One of my favorite meetings is the annual Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology meetings. One of my favorite cities to visit is New Orleans, Louisiana. The two pleasures will not be coinciding at any time in the near future because of the ineptitude and inanity of Louisiana's legislature and governor, Bobby Jindal. Here's the press release from the LA Science Coalition:
National Scientific Society to Boycott Louisiana over LA Science Education Act
The first tangible results of the Louisiana legislature's passage and Gov. Bobby Jindal's signing of the 2008 Louisiana Science Education Act have materialized, and these results are negative both for the state's economy and national reputation. The Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology, a national scientific society with more than 2300 members, has put Gov. Bobby Jindal on notice that the society will not hold its annual meetings in Louisiana as long as the LA Science Education Act is on the books. In a February 5, 2009,letter to the governor that is posted on the SICB website under the headline, "No Thanks, New Orleans," SICB Executive Committee President Richard Satterlie tells Jindal that "The SICB executive committee voted to hold its 2011 meeting in Salt Lake City because of legislation SB 561, which you signed into law in June 2008. It is the firm opinion of SICB's leadership that this law undermines the integrity of science and science education in Louisiana." [NOTE: Although the legislation was introduced as SB 561, it was renumbered during the legislative process and passed as SB 733.]
Pointing out that SICB had joined with the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) in urging Jindal to veto the legislation last year, Satterlie goes on to say that "The SICB leadership could not support New Orleans as our meeting venue because of the official position of the state in weakening science education and specifically attacking evolution in science curricula." Salt Lake City was chosen as the site of the 2011 meeting in light of the fact that "Utah, in contrast, passed a resolution that states that evolution is central to any science curriculum."
Noting that SICB's recent 2009 meeting in Boston attracted "over 1850 scientists and graduate students to the city for five days," Satterlie pointedly tells Jindal that "As you might imagine, a professional meeting with nearly 2000 participants can contribute to the economic engine of any community." The implication of SICB's decision for both New Orleans, which is still recovering from Hurricane Katrina, and the entire state of Louisiana is clear. With Gov. Jindal threatening draconian budget cuts to the state's universities, the loss of such a significant scientific convention will only add to the state's deepening fiscal crisis.
Satterlie closes by telling Jindal that SICB will join with other groups "in suggesting [that] professional scientific societies reconsider any plans to host meetings in Louisiana." However, SICB is not the first national scientific society to bring up the subject of boycotting Louisiana. Gregory Petsko, president of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB), has already called for a boycott not only of Louisiana but of any state that passes such legislation: "As scientists, we need to join such protests with our feet and wallets. . . . I think we need to see to it that no future meeting of our society [after the ASBMB's already contracted 2009 meeting in New Orleans] will take place in Louisiana as long as that law stands." (See"It's Alive," ASBMB Today, August 2008.)
After the Louisiana legislature passed the LA Science Education Act, a total of nine national scientific societies publicly called on Jindal to veto it. He ignored them, as well as everyone else who contacted him requesting that he veto the bill, choosing instead to help execute the agenda of the Louisiana Family Forum (LFF), the Religious Right organization on whose behalf Louisiana Sen. Ben Nevers introduced the bill and on whose behalf Jindal signed it. Jindal is a staunch ally of the LFF. The citizens of Louisiana, whose educational well-being the governor claims to be so concerned about, are now paying the price--literally--for his loyalty to his conservative Christian base.
Sorry, Louisiana. You are a lovely state, but scientists won't be supporting you as long as you're going to be dedicated to anti-scientific foolishness.
Other states don't have cause for complacency, though — creationism is not exclusively a Southern problem. If this keeps up, we may be having all of our scientific meetings in Canada.
- Log in to post comments
Who's keeping the official list of anti-science states up-to-date?
I must say, I'm unimpressed with Jindal lately. I had previously considered him the best choice for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012, but I'm less and less convinced that he can genuinely unite the party.
Wait a minute. Louisiana is too irrational, so the meeting is going to be held in UTAH instead?
Kind of says it all, doesn't it?
As a resident of Louisiana, I'm actually glad this is happening. I hope this sends a clear message to all state governments that when we said this bill would create a distrust of Louisiana by scientists we weren't kidding. Maybe something will change. ...probably not though.
If this keeps up, we may be having all of our scientific meetings in Canada.
I see nothing wrong with that. Go Canada!
We'll welcome you to Canada with open arms.
~ CJ
http://www.helium.com/users/165611/show_articles
I'm always curious about this strategy. Isn't it a form of collective punishment? I'm sure there are lots of people who believe in Science that live. Not saying I'm for or against, I'd like to hear it discussed.
It's a form of pressure. Yes, it's not good for the state of Louisiana. That's the point. But another state will benefit. You can' be anti-science officially and expect scientist to not notice.
Yeah, I'm surprised that Utah would pass a pro-evolution resolution.
Hey, money talks... if this is how we could get louisiana legislators to notice the mistake they've made, we're doing the people of LA a service (rather than punishing them).
Phaedrus: Yes, it is collective punishment. It's punishing the majority of people in Louisiana who voted for these politicians. These politicians aren't operating as solitary actors.
-1- Is there a list somewhere of the states and their creationist inspired education problems?
-2- How long until biology related businesses and marine study groups move shop to another gulf coast site? Meetings are one thing(hurting their tourist economy), but actual business and education entities packing up is another.
Spot on, Scott! You're right that the politicians aren't operating as solitary actors. Too often I think citizens forget that.
Texas is having a shortage of science and math teachers. Hmmmm....wonder why?
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/education/stories/021009…
Perhaps it's better off for Louisiana to NOT invite every idiot convention to our state. If your supposed "scientists" can't see past their noses, then Utah can have them. Science is about exploration.
You're saying that because Louisiana opened up the classroom to further scientific exploration and discussion (which doesn't fit your worldview), you're just going to take your bat and ball and go home. Well go right ahead. Go pat each other on the back and cry on each other's shoulders and say mean things about the mean old Louisianians. See if we care.
Any an all science conferences are welcome in Canada. You haven't lived 'til you've munched on poutine and a beaver tail, while drinking a Molson's (or any of the many fine brews offered by Canadian Zymurgists), and contemplating, well, any scientific wonder you'd care to mention!
Really!
Jindal is a moron, and rather ethically challenged, from the get go. I think the boycott is a fabulous idea, and deserved, but I don't believe for one second that it will bother the governor and the no-nothings to whom he panders. Watch for spin about "folks from outside trying to dictate education and free discussion in our fair state" to begin flying from whichever orifice he has closest to a microphone.
I think it's a fantastic idea!
P.S. Happy Valentines Day everyone. :-) xoxoxo
Jason, your comments are incredibly foolish. If you think there is anything scientific about intelligent design, that's a pretty good sign you don't fit that incredibly poor description.
Intelligent design is not now, and never has been, about science: the people pushing it know that. It is about a way to get their incredibly narrow religious views into a classroom, nothing more, nothing less.
No, Louisiana opened up the classroom for nonscientific ideas to be equated to science.
Douglas Adams: Jatravartids are small blue creatures of the planet Viltvodle VI with more than fifty arms each. They are therefore unique in being the only race in history to have invented aerosol deodorant before the wheel.
Many races believe that the Universe was created by some sort of god or in the Big Bang. The Jatravartid people, however, believe that the Universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure. They live in perpetual fear of the time they call "The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief". The theory of the Great Green Arkleseizure is not widely accepted outside Viltvodle VI.
Maybe we should abandon both evolution and intelligent design, and teach the Great Green Arkleseizure theory instead.
Jindal is probably happy with this decision. Now he can fill that particular date with the Do-It-Yourself Exorcist Society Annual Demon-Banishing Convention.
Canada, are you kidding me?
What about this?
"Utah, in contrast, passed a resolution that states that evolution is central to any science curriculum."
I wouldn't be surprised if Nevada, seeing that states like LA scare away visitors due to anti-science legislation, QUICKLY follow Utah in passing pro-science bills: They've always been fairly pragmatic when it comes to attracting visitors ;-)
Perhaps it might be a good time for mass emigration from Louisiana for all good scientists... ? Then again, it might do more harm than good; I am not very sure.
Hypothesis: there are two Waltons. The one that say things like #2 with the flammable stupid and the mildly amusing and self-aware one @#22.
A list of the states is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_date_of_statehood
Can't help you with their creationist-inspired education problems, but that's a start.
Yeah, it is, and that's a bit problematic. But we've got to weigh the costs and benefits, and we have to consider that any available method of hurting the politicians (or the people who voted for them) is going to hurt a minority of people who don't support the policy. In this case, it's not like the scientists are causing people to starve - they're creating mild discomfort and creating tangible costs for this anti-evolution policy. It's the equivalent of a light economic sanction on a country.
i'm sorry to have to repeat myself for the umpteenth time here but you yanks have only got yourself to blame for voting these idiots into power...
rampant religion and capitalism without conscience is bad medicine for healing a community
Matt Heath: Hypothesis: there are two Waltons. The one that say things like #2 with the flammable stupid and the mildly amusing and self-aware one @#22.
No, I'm just rather unstable.
And what is "flammable stupid"? Did you mean "inflammatory"? Or were you actually expressing a desire to burn my comment?
Wait, the act says only "scientific theories" may be studied. That leaves out ID/creationism, doesn't it?
It isn't even necessarily "punishment." It could be looked at as a lack of reward for their anti-science stance.
Boycotting is always problematic in my book, since one hits at both the pro-science and the anti-science factions with such a clumsy tool. Really, though, how do you hold a meeting in a state that just poked science in the eye?
Utah? Sure, it's not a pro-thought state. Mostly its collective idiocy directly involves the Mormon religion and doesn't spill over into science. Staying away because they're heavily Mormon does not seem appropriate, so long as they're not inflicting their woo into science or education (I'm sure it happens, only not as official policy).
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Re: Vanya(#31)
I'd say the same, but there's a whole discussion some pages back where people (who supposedly support science) were trying to convince me that ID is science.
Jason #16 wrote:
Do you really think that cutting edge scientific exploration and research takes place in public school classrooms? No, children only learn what is already established through legitimate science forums, such as labs and peer review.
I would think the last thing you'd want is to devote public school class time to discussions on whether or not God exists -- with emphasis put on the view that, if evolution happened, then there is no God. Very bad long term strategy for you, if nothing else.
As for whether SICB is correct in boycotting Louisiana, consider how you'd feel if one of the states tried to mandate that churches should be forced to have children in its Sunday schools learn different views of Biblical exegesis, so that they can then "make up their own minds" on whether or not to take the Bible either literally, or as legitimate history. Sunday school classes should be places for "open debate" on ALL "worldviews" -- including atheism.
Surely churches would refuse to hold their national conventions in such a state, as a message that government has no right to intrude on how churches choose to teach the Bible. (Not an exact analogy, of course, but you get the idea.)
Porco Dio @ #19
Way to stick it to the horde of Pharyngulite Jindal voters!
Beaten by *Utah*? Ouch. That's adding insult to injury (for Louisiana). :)
Ostensibly, yes.
The trouble is, the science classroom was never closed to "scientific theories," only to "poof theories." So why did they pass a redundant bill?
They've gamed the system so much that in fact there's nothing really wrong with the bill, except that it suggests that science class was closed to scientific discussion when it never was. Quite obviously they're trying to leave the door open a crack to teachers to bring in junk like Denton or Behe, or the bill would never have existed to allow what had never been disallowed.
The bill likely would pass muster in the courts, for it doesn't allow for anything but "scientific theories." It's the real world effects on the ignorant teachers and school boards that concern scientists and honest educators.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
:
Collectively yes, but the US is filled with the middlebrow and lowbrow folk who can't stomach anything to the left of middle of the road without hyperventilating. And then there's the problem of those who put themselves up for election. Hubris, not intellect or even altruism, drives people to become politicians so the choices are slim by default.
So where are you from Porky? ("yanks?") Last I heard the UK and Australia have their fair share of elected idiots too.
Here's to hoping this sets off some lively "discussions" between those who see Big Science as their enemy and those who insist that creationism/ID/woo really is science, really.
"See if we care."
Oh, you care. Every day that you live with the multitudinous benefits of science, you care.
In related news,
Another one of those "Academic Freedom" bullshit bills is before the Iowa legislature now.
Spread the word!
@16
Our "worldview" is that beliefs should conform to reality, not the other way around. You're right; your "scientific exploration" doesn't fit.
Why not ask all teachers of all sciences to withdraw from Louisiana and let them have full creationism and no science in their classes - and in all the other creationist States, as well. Let's see where that lands them. It would be an interesting experiment, at least.
If the southern scientist don't mind freezing temperatures, we'd be welcome to have them come over!
Looking at what the some parts of the US are doing to education, makes glad that I'm a Canadian. Sure we don't have any fancy microscopes in our science class, but at least what we studied in Science Class was actual Science and our (now defunct) religious class was more about studying mythology.
Unfortunately, if this keeps up in the United States, Canada may not be a safe-haven for science. Our PM, may not be 'out' as a Christian but he is Conservative. For those unfamiliar with Canadian politics, Conservatives are our right wingers, with politics similar to those of the Republican party: bribing voters with tax cuts, opposing government spending, with thinly veiled nostalgia for 1950s ideology and macho mentality.
At their best, they're immune to all but the simplest logic - at their worst, they're actually allergic to it. Their votes come from the self-serving rich and the undereducated poor so it is in their best interest to keep the rich rich and the poor undereducated.
Science may not be on their hit list right now but if they can do enough damage this time around, the next generation of voters won't know how to spell evolution much less define it or defend it.
Forget safe havens and fight like your back is to the wall.
High school science classes are about education, not exploration. Unless you're seriously suggesting that ID is a cutting edge area of scientific research that should properly be done by... high school students.
"Go pat each other on the back and cry on each other's shoulders and say mean things about the mean old Louisianians. See if we care."
Sez you, sniffling and crying all the way over to a site you don't regularly post on.
2,000 scientists, pshwa.
I hope Society for Neuroscience makes clear that it's annual conference of 30,000+ scientists will not consider New Orleans as a venue again so long as the state continues its anti-science stance.
It used to be held in New Orleans every few years, until Katrina hit. I was, until now, a proponent of having it return as an economic boon (though I don't know if New Orleans is ready for that kind of capacity, yet).
What a stinker!
I hope other scientific societies will soon follow suit. Fellow Brunonian Bobby Jindal - who was a biology concentrator at Brown - should have known better.
Speaking of Brown, I am delighted to report this wonderful bit of news:
Today at the AAAS meeting in Chicago, Brown cell biologist Ken Miller will be the recipient of its annual Public Understanding of Science and Technology Award:
http://news.aaas.org/2009/02112008-[…]sented.shtml
He was nominated in part, due to his memorable testimony at the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial on behalf of the plaintiffs.
On a more personal note, I remain delighted to have assisted Ken in his very first debate against a creationist, which was held many years ago at Brown’s hockey rink. As the sole “evolutionist” on an ad hoc campus “Origins Committee”, I saw Ken deliver a crushing blow to his opponent, Dr. Henry Morris, Vice President of the Institute for Creation Research.
Here's a list of current anti-evolution legislation:
Mississippi - textbook disclaimer bill - dead in committee
New Mexico - “strengths and weaknesses” bill - in committee
Iowa - “academic freedom” bill - in committee
Oklahoma - “strengths and weaknesses” bill - in committee
Alabama - “academic freedom” bill - in committee
and
Texas - "strengths and weaknesses" - at state board of education
The Texas situation is complicated - the strengths and weaknesses failed by vote of the SBOE (8-7) but blatantly creationist additions were made to the state science standards. Final vote is in March.
It's awfully nice of you to give other countries the chance to catch up with you.
Jindal is just Sarah Palin in a suit. Plus his kids aren't old enough to get knocked up and have shotgun weddings yet.
The main advantage those two have is that they were new. When you look closer, the prince(ss) turned into toads.
Oddly enough, he has a degree in biology from Brown U.
But it isn't entirely fair to blame Jindal for being a toad governor. Without the electorate he would be just another Jason troll babbling away like an idiot on the internet.
I read that act. It can be found here: http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=482728
There is nothing whatsoever anti-science in this act. Seems like you are just being an asshole. Louisiana won't miss you.
As a Tulane graduate, an employee of the Tulane National Primate Research Center, and a member of a local secular humanist association (NOSHA), I find this legislation an embarassment. However, please don't paint the whole state and everyone in it the same color. There are good schools and research institutions here just as in other states but we also suffer from a loud and obnoxious minority that wishes to turn back the clock on progress. We fight it. Sometimes we fail. We could use your support, not your reckless criticism. We atheist, scientists, and freethinkers should unite and stand side by side together whenever these issues threaten us because they threaten us all.
Posted by: Jason
Sure, Jason, you tell the scientists what science is all about. Then get all pissy and insulting because something doesn't fit your worldview.
Then consider this, Jason. How do you react when people suggest that classrooms teach sex education, homosexuality or Islam? Do you stand up for controversy and fairness then? Do you even discuss those issues, or the teaching of them? No, you pull your kids into homeschool, and sulk, secure in your hypocrisy.
There is no controversy about evolution, despite what a few religious loons tell themselves. Giving in to such nonsense is deeply wrong, and every thinking person must stand up for truth.
Does this make it possible for idiots to claim that certain facts and theories go against their irrational beliefs and therefore should not be allowed?
Some of us in California are jealous of Louisiana and want some of the kookiness action ourselves. Roseville to the rescue!
Jeanne Caldwell says that UC Berkeley's "Understanding Evolution" violates her constitutional rights by using public funds to denigrate her religious beliefs. Courts have not been sympathetic, but Caldwell has worked her way up on appeal to the Supreme Court.
The San Francisco Chronicle carried the story this morning. I nearly spewed my coffee. Check it out.
In case you thought "Caldwell of Roseville" sounded vaguely familiar, be advised that Jeanne is married to Larry Caldwell, who has filed nuisance lawsuits against Roseville schools over unconstitutionally teaching the "religion" of evolution.
Hmmmm..the National Science Teachers Association convention is in New Orleans next month-I suppose it's too late for them to pull out.
I have no doubt whatsoever that, like Sarah Failin', he can genuinely unite what's left of the party.
(And that's not enough to win elections outside of Oklahoma.)
That which easily becomes burning stupid.
The last I checked the United States was a representative democracy (though who is actually represented is certainly debatable). That being said-- yes, punishing the entire state and all institutions therein is exactly the right thing to do.
Scott R:
Hmmn, I wonder what it is about the subjects mentioned in this bill that would merit their inclusion? I just don't know.
And why no mention of the kind of "supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials" that can be used to "understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner"?
As if young children have the necessary knowledge and skills to be able to critique complex scientific theories! Just who are these people trying to kid (yes, I'm looking at you, Scott R)?
Seriously, to even begin to decode this nonsense, you need to have at the very least a superficial amount of knowledge about the history and tactics of both the creationist and ID movements.
In other words, this entire bill is code for: you may use the science lessons to introduce doubt about the things that sectarian religions simply cannot accept, but if you are caught, there is just enough room for you to plead ignorance and claim that the bill simply wasn't clear enough. *sniff sniff*
And if you disagree, please share with us what exactly this bill is designed to achieve that wasn't already possible?
The reason why "evolution, the origins of life, global warming" are included is because they are the latest issues to have alternative, independent views on, no matter how much those views are contradicted by evidence and common sense.
@15: Posted by: Exurban Mom | February 14, 2009 2:35 PM
Texas is having a shortage of science and math teachers. Hmmmm....wonder why?
Texas usta recruit many of its teachers from Louisiana. I guess they're trying to ensure the supply...
Vanya,
Unfortunately not, because the act doesn't say who gets to decide what theories are "scientific," nor does it give straightforward criteria to make that decision, nor does it give examples of scientific vs. non-scientific material. It's not going to stop any teacher from introducing ID or creationism, because the supporters of those positions have always argued (in the classroom, the legislature and the courts) that they are scientific.
And it's pretty obvious that the act's authors and supporters are well aware of this. Once the act was passed, the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education had to adopt a policy to guide school districts in implementing it. The Louisiana Dept. of Education proposed a policy which contained the line:
“Materials that teach creationism or intelligent design or that advance the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind shall be prohibited for use in science classes.”
The act's supporters successfully lobbied BESE to remove this line before the policy was passed, and the DI praised them lavishly for doing so. Now why do you suppose they did that?
You can read a summary of the shenanigans surrounding implementation of the LSEA here.
@Liberal Atheist (Comment #51)
I think you'll find that, in terms of the level of attainment in mathematics and the sciences by high-school students, the United States has already fallen a long way behind most of the other industrial nations of the world.
@64 Anton Mates
They have always argued it is scientific, but they have always been unable to show it is. We know it, they know it.
Speaking as a scientist (and ex-LDS) who lives in Utah, I'd like to repeat Jason's invitation to all scientists to leave Louisiana and come to Salt Lake City. We'd love to have you, and I personally would be thrilled to be surrounded entirely by biologists and geologists and geneticists and chemists and physicists and climatologists and astronomers and...well, you get the idea.
That would be like heaven on earth!
I pity the lovely folk of La - now that school kids' time will be wasted on creationist garbage, how much longer before more obvious tenets of religious bigotry are mandated in school teaching?
Liberal Atheist,
I don't think most of them do know it. Some of the DI's folks may be consciously defending a Noble Lie, but I think your garden-variety creationist believes that creationism is, in fact, science. Every court ruling to the contrary was because of those lying Darwinist lawyers and their liberal atheist activist judge buddies.
In any case, whether or not they believe creationism is scientific, nothing in the LSEA stops them from claiming it is, just as they have for the last forty years, and therefore going ahead and teaching it.
The folks from Minnesconsin feel of two minds about anything Iowa does to make fools of themselves. It's like when your kid brother does something really dumb. It's a bit embarrassing because it's your kid brother, but there's also the schadenfreude because it's your kid brother.
I lived in New Orleans for 17 years, with most of it working at LSU Health Sciences Center (left a year after Katrina). I am embarrassed for the State by this bill but I'm glad that real science-based groups are boycotting. As mentioned above, there ARE people in Louisiana working for science and science-based education. Legislation is only part of the battle. The other part is public awareness and changing what is publicly or socially acceptable. Just like smoking is not as socially acceptable these days, anti-science should be made unacceptable.
Ditto, by the way, for that "Don't construe this as promoting religion or non-religion" disclaimer found in this and most other "Academic Freedom" bills. Without a clear attached definition or a list of examples of "promoting religion," it's useless--when's the last time an ID supporter admitted publicly that ID promotes religion?
It's clearly just a fig leaf to give them a bit more legal coverage if they're taken to court...and though I have no legal expertise whatsoever, I really can't imagine that strategy working. You can't deflect charges of violating the Constitution by adding "And by the way, we're really not trying to violate the Constitution!" at the end of your law.
Scott R. -
You have to read the rest of the material and the reasons that it was brought up. Notice that they specifically targeted the areas that the wingnuts hate because it doesn't fit with their religious or political dogma.
Critical thinking is a good idea. Using badly educated teachers to discuss critical thinking in these areas is designed to make sure that there is no critical thinking at all. It might work if they also required science teachers to completely understand these areas so they could show that ID and creationism were completely fraudulent, but that's not going to happen.
Hey wait!!!! Not all of us here in Louisiana are religious dumbasses.....please for the sake of those of us with a brain...don't give up yet. Help me find a scientific way to rid the world of TPS (Trailer Park Syndrom).
From the bill. Thanks for posting the link.
D. This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine,promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.
My wife gets snarly every time she hears that truth trotted out. She is a school counselor in an American public school system. She explains that the facts of the case are we (the USA) are being held to a different standard. Thanks to the "No Child Left Behind" program, ALL American children are in the system and being tested, regardless of learning disabilities, retardation or just general screwed-upness. Other countries shunt their worst and dimmest students off to learning tracks that are more tailored to their needs, and that keep them out of national testing.
Yes, the USA education system is less than optimal, in many ways, but it is not the same as the system in other nations, and a direct comparison is not accurate or fair.
National Science Teachers of America is still holding its meeting in New Orleans in March.
As far as I can tell, our top high school students are still doing quite well. Our universities reflect that. Of course, our best universities who already import a lot of kids, can just increase the number they import if our top students lose their edge. Since many students of non-American origin stay around after graduation, the US isn't likely to suffer from stupid political decisions nearly as much as it deserves to.
The REAL purpose (as opposed to the rhetorical one) of the Murkin School System is to ensure as closely as possible that no child be permitted to escape the sociao-economic niche into whihc they were born.
School, itself--the grading and testing and all the authoritarian crap--is designed to provide the retroactive evidence--failed tests, bad conduct reports, bad grades, etc--which rationalizes life-shaping decisions made about kids before the ever once enter a school building.
When our greatest weapon is free speech, then I say let's boycott boycotts!
What greater misery can we inflict on the LA creationists than having a multi-day convention spewing press release after press release decrying the stupidity of making the children of Louisiana (including Jindal's kids) even more stupider by teaching them creationism.
If WE were as politically astute as the creationists, we would come up with all sorts of cockamamie theories to gunk up the science classes in LA.
How about the THEORY OF COCKAMAMIE THEORIES?
That is, that for every theory of merit/predictive value/falsifiability there is an equal and opposite theory of superstition and unfounded belief.
Many of the greatest scientists in history life's work attest to this very THEORY OF COCKAMAMIE THEORIES.
For example, Newton and his decades long foray into alchemy.
We need to teach the controversy.
Or how about Kepler and his noted work in astrology.
Astrology needs equal time.
For that matter, Kepler's idea that the Earth had an attractive force he called its 'soul'...to hell with Newton re-defining the soul by calling it "gravity," thereby taking God out of the schools.
That bastard.
Students in LA must be given the choice. No more THEORY OF GRAVITY.
It's now the SOUL THEORY. James Brown would be so proud.
Unless scientist tip crackhead strippers more than copier salesmen, I dont think anyone in Louisiana will lose any sleep over the loss of future science conventions on Bourbon Street. Nice try anyway.
"I'm sure there are lots of people who believe in Science that live..."
I'm pretty sure a key point here is that science is not a matter of faith.
As a man who both makes money by the execution of the law as well as teaching, I felt compelled to actually read the thing.
This law seems to only clarify that the state is letting students choose what to believe instead of shoving it down their throats. It's merely a Civil Rights law, designed to keep teachers from offending parents by pushing their personal beliefs. It allows both sides to be discussed, which is just what students need.
