
As I stated before, these are concepts which developed from lines of thought built upon what was first put forward by Darwin. I have never claimed that Darwin himself suggested such things. These concepts predated the Nazis and the Nazis took them and ran with them. They were part of accepted social theory back at that time - society in the early to mid 20th century was already post-Christian.
Please try to follow along with what I am actually saying instead of attributing false accusations to me.
2. Mr. Rayney claims the various hominids I listed are mythical. I have a flash for Mr. Rayney, they are far more real then his mythical deity and the mythical deitys' equally mythical son, Joshua of Nazareth.
Again, yawn. We're not talking about the existence or nonexistence of Yeshua of Nazareth, but rather the mythical little group of creatures you argue to exist in order to avoid the inconvenient fact that God exists and He is watching you.
When it comes down to it, that is all that your silly Darwinian Dogma is really about. I am simply pointing out that, far from being harmless, your pet beliefs have led to rather dangerous lines of thought. Rather than research the historical nature and sources of those lines of thought, as well as the degree to which they were widespread, you simply opt to ignore or minimize the degree to which they really were connected to your precious little hypothesis. Nice.
3. I have equal contempt for both the Hebrew and Christian bibles, as well as the Koran. They are all 4th rate works of fiction. In that, I differ from fellow atheist Richard Dawkins who maintains that the bible has some literary quality.
That is probably because Mr. Dawkins is at least being objective in judging the literary value of the works and is admitting what literary experts in their own field have to say.
I find it fascinating that you possess the unique ability to judge a work of literature based solely upon translations from its original language. I think it is fair to assume that you do not speak Hebrew, Koine Greek, or Arabic, in the case of the Koran. Concepts and poetry do not translate on a 1-to-1 ratio... much is invariably lost in translation. That is the reason, by the way, why Bible scholars tend to spend much of their time studying the ancient languages in which the Bible is actually written.
I personally believe that the Koran is a dangerous book that expresses some rather foul ideas, but at least I can be open minded enough to admit, from hearing it read in its original Arabic, that it does contain an aesthetic beauty.
4. Just as a matter of curiosity, does Mr. Rayney think that the earth is 6,000 - 10,000 years old? If so, not only does he dismiss all of modern biology, he also dismisses all of modern physics and modern cosmology. Some hat trick.
Nice smokescreen, but off-topic. You are trying to shift the debate from concepts of racism which have developed out of Darwinist teachings to my own personal beliefs relating to the cosmos, a topic with little-to-no bearing on the subject at hand.

However, just as Johannas Starks vehement antisemitism has no bearing on his Nobel Prize winning contribution known as the Stark effect, whatever racist views Darwin had have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the theory of evolution.

Just as Martin Luther's antisemitism has no bearing on whether or not Jesus could cure illnesses by casting out demons, or if he called people vipers and thought the Scribes and Pharisees were trash, and loves everybody, and said that entire towns would get what's coming to them, man you wait and see, or whether or not he could fly like a birdie-poo up, up, up into the cloudie-wowdie-poos with the angel poo-poosey-woosie-poos.

Oh, I see Charles Rayney beat me to it. Well spoken sir.

Nice smokescreen, but off-topic. You are trying to shift the debate from concepts of racism which have developed out of Darwinist teachings to my own personal beliefs relating to the cosmos, a topic with little-to-no bearing on the subject at hand.

This is true. The topic of racism has no bearing whatsoever on whether if Jesus could fly around up in the clouds like a birdie-poo, tweet tweet!

SLC,
Well, it looks like history has proven you wrong.
Ever hear of Anabaptists? They are not of Lutheran origin. Or the Reformed churches? Also a separate movement.
Modern slavery/racism in the new world and the colonial movement was *far more* a part of the age of discovery, the secular Renaissance, than of the reformation.
Racism has multiple and mixed origins. Liberalism and Darwinism is as full of it as any other group. No blame-shifting is necessary.

I think it is horrible that this cartoon called Speaker Pelosi a deranged ape that was kept as a pet, driven mad and had to be stabbed AND shot.

She, as leader of the House, was the main architect of the Recovery bill, and do not forget that the Repugs have been attacking it and her with lies and snide remarks. This cartoon is an extension of that.

When people start saying its a call for Obama to dress up in an ape suit and prance around on the White House lawn, I just think that's silly.

Why was this white woman portrayed as an ape? Was it racist? NO! it was SEXIST! Typical male projection of violence and rage onto a peacefull female leader.

tsk tsk....

as for Darwin, I don't think he owned slaves, unlike most of the founders of the US of A.