Personally, I don't believe this should even be a legal issue. Who cares what stance each state has on things that don't matter to everyday people? Is every student going to be affected by things that happened millions of years ago? Some will be doctors and scientists, but some will be plumbers and farmers. They don't care. I personally know a woman who was both a chemist and a roofer. Besides, most rational people already understand that the world is obviously older than six thousand years. And what's more, they believe in God too. What now? I guess we'll just have to chalk it up to rational human beings thinking as rationally as they can.
Now, as a teacher, I notice that some teachers spend most of their time whining about how under-appreciated they are and how wrong everyone is except for them. Do scientists do the same thing? I wouldn't know... I only have a bachelor's degree, so I'm not really in scientific circles.
Plus, as a resident of Louisiana, I obviously only get my information from snakehandling preachers, grocery checkout lines, my Uncle Cletus (who was abducted by aliens and now can see through the government plots), and talk radio. I do, however, know that home is where you make it. Maybe that's why they named me Dirt instead of Nunnamaker.
Somebody help a poor ignorant redneck out! On top of the moral/intellectual dilemma, I'm running out of spam and crackers, the maters didn't make this year, and I can't decide which is better, water or gatorade!!!
Sorry N.O. and the rest of LA. I know there must be rational evidence-acknowledgers, living there.
However, if the prominent among us (and who more rightly prominent than scientists and their organizations?) decide to punish offenders, rightly or wrongly, well or poorly, we must help in the punishment or be ostracized or punished ourselves.
You have to tough it out, you LA R.A.E.s.It's not about whether you do or do not deserve this treatment (and life's nonfair anyway). The hypothesis is that punishment will alter future behavior.
A Valentine for you PZ
Beloved One
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFehNHxDvHw
I'd also be willing to bet that New Orleans make all the money we're missing from a five-day convention by next Wednesday. However, it will soon be swallowed up by corruption. You guys are doing us a favor by not making low-level officials any richer. Thank you. Seriously.
Louisiana should boycott science if the bigdome elitists are going to be so snobby. Turnabout is fair play. Plus of course, all the products of science.
This would give them a Dark Ages standard of living if they are lucky. Stone age if they aren't.
Not so sure what the attraction is of sitting around a fire and fighting with bears, alligators, burmese pythons, and cougars over a dead deer. While watching half your kids die of diseases you don't even know the name of before checking out of old age at 40. But then again, that is why I don't live there.
That's so sweet of you bornyesterday.
God loves us all, and you popped by to tell us.
Errr...shouldn't you be a prayin'?
teacher (i'm not sure i actually believe you are one) this "This law seems to only clarify that the state is letting students choose what to believe instead of shoving it down their throats" is one of the major problems: how many students, even in high school, can make good decisions about the distinction between bullshit being called science (creationism - sorry, ID) and real science. Did you even think your comment through?
You show your real lack of insight with this comment: "Is every student going to be affected by things that happened millions of years ago?"
You've just stated you don't think people need to know about biology, physics, geology, etc - if you had your way you would be condemning a generation of young people to grow into the type of person so often held up as parody.
What, exactly, is it you claim that you teach? And if you really are a teacher, how the heck did you ever get certified (or do you homeschool teach - that would explain everything about your comments).
Teacher at #83 said:
I myself, being a former (and perhaps future) teacher, wonder why it is that such topics as mathematical formulae, grammatical rules, and human anatomy don't merit such attention by Louisiana officials.
Students do not get to choose what to "believe" about factual information. The fact of evolution is not controversial to those who prefer education over indoctrination. If students want to believe in foolish notions, they are free to do so - but they should not have their ignorance unchallenged in school. Indeed, that is partly what schools are for - to bring light to minds that would otherwise exist in darkness. There's enough darkness outside the halls of academia. All this law does is allow someone to turn off the bulb.
how about boycotting all red states.
Utah? How about the states like NY that have never even considered putting ID in the classroom? Funny thing but I went to a Catholic elementary school back in the 60's and we only learned Darwinism. There wasn't the slightest hint about ID.
Teacher, Jason and the others trolling this site have little idea of what is at issue.
It is very important to all students today to know what happened millions of years ago. This knowledge is geology and underwrites the whole fossil fuel industry - both powering the world and destroying it. Biology underlies all medicines and therapeutic techniques. It describes our ecosystems and environment. Physics and chemistry are pivotal to almost every aspect of our modern lives.
If people believe they can transmute lead into gold via the philosopher's stone and expend considerable shared resources doing so - and convincing others to accept their delusions, then the world is sliding into disaster.
Punishing the innocent may be a blunt instrument, but that is all that's available at present. Boycotts of South Africa did not seriously impact blacks - they were after all not recipients of the boycotted goods. Likewise Louisiana scientists will not be impacted any more than their currently reduced incomes, university funding cuts and allowing magic men and shamans to pollute their ranks.
The people that will notice will be the shopkeepers and businesses that vote for these xian looneys. Parents will notice when out-of-state universities reject LA students (or enforce independent entry exams). When companies reject the state because the calibre of local graduates is so poor and existing staff refuse to move into the dark ages.
The universities (USA and international) should collectively mandate that high school students from LA and other states all sit entry exams because the state has failed in its duty of care.
Maybe the science teachers convention to be held there could make a major order of business a loud and public condemnation of this legislation and vote on whether they too will join the boycott. Issue a press release attacking Jindal by name.
It should also be noted that Cambridge University came into existence because Oxford University executed 2 professors (nearly 1,000 years ago). Sacking of teachers because they are atheists or refuse to teach woo is just the thin end of the wedge.
"Teacher" at #86 (and other posts) - claiming to also know law indicates to me that you must be a scripture teacher versed in canon law, because you don't understand the basics of teaching and your understanding of the effect of this legislation is flawed.
here's a tip to understanding legalese: whenever a bill seems to makes legal something that's already legal, protect a right that's already protected, or otherwise "clarify" already existing laws, it's a pretty sure bet that there's some bullshit somewhere in it. it was that way with the nasty "conscience" screed that was "clarifying" the right of godbots not to perform abortions, but was in fact a permission to lie by omission, deny women basic medical supplies, and crippling federally funded clinics byby applying for and hogging positions at clinics which would require them to deal with contraception and abortion, and then refuse to actually do their job (and they couldn't get fired or not-hired for it)
it's that way with this one. since ID'ers hold that they're not peddling a religious idea the last paragraph supposedly doesn't apply to them, but it's rather interesting that they felt the need to list those scientific theories as debatable which go directly against the religious belief of American Protestants. but I'm sure that's just coincidence [/sarcasm]; it also permits using "additional textbooks" not provided by the school system, i.e. any number of ID screeds would make legal teaching material.
Teacher said:
Are you suggesting that the state wasn't allowing the students to choose what to believe prior to this bill?
And if you would be so kind, could you please explain to me what exactly those two sides are?
As I've already said, you need a fairly rudimentary knowledge of the tactics and goals of creationists and ID advocates to understand why this bill was "necessary".
A very brief outline:
1) Creationism was deemed a religious concept in the courts.
2) ID was invented and all religious language was stripped from it, in an attempt to pass muster with the courts.
3) ID too was declared as religion masquerading as science (only in one state, but the advocates knew that it was in trouble)
4) "Teach the controversy" became the new slogan. As there isn't one, this too has since between dropped, likely because it was the science that played a large role in ID being struck down in Dover.
5) "Strengths and Weaknesses" language is now being promoted, in the hope that it will allow teachers who want to introduce doubt in to the minds of children by erroneously "critiquing" evolutionary science.
I say erroneously because the science that school children are taught has been known for years. There is very little to critique, but there is little doubt that some teachers will use this as an excuse to fill their students heads with religiously motivated nonsense, and then point to the bill (and its ambiguity) if they are caught in the act.
If you are really a teacher — and I say this with all due respect — you may well be part of the problem. There is a disturbing disdain for knowledge contained in the statement that students are not, "affected by things that happened millions of years ago."
And of course, that could be applied to literally everything that children learn at school. If you go on to become a "roofer", what is the point of learning how to read and write? Why not just allow six year old's to learn how to "roof"? The point is that we do not know what a child is likely to excel at, or become interested in.
By the way, you appear to have no idea how many of your fellow citizens believe that the world is between 6000-10000 years old.
"By the way, you appear to have no idea how many of your fellow citizens believe that the world is between 6000-10000 years old."
Oh, I think he does - I think he himself probably believes this, and threw the "millions of years ago" comment into his post just as an attention getter.
I love SICB and I go to present at their meetings every year. When my lab found out that the choice was between Salt Lake City and New Orleans, we hoped for New Orleans. My advisor was pissed because she thought holding the meeting in Salt Lake City was a very rude move towards the gay and lesbian members of the society since the Mormon church helped fund all of that Prop 8 propaganda in California. However, I can understand why the society would choose it over New Orleans.
On a personal note, I was born and raised in Louisiana. I was a product of both their public school system and their university system. Evolution was not taught in my biology class because my teacher told us she did not believe in it. I had a developmental biology teacher at LSU who wasn't tenured who told me he wouldn't dare mutter the word evolution until he got tenured. I love my family, and they still live in Louisiana, but I am so thankful I got out of that state. The anti-science attitude is a horrible thing. My husband (who is a grad student studying evolutionary biology) and I have agreed that we will not move back and raise a family there as long as they promote scientific ignorance. The only reason I am thankful that I lived in that state is that their unwillingness to teach me evolution only inspired me to learn about it more.
I think its a very bad idea this boycott.
If scientists leave Louisiana, the creationists and similar idiots gain free terrain for their stupid ideas.
Its the same thing as a company with insuficient marketing stops selling a good product, and leaves the market, and the market will be quickly ocupied by bad products, with a strong marketing.
Sorry the poor english, its not my language! :)
Oh, I agree. And in a sense, Teacher is a terrific example of how easy it is to mask the real meaning — while still achieving your goal — in an attempt to avoid detection.
And you could even say that the caution in my reply is a terrific example of how that can affect (read: manipulate) the reaction of others to what you are doing.
Clever, huh?
People can get by in this society without knowning anything. Near where I used to live, some good old boys are illiterate. They endorse their paychecks with an X, rather than bothering with those funny little lines and squiggles called "letters".
But at what level are they functioning?
What if everyone in the USA was illiterate?
You are entitled to your own beliefs but not your own facts. Should we outlaw teaching astronomy because many fundies (26% of them) believe the sun orbits the earth like it says in the bible?
The other point to note in "Teacher"'s comment was the "older than 6,000 years" reference. Most creationists I read claim a period of 6,500 years (with it being as much as 10,000 years for "progressive IDers).
I suspect, like dean @96, the "millions of years ago" is also misdirection (note this was not in reference to creation, with a "world view" that assumes only god was around then, this too is consistent).
@ raven, do you have a source for that 26% statistic? It would be a good statistic to have on hand, but I don't like using statistics without a source.
Teacher @ 83 -- Seriously, you don't think it's important that high school grads be able to tell the difference between opinion and fact?
When you present evolution (a scientific framework that's been observed and tested for the last century-and-a-half and held up to all comers) as the intellectual equivalent of creationism (pulled directly out of someone's ass a few thousand years back), blurring the line between fact and opinion is exactly what you're suggesting.
This isn't simply about whether Louisiana's citizens come out of school and win Nobel prizes; it's about whether they come out of your schools worse off than they went in.
You're advocating making students just that much less able to think analytically, making them just that much more susceptible to bullsh|t--religious bullsh|t in particular. This goal can be framed very prettily, but make no mistake, that is the goal of the ID crowd. And--since LA schools are subsidized with federal monies--they want to do it with MY tax money.
You're also advocating that how science is taught in LA be dictated by those who despise it.
Even from here, a thousand miles away, it is in no American's interest that American children, anywhere, be raised on lies and ignorance--which is what you're supporting.
BlackCat - it was a GSS question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Social_Survey). There's a wonderful java app for playing with it here: http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/hsda?harcsda+gss06
It's the EARTHSUN variable, and it looks like about 20% of respondents said that the sun goes around the earth. You can try plotting that against religiosity, if you like.
As many know Oklahoma has a bill (SB 320) essentially identical to the law in LA. SB 320 goes before the Senate Education Committee Monday morning. The boycott by SICB and the good possibility that other scientific societies will follow will help us here. I have already distributed the SICB news release to many in Oklahoma who are opposing the bill and asked that they send it to legislators, especially the Senate Ed Committee before Monday. The negative economic impact applies not only to conferences, but also to the attraction of scientists, high-tech, med-tech businesses, etc. That economic impact argument will have more influence on the very conservative legislature than most other arguments.
The flaming idiot who calls itself "Teacher" spewed:
"Who cares what stance each state has on things that don't matter to everyday people? Is every student going to be affected by things that happened millions of years ago? Some will be doctors and scientists, but some will be plumbers and farmers. They don't care."
Okay, I see...
Some students may want to be doctors and scientists, but they're not entitled to a quality science education because some students want to be plumbers and farmers. Since "teacher" (!?!?) believes that plumbers and farmers don't need to learn science, then science is obviously a waste of time. Who cares what kind of education those silly scientist- and doctor-wannabes need? If the future farmers of America don't need to learn it, then NOBODY needs to learn it!
Also, science is very important to farming.
I forgot to mention that the Society for the Study of Evolution is scheduled to meet in Norman, OK in 2010. If the 'Academic Freedom Act' becomes law in Oklahoma, will they change their meeting site?
For the past 10 years all attempts at creationist legislation in Oklahoma have been defeated (although it took a Governor's veto last year). We do have a fairly well organized group of organizations mobilized, such as Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education, and are getting excellent assistance from national organizations. But the very conservative Legislature this session, controlled in both houses by Republicans who vote unanimously for these crappy bills, makes it difficult. The Democrat Governor may have to veto again, but that is problematical. The fight goes on.
That last line should have read:
Also, science is very important to farming, and he's an imbecile for not knowing that.
Re: my own comment from earlier
Playing around with the GSS, plotting EARTHSUN against EVOLVED (T/F human beings developed from earlier species of animals?) gets that 22.5% of people that reject evolution thought that the sun went around the earth. Just over 25% of people who absolutely trust that religious leaders have the country's best interests at heart with regard to stem cell research thought the same. It goes to 28% among people who think that religious leaders should have a great deal of influence over federal funding for stem cell research.
However, it should be noted that no group in any of these had a lower than ~15% rate of geocentrism (the lower rates being exactly where you'd expect them to be).
Yes. I've posted the primary source something like 20 times and not going to do it anymore.
The original data is from the Gallup social survey (GSS) polls, mid 2006 or thereabouts. Google is your friend.
Wikipedia has an article on geocentrism that references some of that data and probably links to the survey. The numbers are 20% for the general population, higher among the fundies.
Google is not our friend, it's just using us for sex. Or possibly the other way around.
I wholeheartedly understand the objection of hte society over Jindal; I don't find it appropriate to penalize the one non-jindalish part of the state for Jindal's mistake, though. Moreover, to object to such prudery by going to another city already established for such prudery is a bit hypocritical. Want to make a change to the mistakes of Jindal and Louisiana? Then GO TO LOUISIANA - make your objections present right there, and with aid from the non-hypocritical city of New Orleans. Otherwise, your defeating your own cause.
Menyambal @ 76,
Thank you, that was illuminating. Do you have any sources/articles about that to share, and if not, would you suggest to your wife that she might write one?
to jindal:
verb
to appease the religious right for political gain at the expense of your own constituents.
He jindaled the scientists and lost the convention and its associated spending for the hurricane battered city of New Orleans.
To whomever said farmers didn't care/need science... where would you get that idea?
My job is to represent farmers as well as agricultural retailers/wholesalers when dealing with the government. Science is what sustains the whole industry; where the fuck would we be without the Haber-Bosch process?
Our industry works hand in hand with geologists, environmentalists, biologists, chemists, veterinarians, geneticists, climatologists, etc. What happened millions of years ago matters to us because farming depends greatly on how flora+fauna evolve. Imagine that.
Nice to see a little clout being used for a good purpose.
When it is politically correct to tolerate institutionalized ignorance, political correctness has become a disease.
I'm not sure this boycott is a good idea. The religious camp show their fervor, their will to keep fighting, however dishosnetly, but still they fight. What does this boycott shows? Intelectual snubbiness? Giving up the fight when the other side scores? I'm afraid they may see this as another victory. American scientific associations just heed the "Flock fo Dodos".
Our esteemed host's "It's Alive" link is, well, dead.
Please, bring your convention to San Francisco. You will be greeted with open arms and are sure to have a fun time when you are not talking business. Guaranteed!
Farmers don't need to understand science, because pests never evolve resistance to pest control measures.
The Iowa bill will never get out of committee - at least I'd bet money it won't. It's just Republican payback to the base from the Republican minority. The house and the senate here is comfortably in Democratic control and our Democratic governor was a teacher. Not a strong fundie influence here outside of western Iowa and of course in the batshit crazy Republican party which seemingly has decided that their resounding defeat in '06 & '-08 means they should get closer to the basest of the base.
Still, it's unsettling to hear that kind of crap is floating around the statehouse. I hadn't heard about it. Iowa prides itself on being an education state, and as D. Byrd said above, science is extremely important to agriculture. Iowa State University does a lot of that science.
But I would never say it absolutely can't happen here. I'm afraid it could happen anywhere. Religious fundamentalism is the greatest threat to the world today, and I'm afraid it's going to be greatly exacerbated by desperate people looking for reassurance if the financial situation continues to deteriorate. Nothing like fear and poverty to give religion a leg up.
I never thought I'd live to see the day when a US state voted to return to the 13th century. This all seems very surreal to me.
Scrutinizing yet again the #83 post, I think that this guy may actually be teaching in a public school somewhere, either not as a science teacher or else teaching science because he was assigned the class because no other teacher was available, even though he has no real qualification to teach it.
(Let's hope its the former rather than the latter).
Either way, its clear that his religiousity trumps his view of science.
Whether he was hired to teach sociology, art, history, economics, any of the sciences, etc: what is equally clear is that, from that laissez-faire attitude of what students should learn that he expressed, he's sitting on his ass all day, jes' smilin' and having the students do activities that get them through the day, and getting paid for just being there and baby-sitting.
Because basically his attitude seems to be that you already know what you need to know to do all right in life before you step into a classroom, public schooling is basically a series of holding-cells to be spent in until hormones settle a bit at around age 17, then you go on & live your life.
That sort of person hired as a teacher wastes the students' time and the tax-payers' money, but hey, everyone personally involved is satisfied in the short run.
Maybe hired due to a teacher shortage.
Maybe he's what will be typical of the majority of future US teachers; does the general public want as teachers those who have extensive knowledge in their field, or do they want feel-good babysitters, or do they want both, or what. One doesn't attract the most former with the pay of the babysitter. And a babysitter will probably not implant any new information; at least not any new information that could possibly be at odds with anyone's preacher's views.
Pre-college public education has been and will progressively move toward the babysitting end of this spectrum, because the majority of voters consider what the alternative end entails costwise and (that silly-made-up-term) "world-view"-wise.
Whereas in the past, of course, students were taken out and shot if they expressed their own beliefs.
The question of whether there are any students and teachers suffering for their dissent from evolutionary orthodoxy has occasionally come up--it came up in Alabama in 2004, the first time an Academic Freedom bill was proposed, and again in Florida in 2008. Both times the state departments of education looked into the matter and concluded that, no, there just haven't been any such cases.
This law corrects a non-problem.
"Gagging teachers to avoid offending parents" is not generally considered an advance of civil rights, and this law conspicuously fails to protect teachers in the one area they report needing protection--namely, in teaching evolution without pseudoscientific "alternatives."
The National Science Teachers Association did an informal survey of teachers in 2005; almost one in three respondents reported significant pressure to avoid teaching evolution, or to include intelligent design or creationism. Most respondents said that pressure came from students and parents.
Thanks to this law, those teachers lose their primary defense against that pressure: the state and district requirements that they teach good science. Hooray.
As a New Orleans native, this bill and subsequent move of the conference deeply saddens me.
Teacher:
I think you’re getting most of the heat here because you’ve credentialed yourself as a teacher, which makes your imbecility even more inexcusable.
I read the text of this bill some time ago when a thread about it started on Panda's Thumb. As far as I can figure out it effectively outlaws offending anyone's religious beliefs. If I'm right, that means that any given parent will have grounds to sue the school to stop the teaching of evolution if it offends their religious beliefs and can use the lawsuit to force the science teacher to "teach both sides."
In order for any sort of meaningful communication to take place anywhere in a democracy, including and especially in the classroom, no one can have the right not to be offended by rational explanations of factual evidence presented in dry, ordinary terminology. Providing someone with a legal right not to be offended by the theory of evolution is a major deal, not a thin edge of a wedge.
Any (real) lawyers following this thread? Chime in any time.
I just looked at the law again. [Hand thunking head]. At the bottom, the summary cuts through the legalize enough for me to glean another bit of information:
The devil is in the details, or in this case, the supplemental materials. Depending on the teacher these can be the sort of crap that Freshwater used in his classroom.
I'm not impressed with the choice of SLC. A couple of years ago they almost passed an ID style bill, which may have been defeated only because of threat of Lawsuit. I have audio tapes from an educational committee meeting where a committee member related being under mormon pressure to vote for the bill. Apparently, a senior member had told her that if she voted against the bill she would be voting against the mormon church. If you hear the tapes it will make you sick. The member applying the pressure was the author of the bill. Despite the knowledge of the inappropriate behavior the bill passed out of committee and passed a senate vote. According to a well informed news reporter the bill was also expected to pass in the house and the governor had expressed a reluctance to veto the bill.
Utah has had a history of passing religiously motivated bills and spending large sums to defend them in court. As a result they started requiring a statement regarding costs, which was used as an assessment of the possibility of lawsuits and court costs. The ID bill was marked as no additional costs expected. However, as the bill moved along it was clear that the bill could be challenged in court. The bill was defeated in the house.
Incidentally, the lawmaker that was pressured by the bill's author didn't run for reelection, the bill's author did and was reelected.
The bill was Senate Bill 96 for 2006. There is a blog at:
http://senatesite.com/blog/2005/12/bill-text-curriculum-and-policy-on.h…
One of the blog comments has the text of a "Utah Eagle Forum Alert:", which is a powerful mormon group in Utah that has considerable influence with Utah lawmakers.
I also found this funny bit in the comments:
Karl Priest said...
Following are facts extreme evolutionists don't want the public to know.
1. I am a recently retired public middle school mathematics teacher in West Virginia with over 30 years experience as an educator including administration.
For the last five years of my full-time career, with the full knowledge of State, County, and ACLU officials, I demonstrated to my students that mathematics proves beyond the shadow of doubt that evolutionism is nonsense. The students saw that the evidence clearly shows that every item associated with humans, animals and plants are Intelligent Designs and Intelligent Design is science because it is observable by billions of people trillions of times, always has been, always will be. I always let them figure it out for themselves and allowed them to believe what they chose, but at least they were exposed to the scientific facts that extremists want to censor from the minds of public school students. After the lesson a student from an atheist family said, "Evolution is silly."
2. Currently, as a substitute teacher, I have contact with more public school students than ever and take advantage of every opportunity to provide them with the facts described above.
3. Evolutionists are bluffing when they say their beliefs are scientific. Be sure to look at the list of evolutionists who refuse the debate challenge from my friend Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo. See the list at http://www.csulb.edu/~jmastrop/. Click on the Life Science Prize at the bottom.
Sincerely,
Karl Priest
(address and phone number redacted but are in the blog post)
I feel a bit bad about redacting the address and phone number as that data may be the "facts" he mentions at the start of his comment.
Well, no one else has mentioned it, so I will.
In a country as litigious as the U.S., how long will it be before someone protests against teaching evolution because it discriminates against religion?
I was just thinking - maybe Louisiana is being punished for *not* having enough homosexuals, jews, and other social minorities. Just imagine if they did have more of such minorities - what are the chances that stupid laws like this one would be tolerated then?
Does anyone have a reference for the Utah law "that states that evolution is central to any science curriculum", I would like to read it.
Its not that I don't trust mormons..., well OK, it is because I don't trust mormons. I have found them to be virry virry sneaky!
I wonder if Karl Priest also teaches his students that mathematics proves bumblebees can't fly?
I support the boycott, but I don't know how much effect it will have.
The one thing you always have to know is that Louisiana had a governor's race between a KKK wizard and a womanizing, racketeering lizard. The lizard won, thank goodness. And when you can say thank goodness for an openly corrupt politician winning, things are pretty damned bad in your state.
A cousin of Edwin Edwards (said lizard) who worked in the state penis--er statehouse, once told me that all Baton Rouge is is a shakedown operation. The outcome of a lot of bills is determined by who's willing to pay the most to get it passed (or defeated). Churches tend to have deep pockets, so they get their way a lot.
Until Baton Rouge changes, or unless science is willing to grease the palms of a bunch of fucktards, I doubt this boycott will have an impact. Maybe if enough conferences boycott them, then yes. It will mean less money to go around to the pols, and they can't have that.
But reality itself discriminates against religions. We already know that every single one of them which makes testable claims (ie nearly all of them, from time to time and in their various sub-cults) is a false religion.
@Monador
See Zeno's post at #57
That is strange because the Mormon church has no such problem with evolution, at least officially. It is taught and research is done at BYU.
Might be a power struggle between ultra conservative and super ultra conservatice elements within the church.
You can bet that if the LDS church leaders wanted that bill passed, it would have passed. Utah is about as close to a theocracy as it gets in the USA. If it wasn't for that army base above the city, Fort Douglas, with its guns pointed down at the city who knows what would happen.
And some other states may already sneakily have passed anti-science bills which went unnoticed or have been forgotten by whoever is choosing where to place a conference. Which is why I asked what I asked in post #1 here.
Someone (ideally several competent someones) needs to be in charge of keeping an official list of anti-science-ness among states up-to-date. A list (with good citations and links to sources) which everyone else can then check when picking a short-list of relatively science-friendly states.
Louisianna - as in Emmy-Lou Harris's delightful 'Leaving Louisianna in Broad Daylight', and except for 'Les Freres Balfas', is mostly known for inbreeding, isn't it?
Or is my information all wrong??
Dunno about the rest of science, but you can get a quick idea of a given state's treatment of evolution on the NCSE website. Just go to our news page, filter by state, and glance at the headlines.
raven: If it wasn't for that army base above the city, Fort Douglas, with its guns pointed down at the city who knows what would happen.
Evidently nothing, since Fort Douglas was closed in 1991.
@Walton: "Flammable" as in "The stupid; it burns"
@EV #38
Part of the problem is that in pretty much all the rest of the developed world, your middle of the road is our rabid right wing. Obama for all his good qualities would likely not feel comfortable in the UK Conservative party, he would find their economic and social policies far too liberal. I realise you must take steps that are possible, but remember, the US is not the world and you are exceptional in many ways ;-)
Says the "Science" "Education" Act (yes, two pairs of scare quotes):
How is human cloning a scientific theory? TSIB.
The past is the key to the present, and to the future.
Matt Heath: By way of explanation, I don't think there was any fundamental inconsistency between my two comments.
On the one hand, I accept the reality of biological evolution, and recognise that current "intelligent design" theory is fundamentally lacking in scientific rigour and evidential support. I therefore don't support the teaching of "intelligent design" as part of high-school biology; and at #22 I was expressing my exasperation with the whole damn mess by suggesting, flippantly, that we adopt Great Green Arkleseizure Theory instead, which will unite both evolutionists and creationists in opposition to it, and will be much more interesting than either viewpoint.
By contrast, at #2 I was making a political comment about the Republican Party. Since I am not a supporter of Obama's economic policy (the current stimulus bill being the greatest disaster in a generation), I would like to see him voted out of office in 2012. However, if the GOP puts up an idiotic candidate, this will not happen. Jindal seems to be, by and large, a relatively intelligent and competent guy. But his views on religion and science are insane, and are also going to piss off moderate voters, which is why I am now hoping he will not be the candidate in 2012.
Where is the "flammable stupid" in that?
Walton - er, what species are you? It would seem from your # 143 that it's one in which a generation < 8 years - more likely, < 8 weeks ...
Oops, one kilopardon - I was referring to Walton's # 145!
Double damn! The remainder of my #146 was whacked by my having forgotten the html codes necessary for using angle-brackets in a comment here.
Let's start over: ... [Walton's apparent species is] one in which a generation is less than 8 years - more likely, less than 8 weeks ...
Time for breakfast!
Besides, most rational people already understand that the world is obviously older than six thousand years.
45% of the US population are YECs. And "Teacher" wants to increase this number, making the US the most irrational country on earth (if it isn't already).
Come to Canada, we have beer.
What is mind blowing about this is that this man was voted into office. This shows that idiocy is self perpetuating in an ever continuing downward spiral gaining dangerous momentum. Having lived in Louisiana before and being well aware of it's (oddly internally accepted) corruption, I am sad to say I am not surprised. I wonder which cousin won the lottery around this time? Just curious.
Raven @ 137
Senate Education Committee
1/17/2006 8:00:00 AM - Rm W130, West O
http://www.le.state.ut.us/asp/votes/comvotes.asp?sessionid=2006GS&votei…
You should still be able to obtain the audio of that meeting, if you can't and want it, post back here and I will try to post the relevant bits somewhere accessible.
It is true that BYU teaches biology and I think it may even be real biology that they teach. However, during my time in Utah I heard many unflattering comments about the evils of allowing 'such nonsense'. I think it is included as a necessary part of being thought of as a fully functioning university.
It is true that what the mormon church wants officially the mormon church gets. However, they very much do not want to be viewed as idiots by outsiders. They value the accumulation of wealth by the church very dearly and want outsiders to spend their dollars there. Also, they want very much to have a mormon be president of the United States, that is something that many of them believe needs to happen before their jebus will come. They are willing to embrace the destruction of the "end times" and will encourage it where possible.
My feeling at the time was that the mormon officials wanted the bill to pass but were unwilling to make an official statement. They prefer to do their "work" in non obvious ways. I'm serious when I state that they are very very sneaky.
Come to Connecticut! We love science here, despite our Republican Gov. She did help create the Connecticut Stem Cell Initiative, in Farmington we are building a whole Stem Cell Center.
We'd love to have you.
Since I am not a supporter of Obama's economic policy (the current stimulus bill being the greatest disaster in a generation)
We have a lot of people in Washington and the right-wing media making dire predictions about Obama's stimulus plan. Funny thing - the same people made the same dire predictions about Clinton's stimulus plan and were grotesquely wrong then, as well. Clinton's plan worked pretty well until the Reptilicans took the White House and systematically unraveled all the gains previously made. But of course, you knew that, and are just checking to see if anyone is going to call you on your lies.
Yeah, but I bet they'll miss the gator po' boys and drive-thru Margaritas!
OK, maybe "greatest disaster in a generation" was somewhat hyperbolic. But over $800 billion in useless pork, increased welfare payments for people to sit on their asses all day doing nothing, etc. etc...
If incurring $800 billion of debt (for future generations to suffer) is considered a good idea, then why not just make $800 billion-worth of tax cuts? That would put money back into people's pockets, improving national morale and enabling them to spend more on consumer goods, stimulating the economy - surely?
Of course, the ideal would be to cut taxes, cut spending, and massively trim down the overall size of government. But neither Republicans nor Democrats will ever do that, because it would be political suicide. Sadly, whenever you have politicians with the ability to spend money, you will get special interests, pork-barrel spending, and waste.
And, in response to Eric Saveau, this is not exclusively a "right-wing" concern, nor am I arguing from a right-wing perspective. Left and right are equally to blame for the mess America is in, because both are fundamentally statist (and politicians of both sides are happy to rail against government waste, but even more happy to vote for more of it when it benefits their constituents or their campaign contributors). The Bush administration was crap; the Obama administration is shaping up to be just as bad, but in a different way. What we need is not "right-wing" government or "left-wing" goverment, but less government all round.
" That would put money back into people's pockets, improving national morale and enabling them to spend more on consumer goods, stimulating the economy - surely?"
Not surely, because, you moron, it has been shown that cutting taxes does not increase economic stimulus - didn't work for Reagan, for example.
No doubt there is some pork in the new bill, nobody (I hope nobody is that stupid) would argue that. There have been a good many lies told about it too (witness the moron who blathered on about "money in here for mice - we've got money for mice", as one example of massive stupid and dishonesty). You give yourself away, and demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the real world, with your comment about welfare. You a really are blowtorch stupid, and most likely dishonest to the core.
This makes me so angry!
The Mormon or Catholic church for that matter are not monolithic assemblies of eloi marching in lockstep. They keep trying but herding humans is like herding cats.
No doubt some factions in the LDS church would like to get rid of evolution. I'm sure they would also like to get rid of all those annoying pagans that keep moving to Utah as well and have some real power to deal with the high flow of apostates. Some more reeducation camps in the Mormon Gulag would do nicely.
But there are likely to be other factions with different views. If you read enough LDS or Catholic literature, not that I've spent a huge amount of time on either, you find a diversity of views. The large majority of Mormons don't even live in Utah anyway.
As to a Mormon being president someday. The fundie cultists consider them seriously heretical. OTOH, who would have thought a half kenyan would ever be president?
OK, maybe "greatest disaster in a generation" was somewhat hyperbolic.
Gee, ya think?
But over $800 billion in useless pork, increased welfare payments for people to sit on their asses all day doing nothing, etc. etc...
Yeeaaah. Job creation, education, infrastructure investment, health care... useless pork. You really are a piece of shit.
Unless you were actually referring to the hundreds of billions that got funneled to Bush's favorite golfing buddies over the previous years...? Nah. Didn't think so.
What we need is not "right-wing" government or "left-wing" goverment, but less government all round.
No. What we need is transparent and accountable government of, by, and for the people. And we need it administered by people who have IQ's higher than room temperature, and who refuse to let right-wing propaganda dissuade them from doing what must be done. That last point is where honest people (you know, folks who are not like you) have cause for concern right now.
Scientists are welcome to hold their meetings in Seattle. Its a beautiful city (even in the rain). Washington has an awesome governor who wouldn't think of supporting a law to teach creationism in the classroom. Sure we have the Discovery Institute, but don't hold that against us. And we have Eastern Washington, but we here in Western Washington consider them our inbred cracker cousin and don't talk about them among decent folk.
raven:
Haha! Can't speak for the catalicks but the mor[m]ons do indeed march to the agenda to their trumpet player.
Your either don't have a clue or you know you are defending a position that is not supported by the evidence.
Check their voting record. Check the audio of the meeting I referenced, if you have the guts to do it that is.
Diane,
I intend to visit the museum and aquarium within the next two weeks. I've only driven by Seattle in the past, can't wait to see it!
Of course, the ideal would be to cut taxes, cut spending, and massively trim down the overall size of government. But neither Republicans nor Democrats will ever do that...
...because they all personally despise YOU Walton.
I know, I asked them.
They all told me YOU are the reason they refuse to cut taxes and spending more.
I accept the reality of biological evolution, and recognise that current "intelligent design" theory is fundamentally lacking in scientific rigour and evidential support
It's also lacking the actual "theory" part.
all it is is a lace doily (an expensive one at that), glued on top of the previous moniker (which also lacked the same elements) of "creation science".
nothing more, nothing less.
we proved it in court.
the only way to make it into anything remotely resembling a testable hypothesis would be for YOU (yes, you, Walton), to go track down a putative "designer" and discover exactly how said designer functions in the material world.
good luck with that.
until then, ID is no better a speculation regarding how life evolved than is your average Dungeons and Dragons manual.
"God does not play 12-sided dice with the universe. Please pass the Chee-tos."
--Dungeonmaster Bert Einstein
Saveau:
Unless you were actually referring to the hundreds of billions that got funneled to Bush's favorite golfing buddies over the previous years...? Nah. Didn't think so.
I wasn't, but I find that equally as despicable. As I said, I have little or no regard for the Bush administration. I just don't support the Obama administration either.
I don't understand why you seem so committed to this simplistic worldview in which everyone is either "left-wing" or "right-wing", and anyone who disagrees with you must be an evil right-winger. I am neither; I am an anti-statist. I support any government or party only insofar as
they reduce the size and scope of government interference, and I oppose them insofar as they increase it.
What we need is transparent and accountable government of, by, and for the people.
Bullshit. There is no such thing as "the people". Rather, there are millions of individuals, all of whom have different views, ideals, interests, desires and choices. The fact that policy X is supported by a majority of those people who happen to live in a certain arbitrary geographical area does not make it the "will of the people", because there is no such thing. Democracy is marginally preferable to dictatorship, but it is not a legitimising force.
Government is the power to destroy. It rests, ultimately, on coercive force; and democratic governance, therefore, rests on the coercion of the minority by the majority. In an ideal world we would have no government. In practice, we need one in order to delineate property rights, arbitrate contracts, and keep us from killing each other. But when government goes beyond its proper boundaries and starts spending our money in massive quantities, screwing up our currency and interfering with the way we live our lives, it needs to be stopped.
So scientists have lifted the ball cos they don't like anything "unscientific".....well go cry to mamma.
We have evolution rammed down our throats as if it were a fact yet there are gapping holes still in the evidence.
It all sounds like "we are right and if you don't agree then you are a fool". Science has become the new religion except it is founded on foolish concepts of spontaneous creation of life.
A few points...
Science has Theories, not Laws.
Evolution is as accepted and important to Biology as Gravity is to Physics.
Intelligent Design is Creationism with a global search and replace. (Actually their first release still had the editing metadata in the pdf that proved that exact action.)
Science is based on theories based on the observed facts and backed up by repeatable experiments with predictable results.
ID/Creationism is based on belief, no experimentation, no predictable results, and no observed facts, just faith...
Science does not attack religion, it does however seek to understand the universe and it's functions.
Religion often attacks science, due to both ignorance, and an inability to give up unfounded and irrational beliefs and social power. (The ignorant are easy to manipulate while science seeks to cure ignorance.)
Science and Religion can peacefully co-exist. I've talked and listened to a number of top scientists in various fields over the years. Many of them are very religious, but they don't for a second let that interfere with reality. (If your religion tells you the world is 20,000 years old, and you are studying 40,000 year old cave paintings, you either go atheist, or you realize the religious writings are spiritual and metaphorical but not literal, or you shoot yourself.) And from those I've spoken with, I would say they are more religious and have stronger faith than virtually all of the 'religious' people I've talked with.
Now a question for those who won't accept evolution.
Why is it that you think your God is so incompetent he can't even create a self adjusting system to automatically compensate for the dynamic universe in which it is intended to reside when even we lowly mortal humans can think of that? Seems to me you don't hold your God in very high esteem. Oh, and if you wonder why some primitive rock banger from thousands of years ago didn't write about such things, that's an easy one. He was so bloody primitive and ignorant to understand such a concept. And no, ignorant means lacking in knowledge, not stupid. Ignorance is cured with knowledge and education. Stupidity is for life...
"I am an anti-statist. I support any government or party only insofar as "
so anti-statist is the code word for people who can't put together a cogent argument?, and have difficulties with truth? Good to know.
#16, #167: ID belongs in a Philosophy class, not Science class.
Chip. Just because you don't understand evoltuion (which is obvious even from your short comment above) doesn't mean it is wrong.
Stay out of Canada we have enough idiots up here trying to convince the general population about this evolution bullshit.
Can't someone file a federal suit against them on grounds of separation of church and state? It seems that that alone should be able to combat this insanity.
fixed
dimwit @ 167,
Ehm,
no,and no.
Are you from Louisiana?
barasawa, apparently you know nothing about creationism to warrant a comment such as the one you posted above. Ignorance does not always carry merit in something a person does not understand. Ignorance can be derived from people who do understand, yet refuse to accept any opinions but their own. Evolutionists are that kind of people. Just because they refuse to accept creationism as fact does not make evolution a conclussive topic that all of us thinking homo sapiens need to submit to. Scientists who carry out experiments to try to prove their issues of evolution used controlled enviroments and regardless of failures, will proceed until it is made to work according to their theories. There are more discrepancies just from indifferences with evolution than there are in creationism, but when you are on the receiving end of a subject, challenges from opposite opinions are generally met with defensive arguments. You sir are proof of that.
Leon Flamick, please cite me ten articles from the peer reviewed primary scientific literature in the last five years showing evolution is false. Failure to cite these papers means you know nothing about the lack of evidence for creationism.
Hilarious
Give us one piece of scientific research that supports creationism.
Prove that statement.
Both sides are really thoughtless stupid morons. You know there is a third, possible, view to this stupid creationism vs evolution B.S.! Look, do you think that any supreme being that has a clue would "create" something that couldn't "evolve" knowing that once things start rolling things are going to change. What if there really is a God and What if during his "creationism" he created "evolutionism".
In reality, it doesn't matter, you are going to prove one way or the other, get over it and start looking for important stuff. Damn hypocrites!
Gee Rev. BigDumbChimp...you are proof also. How long have you had your "narrow minded syndrome" problems. You should for the sake of argument get yourself fixed, it is quite contagious you know, especially among the educated.
So it's close minded to ask you to support your assertions?
Evolution is NOT bullshit. Anyone who thinks it is JUST a theory needs to learn about science more.
---
A scientific fact is a controlled, repeatable and/or rigorously verified observation.
A scientific law is a statement of an observed regularity among facts, often expressible as a simple mathematical relationship.
A scientific theory is an integrated conceptual framework for reasoning about a class of phenomena, which is able to coordinate existing facts and laws and sometimes provide predictions of new ones.
---
Every section of science has a theory, law, and fact, even gravity. These "gaps" we can fill in by looking at DNA. DNA shows not only what the current animal is, but what it used to be as well.
Embryology, though with a flawed start, with a current research shows that in the development in the womb or egg the animal shows it's evolutionary history.
Radiometric dating shows the age of fossils, which is backed up by layers in the Earth given our knowledge of geology through tectonic movements, volcanic activity, and the layering process. These fossils are also EASILY comparable to other fossils to show slow transitions and follow the rules that evolution sets down. Which roughly says that human and dinosaur bones will NOT be on the same layer.
If you want to deny all of these sciences, plus anything that rooted from them directly because of the theory of evolution, by all means refuse medical treatment and expect your God to help you without the intervention of science/medicine. A study was done with people who prayed and did not pray for individuals with terminal illness. They study shows a slightly higher death rate for those that were prayed for, and it was determined that it has no affect at all. I am not saying that this disproves God, but that some people may want to rethink how deeply they depend on literalistic religions.
Religion is great, and has it's uses, but take it beyond stories with lessons and the support system for people who need emotional support, then you are tracking outside the realm of religion. If you want to teach ID or Creation, do it in your churches, because it has no play in our schools. Nor does anything religious based.
If you want to push religion into the schools, science will go toe to toe against religion and point out it's historical and scientific flaws. It isn't a bad thing though. If you know the history of these religions you know the main point of them is to pull together the community and basic lessons of morality and judgment to the forefront of people's minds.
In the US though, if you do not want Evolution, FSM, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and other views jammed down your throat then don't push Christianity down others'. This includes, not forcing your non-scientific crap down people's throat in an educational setting. Science was separated from religion because of religion, and ever since science has started excelling exponentially. So if you want to complain about this stuff, you need to learn about it enough to debate about it with someone that actually knows what they are talking about WITHOUT pulling ANYTHING from the Bible, because it has no stance in the world of science for a reason.
Leon Flamick, please cite me ten articles from the peer reviewed primary scientific literature in the last five years showing evolution is false. Failure to cite these papers means you know nothing about the lack of evidence for creationism.
p122-23, D. Wibblestone, Evolution: Reality or Myth?, Cranksville University Press, 7th ed. (2005)
I. Fatass and A. Pigg, Evolution in Perspective: Revisiting the Evidence, Comfort-Ham Journal of Biology, 2003
Oh nice,the delusion is strong in that one....
WTF?
Now my head hurts.
Yeah, it means he knows he has nothing but his faith, which is worth the electrons it is written with. In other words, a lie.
What is it with this thread? Where are all these uneducated dimwits coming from? Its funny,but in a freak show way....
"Government is the power to destroy"? Holy crap, I hope Walton never gets into government. It's possible to, you know, build things. Next up, "Cookery is the power to burn".
And that whole "No such thing as society" schtick got old before Thatcher did. There is no such thing as an ocean, only a very large number of water molecules!
We need to get a petition going, so they understand the amount of people behind this.
Chip, Evolution does NOT say life spontaneously appears. Abiogenesis says that the proteins and other chemicals were attracted together by another chemical to create RNA, but that has NOTHING to do with Evolution. Evolution is about how life changes once it exist. Abiogenesis is how life started. Like I said, do not speak on the matter unless you actually know something about it.
Creationist think that since their overly simple idea of creation explains everything that a single scientific theory does too, but that is not how science works. It breaks everything down to tiny pieces, and goes from there. The theory of everything is still in development, and is physics, not biology. The purpose of it is to tie micro and macro physics.
Nerd Of Redhead,OM...I never said that evolution was false did I, but you should know that the opinions with different scientists throughout the last 50 years have been exaggerated beyond fact. Opinions concerning evolution have had so much indifference in that same time period that its obvious that guesswork and speculation is their main tools in which to feed off of.
Changing of millions of years to billions is enough right there, I would say that's quite a gap from any realist.
Creationism can be seen from the study of the human anatomy, to plant life, to how the planets stay in perfect harmony as they journey around the sun. If you think all this started from chance, I'd suggest you remove yourselves from your academic world of higher education and get down to some practical living experience.
No one has called Poe on Leon yet?
I think boycotts are the wrong idea. The last thing our country needs is more reason for the informed and the uninformed to polarize. I think the boycott will only make certain Louisianans even more depressed (like me), and will make those who favor the state bill even happier.
Question, did the Renaissance occur because the enlightened boycotted the ignorant?
Good Job Governor! I'll be pushing for Tennessee to adopt the same legislation!! About time we got this fairytale darwinism nonsense OUT of the classrooms as fact. The whole evolution THEORY is so full of holes that theres very little to grasp hold of. It's complete nonsense! Creationism should be taught first and foremost as the Holy Scriptures is the number one source that archeologist refer to in there work, as far as determining time of events.
wait
what?
this debate is puzzling. ID is practiced every day [although some will argue that blight resistant corn is anything but intelligent]. and soon we will establish "new life forms" on other moons/planets(if we haven't already done so) ++ for intelligent design.
at the same time, virgin births are also a daily occurrence due to in-vitro fertilization. ++ for the virgin birth-based religions.
is there some topic here worth debating?
clinteas...If you head hurts, take two Tylenol, drink fluids and get plenty of rest
No, no it can not. Confirmation bias is not your friend.
Yeah, I do know that. You seem to hate Mormons. Understandable, some of my relatives live in Utah and I've been there many times. Where LDS are a majority, the gentiles and pagans are always second class citizens discriminated against.
You are also making a blatant category error. For starters, a lot of Mormons are Jack Mormons and will talk all day over a 6 pack of beer about the peculiarities of their religion. There are also splits in the leadership like any other political organization. They try to keep in hidden but it is there for anyone to see.
You keep mentioning that hearing like it proves anything. IIRC, the bill was introduced by Chris Jensen?, the kook creationist Mormon with an ugly history. It failed. The legislature in Utah is overwhelmingly majority LDS. That should tell you something right there.
As another citizen of the State of Louisiana I too have to say that I am glad to hear of this boycott.
I have been saying it for a long time that our economy is being hurt by the attack on science. People wonder why all the hi-tech jobs go to foreigners and foreign countries and this is exactly why. Of course the Christian demagogues pushing creationism and the denial of real science actually prefer the economy to be in bad shape. They rightly believe when the economy is bad more people flock to church, so destroying the economy is the best they can hope for.
Too bad power corrupts isn't one of those christian values they try and teach.
Nothing in this world is proven wrong more often than science. Science is the pursuit of truth not the truth itself. I think it is funny when people that should be seeking truth are so quick to deny anything they do not want to hear. Evolution and creation are THEORIES. You cannot prove either of them. The fact is in a few years we will find something else "scientific and know for sure that is truth". Then we can talk about how ignorant you are now. Have fun being an ostridge.
We've had several creationists who seem to all be new here (I don't recognize their names as regulars) all show up within a few hours of each other.
Are they all the same person?
I'll pay you whatever meager stipend I can afford to have you come speak at the University of New Orleans, PZ.
I'm cheap! Cover my transportation costs, feed me some cajun food, and I'm happy.
Thorn...rather nice long comment, but if evolution is not just theory, that must be why it is referred to the Theory of Evolution...makes sense. Further more, on the question of religion and how the indifferences of religion also affects the personality of humans one would be wise to look up Ephesians 4: 4-6 to realize the Bible only supports one religion, or one faith, not several. Acts 17: 24 furthers that argument in a visual perspective.
I like your statment that science ia a controlled, repeatable and/or rigorously verified observation of which I agree, of course it can be, but controlled, repeatable and observed in the matter of how evolution is applied cannot. There were no witnesses to the evolution theory, yet there were witnesses to Biblical accounts. Even scientists who use practical measures based on secular history and archeologist findings calculate humans being in existance on this earth to around 6000 years. Notice I said humans, not the earth itself.
I also like the study conducted on ones who prayed and ones who did not. Prayer is a matter that can never be manipulated in experiment or otherwise. It is a private conversation between the individual and God themselves and the expectation of prayer does not gain motivation by instant gradification or meism. Those are human traits, they are not a product of the true God.
In order to preceive blessings from God you must recognize who he is, you must be sincere in heart as God reads the heart, (man cannot comprehend such a quality) and you must have an accurate knowledge of God's word. When you studied the Theory of Evolution, you did not aquire its knowledge in a day did you, it takes years. You do not read one scripture and pray expecting something to come out of it do you? Yet that is what people do.
There is science in the Bible, maybe not given in detail, but its there. Science cannot go toe to toe with religious context because the teachings of churches and the holy scriptures are 2 different concepts and the only way to get varification of that is to vigorously study its interpetations. Most people do not want such a challenge in their lives, so the sincerity to learn is never applied fully and that's why organized religion has always failed its members.
There were no witnesses to the evolution theory, yet there were witnesses to Biblical accounts.
I've seen Penn and Teller shows, too - but I'm not building a religion out of the fact that they were able to fool me.
You're silly when you say you don't accept the after-the-fact and highly consistent evidence of evolution (which is everywhere) but are willing to accept anecdotes written by people who weren't there long after something supposedly happened.
There is science in the Bible, maybe not given in detail, but its there.
Yeah. You're right. They rounded Pi off to three. Not detail, but - it's there.
You, sir, are a dumbass.
That's right, conform to the ruling orthodoxy or be punished! Darwinism is as much a religion as Christianity ever was; it takes great faith to overlook the lack of evidence for it.
Leon's got a point. If it's not just a theory, why is it called the Just A Theory of Evolution?
gotcha!
At least Newton came up with some Laws and chewy cookies. Darwin sucked!
They can be falsified. Creationism was falsified centuries ago. It lost big time in the forums of science and educated and intelligent scholars. It is just bronze age mythology.
Evolution has not been falsified despite 150 years of merciless attack. The US National Academy of Sciences says at this point, it is not likely to be falsified. The hardest theories to falsify are ones that...are correct.
The first people to have doubts about Genesis were the founders of the modern xian church in around 400 AD. St Augustine and several theologians thought the whole thing sounded like a story. Creationism has been on the downhill slide ever since.
Not really, but what has been changed in science is called progress.
Please explain what the hell you mean there.
Surprise. Someone who doesn't know that the word theory means.
Shouldn't there be an internet law about this?
Leon Flamick:
The word "theory" doesn't mean that the "Theory of Evolution" is in doubt. It's a word with different meanings in different areas. Consider other theories such as music theory, game theory, group theory or theoretical physics. It means something like "a bunch of rules".
The theory of evolution makes falsifiable predictions about the outcome of future experiments. For example, digging up a previously hidden fossil reveals things that could falsify evolution because it relates outcomes of dating procedures to stages of development (I'm not knowledgable about the details but someone here will correct me if I'm wrong).
Supernatural religious beliefs are not falsifiable, so it's not impressive that they have persisted: no matter how wrong they are, no discovery could ever have disproved them.
Rev.BigDumbChimp...what do you mean, "no, no it can not?" It sure as hell can. From a evolution perspective human survival would be impossible regardless how many more billions of years you tact on to the exaggerated numbers they have now. Nothing happens by chance, absolutely nothing. The planets never came together and started rotating around the sun without a powerful and intelligent creator controlling them. Our delicate ego system on earth would not exist if it weren't for a creator keeping everything in check.