Re Charles Rayney

Mr. Rayneys' opinion of the theory of evolution is of no more concern to the scientific community then any opinion he might have about the theory of relativity or the relationship between HIV and AIDS. He has demonstrated that he is totally ignorant of the theory and hasn't the slightest understanding of it.

By the way, since geneticists in Germany and the United States are some 65% along with the decoding of the genome of Homo Neanderthalis, is Mr. Rayney going to insist that this species was also imaginary? Incidently, I don't know where Mr. Rayney lives but if it is near Seattle, he might mosey down to the museum there to observe the fossil remains of Lucy, an Australopithecus Afrensis, which he also claims is imaginary. Actually, I think that Mr. Rayneys' brain is what is imaginary.

Re Collin brendumuehl

Mr. Brendemuehl posits the Anabaptists as not descended from Luthers' schism. Fair enough. The Eastern Orthodox faiths are also not descended from Luthers' schism.

However, I would have to take considerable exception to Mr. Brendemuehls' attempt to downplay Luthers' influence on the Protestant Reformation. I doubt that Joe the Rat would agree with him.

Mr. Rayneys' opinion of the theory of evolution is of no more concern to the scientific community then any opinion he might have about the theory of relativity or the relationship between HIV and AIDS. He has demonstrated that he is totally ignorant of the theory and hasn't the slightest understanding of it.
My goodness, an outright dismissal without a refutation based merely on the fact that I think differently than you. How very Fascist of you... but I guess such is typical of you Darwinian Dogmatists, as I have laid out quite clearly in the postings you are afraid to address.
That's okay, though. This is how it normally works with you atheists when you are confronted with an argument to which you do not know how to respond - you simply put your fingers in your ears and call the other side names.
By the way, since geneticists in Germany and the United States are some 65% along with the decoding of the genome of Homo Neanderthalis, is Mr. Rayney going to insist that this species was also imaginary? Incidently, I don't know where Mr. Rayney lives but if it is near Seattle, he might mosey down to the museum there to observe the fossil remains of Lucy, an Australopithecus Afrensis, which he also claims is imaginary. Actually, I think that Mr. Rayneys' brain is what is imaginary.
Here's a suggestion - why not take off your blinders and address the bigger point I was making. Where are the multitude of OTHER creatures which branched off of these evolutionary lines? Or are we to believe that Homo Neanderthalis and Australopithecus Afrensis solely existed so they could ultimately create Homo Sapiens Sapiens? Where are their OTHER descendants?
And the way you found it necessary to work a personal insult into your response was rather cute. That's pretty much all you people know how to do... you attempt to dominate the conversation, insult those with whom you disagree, and ridicule your way to victory.
When coupled with your constant insults against the Jewish people, I am starting to think you would have been quite at home in Hitler's Germany. Your Darwinian Dogmatism certainly would not have been out of place either.

Re Charles Rayney

1. So Mr. Rayney is now admitting that Homo Neanderthalis and Australopithecus Aferensis are not imaginary. Well, we progress.

2. So far, Mr. Rayneys' complaint against the theory of evolution is that it was misused by certain people in the 20th century and therefore must be discarded. By hat logic, modern medicine must also must be discarded because it was misused by Josef Mengele. The theory of relativity must be discarded because it has been misused to develop nuclear weapons. This is obviously poppycock.

3. Mr. Rayney is bent out of shape because I insulted him. Tough noogies, the internet is a tough neighborhood and as former Israeli premier Yitzhak Shamir once said, when you live in a tough neighborhood, you have to be a tough guy. Mr. Rayney apparently is a wimp.

4. Mr. Rayney hasn't provided anything to refute, other then people who accept the theory of evolution are a bunch a racists. In looking back, Mr. Rayney also doesn't much like liberals so I assume that President Obama is not on his list of favorite people. Perhaps George W. Bush is more to his liking.

tahanks

thank you

Re Collin brendumuehl

Mr. Brendemuehl posits the Anabaptists as not descended from Luthers' schism. Fair enough. The Eastern Orthodox faiths are also not descended from Luthers' schism.

However, I would have to take considerable exception to Mr. Brendemuehls' attempt to downplay Luthers' influence on the Protestant Reformation. I doubt that Joe the Rat would agree with him.

Not bad. SLiCk had decided to approach reality, with the caveat of altering the argument.