Except for man who is messing up this earth with his so called wisdom of scientific research. I mean think about it, can you really trust the word of a creature that is sole bent on detroying his water & air (essentials for life) all for the sake of the almighty buck.
The last I heard scientists are paid a good wage, so coming up with new innovations whatever the subject can also be profitable.
Ivan Durkov:
"That's right, conform to the ruling orthodoxy or be punished! Darwinism is as much a religion as Christianity ever was; it takes great faith to overlook the lack of evidence for it."
rewrite
That's right, conform to the ruling orthodoxy or be punished! Christianity is as much a religion as it ever was; it takes great faith to overlook the lack of evidence for it.
fixed!
Still no peer reviewed scientific papers from the creationists, which means no evidence whatsoever for their inane ideas.
Ivan - you wrote this about evolution.
"it takes great faith to overlook the lack of evidence for it."
Several typos - they are fixed here.
"it takes immense stupidity to overlook the evidence for it."
Leon (if that is your real name) about "Our delicate ego system"
Apparently your ego system is dented by the fact of evolution - so much so you refer to a book that has been written and re-written over the past 2500 years. I "ego system" of scientists is fine, thank you; we're just tired of attacks from people who have no clue about what is and what is not science.
Leon Flamick
You totally avoided what I said.
"A scientific theory is an integrated conceptual framework for reasoning about a class of phenomena, which is able to coordinate existing facts and laws and sometimes provide predictions of new ones."
That is why it is called the Theory of Evolution. A scientific theory is not the same as theory in common day use. Like I said, if you do NOT know anything about the science, you should not talk about it. If you knew ANYTHING about science you would know that in science a theory is different than common day use of the word. Evolution isn't only a scientific theory, it has more evidence than almost all other theories in science today!
NO reputable scientist disagrees with evolution, and not reputable scientist agrees with intellegent design. Anatomy sides with EVOLUTION not ID. The reason for this is the appendix, tonsoles, and other organs that current man no longer needs. (Appendix used to be used to deal with bacteria, mainly from eating raw meat.) The tailbone is not needed as well. If we were designed, then the muscles could just as easily attach to the end of the hip instead of the tail bone, which is another reason why anatomy supports evolution, not ID.
I dont know where you get that the planets go around in perfect harmony around the sun, because they definitely do not! There are things smashing into each other constantly. I suggest that you look into the academic world and realize that you are using simple explanations for things far more complex than you want to realize.
Every religious text says it supports only one religion, one faith, and it the one truth. So don't feed me that load. I have read the whole Bible, and also found sites with the earliest texts of the Bible, and translated them. If your Bible is in English, it is wrong. Most of the stories keep to the same concept, but it is EXTREMELY different from the text it originates from. You should be wiry about that. You really should research the origins of the Bible, and the changes it went through. The English version we have in the US are no where near what the original text says mainly because of the dark ages.
Scientists that dated back humans dated beyond 10,000 BC. So that is 12,000 years ago. These are humans as we know them today too. Genetically and with the concept in tools that native Americans had.
As for the pray research, the people praying were people of FAITH, and were praying for loved ones. That is how they were found to begin with, while the people who did not pray were not people of faith.
You are right, most people do not want that challenge to their lives, and most people are religious. They do not study their religion and learn what the original texts say. Seriously, go back and research your religion, the origins of the Bible, what the original text says, and you will be amazed.
For those of you unfamiliar with Louisiana politics, the creation bill passed with overwhelming majorities in both houses not because the legislators are anti-science, or even because they are religious. It passed because legislators didn't think it was important, and most of all, because they didn't see any downside to a yes vote. They did see a downside to a no vote. The Louisiana Family Forum, a prime supporter of the bill, can make life and re-election very difficult for a legislator who crosses them. Only in "liberal" New Orleans can a legislator thumb his/her nose at the LFF. Consequently, the few no votes came from New Orleans.
This boycott is very important because it shows that we (bill opponents) were right when we said it would hurt the state. Next time, maybe we can show there is a real downside to pleasing the LFF.
Before you know it, acts of science will be banned within Louisiana, as with other anti-science states.
Leon, if you want to take your Bible so literally, then you should think about the whole Adam and Eve. Adam gave his rib for Eve, and according to the teachings of the Bible, that means men should have 1 less rib than women. If you know anything about human anatomy, you know that isn't true.
#217 - The legislators' action certainly has given Louisiana a lot of bad press. I wonder if it could affect general tourism as well as science organization conferences. And when job applicants are looking at the science position ads, they might have second thoughts about applying to Louisiana.
Thorn, you said: "Can't someone file a federal suit against them on grounds of separation of church and state? It seems that that alone should be able to combat this insanity."
We're working on it. What it takes is an incidence of creationism being taught under cover of this statute. We don't have that, yet.
The statute isn't specific enough for a facial challenge. It has to be challenged as applied.
Source?
Care to back that up? Just saying something doesn't make it true.
I assume you mean ECO system. Once again, just saying something doesn't make it true. Back it up with something that demonstrates what you are claiming. Do a search on pubmed or PLOS for evolution. Then show me the competing creationism, or ID if you prefer, science.
You're an idiot. You do realize you too are a human?
Meaning exactly what?
@J. Michael Malec - Thank you... it is good to know that people are on top of that.
@everyone - Sorry if I been a little too aggressive, I got distracted by my work, and haven't eaten much today. So I tend to get a little aggressive... That is actually more support for evolution, because the use of becoming aggressive while hungry would help in the hunt of food.
Freedom of religion is great... so is freedom of speech. But creationists really are a stubbornly ignorant bunch.
Not only should meetings of this type be moved. Studies on the biology of Louisiana should be done from outside the state, keeping funding in other states as well. Let them go back to the dark ages. Maybe they can use their magical thinking to turn lead into gold...LOL
Well Marcus Ranum, I might not be the sharpest knive in the drawer, but a dumbass, maybe after a few snorts of Snapps possibly, but in all relative issues...not a chance.
You say I'm silly because I don't accept the after the fact and highly consistant evidence of evolution (which is everywhere) and creationism is not? Evolution is not consistant. I've been on this planet 62 years and I've seen, heard and read many changes to the evolution theory, not just in years and numbers, but scientists themselves who cannot agree on all matters. Too bad I didn't keep a reference on some of that information.
I accept facts, not specualtion on controlled experiments. Now with the accounts given in the Bible, Moses, who delivered his people out of captivity in Eygpt knew he camped out in the desert below Mt Sinai, enough to write it down. Noah knew enough about the conditions on earth during his time when God brought a deludge upon mankind. Man was very violent in those days (same today), yet people still went about their businesses, marriages, etc. He recorded that also, before & after the fact. Now, what makes you think these facts are no more fictious than the Constitution of the United States drawn up in 1776, or Columbus discovering America in 1492 as being hard pressed to accept. You weren't there...were you?
Scientific facts, how about Isaiah 40: 22 and there were some people who thought the world was flat. Deuteronomy 23: 13 gives advice for good hygiene, yet look what happened during the middle ages when man ignored that scientific fact. It rains on righteous people's crops as well as unrighteous.
There is a saying, maybe not as popular as the original, as it reads..."it takes a dumbass to know one"...of which we can both be fortunate that we do not know each other,... at least keeping the labelled vulgarities to a minimum. Isn't that an evolutionary great idea.
Fundamental Christianity has to discredit science; to them it is the anti-Christ that totally discredits their beliefs, when in fact, Science continually reveals us the beauty and majesty of the First Cause!
Every Professional Organization should boycott any State so inclined.
One should note that most States that lean Right are the most uneducated States in America!
It is the duty of every citizen according to his best capacities to give validity to his convictions in political affairs.
- Albert Einstein
The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing...
- Albert Einstein
The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis.
- Dante Alighieri
While we are at it; I would suggest everyone join in the boycotting of sponsors of the Sean Hannity Show. No one in America distorts the truth more than Hannity!
@Walton #166-
I don't understand why you seem so committed to this simplistic worldview in which everyone is either "left-wing" or "right-wing", and anyone who disagrees with you must be an evil right-winger.
Then you demonstrate multiple levels of failure in understanding – first, in believing that I am “committed to this simplistic worldview” when I am merely utilizing widely used labels that usually have at least a fair degree of accuracy; second, in mistakenly thinking that I have described the continuum of worldviews as being merely left- or right-wing when I have not; third, in assuming that I simply ascribe any disagreement with me as being “right-wing”; and fourth; in failing to realize or acknowledge that the specific libertarian/conservative views you explicitly espouse are the exclusive province of those who, at least in America, self-identify as right-wing (and count as “left-wing” any who disagree with them).
Bullshit. There is no such thing as "the people". Rather, there are millions of individuals, all of whom have different views, ideals, interests, desires and choices.
Yes, and there is a term for that body; it is called “the people”. To argue that differences among individuals mean that there is, or can be, no larger collective interest that serves them as a whole, or that such interests can or should be administered by something other than a strong governmental body that both enforces, and is bound by, the rule of law is to choose naive fantasy over clear reality. You would be well served by reading the works of America’s Founders; you might gain an understanding of the historical basis for the principle which you ignorantly dismiss as “bullshit”.
Government is the power to destroy. It uses sonic death rays against the Noble Capitalists who are the highest form of life on Earth and the evil government denies us the use of Rearden metal through coercion and property rights and contract rights are the only rights we should care about and John Galt fucked Dagny Taggart with his motor in order to expiate your sins blah blah blah zzzzzzzzzz…
Government, at its most basic, is the result of the need to create and enforce laws for the maintenance of public security and social order. In a democracy, in principle government rests on the consent of the governed. The degree to which it succeeds or fails depends on the degree to which an informed electorate engages in informed participation. In practice, there is always a concerted effort on the part of reactionaries (typically self-identified as “conservatives”) to do away with the “informed” part of consent and participation with a two-pronged attack that consists of propaganda (i.e: Fox News and talk radio), and the erosion of public education (often specifically targeting science education). This paves the way for the gross mischaracterization of taxation as being somehow evil and of the private sector as being somehow more efficient and capable of promoting the public good than any practice of government. Obviously no practice of government is perfect, and no proponent of strong government has ever claimed otherwise, but we don’t need to ascribe to any such notion in order to recognize that the conservative/Libertarian dream of “shrinking government to the size where it is small enough to drown in a bathtub” can only result in a society where the strong and wealthy few can impose their will upon those whom they keep weaker and poorer than themselves with no restrictions and no fear of reprisal. The attempts by conservatives/Libertarians to pretend otherwise do not fool us; we remember well the warning that “we must guard against the Excesses of the Monied Interests”, and so we know that your goals are selfish and destructive and need to be stopped.
ostridge
tact
deludge
But, somehow, this one sez it all:
Excuse me, but as a deity, I can probably clear a few things up for you Intelligent Design believers.
Yes, evolution is how it happens. It's a lot easier for me to let life sort itself out instead of meddling with every single strand of your DNA; I mean, the Earth is one HELL of a crowded place, there's billions and billions of you, and that's just the humans. Don't even get me started on the insects. Intelligent Design? More like extra work I don't have time for. DNA is great stuff, it knows what should go where after a lot of trial and error and experimentation. It's slower, but more reliable. Plus it leaves me more time to work on my tan.
Second, I'm getting tired of people endlessly debating this. If I'm supposed to be omnipotent and omniscient, then don't I know my system a lot better than you guys do? Stop making me look like an idiot and arguing for me; you ID guys are wrong. I like your enthusiasm, and I hope that eventually you'll use it on my behalf, instead of against science.
And lastly, I appreciate you religious guys trying to get my name out, but can you please be a little LESS ridiculous about your methods? I mean, I don't want wars started in my or any other God's name; it's bad for business, you see. I don't want people tearing each other apart because they can't be bothered to focus on the message of religion (which was boiled down nicely by the philosophers Bill and Ted: Be Excellent to Each Other), but instead focus on making everyone else believe as they do. Stop that, it really annoys me.
Just be good people, stop trying to advance incorrect theories in my name, and stop complaining because the facts are against you and you don't want to give up an antiquated belief that has no real place in this modern world of scientifically-proven fact.
Leon, I apologize for whoever called you a dumbass. He's human, and he evolved from a chimpanzee just like you and me, so sometimes we all get a little emotional. You just need to realize that people should learn about religion in church, and they should learn science in school. Forming your opinions is a great thing, and you shouldn't push your beliefs on other people. To say that evolution is a fantastical idea while accepting that some guy parted an ocean is a little naive... that's all.
Now with the accounts given in the Bible, Moses, who delivered his people out of captivity in Eygpt knew he camped out in the desert below Mt Sinai, enough to write it down. Noah knew enough about the conditions on earth during his time when God brought a deludge upon mankind. Man was very violent in those days (same today), yet people still went about their businesses, marriages, etc. He recorded that also, before & after the fact. Now, what makes you think these facts are no more fictious than the Constitution of the United States drawn up in 1776, or Columbus discovering America in 1492 as being hard pressed to accept. You weren't there...were you? Leon Flamick
What a complete load of bilge. Two hundred years of biblical scholarship has established that Genesis and Exodus were written, by many people, in the first millennium BCE - centuries after Moses lived, if he ever did. Geology has established conclusively that there was never a global flood - and that the Earth is around 4.65 billion years old. Genetics shows conclusively that we do not all descend from a single family. Both the writing of the Declaration of Independence and Columbus's voyages are attested to in multiple independent sources, and neither is shown to be false by contradicting scientifically established facts.
One more thoroughly established fact: you, Leon Flamick, are an ignoramus.
MIke (#225)-- Another approach that we could use would be to help by widely publicizing this information about scientists boycotting Louisiana. I would think most lawmakers and citizens don't want their state to be the butt of jokes. Maybe we should do what we can by getting these types of posts voted up on digg, reddit, and other places. Just a thought.
If a Louisiana science teacher, teaches a "non christian" creationist theory, the law will get dropped from the books, faster than you can say, Noahs Ark. The christian creationists will freak out, but will have boxed themselves into a logic hole they can't dig out of, without repealing their stupid law.
It would really be funny if Johnny comes home with a tale of how Vishnu created the Universe and sits on a lotus pad. LOL
Agnostic & Atheists are very welcome to move to Canada if they choose. I've tired of the push of so called Anti-Creationism Scientists pushing and trying to "Prove" religion out of existance. The Campaign to overrule faith with science is a war with no victory.
I believe that is called the League of Anti-Creationism Scientists.
And no you can't see the secret lair.
Saveau @#228: re the John Galt references, how many times do I have to explain that I am not a Randian Objectivist? I've never even read Atlas Shrugged or the Fountainhead, for crying out loud. (The former being one of the longest books ever published in the English language, I have better things to do with my life.) Objectivism is a whole epistemological and moral philosophy - to which, as I've made clear, I don't personally subscribe - whereas libertarianism is merely a political inclination.
Trying to discredit all classical liberals and libertarians by equating us with Rand is as intellectually dishonest as trying to discredit all leftists by equating them with Marxism-Leninism.
I'll respond to the rest of your points tomorrow, I have an essay to write.
JesusCreatesEvenScientists, America is NOT a religious state. Using your standard, then everyone who doesn't believe exactly as you do should just get the hell out of your country-sized church. This is exactly the sort of thing about religious nuts I can't stand: anyone who doesn't share your exact beliefs is a threat to society and must be removed, or some stupid shit. Get over yourself, Science is right and can be proven right.
Just saying something about evolution doesn't make it correct or true also. Don't need to back up something you can see for yourself. The world stays precisely on it's same course, it spins around on its same axis ever since it was created. After billions of years you'd think it would swerve off course, after all there was, according to you, no creator to keep those facts in balance.
I am human yes, but I cannot control my evironment can I? Could I stop the big corporates from ruining the earth? I do my part as efficent as I possibly can knowing the circumstances that all of us face everyday, like recycling discarted materials on the ground, driving my vehicle to a minimum, by not thinking I'm a know it all simply because someone does not agree.
Even though I do not consider you an idiot because you have valid points with your issues, but maybe you and Thorn should get together for lunch, sounds like you may be hungry also.
Oh yes, meaning that there are people out there who will do and say anything for money, there is no discretion among scientists, after all, wasn't there a famous person who quoted..."the wisdom of man is foolishness in the eyes of God!"
It is comforting to see these groups revealing that they have more interest in Politics and 'getting in the news' than in real Science.
Heather,
You said, "I would think most lawmakers and citizens don't want their state to be the butt of jokes."
You would think that, but in my ten years of making that argument to Louisiana legislators, what I've found is:
They don't care.
That's why a boycott, or anything that hurts economically is important. Nothing gets their attention like money.
Leon, I'm still waiting for my peer reviewed scientific journal articles showing creationsim/ID are viable scientific theories, and not just religious theories pretending to be science. Show some evidence or shut up.
Ha! Just checked this thread out. Wow! That Leon seems like a lively troll. Going to have to back track. For the record, just because a nameless famous person said does not mean that there is any merit to it. But it made me laugh, Leon trying to shine up his own foolishness.
Did anyone actually read the bill? I'm not sure I see anything really wrong with it, I'm an atheist if that matters at all.
http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=472973
"Proposed law provides that the legislation only protects the teaching of scientific
information, and this section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine,
promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote
discrimination for or against religion or non-religion."
good grief you are dense.
We have the research. We don't have to just say that evolution is supported by the evidence we can SHOW YOU.
PLOS
PUBMED search for evolution.
If that doesn't float your boat, go to any University worth a damn and head to the biology department. Start asking questions.
Go here and start reading.
Educate your self man. Seriously.
As a non-American, I am totally shocked that such extreme people have actually been elected to positions of public office in America. Are the inhabitants of the state of Louisiana really ignorant enough to elect politicians who favour medieval. fundamentalist. extremist religious dogma over our best attempts at substantiating the actual facts governing the physical make-up of our world?
I really fear for the inhabitants of Louisiana now. We all can see what other religious extremists have done to their countries' standing in the world. Who thinks the Taliban were a sensible regime? Who thinks George Bush and his regime were a sane government? Who supports the Israeli racists' attempts at lebensraum, as they ethnically cleanse the Palestinians from their own land? Does anyone think that the Ayatollah is sane?
Religion is universally bad, and has proven itself to be so.
Religion is religion, because it is impossible to substantiate any of the extreme claims of its leadership. Delusional people who make such claims can be highly dangerous, and should be subject to psychiatric observation. If you spew ideas that can't be substantiated by concrete verifiable fact, expect severe ridicule. Expect mockery. Why is less than 30% of the UK population now afflicted by this disease. Simply put, medieval mumbo-jumbo simply doesn't wash with those who have more than a peanut between their ears.
Holy flying spaghetti monster! Who let the crazies in? Leon, you are so incredibly ignorant it hurts. Do yourself a favor and actually read something credible on evolution.
WOW, this entire concept of creationism and evolutionism sure got the old hair rising didn't it.
Hey, I believe in creationism, if you people believe in evolutionism, then that's fine, do your thing. If the prophecies are correct all of you will find out very soon anyways and the subject will be dumped...forever.
I would love to stick around and dole on this computer, but with all the resistance, its hard for an old guy like me to keep up, so I'll bid you all a good day and I think I'll go out into the garage and work on my 1962 Chysler 2 dr htp and finish painting my 1940 Chevy sedan. I do know both these vehicles were created, they didn't evolve from a bucket of bolts, screws and metal.
Great, he is too old and set in his ways to realize the truth. All well, that is a lesson we can all learn from. Actually be open minded at all times, not only open minded to our side of the story. I have given every religion I know of a chance to prove itself, and have an open door policy on that for a reason.
I have read through creationist proof over and over, and ignoring evolution, their proof is illogical at best. No science backs it up.
Leon, I hope you find this article below interesting at least, but I hope you pull something from it to make you actually open up your mind and research more. I can not say God does not exist, but I can easily say that any English version of the Bible in the US is bullswap. I don't say that lightly either. When I was a Christian, I was astonished by the actions of the church, and how it pulled so far away from the original text. Not only that, but refused to go back to the original text and reevaluate their positions.
http://sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/40819/title/First_rough_draft_of…
For other religious facts though:
Christianity was against marriage until 1200 AD because it was an earthly tie to this life that has no meaning other than to serve God. Marriage was only a distraction from that. (In rough, this actually means that the church should has no say in marriage at all.)
At Leon stated, the church said the world is flat, which we know it isn't. It is easy to prove it isn't flat in many ways too.
Noah's flood happened, but it was NOT a global flood, but it was a flood in present day Iraq, Noah was a Sumerian business man, not a farmer. (We have tablets and geological records that support this story. The flood was caused because of ice melting at the end of the ice age.)
Jesus, only recorded history of him was by the Bible. It was claimed that he was one of many different men going by a different name in many locations where historians recorded events, but the events didn't match up with the Bible AND the men were recorded in other records that show other wise. (And you would think the historians would kind of note, "hey this guy says he is the son of God.") That doesn't say Jesus wasn't real, but that not all the stories were him. That does NOT discredit the fact that Jesus could have been a real person, or that he was a good person.
And that is it for Christian related things I learned through my life.
As for Evolution changing. The core concept has ALWAYS stated the same with Evolution, germ theory has changed more. The dates you are talking about have nothing to do with evolution in all reality. Just as they have nothing to do with milk. Dating procedures change and become more accurate. As of lately, dating procedures have cut the dating range of things in half compared to 30 years ago.
Dating is done blindly, meaning that the people doing the dating procedure do not know what they are dating and where it came from. It is tagged with a serial number, and that is all they know it by. If the employees find out what they are dating their results are thrown out, and the dating process is restarted with a new serial number, and sometimes a different company all together. It is still blind no matter what though, so using the same person wouldn't even affect the dating results, because they wouldn't know. These people are dating thousand and thousands of things a year too. So it isn't like they only get one thing a month and that is all they have to do and could find out easily what it is.
Leon Flamick #239 wrote:
I don't understand this. Why would the earth stop spinning and swerve off course for no reason at all? You don't require extraordinary miraculous interventions into the ordinary course of nature -- if you're only talking about the ordinary course of nature.
The nice thing about the system of science is that it's deliberately set up to catch cheaters. Not only does everything have to be replicable, but if any scientist can show that some respected scientist was wrong, then he gains in credit and stature himself, and aids in progress. Scientists have all the same flaws and foibles as other people, though I suspect few of them are stupid enough to go into science "for the money."
Contrast this with religion, where you begin with a guru or wise man who can't be checked on, and then try to hand down his teachings as carefully as possible, without 'improving' them. They need no improvement.
Of the two systems, only the first one assumes that man is 'foolish' enough to need checks and balances. The second system is based on trust that at least one man is perfectly wise, and that all those who agree with this man are perfectly right.
Oh yes, the flying spaghetti monster...how are you doing, nice to hear from you. please, have a nice day!
Does anyone else get fed up with kooks who can't spell, can't write legibly, and conflate unrelated issues endlessly - yet manage to quote chapter and verse from their favorite story book?
If they are such damned good scholars as to have almost encyclopaedic knowledge of their babble - they should have the ability to at least spell correctly!
But back on topic:
Chris: The worrying component of the bill is that it allows ID & other religiously motivated controversies a free ride into the classroom at the sole discretion of the teacher to provide that
The definition of scientific is whatever the teacher chooses it to be. I'm not at all sanguine about the prospects for science education in Louisiana as a result of this bill.
Trying to discredit all libertarians by equating us with Rand is as intellectually dishonest as trying to discredit all leftists by equating them with Marxism-Leninism.
No. It isn't. Rand is the milk that the Milton Friedmans and Alan Greenspans and Grover Norquists of America drank deeply of and then vomited all over the rest us. The fact that Rand had some views do which you do not subscribe has no bearing on the her economic fantasies or their starring role in your own free-market porn.
When you get to the house of failed ideas, tell Paley we all said hello.
Well Marcus Ranum, I might not be the sharpest knive in the drawer, but a dumbass, maybe after a few snorts of Snapps possibly, but in all relative issues...not a chance.
First off, I un-apologize for Matt @#231 attempting to apologize for me. I called you a "dumbass" because "ignorant shithead" was probably too crude. I was trying to be nice.
.. least keeping the labelled vulgarities to a minimum
What the fuck is a "labelled vulgarity" you pompous cretard? If that was an attempt to sound like less of a dumbass, it didn't work very well.
I accept facts, not specualtion on controlled experiments.
No, you accept bullshit, and you've got just enough brains to maybe feel a bit uncomfortable about doing it. But instead of trying to figure out what's bullshit and what's not, you simply try to come up with desperate excuses to keep from confronting the fact that you're a sucker who's fallen hook, line, and sinker, for an ancient con.
PS -
Now, what makes you think these facts are no more fictious than the Constitution of the United States drawn up in 1776
Written in 1787, you dumbass.
Saveau: No. It isn't. Rand is the milk that the Milton Friedmans and Alan Greenspans and Grover Norquists of America drank deeply of and then vomited all over the rest us. The fact that Rand had some views do which you do not subscribe has no bearing on the her economic fantasies or their starring role in your own free-market porn.
No one is denying that Rand was and is a profound intellectual influence on the libertarian movement - just as Marx was and is a profound intellectual influence on the left. But just as many leftists are extremely far removed from Marxism, so too many libertarians are extremely far removed from Objectivism. And, indeed, Rand thought, and many of her followers today still contend, that moderate libertarians like myself are worthless scum (just as Lenin thought the Mensheviks were scum).
Objectivism is a philosophy of life based on the twin tenets of objective reality and rational egoism, and rejecting altruism. It's more comparable to a religious and ethical code - like those of Christianity, say, or Confucianism - than to a political ideology. By contrast, libertarianism is simply a moral position on a certain issue - namely, the morality of state coercion.
Conflating Objectivism and libertarianism is, therefore, rather like conflating, say, Jainism and pacifism. The former is a religious and moral belief system, whereas the latter is an ethical position on a particular issue and tells you nothing about a person's other beliefs. Whereas all Jains are pacifists, not all pacifists are Jains; one can be a Christian pacifist, or a Buddhist pacifist, or an secular humanist pacifist. Likewise, libertarianism is compatible with a number of different religious and moral belief systems; Objectivism is not.