What was the basis for slavery before 1859?
The African slave trade started ~400 years earlier.

1. So Mr. Rayney is now admitting that Homo Neanderthalis and Australopithecus Aferensis are not imaginary. Well, we progress.
Not quite.
If you'd read just a little deeper, the existence of Homo Neanderthalis and Australopithecus Aferensis are inconsequential to the bigger argument I was making, and I was willing to entertain you assertion in hopes that it would perhaps get you to address what I was really saying.
I apparently overestimated your reasoning skills. My apologies.
2. So far, Mr. Rayneys' complaint against the theory of evolution is that it was misused by certain people in the 20th century and therefore must be discarded. By hat logic, modern medicine must also must be discarded because it was misused by Josef Mengele. The theory of relativity must be discarded because it has been misused to develop nuclear weapons. This is obviously poppycock.
No.
No, no, no.
You really haven't been paying much attention, have you? While I certainly believe that Darwinian evolution is a failed hypothesis, I have said nothing so far so as to suggest that it should be discarded based on anything I have pointed out in my posts. That in itself is no reason to discard Darwin... any moreso than abuse of the Bible by racists in the past would be a reason to toss IT out. You have completely missed my point.
I am talking about the ramifications of Darwin's hypothesis vis-a-vis racism in the 20th century. I have been supporting the disputed assertion in the article that Darwin's theories have contributed to racism and fascism, an assertion which was labeled "laughable" in the face of considerable evidence tot he contrary. While I certainly did address Darwin's hypothesis for a moment, it was a side note to my main point. You have wasted a considerable amount of your own time addressing something that was ultimately inconsequential to what was being said.
I know it is hard for atheists such as yourself to read arguments against doctrines that are so dear to your fragile world views. Cognitive dissonance does that to you guys, I understand. But please, take a deep breath and try to understand the deeper concepts that are being put forward to you. I know you can do it.
3. Mr. Rayney is bent out of shape because I insulted him. Tough noogies, the internet is a tough neighborhood and as former Israeli premier Yitzhak Shamir once said, when you live in a tough neighborhood, you have to be a tough guy. Mr. Rayney apparently is a wimp.
This is perhaps the most laughable thing you have written yet.
Any objective reader without a worldview hinging on Darwin's hypothesis can see that I have trounced you completely on more points than one could ever care to count. I could care less what an atheist such as yourself thinks about myself, my beliefs, God, or the Bible. I could care even less what someone I have never met has to say to me on the Internet. Your contextual reading skills have been shown to be wanting yet again.
I was merely pointing out that it is a tendency among you Darwinian religionists to try and silence those with whom you disagree through various forms of intimidation. Really, it's quite typical among the fascist left and stands as a testimony regarding the mindset that your precious doctrine breeds. Your attitude has been proving the point I've made all along.
The even more amusing part is the fact that you can't even see that you're proving my point.
4. Mr. Rayney hasn't provided anything to refute, other then people who accept the theory of evolution are a bunch a racists. In looking back, Mr. Rayney also doesn't much like liberals so I assume that President Obama is not on his list of favorite people. Perhaps George W. Bush is more to his liking.
I've provided plenty to discuss. It's not my fault if your reading skills haven't been up to task. Fascist mindsets such as the one you have displayed in this discussion typically tend to be quite narrow in terms of what they can comprehend when confronted with opposing viewpoints.
As for liberals, my concern is not so much liberals in themselves so much as the frightening narrow-mindedness with which they tend to approach the world. Liberals have this amazing tendency to dismiss opposing viewpoints from the outset and to question the credibility of others based on labels. My fondness for former president George W. Bush or my dislike of President Barack Obama are quite beside the point - the point is that you would dismiss me automatically for even holding such positions. That is scary.
It is views like that which have led to the historical worldviews that some people are worthy to lead the world into the future while others deserve to be silenced. The Soviets after their revolution took this view. The Italian leaders which came to power in the 20s took this view as well. The German leaders in the 30s and early 40s are renowned for taking this view. The modern left here in America displays this view every day. I find it fascinating that all of these approaches have usurped the good name of "science" and applied it in such a way so as to suppress dissidents.
Don't worry, I'm pretty much done here... you have more than proven my point for me, thank you very much.