Does anyone else get fed up with kooks who can't spell, can't write legibly, and conflate unrelated issues endlessly - yet manage to quote chapter and verse from their favorite story book? If they are such damned good scholars as to have almost encyclopaedic knowledge of their babble - they should have the ability to at least spell correctly!
What makes you think they have encyclopaedic knowledge of the Bible? They can simply open biblegateway.org or en.wikisource.org in a separate browser window, and copy-and-paste. Any idiot can quote; indeed, excessive quoting is usually a sign that one needs to fill up space when one doesn't have a clue what one is talking about (as any student who's ever written an essay while drunk will attest).
No one is denying that Rand was and is a profound intellectual influence on the libertarian movement - just as Marx was and is a profound intellectual influence on the left.
Er, no. Marx is regarded by liberals as a very specific product of the nineteenth century, a man with arguably noble intentions crippled by naive wishful thinking. Some of his thought is worth a nod, but he is hardly the influence on modern liberalism that Rand is on libertarianism. To claim otherwise is to lie.
The rest of your reply is your standard incoherent reguritation of other people's talking points, and therefore ignored.
Sorry Hefrick, I don't read fiction.
Why not? You read the bible don't you?
The rest of your reply is your standard incoherent reguritation [sic] of other people's talking points, and therefore ignored.
Of course it was a "regurgitation of other people's talking points" - due to the fact that we were discussing Ayn Rand's views, not my own. What do you expect?
But, of course, you are too lazy to respond to the substantive distinction which I was drawing between libertarianism and Objectivism.
And stop appropriating the word "liberal". You leftists have no claim on any word which stems from the same root as "liberty", because you don't believe in liberty. You believe in collectivism and coercion. The true liberals are classical liberals, in the tradition of Smith, Mill and Hayek, who advocate small government, individual rights and free markets. Have the courage to call yourself what you are - that is, a statist and socialist.
Btw, I'm thinking that (with your permission) we should take this discussion either to your blog or to mine (if you desire to continue it), rather than cluttering up this thread, to which it's substantially irrelevant.
So Leon why are you even here? You take pride in the fact that you are ignorant. You have proved to be a liar. What can you possibly gain by continuing to make an ass of yourself?
As a scientist I support this act. While many may feel that the evidence and data are only open to one interpretation, as scientists we must be open minded to other possibilities than just the ones that hold to our own philosophies or world views. The scientific method only works with the material world around us; it cannot measure or teach history, philosophy, art, logic, etc. It only works with things that are material. Therefore, science cannot rule out whether or not a higher power exists or whether or not that power or being played some role in the development of the material world because that being would be outside of the material world and therefore outside of the realm of science. Scientists should learn to keep to science and not to impose their own philosophies and views on others, which, after all, is the very thing they accuse others of doing.
And stop appropriating the word "liberal". You leftists have no claim on any word which stems from the same root as "liberty", because you don't believe in liberty.
We will not stop using the word (we have not "appropriated it" it), because liberty is most definitely something we cherish, in stark contrast to freedom-hating conservatives such as yourself. Have the courage to call yourself what you are - that is, a corporate supremacist and a child-raping fascist. I see no need to continue this at your blog or mine, since you continue to make it very clear that the only thing you know how to do is lie.
as scientists we must be open minded to other possibilities than just the ones that hold to our own philosophies or world views.
As a scientist, you would know full well that science is not about "philosophies" or "world views", but about data.
The scientific method only works with the material world around us; it cannot measure or teach history, philosophy, art, logic, etc.
It uses logic, and does illustrate the use of same. As to the rest, so what? I know of no scientist who claims otherwise, or that it should be otherwise. Do you?
Saveau,
You are a complete maniac.
And you're right, on reflection - there is no point in continuing this discussion. Trying to reason with you is as futile and painful as trying to demolish a brick wall with one's skull.
You clearly have a deep-seated, partisan hatred of the "political right" (which you appear to see as some kind of monolithic conspiracy, rather than, as it actually is, a loose umbrella term for a diverse array of movements).
The rest of us try to be more open-minded. I don't hate the left; I have many left-leaning friends. I also have traditionalist/conservative friends. I am personally neither (though I have been both during the course of my life); I'm a free-market neo-liberal. But I respect the fact that there are legitimate and rational arguments for other viewpoints.
You, sadly, seem to believe that socialism (I refuse to call it liberalism) is The Truth, and that everyone who dissents from it must be either stupid, deluded, or a corrupt liar.
Walton follows the age-old trick of resorting to name-calling and lies when he's cornered. Not a surprise, given the lack of thought his posts.
Back to the original point: has there been any response from anyone in Louisiana's government over this, or has it flown under their radar?
No where in that legislation is there even a minor mention of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or of His Noodly Appendages - I am SHOCKED! SHOCKED, I SAY! That an enlightened state such as Louisiana would update its science cirriculumn, and yet surely they would want to tell the truth about how the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world.
I shall join the Science community in its boycott of Louisiana and New Orleans.
I doubt you are a scientist. World views is straight fundie code words for "our mythology is true regardless of any and all data."
For someone who claims to be a scientist, you are remarkably clueless. Maybe the religious kooks should stop trying to force their wingnut mythology on kids in science classes instead.
1. This bill's purpose is to inject a cultist religious view, creationism, that even the majority of xians don't believe into children's science classes. Scientists would be real happy if religion stayed where it belongs, in church. Don't drag your cult beliefs into science classes and scientists won't teach biology in your church.
2. There is a difference between teaching science facts and theories and "imposing philosophies and world views." You claim to be a scientist and can't even figure that out. No way are you a scientist.
3. It is illegal to teach cultist religious beliefs in public school's science classes, tested in court, many times including Louisiana. Separation of church and state. Instead of pretending to be a scientist, maybe you should pretend to be a lawyer and read the well known case law and the US constitution.
You are a complete maniac.
A hysterical pronouncement, coming from a deluded git like yourself.
And you're right, on reflection - there is no point in continuing this discussion. Trying to reason with you is as futile and painful as trying to demolish a brick wall with one's skull.
Irony can be really ironic, sometimes.
You clearly have a deep-seated, partisan hatred of the "political right" (which you appear to see as some kind of monolithic conspiracy, rather than, as it actually is, a loose umbrella term for a diverse array of movements).
It's more accurate to say that a lifetime far longer than yours, spent paying attention to what actually has been happening in America, has made it very clear that the self-described "Right" actually is pretty monolithic (at very least, compared to the diverse array of movements that it sweeps into the convenient but ill-fitting label of "the Left") and that that fact has been one of the central factors in its successes and excesses.
The rest of us try to be more open-minded. I don't hate the left; I have many left-leaning friends.
"I have nothing against the Jews; some of my best friends are Jews."
I'm a free-market neo-liberal.
The ghost of Pinochet salutes you, comrade.
But I respect the fact that there are legitimate and rational arguments for other viewpoints.
A statement that stands in contrast to everything you've written since your first appearance here.
You, sadly, seem to believe that socialism (I refuse to call it liberalism) is The Truth, and that everyone who dissents from it must be either stupid, deluded, or a corrupt liar.
You, sadly, have no idea what socialism is, or you would never imagine that it is found anywhere in America. You don't get it, Walton; you are treated with varying degrees of scorn and contempt because that's what you've earned. Whether you are ignorant, stupid, a liar, or all three as I maintain makes little difference; your kool-aid will not be consumed here by anyone other than those who already mimic your glassy stare. You do not fool me. Your brand of economic poison has been pushed for decades and has always failed to produce the results you print in the sales brochures; the real goal has always been government of the people, by the lackeys of the wealthy and powerful, for the wealthy and powerful. Early in the Reagan years you could sometimes catch their people admitting that until they realized that such honesty didn't play well. I could believe that you are ignorant of the consequences of your delusions if you were much younger, perhaps twelve, but if you've had occasion to study any history at all then you have no excuse, and no excuses will be accepted. You are part and parcel of the problem, not the solution. If the resulting way I deal with you bothers you, so be it.
That is true. Science has nothing to say about whether god exists or not. That isn't the issue here. The issue is whether fundie Death Cultists can teach wacko beliefs known to be wrong to kids in public school science classes. The law is clear on this and has been for decades. They can't.
I suppose next you want to teach Rapture Readiness to kids in social studies classes. After all, that god isn't going to show up and destroy the earth any moment and kill everyone is just a theory, isn't it? Teach the controversy.
I wonder how that would work? Kind of the anti "duck and cover" campaign.
By denouncing modern science, they have no right to weather forecast. The next Katrina would be sneak attack. Pray, Pray, Pray. Then when the whole state washes out into the gulf, you can only blame Jesus. Medical care would also need to be moved out of state, as would all airports and automotive dealerships.
Eric Saveau: I apologise for calling you a maniac. It was baseless and over the line, and I shouldn't have said it.
I can understand your point of view; and, incidentally, I agree that the "left" (just like the "right") is a diverse range of movements, not a monolithic entity. (This, indeed, is why I don't think the traditional left-right distinction is remotely useful, and why I think it should be abandoned.) And it was perhaps inappropriate of me to characterise you as a socialist, though I note that you haven't explicitly repudiated the label.
I agree with the American left on a number of things. I am strongly pro-civil liberties, and I applaud the fact that Obama is closing Guantánamo, and appears to be more committed than his predecessor to natural justice and due process. I am also in favour of marriage equality, and would have voted against Proposition 8 (and similar initiatives elsewhere in the US) were I a US citizen. And there were many races last year, both at the congressional and state levels, where I would certainly have voted Democrat.
Where I differ from you is on economic matters, because, ultimately, I believe in small government and the free market. This is not blind idol-worship of the likes of Friedman, Hayek and Rand, as you seem to believe. Rather, it's a considered philosophical and economic standpoint, standing in a rich intellectual tradition that goes back to Adam Smith and J.S. Mill.
Ultimately, I believe in the immorality of coercion. It is my view that what my fellow man (and woman) produces for himself, or obtains through mutual voluntary transaction, is his to keep, and that I have no right to take it from him for my own benefit or for the benefit of others. This is not, of course, an absolute and immutable principle, because some government services are genuinely necessary (as, indeed, Friedman and other libertarian intellectuals acknowledge), and thus we cannot avoid some taxation. I would also assert that, where private charity cannot provide for the needs of the poorest, humanitarian welfare is a legitimate state endeavour - as is education, since it's essential to social mobility. So my ethical standpoint is not a doctrinaire one; rather, it's a starting-point for my political thinking. Nonetheless, I would argue that state coercion of the individual (whether or not approved by the democratic majority) is prima facie immoral, unless there is a very compelling moral reason why such coercion is necessary.
There are whole sectors of the internet devoted to just this subject. And millions of people who think just that, including Sarah Palin, the VP wannabe.
I would be curious too. I suppose you just sit around with your bible waiting. Or move to a remote rural location and stockpile guns for the "End Times" which some people have already done.
But not curious enough to risk insomnia. Some of these culties are downright spooky.
Walton, we agree on everything except the precise meanings of "genuinely necessary" and "very compelling"…
proving that the modern republican party has more in common with German National Socialism than anything else. The Second World War would have been lost had the United States not become a haven for the scientific community that was driven out of Europe. The brains we accumulated during and after that war fueled American ingenuity and progress for decades. Now the ultra Right lunatics are creating a hostile environment towards scientists, just when we need them the most. How come they are so hateful? It isn't enough that they spent 2 trillion in lunatic wars and tax cuts for the rich, now they parade around as the party of obstructionism, and their minions puke their comments on every comment board across the web. When will they begin to feel a sense of shame?
Irony can be really ironic, sometimes.
LOL
Next up, "Cookery is the power to burn".
sorry, but I'm really getting a laugh out of some of the witty responses today.
The Louisiana Family Forum, a prime supporter of the bill, can make life and re-election very difficult for a legislator who crosses them.
..and I say the Louisiana legislative body are a bunch of fucking cowards.
all they had to do was decide to NOT cave to the pressure of LFF as a complete body, and that would be the fucking end of it.
btw, John McCain essentially said the same thing to the entire republican party in 2000...
...and lost the nomination because they were all such fucking cowards they couldn't see past their own noses far enough to see how he was not only right, but how easy it could have been to change their dependency on the religious right as a voting block.
No. I say the Louisiana legislature, and the governor, are a bunch of fucking cowards.
I believe in small government and the free market.
That you can say that with a straight face at this time is absolutely astounding. Do you live in a cave?
Ichthyic,
There's political courage, and there's political prudence. When I asked a legislator for his support on a bill the LFF opposed, he turned me down, saying, "Last time I crossed them it cost me $60K!" That was because they put up a candidate against him when he otherwise would have been unopposed for re-election. The bill in question (not this one) just wasn't important enough to him to go against them.
That's why this bill passed almost unanimously.
Legislators just didn't see it as important enough to defy the LFF. To be fair to them, most didn't understand the implications of the bill. Only the legislators who sat on the committees that heard the bill can be faulted. They did hear the arguments on both sides, and voted the wrong way.
The LFF is a well-oiled political machine, capable of generating hundreds of e-mails and letters to every legislator. The scientists by contrast, are, well scientists, not political operatives. They were just plain out-gunned. They somehow thought that if they just explained the logic of their position, they would win. That's not how politics works, in Louisiana, or anywhere.
This could actually be a 'blessing' in disguise to the scientific community. Scientific knowledge grows when popular, accepted ideas are challenged and proven or disproven through empirical findings. That there now exists a place wherein scientific ideas are challenged could be a catalyst to reenergize scientific passion. Regardless of the views held about fossils, imprints, etc., that there now exists a powerful need for scientific validation harkens back to the days when scientsts survived, and thrived, despite the Vatican's dogma.
J. Micahel Malec - Thanks for your comments that let us know what is going on in Louisiana. Do you have any suggestions on what we can do to help?
Legislators just didn't see it as important enough to defy the LFF.
bah.
LA legislators should see defying the LFF as important enough in and of itself.
Are you really saying the LFF is running the entire show in LA?
because i would find that very hard to believe.
However, if that really IS the case.
all the more reason why legislators they should band together and have some fucking backbone to crush that influence.
Heather,
Letters to the Editor are always good. Here's the links to the submission pages for the New Orleans Times Picayune and the Baton Rouge Advocate:
Times Picayune:
http://www.nola.com/mailforms/standard/letters.ssf?LetterstotheEditor
BR Advocate:
http://www.2theadvocate.com/help/letters
And here's the link to the Louisiana Coalition for Science, which is leading the fight against this nonsense:
http://lasciencecoalition.org/
If a repeal bill is filed in the 2009 session, it will be on the website.
"Are you really saying the LFF is running the entire show in LA?"
On issues of low salience, yes. The task is to raise the salience of the issues in the minds of individual legislators.
For example: The LFF is morally opposed to gambling, but they lose on efforts to curtail or eliminate it because gambling, excuse me "gaming" (gambling being illegal in Louisiana), is a major revenue producer that can hold down taxes.
I have also beaten the LFF when I can convince a committee that an LFF favored bill is clearly unconstitutional, that there is voluminous caselaw that proves the courts are already on the record, and that passage will cost the state a lot of money defending the indefensible. Even at that, it's a hard sell, especially if there are not many lawyers on the committee.
@Walton-
Eric Saveau: I apologise for calling you a maniac. It was baseless and over the line, and I shouldn't have said it.
[throws hands in the air] Gah. If you’re trying to make me feel like I just kicked a puppy, you’re having at least some success…
I can understand your point of view; and, incidentally, I agree that the "left" (just like the "right") is a diverse range of movements, not a monolithic entity. (This, indeed, is why I don't think the traditional left-right distinction is remotely useful, and why I think it should be abandoned.) And it was perhaps inappropriate of me to characterise you as a socialist, though I note that you haven't explicitly repudiated the label.
Then I hereby repudiate the label, and further note that the word “socialism” has, in conservative usage over at least the last thirty years or so, been continually redefined to encompass anything and everything that stands in the way of greed. Insofar as I have a political identity, it is simply that I am an American who values the principles laid out in the Constitution. As to the “left-right distinction”, I find it archaic but as long as the self-indentified “right-wing” (along with those who do not so identify but whom nonetheless echo right-wing rhetoric) places anyone who refuses to bow to their pogroms in the “left” camp, its usefulness is unfortunate but real.
I agree with the American left on a number of things. I am strongly pro-civil liberties, and I applaud the fact that Obama is closing Guantánamo, and appears to be more committed than his predecessor to natural justice and due process. I am also in favour of marriage equality, and would have voted against Proposition 8 (and similar initiatives elsewhere in the US) were I a US citizen. And there were many races last year, both at the congressional and state levels, where I would certainly have voted Democrat.
I note for the record that you said the following in your second to last comment -
“You leftists have no claim on any word which stems from the same root as "liberty", because you don't believe in liberty. You believe in collectivism and coercion.”
- and I further note that this quote is the exact opposite position of what you said immediately above. So be clear, Walton: Do you find that liberals-leftists-Democrats-whateverlabelyouareusingatthemoment are pro-liberty, or anti-liberty? Man up, choose your position, and be prepared to stand on it.
Where I differ from you is on economic matters, because, ultimately, I believe in small government and the free market. This is not blind idol-worship of the likes of Friedman, Hayek and Rand, as you seem to believe. Rather, it's a considered philosophical and economic standpoint, standing in a rich intellectual tradition that goes back to Adam Smith and J.S. Mill.
I, too, have read Adam Smith, and am pretty sure that modern conservatism would repulse him. Liberals do not believe in any particular “size” of government; we merely want our government to be functional and accountable and rmindful of the law. We note that though the record of Democratic administrations over the last few decades shows them to be uneven in this regard, the record of corresponding Republican administrations is one of unalloyed disaster. We further note that this Republican record gives every indication of being the result of intent, as exemplified by, for one example, the practice of placing government agencies in the hands of individuals who are hostile to the mission of said agencies, who then run these agencies into the ground, and then declare the failure of these agencies as evidence of the inefficiency of government and condemn any who point out that it was a result of their malfeasance. It’s a game we’ve watched played out over and over again in every Republican era from Nixon onward.
Ultimately, I believe in the immorality of coercion. It is my view that what my fellow man (and woman) produces for himself, or obtains through mutual voluntary transaction, is his to keep, and that I have no right to take it from him for my own benefit or for the benefit of others. This is not, of course, an absolute and immutable principle, because some government services are genuinely necessary (as, indeed, Friedman and other libertarian intellectuals acknowledge), and thus we cannot avoid some taxation. I would also assert that, where private charity cannot provide for the needs of the poorest, humanitarian welfare is a legitimate state endeavour - as is education, since it's essential to social mobility. So my ethical standpoint is not a doctrinaire one; rather, it's a starting-point for my political thinking. Nonetheless, I would argue that state coercion of the individual (whether or not approved by the democratic majority) is prima facie immoral, unless there is a very compelling moral reason why such coercion is necessary.
If you insist on viewing a broadly applied system of progressive taxation as coercion, rather than the most fair and rational way that a civilization can provide for its own necessary investments, then there’s nowhere to go from here. Nowhere. It is the most wealthy who gain the most benefit from the workings of our civilization, yet they insist that they must not be expected to pay for it. Over the last several years we have been hemorrhaging wealth and blood in the sands of the Middle East, yet the wealthy interests who insisted that we must have this war proudly declared, with no apparent sense of irony, that they care about nothing so much as their precious tax cuts. President Teddy Roosevelt would shred them with far greater eloquence than I can muster.
A number of threads back I got into a fairly venomous exchange with Africangenocide on the subject of tax policy and what it meant in real world terms; AG demonstrated the ability to quote abstract principles of economic gamesmanship, but none whatsoever to understand how economics works in the real world. Is it ignorance? Is it malice? Doesn’t matter. Either way, the application of such abstractions to the real world has always proven destructive. Reagan ran up huge deficits that could only be addressed by looting the Treasury and blamed everyone but himself. Bush the First made a good start on that before failing re-election, and Bush the Second far exceeded his allies’ fondest dreams or our darkest fears. By contrast, Clinton’s economic stimulus actually worked and made liars of the doomsayers who are repeating the same objections with regard to Obama now. They have been proven wrong over and over again; the policies they decry have been proven to work. Since I am a practical man, I choose to support that which has been demonstrated to work, and to dismiss and deride that which has consistently shown itself to be false and dangerous. It’s that simple.
You seem to hate Mormons.
Nope. Mormons are brainwashed and delusional, which is dangerous to a freedom loving and thinking society but, I don't hate them.
a lot of Mormons are Jack Mormons and will talk all day over a 6 pack of beer about the peculiarities of their religion. There are also splits in the leadership like any other political organization.
So you think they aren't moronic for religious reasons but for political reasons? That is, they don't believe in multiple levels of cloud culture but instead find forcing conformity to political will enlightening?
They try to keep in hidden but it is there for anyone to see.
Do tell. References?
AGAIN, check their voting record. when it gets time to act instead of talk they almost always fall in line and do as they are told regardless of the consequences.
You keep mentioning that hearing like it proves anything. IIRC, the bill was introduced by Chris Jensen?, the kook creationist Mormon with an ugly history. It failed. The legislature in Utah is overwhelmingly majority LDS. That should tell you something right there.
You are wrong. I've already provided you with correct information, I can't help if you are too lazy to look at it.
You seem to be a mormon lover but don't seem to know much about them.
Gah. If you're trying to make me feel like I just kicked a puppy, you're having at least some success…
like a puppy, Walton often pisses on the floor around here.
I rather suggest a rolled up newspaper would be better suited to him than rational discourse.
far be it from me to spoil your fun, though.
:P
No one has proven me to be a liar, the only thing that is proven on this comment board is the indifference of people's opinions or even their unacceptance of anything contrary to them. Ignorance is something only a bullheaded fool would take pride in and I'm not gaining anything by commenting on this board. Funny how people can throw words together to form an opinion that is not always true about someone else just because they don't share the same views.
People who resort to putting others down are quilty of their own ignorance.
Marcus Ranum, you're certainly a class act aren't you. Thanks for the update on the constitution though, I cannot figure how I got 1776.
Thorn, you say you were a Christian at one time, yet you could've save yourself years of dispairity from the church just by reading Acts 17: 24. The Bible was tranlated from the Latin Vulgate by William Tinsdale in 1535 and finally tranlated into the Queens english in 1611 as The King James Version. There have been many other tranlations, but there is one copy that is more accurate than others.
The Bible is not a science book so it cannot be explained in scientific terms. So its no surprise why people accept something as lame as the theory of evolution.
Leon you have proven yourself to be a liar, so we don't need to. Godbots always lie. They can't help themselves.
As a scientist, I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that "Dr. C" isn't one. And, as an aside, those of us who bled for six or seven years to earn our doctorates don't particularly like posers, so I hope you are in fact a Dr. But--I equally hope your doctorate isn't in science, because you seem to have missed out on the whole "learning about science" part of graduate school.
People accept the lame theory of evolution because the bible is not a science book?
Huh. First time I've heard that bit of logic.
We require people to support their opinion, something you have wholeheartedly not done.
BOOOOOM!!!!!
Leon, you owe me a new irony meter. The one I was just using is smoldering in the neighbors yard now. Oh and a new window.
Eric Saveau: It is the most wealthy who gain the most benefit from the workings of our civilization, yet they insist that they must not be expected to pay for it.
I don't quite understand why you equate "the workings of our civilisation" with the workings of government. "Civilisation" is not the same thing as the State. Most of the achievements of our civilisation have been created not by the State, but by free and voluntary exchange between individuals. Global trade has been the driving-force behind an astonishing expansion in everyone's standards of living over the last century; the average person, a century ago, would have been amazed at the living standards enjoyed by even the poorest among us today. (Astonishingly, for the first time in human history there are now more overnourished than undernourished people in the world. This, if nothing else, is testament to the great economic benefit that can be derived from international trade.)
"The wealthy" are those who - whether through skill, mere luck, or a combination of both - have benefited more than the average person from this process of free exchange. This does not mean that they owe the State anything in particular. If a person establishes a successful business, he relies on many other people - his suppliers, his employees, his customers. But each of these people have entered into free contracts with him, for their own gain. His supplier agrees to sell him goods, in exchange for money; his employees agree to work for him, in exchange for money; his customers agree to pay him money, in exchange for goods. In no case is any of these relationships created by the State.
So I fail to see how the wealthy owe any greater debt to the State than the average person. I suppose it can be said that, since they have more property, the State incurs a greater cost in protecting it from crime and natural disaster; but in the context of the vast, bloated government budgets we see in most countries, this is a negligible amount.
I will concede that the wealthy in certain industries use public infrastructures significantly more than the average person; a trucking tycoon, for example, will rely on public roads and bridges to a much greater extent than the average person. But this is not an argument for a progressive income tax; rather, it is an argument for charging user fees, where possible, for such services. In the case of roads, many countries, including the UK, charge road tax per vehicle - which addresses this concern, because it means that those who use the public roads more pay more. Similar arrangements have been, or can be, adopted in many other areas of public service.
Thus, I don't see how one can argue that the wealthy owe a greater debt to the State merely because they are wealthy. They may owe such a debt because they have benefited more than average from public infrastructures and services - but this is an argument for user fees, not for progressive income tax. The wealthy have indeed benefited greatly from our civilisation - but our civilisation is not built solely, or even primarily, on governmental intervention. Yes, it certainly needs governmental intervention in order to work; without law and order, defined property rights, and the arbitration of contracts, there could be no civilisation. But these things are, in a free society, available equally to all citizens, not exclusively to the wealthy.
And, btw, there is no need to keep expounding your hatred of the Bush administration and the modern GOP in general; I don't substantially disagree with you. The Bush administration divided the conservative movement, abrogated civil and personal liberties, and deployed the rhetoric of economic freedom while in fact curtailing such freedom. While I'm not a fanatical Bush-hater, I'm certainly no supporter of his.
to RevBigDumbChimp
You deserve a medal. The links and info you provided for Leon...I mean, I'm impressed with both your patience and with the information.
to Leon
Buddy, if you can do that kind of work on old vehicles, you have a brain that is in good working order. Getting older is no excuse. I'll bet you're still learning when it comes to fixing cars, and you can still learn when it comes to science, philosophy and religion. Check out the links RBDC sent to you. Just get started bit by bit. Seriously, you'll be surprised by how much your mechanical aptitude can be applied to learning something new, or to simply expanding on what you know.
I'm worried about you, worried that you are unnecessarily limiting the scope of your own life.
Leon Flamick #291 wrote:
If the Bible is "not a science book," then why are you apparently taking its stories as scientific truths?