Mr. Rayney

I guess there are some things here that I don't understand. You have claimed that Hitler was inspired to some degree by Darwin's Theory of Evolution. My question would be: What is the point? Clearly you believe that the ToE is unsatisfactory. But when you mention the Holocaust, what are you getting at? Are you saying that as a theory the ToE is wrong and the Holocaust shows this? Or are you saying the the ToE is wrong (for other reasons) and by the way, it also inspired racism in general and the Holocaust in particular? Are you trying to say that the ToE is "evil"?

If you are suggesting that the ToE has a significant effect on racism, you would need to show that racism as a whole has increased due to the widespread knowledge of the existence of this theory. You would also have to show that an accurate understanding of the ToE was acquired by racists and not some misunderstanding of the theory. It seems to me that racism and the slaughtering of people different from the tribe was going on long before 1859. Indeed, I think a case could be made that racism has dropped significantly (with notable exceptions) since then. Perhaps you could give significant examples of how racism was less prior to the ToE and more since? And that the cause was the ToE and not something else?

If you are trying to say that the ToE is "evil", then you have lost me. Theories are no more good or evil than an inanimate object. Is a rock good or evil? Water? Air? Theories cannot be good or evil since they are merely descriptions or explanations. A rock might be described as becoming good or evil when used by a human for some purpose. But even then we still don't call the rock evil or good, we call the person evil or good for having used the rock in that fashion. If the ToE is evil, help me understand how you reach that conclusion.

If you are saying that the ToE is wrong and the Holocaust (and racism) shows this, I am also perplexed. Even if racism had never existed prior to the ToE and even if Hitler was uniquely and only inspired by it and quoted huge passages from The Origin of the Species. Even if that is utterly and undeniably true, would that make any difference to the validity of the theory? Does a Scientific theory become more right or wrong depending on its positive or negative effect on the human condition? Why even mention it? What possible bearing can it have, since the ToE is merely an explanation and what people do with it is their own problem?

In several of your posts I get the idea that you feel that the Scientific community is dogmatic about the ToE. That dissidents are shunned or rebuked. I do not know the level of understanding you have of the Scientific environment, but this doesn't seem likely to me. I am a Chemist. I work in a laboratory. When I was an undergraduate I had the unique opportunity to work with a graduate student who was trying to disprove a fundamental law of Chemistry. At no time did he meet any resistance whatsoever. Indeed, everyone in the department was excited about it, a chance to see Scientific history in the making.

You see, every single Scientist knows that the road to fortune and glory is held only by those who disprove current theories (which is getting really hard to do) or show that some current theory is woefully inadequate (much easier, but still hard). We all know Einstein not because his work agreed with theories of his time but because his theories overturned them. What's the name of the Scientist that verified Einstein's theories? What? You don't know? Coming in second or agreeing with current theories gets you very little.

Again, every single Scientist knows this. The ToE has survived 150 years of an intellectual onslaught by the greatest minds in Biology, Archeology, Genetics, and the like. You may think you are gunning for the ToE, but your desire to discredit it is nothing compared to millions of Scientists across the world. All have sought fortune and glory which would be theirs if they could unseat Darwin, and all have failed.

So your characterization of the Scientific community is not accurate in my experience. You may want to consider that in the future.

If you are trying to say that the ToE is "evil", then you have lost me. Theories are no more good or evil than an inanimate object.

And-U-Say, you're talking to an irrational person. He can pluck anything he wants right out of thin air any time he feels like it.

He could say that, yes, the ToE is evil because it was the work of the devil. But if someone complains about the bad effects some parts of the Bible might have on poeple, he could say that they were under the influence of, errrr, the devil or somethin.

He's completely irrational and can just think of whatever he wants to say, and then say it.

I must admit I skimmed much of the comments because I simply couldn't get over this:

"Then that liar Darwin came onto the scene and claimed that human beings evolved from monkeys. Not one set of monkeys, mind you, but multiple sets - monkeys from all over the world just happened to mutate into a single species, albeit with different characteristics in different regions."

Mr Rayney, are you suggesting that several different species of apes separately evolved in the different "races" of Homo sapiens? If so you need to take a basic course in evolutionary biology because you are mind-bogglingly ignorant.

Re Charles Rayney

It should also be noted as a sign of the immense ignorance of Mr. Rayney that he doesn't know the difference between apes and monkeys.

Re Collin Brendemuehl

At the turn of the Millennium, the History Channel had a program on what a panel of experts considered to be a list of the 100 most influential persons of the 2nd Millennium CE. I don't recall the exact order but this panel placed Martin Luther among the top ten, along with scientists Albert Einstein, Issac Newton, and Charles Darwin (the most influential person was determined to be Johannes Gutenberg). Would Mr. Brendemuehl agree with this observation relative to Luther?

So, if I follow this correctly, Mr. Rayney is blaming Darwin for starting the racist notion that blacks are like apes or monkey. That would seem to be a difficult historical case to make in light of images such as this.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Virginia_Minstrels%2…

This image is is from Christian, Adam-and-Eve-believin' pre-Civil War America.

Less evolved? Maybe someone should point out to her, that human ancestry has been shown to change from dark skin to light skin and back within 2500 years. This change of skin color can occur in both directions depending on the relocation of humans and the environments they migrate to.

Shorter Rayney:
I have a poor understanding of the concepts of Selection by Consequences and Common Ancestry. Therefore these ideas lead to all sorts of things that are bad.

I'm pretty sure Mr. Rayney was a poe.

While people can certainly be that stupid, he seemed just irrational enough to be faking it... to put it lightly.

You're probably right. No one could be that stupid in real life.

matt,
Did you visit his website?

Mr. Fugate,

I did. It was full of convoluted nuttiness. It doesn't look like he's been at it for long at all though.

I mean I guess it is possible he's just that stupid. Either way, I wouldn't waste too much time on him. SLC and And-U-Say more than amply put him in his place despite his constant protests to the contrary.

Re matt

There used to be a whackjob calling himself JonS who used to comment here. Mr. JonS is at least as nutty and stupid as Mr.Rayner.

To quote Richard Dawkins, one who denies the theory of evolution is either ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked (but he didn't want to consider that). Mr. Rayney is certainly ignorant and quite possibly insane.

SLiCk,
Opinions have some weight, but in the end are just that.
I've not denied Luther's influence. What I am denying is that Luther's opinions reflect all of protestantism.
Now, if you want to suggest that Luther's (late-in-life) anti-Jewish issues were somehow transmitted to the rest of protestantism, then I would like to know what mechanism appraently caused this supposed transmission. Without something substantive all you have is a slur.
This bad attitude is rare in Dispensational circles. But, again, there is just as much anti-Jewish misbehavior on the Left as there is anywhere else. Just read HuffPo.

It all comes down to Faith (ability to suspend reason) vs. Reason (ability to apply the scientific method)

Regarding the Origin of our Species, one can have a Faith in God AND Selective Design. We can then wonder why God made it so hell-bent difficult to create homo-sapiens.

Reason can never prevail over Faith. Faith, the ability to suspend reason, is always the victor over reason. Why can't we have both and agree that god is a great force...a mystery....or the ultimate joker if that it the case?

Re Collin Brendemuehl

Apparently I didn't make myself clear. My claim is that Martin Luthers' antisemitic views were most influential in Germany and that the acceptance of the Nazi program there was most heavily influenced by them. Obviously, his views were far less influential in Catholic countries like Poland and in Russia.

As for left wing blogs like the Huffington Post, (I do not read, that particular web site for the reason that it is the source of all manner of medical quackery and scientific garbage). The antivaxers like David Kirby pollute that site. For further information, I suggest reading posts about them on Dr. David Gorskis' (aka Orac) website respectful insolence on Scienceblogs.

Incidentally, I am well aware of antisemitism (mostly disguised as anti-Zionism) on left wing venues, like Matthew Yglesias' on the thinkprogress web site. Some of his commentors there rival Luther in their antisemitic (disguised as anti-Zionist) views.

Re Paul Kussmann

The fact that theists like Ken Miller, Francisco Ayala, Francis Collins, Simon Conway Morris, as well as the late Theodosius Dobzhansky, etc. can be productive scientists proves that philosophical naturalism is not a prerequisite for scientific achievement.

Charles Rayney:

Please do some reading up on the 'Curse of Ham'.

For those who don't know, that was the 'biblical evidence' invented by the Church to state that blacks were inherently cursed, had no souls, and were therefore inhuman and that it was religiously permissible for them to be treated as slaves.

You are in no position to accuse anyone of racism, when your own cult invented such dogma. Utterly disgusting.

To my list of theistic scientists, I would add Prof. Charles Townes, a Nobel Prize winning physicist.

SLiCk,
It's the question of ownership ("Luther's") which bothers me. I think you'll find history to show that the perspective pre-dates Luther and is a part of the RC post-mill theology. So, while Luther's influence in Germany is understood, he has no peculiar ownership in that position.
As a result I am concerned that it was his position that was "most influential" in Germany's behavior. It was a broadly-held belief with a great deal of history attached. The attachment of Luther's name is a geographic coincidence. (Stalin was no friend of the Jews.)