I'd also like to ask you another question:
IF it turns out that the vast majority of scientific experts are correct, and evolution is not "lame," but really did occur -- and you came to accept this through study and evidence -- would you still be a Christian?
Would you then consider the possibility that "God works through evolution" in some behind-the-scenes-way, and become a theistic evolutionist? Or do you think that evolution is a make-or-break deal for God, or at least for Christianity?
Thanks.
(I am of course assuming that you agree that, if your study of the evidence lead towards evolution, you'd go where the evidence leads, no matter how hard it might be emotionally.)
There is nothing in the bill negating science, nor endorsing any particular religion. As usual, liberal idiots pushing their tired propaganda.
Further response to Eric Saveau at #288:
Very well, I apologise for characterising you as a socialist. It's difficult to know what label to use for people in general; but the term "liberal" is far too ill-defined and widely-abused to be a useful descriptor of a specific political ideology (though it is useful in the context of constitutional theory, but that's another discussion).
In response to your question: to vastly oversimplify and generalise, one could perhaps say that the mainstream "left" (to use the term very broadly) are pro-liberty on social issues while anti-liberty on economic issues, whereas the mainstream "right" are the other way around. Bush was the worst of both worlds, pretending to be committed to the free market while not really understanding it. I do hate generalisations like this, however, and I appreciate that there are lots of counterexamples one can point out.
I would also accept that since I'm using the word "liberty" in a partisan and contestable way, I need to define it. I would contend that "liberty" is not synonymous with absolute autonomy of action; rather, we ought to take it to refer to freedom within the law (which, I believe, is close to its original classical meaning). True liberty cannot exist without a well-defined system of individual property rights (which is why left-anarchists' version of "freedom" is not one to which I can subscribe).
Fundamentally, I would rely on a modified version of the "liberal harm principle": a person should be entitled to do as he or she wishes with his or her body and private property, provided he or she does not (a) interfere with another's autonomy by force or fraud, (b) deprive another of the enjoyment of his or her property, or (c) break a binding contract into which he or she has entered voluntarily. (The more traditional formulation, "do as you wish as long as it harms no other person" is, of course, far too simplistic; 'harming' others is in many cases legitimate, e.g. by setting up a competing business and pricing them out of the market. Harm only becomes illegitimate if it interferes with another's personal autonomy or property rights, or breaches a contract.)
Does that sound like a Mormon lover? You definitely sound like a Mormon hater with some other psychological problems.
I've known a few Mormons here and there. They are common in the west. They range from brainwashed robots in impervious straitjackets to apostates who don't believe a word of the book of Mormon. Like anyone else they are diverse.
And yeah, I know bits and pieces of the religion but probably not all of it. Jesus was satan's brother but so are we, there are numerous gods all with even more goddess wives, and you too can make it to the celestial kingdom and have your own planet. Odd from a xian standpoint but no odder than any other belief system.
Sounds like you have a bit of a paranoia problem as well or something. I've heard that hiding under the bed helps a lot. You may have the last word or 10. I'm too busy for trolls flinging crap today.
SwampCat, please give me five citations to the peer reviewed primary scientific journals that back any other theory than evolution is a scientific theory. No citations, no other theories. Creationism and ID are religious theories, and should only be taught in religious courses.
Harm only becomes illegitimate if it interferes with another's personal autonomy or property rights, or breaches a contract
Just to get things straight: if that's your definition, out with minimum wage, SEC, OSHA, unemployment insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, unions... correct?
Ichthyic,
No, that's pretty much true. But it's only been true for a fairly short time, and may not be true for much longer.
Basically, as I understand it, it's down to Katrina. The hurricane caused a ton of people from the coastal, bluer parts of the state to leave--not just immediate evacuations, but also people looking for safer places to live and better job markets in the aftermath. Louisiana's demographics took a turn into the red.
At the same time, the governor's incompetence in dealing with the disaster made a lot of Louisianans very pissed off, and the governor was a Democrat. When the next election rolled around, she didn't seek reelection, and Jindal pulled in almost twice as many votes as the two main Democratic candidates combined. (Which is almost unprecedented for Louisiana; even the conservatives there have traditionally been loyal to the Democrats.)
In this climate, legislators are very, very frightened of pissing off the social conservatives. I believe some of the Catholic legislators have said they have to bend over backwards to please the religious right, since they're in danger of being painted as "un-Christian" to the Protestant majority.
But, again, this may not last. To a large degree it'll depend on how Jindal does over the next few years.
Are there really any scientists in La?
No, that's pretty much true.
ugh.
There are some very good ones. Our 1000th Steve is Louisianan!
Anton,
Some of the factors you mention are quite true, but the main reasons the LFF is so successful is that they are organized, well-funded, politically savy, and ruthless. I have watched their rise over the years, and while part of the reason for their success is the election of more and more extremist legislators, the main reason is fear, as I stated in previous posts.
They can create a flurry of e-mails and phone calls from their network of loyalists in a matter of minutes. This makes their importance seem far greater than their actual numbers. Legislators typically judge public opinion on volume, not content of communications.
None of the groups that oppose them have anything like that kind of organization. Only a few groups like AARP and the AFL-CIO can match that kind of action, which may explain why the LFF never goes up against old people or workers' rights.
They will eventually fade, but not until one or several of the following happen: Their opponents match the LFF's organization. They split their followers. Legislators are more afraid of something or somebody else. Their funding drys up. They get over confident and make a serious tactical mistake that kills their credibility. The IRS shuts them down (they are a 501(c)(3), and have a small off-shoot that can lobby, but they are fudging the numbers).
Your entire fucking political world exists between your ears, Walton.
And yet you were (and of Limbaugh's and Coulter's) as recently as this past May. Indeed, you planned to join the "War on Terror" as soon as you could (well, as soon as you finished your elite education - couldn't have such an important young man serving as anything other than an officer). And you want credit for being able to change some of your beliefs, while not gaining the humility that should come from recognizing that you have a lot to learn and that if those other beliefs could change in such a short period the ones you hold now could also be rejected - even becoming a source of embarrassment - in the future if you engage in an honest pursuit of knowledge.
Just wanted to highlight the amusing juxtaposition below:
Although... Isn't it rumored that King James was indeed a queen, for certain values of "queen"?
Not that there's anything wrong with that (in and of itself...)
@ 249,
If you trust Ryan and Pitman's account,it was actually the filling of the black sea through the Bosporus that is the basis for the various flood myths.
All it takes is cursory understanding of how oral folk tradition works to interpolate that what really happened was that one guy who'd just built a boat saw what was happening and got his family and a few sheep and goats (and, to keep Patricia happy, chickens) on board and floated around for a few days before reaching land safely -albeit somewhat smelly from all the animal crap.
Given a few retellings it became 'God told Noah to build an ark and take two of every animal1 and so forth; purple monkey dishwasher2.'
1Or seven or whatever the heck it was; I can't be arsed checking right now.
2 See The Simpsons episode The PTA Disbands. It'll make perfect sense.
Rev,BigDumbChimp...support my opinions on what, on your scientific terms, on something you have no knowledge of, one idiot said I couldn't relate anything from the Bible. Wow, that's like proving scientific facts without reading it from your books, which incidently were also written by men, just in case you try and use that about Bible accounts.
Your irony meter, get it on warranty. Must have been defective.
Sastra, what stories did I take as scientific truths? I was entering them as recorded history by witnesses who were there. The only scientific truths that is simple logics was to explain where it was found in the scriptures that the world was not flat, rather circular. First thing, I'm not a Christian, I study biblical events through secular history. I do not belong to any organized religious denomination. Ok, if scientists were dead right on the money and there was no other evidence to prove otherwise, I probably would become a skeptic towards certain religious teachings, but there are things written in the Bible that are entirely factual.
Lynna, I don't think I would go as far as giving the BigDumb a metal, after all who am I in this vast world of educated indivduals, not even a challenge, but they sure get a little uptight when someone displays a different opinion. I mean, how dare I go against the ideologies of university geniuses who are easily led to swallow everything scientists say to be the absolute authentic truth. I wonder how old some of these commentors are on this board? Have any of them been around when some of these discrepancies in Evolution were announced during the 40's, 50's and 60's. The 70's were the start of the transitional years where balanced economies, respect and moral values went out the door. And those are the years when evolution started to bloom more, not just from people who aquired higher learning skills, but for independent ones who did not want to be accountable to a God.
Guess what, people still live for a short time then die. We are living in a time where all those imperfections in the created human form will be corrected. Not by church standards, but by God's standards and his purpose.
Like I said before, I'm all for creationism, because evolution of the species would be impossible without it. Gawd, there have even been scientists themselves who said that. Too bad those scientists weren't around today to confirm it. Maybe they got kicked outta the club for being too unfactual towards the evolution factor...who knows huh!
Support your opinion on creationism vs. evolution.
It's either a scientific topic and you should be able to defend creationism scientifically or it is merely a theological one and if that is the case, it has nothing to do with science and makes no claims refuting evolution.
And no
That is concentrated irony meter destroying idiocy right there.
Yes the bible was written by men as well. Men nearly 2000 years ago and written decades after the alleged events took place.
Books on science are not just written by men but are also verifiable against the evidence and research today. We can go out and verify their accuracy fairly easily. Not even close to the same thing as your bible that was handed down and re-translated who knows how many times and whose supernatural mumbo jumbo is impossible to verify to any degree.
Nice analogy fail. Seriously, that was dumb. Very very dumb.
You really should stop embarrassing yourself.
support my opinions on what, on your scientific terms, on something you have no knowledge of, one idiot said I couldn't relate anything from the Bible. Wow, that's like proving scientific facts without reading it from your books, which incidently were also written by men, just in case you try and use that about Bible accounts.
your babble is becoming more and more pure stream-of-consciousness.
suggest you take your meds before you lose coherence entirely.
Maybe they got kicked outta the club for being too unfactual towards the evolution factor...who knows huh!
you mean they were Expelled?
you have MUCH to learn (or unlearn - just remember: brainwashing is bad).
Leon Flamick wrote:
Except that it's not. A big part of what makes science so reliable is that any experiment you do has to be able to be replicated by other scientists. No-one has ever had their science recognised unless other scientists have reproduced the same results, over and over and over again.
If every science book in the world was destroyed, everything in them would eventually be found again, simply because the methods for discovering what was in them isn't dependent on what's in the books.
So, even if a broken clock is right twice a day then you'd keep using it?
It's not that you have a differing opinion that's the problem; it's that you are attempting to support your opinion with the claims of known frauds and liars, and whose nonsense has been debunked over and over and over again. But the lies continue.
Why shouldn't we be annoyed by liars attempting to spread their lies and interfere with the teaching of science? Proper science education is essential for a society that doesn't want to wallow in the dark ages.
Why? We've evidence to say you are wrong, and you have no evidence to say you are not. Science is about evidence. Religion is about making claims until the evidence says otherwise, and then changing the interpretation to suit what can no longer be denied.
Rubbish. Correlation, even if it existed to support your claim, is not causation. You might as well link the decline in morality to the rise of disco music or the length of sideburns.
There are scientists who would love nothing more than to discover something that would make them famous, even if it meant invalidating evolution - and they aren't all so friendly with each other that they're going to operate as one entity to quash an alternative - if it's a valid one. But, so far, no-one has produced anything that's come even close.
Evolution is supported by numerous branches of science, and it the only explanation that comes even close to making sense. An invisble sky-fairy that grants wishes? Not so much.
We can go out and verify their accuracy fairly easily
Indeed, science is built around the very concept of repeatability. It's part and parcel of every study published in peer-reviewed journals.
Religion OTOH...
Well, there are a lot of things I'd like to see repeated. Something (everything!) tells me they never happened in the first place, though.
Despite being in the non-scientist section of the regulars, I'm glad to say that, of the little I've retained from being taught science in high school, I do remember being told that your experiment is useless if no-one else can reproduce the results.
Most religion, on the other hand, seems to be based on accepting that stories about what a god used to do all the time, right in front of people, is enough - we shouldn't expect said god to still be doing things that would make us believe in him nowadays.
Heck, if a burning bush spoke to me and told me God had a plan for me then I'd be a lot more inclined to believe than I am now*.
*Assuming that I hadn't taken any of the more powerful hallucinogenics in the preceding few hours that is.
Assuming that I hadn't taken any of the more powerful hallucinogenics in the preceding few hours that is.
which is in fact, a much more likely explanation for many religious stories to begin with.
and, strangely enough, eminently repeatable.
;)
What's more, theists have involved explanations as to why their god doesn't do miracles any more. Apparently Jesus could walk across Fred Phelps' swimming pool but he just doesn't feel like it any more.
That theists need 'involved explanations' for everything is a dead giveaway to the weakness of the original claims. The bible is supposed to be enough; that anyone who's prepared to analyse it to any depth requires volumes of various apologetics in order to understand what it really means says a great deal.
And yet you were (and of Limbaugh's and Coulter's) as recently as this past May.
holy crap, I had forgotten about that, and the fact that he's been hanging around here THAT long.
I might try digging up one of his earlier posts and contrast it with what he is currently posting, just for kicks.
@Leon, It's Helfrick with an l. You can copy and paste it if it's too difficult to spell.
I'll keep this simple so you can understand.
How about this:
You promised to leave, but you didn't. You have come here and insulted the people on this board with your very first comment. You have repeatedly refused to look at any info provided. You have cited the bible as your evidence for your ill-conceived opinion. You are dishonest to the core.
No doubt you are one of Ray Comfort's nut-huggers. It sure sounds like the world would be a better place without scientists according to you. How do you think that would work out for you? Now that your getting up there in years, do you want your doctor well-versed in science or the healing powers of god?
I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes: "With or without [religion] you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion."
for Leon:
Who do you think said the following:
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”
I'll give you a hint:
he just had a birthday recently.
err great... no to the sciencephobes and yes to the homophobes....
how about NYC? we love science!
I can't help but wonder whether a brain drain from Louisiana would worsen the problem rather than help it. Perhaps we should be holding all of our science conventions there to facilitate flow of good ideas.
Gosh darn, I did say I was leaving didn't I. Just couldn't resist the urge to shut up when most didn't have the sense to shut up either...I guess.
I came here and insulted people on this board, what an understatement. I was stressing an opinion with someone who was cutting up creationism, because most people who mock it are totally ignorant of its facts.
I haven't refused to read anything that I really haven't heard before. Using the Bible for my ill conceived opinion doesn't sound dishonest to me, it just brings out the narrow-mindness in you because if I was to give you factual scriptures, would you really look them up and see for yourself. No, you wouldn't, because that would make a liar out of you thinking the Bible had no base for solid info.
To some extent the world would be a better place without scientists, don't forget it was scientists that developed nuclear weapons. Science in all its applied wisdom certainly didn't make a utopia that they said it would after the war. In fact in my 62 years of life I haven't seen a good enough improvement to boast about. Science has brought out things that has made our lives easier, yes I'll admit that and religion has destroyed the unity of this world, I'll admit that also. But if you think higher knowledge is the key to betterment, I think you might just retract that statement when things start getting pretty rough out there. I've been through more recessions than enough and I'll tell you, this one's not gonna recover very soon. Most people are not aware of the days we are living in, but you'll see shortly, the last prophecy to come about in the chapter of Revelation. The great tribulation will start in New York City, but most people will believe its just a natural phenomena, but mark my words, because on that day all of you will be eating yours.
because if I was to give you factual scriptures, would you really look them up and see for yourself
here's how you could get scientists to read bible verses:
show how they are in ANY fucking way relevant to science.
hint:
they aren't, so you can't.
done.
got anything else?
otherwise I'm sure you have some prayers for us or something like that before you go, yes?
yes, yes, fuckyouverymuch too.
Gee Ichthyic, it sounds like good old Charlie who was a brillant man, but a self admitance skeptic of practicality.
Practicality during recessions and during the dirty 30's when the depression was in its full swing was the key to survival providing there was unification among the masses. Today, like family and moral values, unification has gone out the door and those are the main ingredients that can bring the greatest nations down to ruin.
Don't think so...just watch, have patience, its coming!
And with that any lingering doubts I had about Leon's mental stability went out the window.
The bible is a collection of stories written down by people, based on the oral traditions of superstitious goat herders thousands of years ago, and added to (translated, interpreted, modified for political gain etc.) by other people only slightly less unsophisticated in the ways of the world - at least in terms of science - than their wilderness-wandering forebears. That there are still people who believe in this rubbish is a testament to the human capacity for egocentrism, credulity, denial and profound insecurity.
Do us a favour, Leon - take your woo-addled, god-soaked, life-hating ooga-booga nonsense and run as far from here as you possibly can. If you're truly as stupid as you seem - which, considering you're looking to Revelation as actual fact, is pretty stupid - then there's absolutely no hope for you.
Don't think so...just watch, have patience, its coming!
...at 4 o'clock? and all the evil people will be 2 feet tall?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_O%27Clock
ummm... still thinking you're off your meds there, boyo.
whatever.
WATERLOOOOOOO!!!!
Krangle=Leon? You be the judge.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzWMOjoBVYw
Considering that Christians have been predicting the end of the world since about half an hour after JC's last piece of especially bad performance art went pear-shaped, I don't think I'm going to expend too much energy on being concerned.
"...you look for this one under F, for fantatic..."
-Serling
Seeing that I am already feeding on my family, how is anyone to tell that society fell apart around me?
That is the hairiest and wartiest troll I have seen in a while.
Hey Ichthyic, it sounds also like you are concluding as usual on your own merit. I told you the Bible is not a detailed science book so it wouldn't be explained in scientific terms would it. Is this too simple for you?
Sorry, I don't say prayers for anyone, that's your own responsibility.
Nice concluding jester. Are you aware of what scientists think about the intelligence of indivduals who use profanity to address their issues.
Is this too simple for you?
actually, yes, it is.
using a collection of orally transmitted, poorly cobbled together and translated, short stories tends to be a bit simplistic for my tastes, indeed.
so, will all the evil people like me become 2 feet tall, Krangle, er, I mean Leon?
Please, be very responsible. Pray as long and as hard as you can. The more time you spend talking to your lord, the less time you have to interact with others. The rest of us will try to get by without you.
I call a Poe on Leon - there is just no fucking way anybody can discuss the book of Revelations as gospel truth (pun not intended) with a straight face.
On the other hand...
Yup, your idea of "moral values" was tossed out the door, along with racism, religious fundamentalism, and chauvnism.
Twin-Skies, you never read Hal Lindsay. Back in the seventies, he made a living writing best selling books about the prophecies from Revelations. Just like in recent years, the Left Behind series is taken seriously by those who are inclined to believe the insanity.
All a Poe means that religious belief can be so insane that is is hard to tell the difference between a joke and a sincere belief.
Good to see all the skeptics coming out of the woodwork.
Ichthyic, that 8 minute and 30 second utube was one of Hollywood's most vivid example of sensationalism to come to the TV screen. The Twilight Zone was one of my favourite shows. Hollywood is really missing the boat on sensationalism. They could create a motion picture that depicts evolution. With all the computer work and special affects that make up the prime of movies these days, they could possibly make a bundle just on affects itself. Of course there wouldn't be any brand name stars in the show, they never had humans during that time.
One noticeable flaw in that skit though, the fanatic was talking about judgement day and if you knew anything concerning scriptures you would know that judgement day does not occur till after Armageddon and not in the rapture sense as these religious fanatics will tell you.
Wowbagger, my mental stability is great, my shrink told me so. Those goat herders that you labelled as writers of the scriptures were most likely writers of the theory of evolution and those writings never got too much exposure until Charlie Darwin came along centuries later and put it all into easily led minds and obvious it worked quite well judging by people today. The Bible was written in reality by men who were inspired of God, something like secretaries who write down what their bosses dictate. Not a big issue for God to perform.
Christians have been predicting the end of the world for sometime, yes, you are correct, but its obvious also those same self professed Christians weren't paying attention to Matthew 24: 36 were they. As it says in the following verses about the time of Noah, as they "take no note!" So in that case you wouldn't be aware of whats happening until its too late.
Janine,IgnorantSlut........hmmmm....."This is the hairiest and wartiest troll I have seen in awhile." Yes, it looks the part, but have you ever heard that phrase of..."truth is stranger than fiction!" There is alot of realism in those words.
With all the computer work and special affects that make up the prime of movies these days, they could possibly make a bundle just on affects itself. Of course there wouldn't be any brand name stars in the show, they never had humans during that time
wtf?
can someone translate from gibberish to english?
oh, nevermind, it's simply not worth the effort.
Your profound ignorance of sociolinguistics matches your cluelessness regarding science.
If you were actually capable of logical thought then we'd engage you at that level. But since you're a pissant and a fucking clown shoe then there's no point. We swear at you because it amuses us, fuckface, not because we couldn't think of anything else to say - shit-for-brains.
Wow! Just! Wow!
The 6,000 year old Earth is a non-trivial error. Let's see how it plays out:
Distance in miles from NYC to LA = 2,462
Feet per mile = 5,280
Distance from NYC to LA, in feet = 12,999,360
Creationists age of Earth, in years = 6,000
Actual age of Earth, in years = 4,500,000,000
6000 / 4500000000 = .00000133
.00000133 * 12,999,360 = 17.332479
This means that the distance from NYC to Los Angeles, using the error factor of Christians' estimates of the age of the Earth, is 17' 4"
Yep, there's some weapons-grade stupid coming out of Leon right now.
Gawd, I hope for your sakes that most of you commentors on this board are actually uneducated, because with your sarcastic remarks that is the equivalent to a grade 2 level it's starting to make my credibility look good.
Ichthyic...it really is too simple for you isn't it? For one thing the Bible was not orally transmitted, it was inspired. Translating the Bible was a long tedious job that required many man hours and years to complete by skilled copiests. There were many corrections to repair throughout the years as archeologists began finding original copies of the dead sea scrolls. Today the restoration of the holy writings are almost complete.
Concerning the 2 foot tall scenario, please Ichthyic..."its only a movie," its not, just like evolution, supposed to be taken literally!
Wow! Just! Wow!
seconded.
too insane to stay.
It's amazing to think that anyone could believe the world is but a few thousand years old when we have peered billions of light years into space and have vast geological strata with layer upon layer which would require at least hundreds of millions years to be accounted for - though with radiometric dating we can put that in the billions. Hooray for science!
Wowbagger...everytime you open your mouth I assume ones who actually agree with you on your terms must think that your logics sink way below my level, if not, there isn't much credibility here either. Incidently, the negative remarks do not bother me, but what amazes me is you have the gull to call me stupid and you're playing the part. You are supposed to be the intellect one aren't you, the intelligent players have all left the board.
Janine..."wow, just wow" I guess I sorta got carried away with the goat herder writing the evolution fiasco, so ok, along came Charles Darwin in the mid 1800's and made it all up by himself, so I give your hero the credit for the entire brainwashing segment that has lasted 150 plus years and growing.
You do realise that evolution has moved on since Darwin right? He got it way wrong on genetics. But that's what that annoying thing called evidence does - it changes eloquent theories into something more accurate. Damn you Darwin!
"Are you aware of what scientists think about the intelligence of indivduals who use profanity to address their issues."
Scientists fucking cuss too, just like normal human beings. It's okay. It's okay to cuss.
Naughty words seem to be a big obsession among the creationists, much like sex. It all comes back to repression, every time.
I could write more coherent sentences on craft paper with a crayon clasped between my butt cheeks. Here's a hint Leon - consult the dictionary for the meanings of the words 'logic', 'credibility', 'intellect', and 'intelligent'. Using them in the way you do demonstrates your ignorance.
Oh, and a 'gull' is a bird. The word you're after is 'gall'. Yeah, you're showing me how it's done alright. Fucktard.
Leon, arguably the dumbest sack of pig crap to be deposited at our outhouse door, doesn't know about Alfred Russel Wallace - colour me unsurprised.
Kel, I believe this was directed my way, but to set the record straight, I referred to the recorded history of humans as far as secular was concerned was approximately 6000 years plus. The earth itself and the creation of the heavens and the universe can never be calculated accurately because no one has any clue how long that process lasted. It could very well be tens of thousands, tens of millions, the estimate of science is limited to scale. Like a ET at a drag strip, the speed can be estimated very accurately, but if the vehicle was to proceed beyond the borders of their calculation the estimate would not be feasable. Its like evolution, the idea of billions of years is only exaggerated to cover their own tracks of discrepancies that has always plagued the evolution theory for decades. Only trouble is, nobody has a clue how many years has gone by since the earth was formed and the die hard evolutionists don't like to hear anything contrary to their integrity.
Leon Flamick: Those goat herders that you labelled as writers of the scriptures were most likely writers of the theory of evolution and those writings never got too much exposure until Charlie Darwin came along centuries later and put it all into easily led minds and obvious it worked quite well judging by people today.
I'm sorry, but I don't have a clue what you're talking about. Explain?
I'm no scientist, and I'm not going to attack you like most people here. However, I would like to point out the principal reason why I'm sceptical of the existence of any kind of "intelligent designer". It is, of course, the fact that the human body and the natural world are in many ways poorly-designed. How do you explain the fact that there are so many diseases and parasites which cannot live without debilitating or killing their host organisms? Or the fact that so many children are born with congenital disabilities? Or the fact that we are so easily-injured?
Our bodies are fit for purpose, but are a long way from being perfect. This is entirely consistent with the theory that they have evolved through a lengthy process of natural selection. It is not, by contrast, consistent with the theory that they were created by a God who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent; why wouldn't he have designed them a bit better, so that fewer children die from diseases?
I'd also be interested to know what, precisely, you propose as an alternative to evolution, since there's a very broad range of viewpoints. At one end of the spectrum, hardline young-earth creationism is simply self-evident nonsense; the notion that the Earth is only 6,000 years old is disproven by carbon-dating and masses of other evidence, and the fossil record shows that species were not created all in one go but rather changed and developed over time. So that form of creationism is simply not intellectually sustainable. At the other end of the spectrum, of course, you can accept mainstream natural history but simply argue that, rather than species evolving and changing over time, they were altered by the intervention of God, in such a way as to merely appear that they were evolving naturally. That's an unfalsifiable statement, so no one can prove you wrong; but in practical, empirical terms, it's functionally indistinguishable from evolution, meaning that we have nothing to argue. (And it begs the question of why an omnipotent God would go to so much trouble to disguise His handiwork.)