Re Collin Brendemuehl

1. I mentioned that Russia was far less influenced by Luther then Germany. As for Josef Stalin, remember that when he was a seminary student, Georgia was part of Russia.

2. Nobody is disputing that the Roman Catholic Church shares responsibility for antisemitism, especially in Eastern Europe, Austria, and Spain. I would still argue that Luthers' influence in Germany and on the Lutheran Church there, whose parishioners include more then 1/2 the population, was the greatest single factor in the acceptance of Nazi propaganda by the German populace.

SLiCk,
Since you extrapolated Luther to protestantism in general I still wonder if you consider the greater segment of protestantism to be anti-Jewish.

Re Collin Brendemuehl

I think that there are strong strains of antisemitism (often masked as anti-Zionism) within several Protestant denominations (the Presbyterians and Southern Baptists for instance). There has been a reduction in several of he Evangelical denominations due to the beliefs of many of them that the resurrection of the State of Israel is a symbol of the approaching endtimes.

I'm kinda new to this whole thing and I've never been to Uncommon Descent before. I noticed one thing that I thought was interesting.

Of all the topics that are on the site's list, nowhere did I see the one topic that should have been there, "Evidence".

Their whole point is that materialism and evolution are wrong, right? These things don't explain how life is the way it is. Well, where are all the links and papers and evidence that they've collected that do explain life not only as well as evolution does but better? Their argument is negative but I couldn't see anything positive about their side.

Where is all the evidence for another explanation of life?

Molecular dating shows all humans are genetically closer to each other than most other species. There was a bottleneck sometime in the past, it's thought.

Evolution does not show black people as 'less evolved' -- and certainly does not suggest they came from a different group of 'monkeys'. If you understood evolution at all, you would know the chance of two seperate, isolated species precursors ending up as identical members of a different species is essentially impossible. No one that understands evolution would claim that.

There have always been quacks and people that willingly misinterpret ideas to suit their purposes (oh my, that sounds familiar), and racism certainly found its way into science. But Darwin didn't generate the racism: It's been around for thousands of years, and wasn't about to be dispelled by solid evidence for our common ancestry.

Mr. Rayney, you say that mankind shares a pair of common ancestors in Adam and Eve; what about Cain's wife? She didn't seem to come from them.

little late, but:
Alex, FCD - you forgot ee cumings. 8^)

For the idiots who keep trying to link "Darwinism" to anti-semitism", just read the link.

SLC,
It also has to do with theology, and not immediately with the return of Christ. Romans 11:2 still employed the expression "His people" for the physical nation (apart from the assumption of there being only a spiritual relationship) and Romans 11:29 establishes the ongoing relationship because "the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." The depth of dispensationalism goes far beyond the adventism of the 19th c. where it blossomed.

Although I had initially not planned on returning to this thread, I have decided to make one more comment to put what I have said into perspective.

Reading everything that has been said here after my last post, I can now say, without a shadow of a doubt, that you atheists are as hilarious as you are stupid and humorless.

Read my posts again. Can you not see that much of what I wrote was intentional over-the-top satirical rhetoric designed to play to the stereotypes you folks are so often wont to believe regarding us Christians? Can you really not see the ways in which you spent your time and effort addressing the rhetoric while outright ignoring the bigger point I was making?

I know full well that Darwin's Theory of Evolution teaches that humans share a common ancestor with apes. However, you folks think that we "ignorant rubes" really believe that evolution is about humans descending from monkeys. Who am I to challenge your sacred stereotype? It is far more interesting to pull your chain by playing to your preconceived beliefs about us while making a larger point. That point has been made beautifully. The best part is that you folks cannot even see it, as you have spent your time addressing rhetorical comments that were inconsequential to my bigger message.

All those of us on the right have to do is play to your straw men of what we believe and you folks will come out in droves to show your true colors and intolerance. It is admittedly entertaining to watch how you folks come out in droves to denounce us for comments which were obviously satirical in nature, all while missing the greater context of what is being said. You folks can't see past your own prejudices and it's a hoot.

The best part is that intelligent lurkers and objective observers can see the angry group mindset that defines you liberals and atheists. When someone pulls your chain, you are more than willing to assume the worst and attack that person based on the stereotypes you hold regarding their beliefs. Everyone else can see that the comments you address are simply over-the-top satire that is irrelevant to the overall argument being made.