I miss MAJeff, so I'll post this one for him:
shorter Leon:
blah, blah-blah, blah BLAH. Blah, blah blah blahity blah blah.
blah.
Hey now, maybe Walton has a use after all.
can you translate gibberish as well as speak it, Walton?
you and Leon can go head to head, and we'll just sit back and snicker watch.
There is plenty super-woo-charged creobots around today,my oh my....Its been a rather entertaining day !!
You believe the world is 6,000 years old?!? Then how do you account for the radiometric dating of rocks, the vast size of the galaxies, the genetic ancestry that shows the last common ancestor of humans around 150,000 years ago, the emergent fossil record, dendochronology that shows that the world has to be at least 10,000 years old, ice cores that have hundreds of thousands of layers, etc.?
You could think that but you would be wrong. Geology and astronomy have nothing at all to do with evolution. Hell, in the 18th century creationist Lord Kelvin worked out the earth to be at least 20 million years old and that was without taking into account that the earth has an internal core generating heat. The distances in astronomy have nothing at all to do with biology on this earth, they have everything to do with the measurement of the luminosity of light, the expansion of the universe and gravity. The geological age has nothing to do with evolution, rather it has to do with nuclear physics, the age of the sun, and the massive geological strata.Just to give you an idea: when Darwin proposed evolution he said the process needed around 300 million years. At the current time the age of the earth was estimated at around 20 million (thanks to Lord Kelvin.) What followed was not bring the age of the earth into line with evolution, rather evolution got dragged into the age of the earth. We found rocks billions of years old, and we found primitive life in rocks of about 3.8 billion years of age, and it's only in rocks of the last 600 million years or so that we see macroscopic fossils. The earth is 4.55 billion years because that's the age of the solar system. It's got nothing to do with Darwin's theory and I find it amazing that you think millions of scientists are part of a conspiracy to cover for a scientist who died over 100 years ago!
Are you ignorant or lying? geologists have a damn good idea how old the earth is, and it's much older than what was predicted that evolution needed. Through geology we can work out what rocks are old and what are young through relative dating. That is a layer of rocks under another layer will almost certainly be older (barring anomalies that occasionally happen but are recognisable.) So with that we have a marker by which to test one of the weirdest findings of nuclear physics - radiometric decay.Certain heavier elements are unstable and decay at a certain rate. We know the formula for that rate and we've been able to work out the half-life of many different substances. So firstly we can test these dating methods by seeing whether older rock gives an older reading than younger rock - it does. Secondly there are multiple dating methods with multiple half-life's. So we can get multiple techniques to verify approximately the same age when applied in blind tests. This adds credibility to any one single date. So from that we have an accurate way to date the earth. And it doesn't stop there either, because from our observations of solar formation, it's been hypothesised that all objects in the solar system were formed around the same time. So dating meteorites should correspond with the age of the sun (aged through main sequencing and the amount of helium in it's core) and correspond with the oldest rocks we find on earth. And guess what? It all corresponds. The solar system is just over 4.5 billion years old as confirmed through a variety of techniques achieved through blind testing. Just curious, how does any of that have to do with evolution at all?
Wowbagger...hey, I did say up wind there that "I wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer," I have admitted that, but your escuse overwelms anything I can come up with. Its shows vividly in your intelligent choice of words, (I hope that's appropriate for you). You will have to forgive me, my english are terrible.
Yes you're right, again I stand corrected, gull is a bird and gall is the word I was seeking. Atually I was going to use the excuse that the "a' and the "u" were so close to each other that it was a typo error.
Wow, very impressive article about Alfred Russel Wallace, its very considerate of you to direct my attention to articles that relate to evolution, but for the sake of argument and narrow-mindness, why don't you give me some links that are contrary to the subject. Surely you must be aware that there are just as many articles out there that dispute evolution as there are ones who support it. But I understand that you keep your sense of integrity if its all one sided.
Here again, I have to hand it to you with your great choice of words. "The dumbest sack of pig crap to be deposited at our outhouse door." I guess that's better than depositing it downstairs where you live huh, lol!
Come on, you left yourself open on that one.
Well you been a good sport, hope you have a good day and good fortunes to you, good night We gone bye bye!
Nope, you're wrong again. Over 99% of biologists back evolutionary theory and there are hundreds of thousands of articles on the subject. Any challenge to evolution has been answered, and considering the controversial nature of the subject material the topic has been studied in depth. The reason that is has such overwhelming support among scientists (including many religious scientists) is that the theory works - it has stood up to 150 years of scrutiny and potential falsification. In 150 years not a single piece of evidence has ever come forward that has falsified the theory, it's a sign of a really strong hypothesis. There's a good reason that scientists around the world consider it one of the strongest theories in science - it works and the evidence supports it! Hell, we know more about how evolution works than gravity. Don't ever hear theists complain about gravity though...
You'll find them right next to the articles contrary to gravity, flight and germs causing disease - in the section set aside for cranks, whackjobs and loons. If you ask nicely they'll give you a tinfoil hat.
Here I was thinking that there wasn't anything you'd prove to be worse at than science and logic, but it turns out I was mistaken; you're also useless at humour and insults. Utterly pathetic.
Go away and stay gone, you sniveling deluded cretin. I've thrown up more entertaining messes than you.
Anyone who needs a good dose of crazy should Google Leon's name.
Wow.
Leon, seriously that's seriously the dumbest thing I've read this week.
Brain meltingly stupid.
You have yet made even an attempt to defend your book. All you've done is talk about how you could defend it but you have not done so.
We've given you plenty of links to support evolution which you have ignored.
Are you determined to remind willfully ignorant or are you just lazy?
remind should be remain
ok, time for coffee.
OT, I just found out today that if you google banana vagina, my blog is in the top 10 hits.
Awesome
"OT, I just found out today that if you google banana vagina, my blog is in the top 10 hits."
I'm afraid to ask how it is you know that.
I recently installed an add-on that shows me what traffic I get, and one person from the US turned up from google.com to my post about Ray Comfort called "A Banana Also Fits Well In A Vagina..." I added 2 and 2 together then decided to google search to see if the answer really was 4.
Leon, still no physical evidence for your imaginary god, no physical evidence showing the bible is anything other than a collection of fairy tales, and failure to cite any peer reviewed primary scientific literature to show that any theory other than evolution is scientific. Utter and total fail all around. Now you are a total liar and bullshitter, and everything you say is considered a lie. You want that to change? Start showing some evidence and quit preaching.
No time to deal with the depths of Leon's staggering ignorance. Just so much:
Dude, I am a scientist (grad student with three published papers so far and two more in preparation), and I can tell you precisely what scientists really think about that! Many scientists curse regularly. I've witnessed two almost jumping at each other's throats -- a situation that was defused when one of them pulled out evidence for his outrageous claim.
You see, it simply doesn't matter how you say things. The only thing that matters is what you say -- whether it's something you can back up with evidence, or not. How you say it is at most something for the journal editors to worry about; scientists only need to worry about what to say.
I've never understood how the religious objection against blasphemous curses (like Italian porco Dio and porca Madonna, Serbian jebem ti, Boga, or Québécois French sacrement and tabernac[le] -- or even, if we stretch it, English hell) became an objection against all expressions of unhappiness (like shit and fuck). That just doesn't make sense.
-----------------
Oh yeah, one thing. Leon's ignorance isn't confined to facts. It extends to the Bible. It extends so far that he makes, without even noticing, statements that are by his own standards heretical. To wit, he claims to know (however approximately) the date of the end of the world, even though the Gospel of Mark says he doesn't -- not even Jesus himself knows when he's scheduled to return. I kid you not.
Emphasis added:
"I recently installed an add-on that shows me what traffic I get, and one person from the US turned up from google.com to my post about Ray Comfort called "A Banana Also Fits Well In A Vagina..." I added 2 and 2 together then decided to google search to see if the answer really was 4."
Oh, ok. I was thinking about all the possibilities. This one didn't come to mind. Not as spicy as I had hoped. Oh well, back to daydreaming.
BTW congrats on the good ranking bangina man :)
Walton -
I don't quite understand why you equate "the workings of our civilisation" with the workings of government. "Civilisation" is not the same thing as the State.
I’m not aware of anyone who thinks a civilization is the same thing as government. I am painfully aware, however, of people who seem to think that government is not an indispensable part of what keeps a civilization running. Take government away, and civilization degrades horribly.
Most of the achievements of our civilisation have been created not by the State, but by free and voluntary exchange between individuals.
Actually, many achievements have in fact been created by government action, but that’s not really the point; the point is that a strong government creates and maintains the political, social, and economic environment in which civilizations can achieve the things they do. There are many actors involved; government is one, and one of the largest.
As to the rest of your entry… Walton, you have frequently complained of being called stupid, of being called ignorant, of being accused of lying, and of having your writings and ideals compared to those of Ayn Rand. Your Libertarian sales brochure here distills in perfect clarity all the reasons why those things occur.
And now, I resume kicking the puppy. This will be unpleasant. Walton, I have worked for a living longer than you have been alive. I work in IT, and have previously worked in the financial sector. I have a hands-on, first-person understanding of the various factors that shape our economic landscape, so don’t presume to lecture me about economics, boy.
Global trade has been the driving-force behind an astonishing expansion in everyone's standards of living over the last century;
No. Global trade has certainly been a factor, but an even greater factor is higher expectations and the demand that those expectations be met (you are confusing the chicken and the egg, I think). In Britain, Europe, and America this rise was initiated in the nineteenth century by the rise of the unions, through which mere individuals became a more powerful group. They demanded a higher standard of living and eventually got it. Even though the unions are largely broken today, at least in America, the expectations they created remain and continue to be one of the forces behind our standard of living. Trade does not occur in a vacuum.
the average person, a century ago, would have been amazed at the living standards enjoyed by even the poorest among us today. (Astonishingly, for the first time in human history there are now more overnourished than undernourished people in the world.
A glowing generality. And true enough. But insufficient to support your thesis.
This, if nothing else, is testament to the great economic benefit that can be derived from international trade.)
As noted above, trade is not the only source of benefits, economic or otherwise. And trade does not occur in a vacuum.
"The wealthy" are those who - whether through skill, mere luck, or a combination of both - have benefited more than the average person from this process of free exchange.
This statement is broken. I will fix it for you –
"The wealthy" are those who - whether through skill, hard work, careful planning, mere luck, deceit, bribery, coercion, blackmail, emotional manipulation, advantageous social or political connections, propaganda, inheritance, threats of violence, actual violence, outright murder, or a combination of many or all these things - have benefited more than the average person from a series of elaborate processes that typically also includes free exchange.”
The points you omitted reveal a much more accurate and complex portrait of economics than the useless oversimplification you originally presented. And a lie of omission is still a lie, Walton.
This does not mean that they owe the State anything in particular.
It means they owe civilization. One of the things a government does is to act in that civilizations interest by, among other things, enacting laws and levying taxes. These are widely regarded as legitimate functions of government.
If a person establishes a successful business, he relies on many other people - his suppliers, his employees, his customers. But each of these people have entered into free contracts with him, for their own gain. His supplier agrees to sell him goods, in exchange for money; his employees agree to work for him, in exchange for money; his customers agree to pay him money, in exchange for goods. In no case is any of these relationships created by the State.
He relies on the laws of the land and the very fact that his civilization has sufficient social, economic, and political stability to make his venture possible. These conditions, which enable his relationships as listed above (I would add his financial backers to that list) are created, protected and maintained by a government. Trade does not occur in a vacuum.
Also, many business relationships have been coercive in nature. The British trade companies of the nineteenth century forced the opium trade on China literally at gunpoint. The rail barons of America in the same period imported Chinese workers who became, contrary to those people’s expectations, little more than slaves. The oil and coal companies hired private mercenary armies (the Pinkerton Detective Agency being one of the most notorious) to harass, intimidate and even mass murder workers who demanded better wages and working conditions; many of their practices continued well into the modern era. It was once common for women and the descendants of former slaves to be barred from many avenues of employment and paid shit wages for the jobs they were allowed to hold, and only action by the government on behalf of those people changed that.
So I fail to see how the wealthy owe any greater debt to the State than the average person. I suppose it can be said that, since they have more property, the State incurs a greater cost in protecting it from crime and natural disaster; but in the context of the vast, bloated government budgets we see in most countries, this is a negligible amount.
You fail, indeed. There are far more rights than property rights. The debt is not owed to the government, but to the civilization that government is charged with administering. This is not in any way a subtle distinction.
I will concede that the wealthy in certain industries use public infrastructures significantly more than the average person; a trucking tycoon, for example, will rely on public roads and bridges to a much greater extent than the average person. But this is not an argument for a progressive income tax; rather, it is an argument for charging user fees, where possible, for such services. In the case of roads, many countries, including the UK, charge road tax per vehicle - which addresses this concern, because it means that those who use the public roads more pay more. Similar arrangements have been, or can be, adopted in many other areas of public service.
Civilization, and the systems by which it functions and benefits, is vastly more than your absurdly reductionist sketch of property, industry, and infrastructure. Civilization is laws and the people who create them. It is courts, police, and firefighters. It is health care and education. It is science and commerce. It is family, friends, and neighbors. It is the reasonable expectations that all people, as result of all these factors and more, have for themselves and of their fellows. We all owe for this. A progressive system of taxation supports all of this in the fairest possible way.
Thus, I don't see how one can argue that the wealthy owe a greater debt to the State merely because they are wealthy. They may owe such a debt because they have benefited more than average from public infrastructures and services - but this is an argument for user fees, not for progressive income tax. The wealthy have indeed benefited greatly from our civilisation - but our civilisation is not built solely, or even primarily, on governmental intervention. Yes, it certainly needs governmental intervention in order to work; without law and order, defined property rights, and the arbitration of contracts, there could be no civilisation. But these things are, in a free society, available equally to all citizens, not exclusively to the wealthy.
There is nothing even remotely symmetrical about the power of the wealthy versus the power of an individual, such as you or myself, so your argument fails. One of the purposes of a strong government is, as Jefferson realized, to “guard against the Excesses of the Monied Interests.” Every time we have failed to do so their wealth and power has grown, and the rest of the citizens have been made economically and politically weaker. Government intervention on behalf of the people is an essential part of the foundation of a viable civilization. Weaken that foundation, and much of our civilization begins to sag alarmingly, and the people suffer for it. In extreme cases, you get the previously referenced example of Somalia.
You are mocked here, Walton, because the abstract, idealized, sanitized picture you paint in these writings holds no correspondence whatsoever to the messy realities of the world or its history.
And, btw, there is no need to keep expounding your hatred of the Bush administration and the modern GOP in general; I don't substantially disagree with you. The Bush administration divided the conservative movement, abrogated civil and personal liberties, and deployed the rhetoric of economic freedom while in fact curtailing such freedom. While I'm not a fanatical Bush-hater, I'm certainly no supporter of his.
Actually, it is both necessary and relevant. The ruin of the Bush era was decades in the making, and the liberals who warned against it long ago were dismissed, ridiculed, or ignored by conservatives. So we will rub your goddamn noses in it, and try to fix the mess.
Very well, I apologise for characterising you as a socialist.
No apologies necessary (for that); it’s not an insult, merely inaccurate.
It's difficult to know what label to use for people in general; but the term "liberal" is far too ill-defined and widely-abused to be a useful descriptor of a specific political ideology (though it is useful in the context of constitutional theory, but that's another discussion).
That’s… actually not bad at all…
In response to your question: to vastly oversimplify and generalise, one could perhaps say that the mainstream "left" (to use the term very broadly) are pro-liberty on social issues while anti-liberty on economic issues, whereas the mainstream "right" are the other way around. Bush was the worst of both worlds, pretending to be committed to the free market while not really understanding it. I do hate generalisations like this, however, and I appreciate that there are lots of counterexamples one can point out.
…*facepalm*
I would also accept that since I'm using the word "liberty" in a partisan and contestable way, I need to define it. I would contend that "liberty" is not synonymous with absolute autonomy of action; rather, we ought to take it to refer to freedom within the law (which, I believe, is close to its original classical meaning).
I think you’ll find broad agreement here with that particular statement, as far it goes... Of course, it’s also fair to ask – Does this statement indicate your understanding of liberalism and liberty, or does it merely indicate that you know how to look up the answer in the back of the book?
True liberty cannot exist without a well-defined system of individual property rights (which is why left-anarchists' version of "freedom" is not one to which I can subscribe).
Liberals have a healthy respect and need for individual property rights. But we do not confuse those rights with the reactionary cry of “Privatize everything!!” that is so beloved of conservatives and libertarians.
Fundamentally, I would rely on a modified version of the "liberal harm principle": a person should be entitled to do as he or she wishes with his or her body and private property, provided he or she does not (a) interfere with another's autonomy by force or fraud, (b) deprive another of the enjoyment of his or her property, or (c) break a binding contract into which he or she has entered voluntarily. (The more traditional formulation, "do as you wish as long as it harms no other person" is, of course, far too simplistic; 'harming' others is in many cases legitimate, e.g. by setting up a competing business and pricing them out of the market. Harm only becomes illegitimate if it interferes with another's personal autonomy or property rights, or breaches a contract.)
SC answered this passage very effectively further upthread; I have nothing to add.
Libertarian fantasies are just that, as inapplicable to the real world as passionate essays about the history of Klingon culture. They only work, even in a carefully compartmentalized way, by ignoring every fucking thing that has ever fucking happened in the entire fucking history of the entire fucking world.
I like essays about Klingon culture. But I never confuse them with reality. Adulthood prevents that.
Apologies to all for the missed italics tags above.
Saveau:
Also, many business relationships have been coercive in nature. The British trade companies of the nineteenth century forced the opium trade on China literally at gunpoint. The rail barons of America in the same period imported Chinese workers who became, contrary to those people’s expectations, little more than slaves. The oil and coal companies hired private mercenary armies (the Pinkerton Detective Agency being one of the most notorious) to harass, intimidate and even mass murder workers who demanded better wages and working conditions; many of their practices continued well into the modern era. It was once common for women and the descendants of former slaves to be barred from many avenues of employment and paid shit wages for the jobs they were allowed to hold, and only action by the government on behalf of those people changed that.
I won't dispute this historical analysis; but you need to realise that all of these are practices to which libertarians are opposed. We do advocate that the State should protect individuals (regardless of those individuals' economic power) against coercive force or fraud.
In a society with a functioning State, the State has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Thus, any person who uses such coercive force on another must be either (a) acting in breach of the law, or (b) acting in a manner authorised, whether expressly or impliedly, by government. A corporation or private entity, therefore, can only use coercive force to intimidate citizens if it is either (a) acting illegally, or (b) acting under a government authorisation. In either case, the government is at fault (in case (a) for failing to enforce the law, in case (b) because it has authorised the use of force).
In your example, therefore, the Pinkerton Detective Agency et al. were, in physically intimidating and killing workers, either acting in breach of the law, or they were acting with the express or implicit authorisation of government. In either case, this can be understood as a failure of government.
In a libertarian society, government would protect all citizens against force and fraud; so your Pinkerton detectives would have been arrested and imprisoned, as they should have been. What government should not do is guarantee jobs, living standards, or other material benefits to private individuals; because it cannot do so without itself initiating coercion, in the form of taxation, against its subjects.
You are, in short, repeating one of the common fallacies about libertarians: that we worship corporations and businesspeople, and believe that they should have absolute power to act as they wish. We do not. Corporations and businesspeople are no better and no worse than anyone else, and like everyone else, they must act within the law, meaning that they must not be permitted to use coercive force or fraud. A State which allows them to do so is not a libertarian state; it's simply a failed state. Your references to Somalia demonstrate this conflation; Somalia is not a libertarian state. Rather, it is the absence of an effective state. We libertarians do not advocate that government should do nothing. Rather, we advocate that it should have certain limited tasks (protecting people from force and fraud, enforcing property rights, and arbitrating contracts), and that it should perform these effectively.
To block quote and to ease everyone's eyeballs when trying to discern between quoted passages and your own words
<blockquote>I think your opinion isn't worth lizard spit</blockquote>
Shows up like this
...stop writing about Libertarianism, defending Libertarianism on every thread regardless of topic, and mentioning Libertarianism in response to the mildest provocation.
Talk of Libertarianism is spreading like herpes. Thousands of words, so much political mantra, and to so little purpose...
Maybe I should railroad every thread onto the topic of my own, personal unhealthy facination with bovine faecal matter?
how is that different from libertarianism?
no shit
how is that different from libertarianism?
LOL
after reading Eric's excellent response to Walton's uninformed gibberish, I think I will simply just save it and repost it whenever Walton gets that all-too-common bug up his ass to post more libertarian drivel round these parts.
I'm sure you don't mind, right Walton?
I mean, you can just repost your response, which is at best misses the point of what Eric said, and at worst is a complete mischaracterization of it.
yup. just keep posting that same response, so everyone can see just how dumb you really are.
seriously, get a new stick or get the fuck lost already.
I note the possibility of unintended consequences.
"A teacher shall teach the material presented in the standard textbook supplied by the school system and thereafter may use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner, as permitted by the city, parish, or other local public school board."
This seems to mandate the teaching of the critical facilities required to "Understand, analyse, critique and review scientific theories." The disciplines of logic, rhetoric and critical analysis have long been neglected, and I can think of no better introductory matters for the evaluations of arguments than the comparison and contrast of the arguments for and against Evolution and Intelligent Design.
By the way, a teacher who actually did that would become a test case courtesy of useful idiots on some school board in about 15 seconds. Or in other words, how hard could it be to ***outsmart*** these people?
I watched the Nova episode, Intelligent Design on Trial, and it's quite amazing to me that the ID people clearly thought they were walking into court with a persuasive case, and were genuinely surprised they did not prevail.
Of course, the problem with ID is not actually the position that some design executive might be involved in the process - though proof or disproof is currently impossible.
The problem with "Pandas and People" is that it teaches things that are false to fact, presuming not only to teach that there is a Designer, but that he designed things as they say, in the way they say, in complete contradiction of all sorts of factual evidence.
One would fairly assume that they have an alternate interpretation of the data that is testible and arguable. Not so much. Nor - more troubling - do proponents see that without this alternate explaination of facts in hand that provides as good or better predictive results - eg, continental drift, the progression of various models of the internal workings of the atom - it is neither a theory nor a science.
Oh, and it's pretty symplistic as a philosophical system, too. Hell, it's pretty damn silly from a theological viewpoint. After all, in both schema - "thinking about stuff and the logical consequences of accepting one thing or another as truth" is rather fundimental.
Come to think of it, I cannot think of any genuine intellectual discipline, with or without religious aspects, that would allow "The Bible Says it, I Believe it, That settles It" as credible.
Actually, Jesuits taught me that was evidence of credulity.
Erm:
Whatever one may think of it, "Libertarianism" IS an intellectual concept, one that has a large body of solid, well founded, respectable argument behind it. Or, in other words, just because some wackadoodle makes some absurd pronouncement and claims to be a "Libertarian," it does not therefore follow that their grasp of that concept is superior than their grasp of a concept such as "Scientific Theory."
It is unfortunate that so many fools see it as a useful tool to attach a gloss of respectability to views that are otherwise intuitively odious. OTOH, that's a problem with right wing Christianity. It requires knowing things "the good book says" that it just plain doesn't. Regardless of what one thinks of the authority of scripture.
Oh, for fuck's sake, Walton. We’re still doing this, are we?
What government should not do is guarantee jobs, living standards, or other material benefits to private individuals; because it cannot do so without itself initiating coercion, in the form of taxation, against its subjects.
Job creation and the maintenance of a high standard of living are of broad benefit to civilization. The assertion that government shouldn’t be involved in this because Oh NOES! Taxus! is not a coherent statement.
You are, in short, repeating one of the common fallacies about libertarians: that we worship corporations and businesspeople, and believe that they should have absolute power to act as they wish.
We do not claim that you “worship” these entities; we only note that the policies that you advocate historically result in increased advantage to them at the expense of everyone else’s well-being and security. Results speak for themselves.
Corporations and businesspeople are no better and no worse than anyone else, and like everyone else, they must act within the law, meaning that they must not be permitted to use coercive force or fraud. A State which allows them to do so is not a libertarian state; it's simply a failed state. Your references to Somalia demonstrate this conflation; Somalia is not a libertarian state. Rather, it is the absence of an effective state.
This looks suspiciously like you are deliberately missing the point. I did not specifically claim that Somalia is a libertarian state; my point was that policies of deregulation and reduced taxation, championed by conservatives and libertarians with the promise of great benefits for all, have historically proven to be at best ephemeral and at worst horrifically detrimental. Therefore, a failed state, of which Somalia is an example no less real for being extreme, is precisely the worst case outcome. But the results are undesirable even far short of a worst case outcome: In America, lowered taxes and deregulation were hailed as a great boon by libertarians during the Reagan years, but what they wrought was reduced employment, reduced wealth for most people, an overall lack of economic security, massive national debt, and greater ability for the wealthy and power to exert influence over everyone else.
After Clinton pushed through his economic stimulus bill (which, it bears repeating, was quite successful and yet ran counter to Sound Libertarian Doctrine) libertarian hero Newt Gingrich seized the Speaker of the House position in a mid-term upset and filled America’s ears with stories of all sorts of privately run homeless shelters, rehab centers, and other avenues of service to the disadvantaged that were more effective than publicly funded alternatives and required less money. These tales were so stirring that several journalists went looking for these places… only to find that they didn’t exist. Gingrich had simply made them up; reality sacrificed for ideology.
So, there is no evidence to support libertarian claims regarding taxation and regulation, whereas a vast body of history has shown that taxes have successfully created and supported numerous programs and institutions that have benefited our civilization greatly. Your claims simply don’t match reality; ours simply do.
We libertarians do not advocate that government should do nothing. Rather, we advocate that it should have certain limited tasks (protecting people from force and fraud, enforcing property rights, and arbitrating contracts), and that it should perform these effectively.
Yet libertarian hero Milton Friedman quite literally stood at the side of Auguste Pinochet and trumpeted his praises to the world while tens of thousands were seized, tortured, butchered… or simply disappeared.
In a society with a functioning State, the State has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Thus, any person who uses such coercive force on another must be either (a) acting in breach of the law, or (b) acting in a manner authorised, whether expressly or impliedly, by government. A corporation or private entity, therefore, can only use coercive force to intimidate citizens if it is either (a) acting illegally, or (b) acting under a government authorisation. In either case, the government is at fault (in case (a) for failing to enforce the law, in case (b) because it has authorised the use of force). In a libertarian society, government would protect all citizens against force and fraud; so your Pinkerton detectives would have been arrested and imprisoned, as they should have been.