In the end, it makes each and every one of you look like a fool.

fisherman "Modusoperandi,thank you for the reply,you made a valid point about some churches misusing their ranks to abuse children,but not all churches are that way."
I'll have you know, good sir, that I did no such thing. Harumph!

"some science is out there that proves good things"
Define "prove" (math does "proofs". Science does "a pretty good model, based on what we know so far"). It also doesn't deal with good and bad (that's for people, not for the method). Science deals in facts, which are amoral.

"i suggest you not visit this site again"
And I suggest that you get off my couch.

"some science says that before the universe existed there was nothing,"
Do you want me to blow your mind? There is no "before" before the Big Bang.

"all of a sudden nothing exploded,impossible."
Except that the theory posits that it wasn't nothing (unless, of course, it's changed since I went to school to get my learnin').

"science HAS PROVEN that the things coming from that exploded thing all spin in the SAME direction,why then do other planets or universes spin in the opposite direction."
I have no idea what you're talking about, but think of it this way: if our solar system spins clockwise, what direction does it spin if you're looking at it from the bottom? Did I just blow your mind again?

"now science is saying the universe is flat or circular,which is it?"
While we can't see the edges, it's probably a blob, baby. Do you know what's outside the blob? Nothing! Again, my apologies for the blowing of your mind.

"too many assumptions in some science."
No, that's theology.

Charles Rayney: So you came here to not argue your point of view, but to argue the cartoon'd stereotype (that, sadly, is too common to be a simple stereotype) that you knew we'd jump to debunk? And the point was to bring out our "worst Liberal, Dogmatic Darwinismness"?
So, you didn't actually come here for a discussion, you came here to start a fight? Wow. That's kind of sad. If I were you, I'd be disappointed that this is the "worst Liberal, Dogmatic Darwinismness" that you could raise. I mean, we never even once mentioned the dual devils of abortion and gay marriage!

"In the end, it makes each and every one of you look like a fool."
Actually, it looks more like you've just wasted our time. Take heart, though, you wasted yours as well.

"The best part is that intelligent lurkers and objective observers can see the angry group mindset that defines you liberals and atheists."
Angry? No. Defensive? Yes. The Theory of Evolution takes too much flack for conflicting with Biblical literalism. That's not ToE's fault. The constant fight to keep science in science class makes ToE so tired that it can't even cry itself to sleep anymore.

"When someone pulls your chain, you are more than willing to assume the worst and attack that person based on the stereotypes you hold regarding their beliefs."
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

"Everyone else can see that the comments you address are simply over-the-top satire that is irrelevant to the overall argument being made."
Apparently you don't know the millions of people who actually have the beliefs (and cartoon'd view of ToE) that you earlier professed to have. That that view gets us hot under the collar is simply because we take issue with people who are willfully ignorant about all the sciences that support ToE. We have a perfectly valide reason to be angry. That this is as angry as we get (Rawr!) should pull the wind from your sails, as our rhetoric is far kinder (and, in most cases, better read) than that of science's (and education's...and methodological naturalism's) opponents.

The best part is that intelligent lurkers and objective observers can see the angry group mindset that defines you liberals and atheists. When someone pulls your chain, you are more than willing to assume the worst and attack that person based on the stereotypes you hold regarding their beliefs. Everyone else can see that the comments you address are simply over-the-top satire that is irrelevant to the overall argument being made.

No assumption of your stupidity was needed. You started off by writing something incredibly stupid. Why did you expect that people would be familiar with your erudite prior dismissals of darwinism and atheism in other venues? If you are going to "Poe" then you need to expect that unless readers and lurkers are familiar with your grand intellect they are going to think you are just another member of the vast ignorant crowd of conservative evolution-bashers.

I grow tired of endless charges of anti-semitism among leftists. Unless one counts criticism of Israel as anti-semitism, I've seen zero evidence that anti-semitism is common among the leftists in any Western country.

I'm against anti-semitism, just as I'm against the racism that counts Arabs as less than human. It's simple: I'm against racism, period.

Typical evo-fascist behavior. You cannot address what I have to say, so you insult me, call me a troll, and try to censor me.

Typical right-wing godbot/authoritarian paranoia. You have nothing intelligent to say, so you claim that I insulted you, called you a troll, and equate "STFU n00b!" with censorship. Finally you tell me to jump off a tree.

I guess two can play at this game. Fun!

PS: In teh interwebs, we differentiate between "trolls" and "concern trolls". But perhaps the difference is too slight for your weak mind to comprehend. Don't worry, I understand.

Wow, Jason, looks like the nutters from UD found your blog.

No, for the record, I was a "poe"... but you folks were not my targets. I was trying to establish credibility with certain people on the right so I could fool around with them a bit - I didn't drop hints that this is what I was doing because I did not want to blow my cover. The joke was not meant to be on you. You all responded as decent reasonable people should respond when confronted with logical fallacies and outright lies.

I actually intended to leave it at my first comment and just do a hit and run... but responding was admittedly a blast and I got carried away. The sheer absurdity of the stuff I was saying and arguing was admittedly way too much fun. On that note, I apologize for wasting your time and hijacking the comments section here. I did not like where my poe-ing was headed. I ended up messing around with people I initially really did not intend to bother. To this end, I pulled my blog and am ditching this character - I don't like wasting the time of decent people with whom, at the end of the day, I actually AGREE.

I would like to apologize to everyone whose time I wasted, particularly SLC. I would also like to apologize to Jason for doing this on his blog. I am actually quite ashamed of where this all went - not because of the reaction I have gotten, mind you, but rather for the lack of respect I have shown all of you in doing this.

I don't have the heart to continue doing that.

I forgive you. I simply look at it as time that I would've wasted talking about the documentary about worshipping Darwinism that I saw on PBS, while drinking chai tea in my Volvo on the way to tithe to the ACLU, before dropping my unwed daughter off at Planned Parenthood, and finally, perhaps, marrying a member of the same sex.

Modusoperandi -

Thank you. Just so long as you've had time to burn a flag while picketing soldiers as they return home from Iraq. I'll feel better knowing that's the case.

Thanks a lot.

I just spent time reading the whole thread. Charles, you wombat, the poe was 100% identical to idiot conservatives and common ID'ers. There was no way for anyone to know you were faking it. Poeing isn't satire - it's when satire is impossible because the reality is just as ridiculous.

Kind of not fair. There's no way of doing authentic poes like you did just now without people seeing you as an ID twerp - they REALLY think that way.

Re Charles Rayney

Thank you. Just so long as you've had time to burn a flag while picketing soldiers as they return home from Iraq. I'll feel better knowing that's the case.

Gee, you mean just like that fine Christian gentleman, Reverend Fred Phelps?

Two choices - either I'm too slow at understanding that you're being anti-snarky at Charles after he admitted he was faking an idiot IDer all along - or you're too slow and still thinking it's on.

I can get why you would though, you're just pounding back out of inertia :-P

Watching you guys spar was an afternoon treat for me! Too good this can be "played" as well as merely "operated".

Freidenker -

I just spent time reading the whole thread. Charles, you wombat, the poe was 100% identical to idiot conservatives and common ID'ers. There was no way for anyone to know you were faking it. Poeing isn't satire - it's when satire is impossible because the reality is just as ridiculous.
I deserve that. As I said before, I am not sure I was poeing in the most normal of senses... it was not my intention to be viewed as anything except a fanatic extremist. I was trying to establish credibility with them, because they were the ones that the joke was ultimately meant to be on.
But I lost heart.
I should add that when I talked about "satire" while speaking in-character, I was not talking about being a poe. That was meant to be a classical misdirection that people like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter use all the time... when people call them on their outright stupidity and extremism, they say that they were "joking" all along. It was MEANT to be one more level of illogical fallacy upon a heap of others.
Watch out for the crazies. They play that card all the time.
SLC -
Gee, you mean just like that fine Christian gentleman, Reverend Fred Phelps?
I think Phelps prefers urinating on the flag. But then again, lots of good Christians do that everyday with their attempts to impose theocracy here in the good U.S. of A... as well as in their attempts to place dogma over real science. ;-)

Oof, reading back, I should make clear that I only broke character and admitted to being a poe in my March 5th post. Not the Feb 28th post I made prior to that.

I was actually still being an unreasonable asshole in that one.

Frankly, the joke's on everyone who took you seriously. Like I said in my blog - I can't even believe you're not "anti-poeing" right now. You simply lack all credibility :->

It's been fun though. Poe or otherwise.

very quality blogs congratulations

Freidenker -

It's quite alright. In this day and age of the Internet, when I decide I want some degree of credibility, I'll just ditch my pseudonym.

I mean, think about it! I could be any one of you! >:D

(I'm not. But I COULD be. You never know.)

Great site.Thanks a lot.