Congratulations, Walton; it’s safe to say that you have invented the No True Libertarian argument, and that it eerily resembles another well-known logical fallacy. Don’t bother telling us how a libertarian society would or should operate when we have a host of examples of the unfortunate reality of libertarian principles in action. No gods or kings; just an emperor with no clothes.
Congratulations, Walton; it’s safe to say that you have invented the No True Libertarian argument, and that it eerily resembles another well-known logical fallacy.
OK, Eric, forget the term "libertarian". I self-identify as a libertarian because it's the closest descriptor to my personal political beliefs. That certainly does not mean that I endorse the views or actions of everyone who calls him- or herself a libertarian. Nor does it make me remotely responsible for General Pinochet. If you prefer, we can abandon the word "libertarian"; I'm happy to call myself a classical liberal, an anti-statist, or any number of other things. But I am not responsible for the beliefs and actions of anyone except myself.
I have told you what I believe. I believe in a system of government whereby the state's role consists solely of protecting citizens from force and fraud, defending private property rights, enforcing contracts, national defence, emergency management, and a few other basic matters. Attack that if you will, but don't attack me for things I have not in fact advocated.
In America, lowered taxes and deregulation were hailed as a great boon by libertarians during the Reagan years, but what they wrought was reduced employment, reduced wealth for most people, an overall lack of economic security, massive national debt, and greater ability for the wealthy and power to exert influence over everyone else.
Statistics? Sources? I'm sure even you can't claim that the economy was in a good state during the Carter years (not that I affix all the blame to Carter for that). The US economy was certainly in a better state, and the average person was better off, in 1990 than s/he was in 1980.
Of course, a free market deregulated economy does have certain disadvantages: most notably, it inevitably increases disparities between the rich and the poor. However, I do not believe this to be an inherently bad thing, as long as the absolute poverty level is not rising. People often blithely assert that during the Reagan years, "the rich got richer and the poor got poorer". But this is empirically untrue. Yes, the rich got richer at a faster rate than the poor got richer, widening the gap between rich and poor. But the standard of living of most people, in absolute terms, improved.
I point out that real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan years; there was a net job increase of 16 million; and real GDP growth between 1982-1988 was 3.4% a year, a respectable rate. Reagan certainly wasn't perfect; he increased the public debt by an absurd amount (mainly to maintain high military spending) and did not cut back the federal government as much as he promised. But his economic policy was, on the whole, superior to that of any post-war President.
Eric Saveau,
Bravo. Kind of covers everything anyone who - like me - may not have been sure of exactly what it is about Libertarianism that rubs them the wrong way.
I still can't believe that Walton actually wrote Corporations and businesspeople are no better and no worse than anyone else... - that's the sort of delusional detachment from reality one usually only sees in the woo-addled, kind of like 'God isn't capable of evil'.
Two words: Ford Pinto.
Thanks, Wowbagger, but goddamn; I'm really fucking exhausted after shoveling a clear path through all that bullshit, only to see s fresh load trwoeled in behind me with a "New and Improved!" sign stuck into it.
*headdesk* See Walton run. Run, Walton, run. Eric Saveau sees Walton run.
Tripling the national debt is a superior economic policy? Only an economic illiterate (by which I mean you, Walton) would say such a STUPID thing.
Learn some basic economics, boy (notice that's boy with a small "b"). An introduction to economics course is surely offered at that highly rated university you attend.
Moron.
And the houses would be made of candy!
We would frolic with sharks!
Unpleasant work would be replaced by good sex!
Oh - I forgot. Walton thinks the sex drive has been overall detrimental to our species.
tl;dr
Libertarian! *drinks* Ron Paul '08! 9/11 was an inside job! *hic*
I'm teaching about that in a couple of weeks! My students are reading the Mother Jones piece.
Didn't PZ put his foot down about the "L" word. No one cares about the damn "Liberts"
Give it a rest. We don't want another thread hijacked by you assholes.
And the houses would be made of candy!
We would frolic with sharks!
Unpleasant work would be replaced by good sex!
wait a minute now, what was that part about frolicking with sharks again?
If THAT could be fleshed out, I might bite on it...
GDP growth between 1982-1988 was 3.4% a year
if that stat is important to you, you should have nominated Clinton, as growth was MUCH higher during his tenure. Higher than any US president since the stat was maintained, in fact.
Oh, why am I bothering.
just curl up and die already Walton; your spiel is simply... tired.
Changed it from lions just for you. ;)
I'm teaching about that in a couple of weeks!
And indoctrinating your students with hatred against the evil corporations?
if that stat is important to you, you should have nominated Clinton, as growth was MUCH higher during his tenure. Higher than any US president since the stat was maintained, in fact.
I never said Clinton was that bad a president. In fact, from an economic and administrative standpoint he was one of the better post-war presidents. He didn't have much moral character (though there are plenty of Republicans about whom one could say the same), but his policies weren't all bad.
And from the website of the UK Libertarian Party, who explain it better than I can:
Libertarians believe passionately in free markets. And when we say 'free markets' we mean exactly that—people and organisations trading freely, honestly and voluntarily, for the benefit of all. Some lobby groups use the term 'free markets' to mean the economic rule over us by faceless corporations. Such corporatism (sometimes called political capitalism) is anathema to libertarians, and many of our policy proposals are squarely aimed at tackling this abuse of the honest marketplace by the corporate/state hegemony.
Showing the truth about how little corporations value human life when their bottom line is at stake doesn't meet any definition of 'indoctrination' that I'm aware of, Walton. It seems like a perfect illustration of what life under Libertarianism would be like - as long as you made sure the people killed weren't rich, of course.
I wonder how libertarians keep an honest marketplace while leaving it completely free... Though I don't want an answer here Walton, if you have one type it on your blog and I'll read it there. Isn't this the point of having your own blog?
Three words, Walton: George Walker Bush.
And show that it's pure religion! Holy ideology!
Right, Walton - that's what I do. In fact, it's a unit primarily about individual ethics in organizations. But since you evidently don't have a clue what a corporation even is, I give you this film, portions of which I've linked to in the past:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=FA50FBC214A6CE87
I'm sure you'll feel free to ignore or reject any part that offends your new-found faith, but perhaps some factual information will sneak through.
PS to Eric Saveau: While I don't agree with you on everything (e.g., re governments), you've done a splendid job attempting to educate the little pisher.
Be sure to enjoy the paean to Rush Limbaugh whilst you're there.
(Be careful though, because if you say Rush Limbaugh's name three times in succession into a computer monitor, then Anne Coulter will appear in your house and dry-hump your leg...)
Walton quoted:
No businessperson is in business "for the benefit of all". A businessperson's intended beneficiary is limited to a target consisting of him/herself. History shows that selfish motivations rarely translate into societal benefits - the fundamental contradiction of libertarianism.
Fucking libertarians ruining threads again.
Walton, why are you such an asshole? Seriously. Why must every fucking thread turn into a libertarian masturbation fest for you?
Can't you get a circle jerk going at your blog? You can even claim permanent pivot man status.
Walton,
Why is criticizing corporations such a bad thing? I think almost everyone agrees that criticizing the government, an elected body subject to the people, is healthy. However, criticisms of a powerful, unelected group only responsible for making profit is bad? It is almost never seen in the US. Noam Chomsky, probably the most prominent critic of corporations, is largely shunned by the mainstream media.
So David Marjanovic, OM, you are a scientist, a student graduate who now figures he is the enlightment of all knowledge and everyone else is bottom line. I got news for you son (or dude) if you wish to stay in your frame of thought, you don't know half as much as you think, because for one thing you need practical experience to understand issues fully, academic training does not cut it with practicality and there is no substitute for experience no matter how smart you make yourself out to be.
You say it doesn't matter how you say it that counts, well son (dude) it "does" matter how issues are addressed. If every other word is F... this and F... that, it doesn't show professionalism on anyones part, it shows literally that their verbal faculties are out of control and if they have to resort to swearing to make their point, then its clear the debate or argument would lead to a one sided result regardless.
For a smart fellow, you certainly aren't to observent when it comes to matters that are addressed in a certain way, unless of course it was in your intentions to swerve an issue to gain popularity to your side.
You said that I know the approximate date that the world will end and that's not what I said at all. I said soon it will end, that's not an approximate figure unless you are changing the english language. That could be, as we used to call gay people in the 40's and 50's a happy lot and a fag was english slang for cigarette.
I see your Biblical examples are far from accurate also. That ye, tho, expressions went out years ago, there are more accurate Bible's today that are printed in modern english such as the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.
Another thing son (dude) is Jesus Christ will not return to earth in human form, his sacrifice was initiated only once. There are many Bible's that refer to coming in their verses when actual greek texts that have been found carry the word presence. He is now present in power in his kingdom awaiting for the appointed time to execute judgement on this wicked system of things (not the world) and if you were knowledgeable on Biblical facts and signs as you think you are in science you could recognize those signs quite readily. But because you are puffed up with pride with your years of schooling, it would be impossible for you to see those signs and know how to interpet them.
Take a lesson son (dude) I've got 40 plus years of studying Biblical events and accounts and within those years Christ's prphecies have taken place more than enough to convince any common thinking person that we are indeed living in the time of the end.
But you stick with your own ignorance and see what all those years of education & science will do for you when that appointed day comes. You son (dude) along with all others will get a severe rude awakening.
OH NOES!!!
Pascal's wager is coming to eat us!!!
RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!
Leon, your god doesn't exist your bible is a work of fiction. Learn the truth and be free. Otherwise, keep your drivel derived from your delusions to yourself. You are merely showing us how ignorant you are.
Indeed, it takes many years of non-schooling to see those signs; possibly a lifetime's avoidance of education.
Take a lesson from Foghorn Leghorn? What are you going to teach that Chickenhawk?
...is commonly flawed. For instance, the idea that I'm disturbed by the notion of an ancient work of fiction coming to hunt me down.
Heeeeres Jebus!
Can we ban Leon already? Preaching gets you banned, does it not?
Leon if YOU can't define 'soon' you've got nothing. Two thousand years ago christians said the same thing. Using that as a reference any reasonable person would need to conclude that the christian 'soon' could not occur for at least two thousand years in the future.
Your use of 'soon' just lumps you in with all the other failures of christian thought.
I hate to encourage Leon, but I am curious what prophecies have come to fruition during those 40 years? I'm assuming you mean the years from 1969 to 2009.
Leon, I've got 40+ years of knowing the bible is work of fiction. Trying to shoehorn a work of fiction into reality is difficult, especially for someone who cannot comprehend fiction. Prophecy is even worse. Requires a real deluded person.
I was reading comments from others who seem to have the same judgemental attitute towards Walton as they are to me, so I decided to backtrack on this board and read what actually got the habitutual ridiculers so aggressive.
Even though I found Walton's comments very informative, I wasn't always in agreement, non the lease I found his mannerism as opposed to others very commendable. I have been taught by my grandparents and father that you can tell an honest person by how he conducts himself and by his actions towards his opposers.
Ones who resort to name calling and denying a comment just just for spite because it doesn't coincide with their views are often people who are impatient, lovers of themselves, self assuming, haughty, slanderers, without self control, headstrong and not open to any agreement...all incidently are described perfectly in 2 Tomothy 3: 1-7. So much for an ancient fairy tale book huh!
Walton, regarding your comment #356, if you were to evaluate my comment you would find that I was referring to the recorded history of mankind in general as 6000 years old, no way was I calculating the age of the world itself. Even though the Bible does not give an accurate account of the earth's age, it does give examples that the 6 creative days were not literal 24 hr times, suggesting the earth could be perhaps millions of years old, but unlikely to be billions. No one knows, and even experiments cannot give accurate details, because times indefinite are considerably different compared to times that are conducted in matters brought about by man. They are all speculation and guesswork.
About the goatherders, that was just a sarcastic reply to the person who concluded that all writers of the Bible were just lowdown goatherders of which is not true. Some were lawyers, doctors and prominent people in society at that time. I was just using words to evaluate how stupid and ignorant some people shows themselves to be. For sake of intellectual merit, just ignore that paragraph.
I understand your skeptism concerning the human body also, because I have health issues I have aquired during my decades of life on this planet, but I don't contribute it to poor design, rather to my own careless, carefree lifestyle I had in the past.
I know the Biblical account of sin being introduced by the first couple seems very lame for future generations to suffer from their results, but humans, because of their own lack of cleansing and hiygene habits brought on diseases and plagues upon themselves. And with drugs and other congestive materials that people use for recreation has also brought on defective births and pregnancies. If people were to follow the examples of God's strict standards and moral values you would see those incidents greatly reduced, maybe even eliminated. Governments on the other hand allow moral and family values to fail yet have no way to combat the consequences of those failures, so, demoralization of society continues.
The question of an alternative for evolution does not belong to religion, but it does belong in the scriptures providing a person can interpet them correctly. There is an alternative for Bible understanding that is readily available today, but I will not enclose on that because of narrow-minded individuals who could never understand it in the first place. The trouble is in these times..."truth is not a popular message today." Nor is common sense when it cannot be warranted by instant gradification.
Still promoting your fictional bible, just like an ignorant fool. You need to look at the real facts to see that almost every book of the bible was written by committee years after the fact. That brings the veracity of the whole book into question. If you just accept that it is true, without looking at the foundations, you will be caught out, as you have been.
Any organization or individual has the right to boycott a product, service, or location. However, I'm not sure why you are all afraid of academic freedom. The bill states explicitly that "religious" ideas are excluded from the science classroom. There are many scientists (not just Creationists) who doubt Darwin, doubt the science of human-caused global warming, and who are opposed to human cloning or embryonic stem cell research.
Let's get all of the evidence to the students and encourage critical thinking, discussion, argumentation skills, analysis of evidence, debate etc. This can only be healthy. Instead, you seem to want to encourage censorship, which is never a good idea in a free, pluralistic society.
Leon, you have yet to provide us with anything to support the inerrancy of your bible.
All you are doing is whining.
The high school science classroom is not the place where the great remaining questions of science are sussed out. It is the place to teach the most currently accepted science to the students to prepare them for the challenges ahead. There is barely enough time to teach them that let alone introducing unsupported science into the class room.
Creationism / ID is not supported in anyway. There is no reason to muddy up the students minds with garbage.
Once the ID crowd produces science on par with what has been established over the last 150 years since the introduction of the Theory of Evolution, then it can be considered on the same level.
Not only is it not on the same level, it doesn't even have any science supporting it. It doesn't even have a testable theory.
GMV, please cite 10 papers from the last five years in peer reviewed primary scientific journals showing that a second theory other than evolution is at work for biology in science.
There a difference between a scientific theory, with oodles of evidence to back it up, and a religious theory, such as ID and creationism, which has no evidence to back it, just insane belief. ID and creationism are not scientific and have no place in the science classroom. They belong in course on comparative religions.
Oh and not to confuse, the Evolution vs. ID is not one of the great remaining questions.
The only controversy isn't one.
It is a manufactroversy.
Leon, you might not like what geology has to say about the age of the earth, but to say that the discipline of geochronology is "all speculation and guesswork" is a blatantly false statement. To assert that is simply ridiculous. Radiometric dating techniques are rooted in the same principles of physics that have given us lovely things like nuclear weapons. Perhaps you don't believe that those work, either? If not, then why the inconsistency? Why accept the foundations of a discipline in one area of science, but deride and mock a discipline in another area of science that uses the same principles? How does that possibly make sense? And beyond that, your mocking attitude, while simultaneously chiding others for their behavior, is more than a little hypocritical. As is, I might add, mocking my science while relying on it to provide you with the metal for those cars you love to work on, and the petroleum to run them.
SC, OM-
[dignified bow] From a Pharyngulite of the Order of the Molly, that is high praise indeed. And now, I resume once more kicking the puppy since he keeps piddling on the floor and chewing on the books.
Your arguments get shredded and your response to that is “Okay, I’ll drop the label “libertarian”?!?!? Fuck off. It isn’t about the label. It’s about the lack of substance in your sales pitch. I don’t give a rat’s ass what you call yourself. You can call your religious ideology – for that’s EXACTLY what it is – Masturbatory Unicornianism for all I care, and it will not change the fact that there is a vast discrepancy between the claims of your religious principles and the unfortunate results of putting those principles into practice.
You do a nice job of presenting the advertising campaign for your product; Consumer Reports, unfortunately, details numerous flaws and shortcomings. I repeat what I said above - ” You are mocked here, Walton, because the abstract, idealized, sanitized picture you paint in these writings holds no correspondence whatsoever to the messy realities of the world or its history.”
I was there. You were not. You don’t have the faintest fucking clue what you’re talking about. Unemployment went from 7.5 percent to over ten percent at its worst, an over twenty-five percent increase. Homelessness went from something sufficiently uncommon as to be seldom even mentioned to over two million homeless people by the time Reagan skipped out the door. The real income of the bottom one-fifth of American households dropped by 6.1 percent while the top one-fifth increased by 11.1 percent. The number of people living below the poverty line went from 24.5 million in 1978 to 32.5 million in 1988. Much of the manufacturing sector of America was bankrupted under Reagan and never completely recovered. Had the Democrats not gained some additional seats in the ’82 mid-terms and begun blunting Reagan’s attacks on the middle class and the poor, it’s clear that the damage would have been even worse.
I may as well add to what others have already said about this: Corporations are inherently sociopathic in nature. That is not a criticism or complaint, it is merely an accurate label for the way they are designed to function. They cannot be trusted to inherently behave in an honest or “moral” manner; history amply demonstrates that they must be kept on a short leash by someone wielding a club. This does not mean we “hate” corporations, it only means that we recognize that capitalism is a system that does not function in a vacuum and needs to be regulated if it is to function in such a way that actually produces the widespread benefits that it can, potentially, create.
But since you brought up the term “evil” with regard to corporations, we may as well acknowledge some examples of that. For starters, the Bayer Corporation nearly killed my father several years back. His pharmacist was one of many who were specifically paid and instructed by Bayer to switch users of Lipitor to a drug called Baycol. Baycol degraded the myelin sheathing on the nerves, resulting in loss of feeling, loss of motor control, severe pain, impaired senses, and even death. Several hundred people died. My father, fortunately, stopped using it right away and made a fair – though not full – recovery. Bayer had its lawyers whittle the fines down, paid them, and went back to business as usual.
In the 1991 there was a fire in a chicken processing plant in North Carolina that left twenty-five dead and scores injured. The reason all these people suffered was because the owner locked the workers in under the assumption that they were all stealing chickens from him, and there no safety devices to unlock the doors in case of an emergency. This case is notable in that the owner actually went to prison. The lack of safety oversight and enforcement for workers was one of the hallmarks of the Reagan-Bush years.
More recently, Ford sold vehicles equipped with Firestone-made tires that were known to be faulty and hazardous. There were thousands of injuries and hundreds of deaths as a result of the failure of these tires under normal driving conditions. Ford and Firestone blamed each other, lawsuits were launched, most of the lawsuits were blocked or settled, or the companies went on. No jail time for anyone.
These examples are not intended to show that corporations are “evil”, but they do give lie to your blithe homily about corporations and business people being no different from anyone else. Clearly they are; they wield vastly greater wealth and power and influence than the rest of us, will frequently pursue their profits with little or no regard for the well-being of others, and will always seek to avoid accountability for their malfeasance before the law (and, by virtue of their wealth, have means for achieving that last point that the rest of us lack). I repeat: On leash, with a club held over them. We want corporations to succeed, and to benefit from their success; but we do not wish to carelessly give them opportunities to turn and bite us.
Something else that bears repeating: Your simple-minded characterization of capitalism above - ”"The wealthy" are those who - whether through skill, mere luck, or a combination of both - have benefited more than the average person from this process of free exchange.
And my corrected version of that statement – ”"The wealthy" are those who - whether through skill, hard work, careful planning, mere luck, deceit, bribery, coercion, blackmail, emotional manipulation, advantageous social or political connections, propaganda, inheritance, threats of violence, actual violence, outright murder, or a combination of many or all these things - have benefited more than the average person from a series of elaborate processes that typically also includes free exchange.”
- is STILL an oversimplification; but is at least sufficient to be a MEANINGFUL description. You show no capability to recognize this unsubtle distinction.
And I’m exhausted again. You show no capacity to learn, or to think like an adult. You constantly invoke “The STATE!” as what an overview of libertarian/conservative rhetoric reveals to be just a code word for "Oh, noes! COMMUNISM!". Your reasoning is woefully shallow, your evasions and denials are pitiful, and I am heartily sick and fucking tired of your sophomoric puling.
I think Leon is a prime example of someone with diarrhea of he mouth (though in this case it would be diarrhea of the keyboard, or more accurately diarrhea of the mind).
He has a lot to say but never says anything. He hasn't supported any of his pronouncements, continues to deny all evidence presented to him and waxes unpoetical about all things bible related.
I wonder if Leon has an old apple crate he overturns at speaker's corner in Hyde Park where he just stands and screams at passers by.
We used to have a preacher that would come to our campus that sounded a lot like old Leon. He was quite the kook and eventually got into some trouble for intentionally provoking physical violence against himself. he always had a minion of some sort video taping his "appearances".
Note to street preaches who might follow in his footsteps. If you want to come off as the victim, don't grab people by their pony tails as they are walking away from the argument.
I give a small example of habitutal ridiculers and low and behold from #409 to #415 yonder comes the words of perpetual foolishness.
Nerd, if you have 40 years of knowing the Bible is fiction, then you have an obstinate heart towards spiritual matters. What did you do, study the Bible in church 1 hour a week and study evolution the rest of your time? Everything is there, how you take it in is according to what effort you put into it.
I know the truth and it has set me free. It frees me from all the propaganda crap that has infiltrated in the educational system, and in this system of things.
Bernard Bumner, you'll find out that your education and academic training will be to no avail once the system collapses and you have to rely on your practical wits in order to survive.
Steve_C...could you ban Leon, od course you can, but that would only falsify any initiative of free speech. I call it opinionated, you call it preaching, do you see me using a church deomination for support, no, I use a Bible, fictional in your mind, but sure one helluva accurate one when it comes to matters of truth.
Notagod...what is it you want me to define? Christian failures of thought are actually true in the sense that the scriptures and religion are not entirely the same thing.
Leon, please. Wipe up.
That is disgusting.
Leon, I have factual basis that the bible is fiction. I've read it cover to cover twice, and found it a vile, non god inspired book without a central theme, and it keeps holding abominable acts as moral. You just have your prejudices. Take time to actually learn the history of the making of the bible before you respond like an idiot.
Mocking childish beliefs is aggressive? No, no, no. Don't play the victim after coming here to threaten us with hellfire and damnation.
However, if you are so weak that mere chiding mockery does violence to your fragile ego, then the internet is probably not the place for you.
I'll lend you my tinderbox - once you've tired of praying for warmth.
Leon, your continual preaching, about your mythological deity and the fictional stories about it, is against the blog's rules.
Your free speech isn't being impugned. Start your own damn blog where you'll be properly ignored.
Nerd, you remind me about all those skeptics who were on the Titanic that would never accept the idea that this unsinkable ship would actually sink. I could show you many things that support Biblical facts, but with your attitude and disregard for any ideologies but your own, I would be wasting my time. Unknown to yourself and your admirable follower's who agree with you, its you who is the ignorant fool. You call me fool now, but soon time will reverse that label to yourself...count on it.
BigDumb...diarrhea of the mouth maybe, but not quite as narrow as yours. I see why you educated geniuses use course language and ridicule others who oppose you, it does kinda make you feel intelligent doesn't it. Too bad it wasn't factual.
Jesus man, then get to it for Christ's sake.
Leon, there are very few biblical facts that you could show me. There is a lot of shit in the bible, and you know it. Care to sell me one of your daughters for sexual slavery? Permitted by the bible. Considered properly abhorent by us atheists. Time for you to reread your bible with an eye to what is wrong with it. I'll let you live with your delusions. I will face reality with a fictional crutch, and I have done so quite well over the years.
You mean like Noah's Ark and people turning into pillars of salt and talking burning bushes? Shut up. Now. Please.
Stop babbling about your fictional book. We'd rather talk about Science Fiction, it'd more fun and creative.
Leon Flamer isn't up to our usual grade of troll, is he? The libertarians have really lowered the bar...
I see why you educated geniuses use course language and ridicule others who oppose you, it does kinda make you feel intelligent doesn't it. Too bad it wasn't factual.
Quit whining and start producing the evidence.
Nerd, I don't see those facts being presented here about the Bible being a fiction book, just as I don't see facts about evolution that scienctists say is true.
Hey BigDumb...giving up already. Who's the whiner now champ!
Steve, I know you probably cannot comprehend the difference between preaching and stating issues that are of scriptural origin, but preaching I'm not doing and you can call it all you want, it proves your ability to deal with ones of opposite opinions is lacking cedibility.
There's nothing wrong with you ignoring my comments right now is there. Just can't seem to get everyone on your controlling bandwagom huh.
Bernard, a person who has studied scriptures knows there is no such literal place as hellfire and the damnation has an alternative. The scriptures teach you that, the churches don't.
Gawd, must of hit the nail on the head that time. Eric, what kind of troll are you, I assume there are more than one type after reading some of your replys.
Huh?
I asked you to get to providing us with the evidence you claimed you had. Get to it.
I hear a dungeon door creaking open...
Take a lesson son (dude) I've got 40 plus years of studying Biblical events and accounts and within those years Christ's prphecies have taken place more than enough to convince any common thinking person that we are indeed living in the time of the end.
Argue with Jesus about it:
--Mark 13:33
Even though the Bible does not give an accurate account of the earth's age, it does give examples that the 6 creative days were not literal 24 hr times, suggesting the earth could be perhaps millions of years old, but unlikely to be billions.
Absolutely ridiculous. The poetic repetition of "there was evening and there was morning" makes it amply clear that "yom" in Genesis 1 is intended to mean "one day." And "perhaps millions of years old, but unlikely to be billions"? You're just making shit up. Find me any evidence that the distinction could even be rendered intelligible in an ancient semitic language.
No one knows, and even experiments cannot give accurate details, because times indefinite are considerably different compared to times that are conducted in matters brought about by man. They are all speculation and guesswork.
Word salad. You really don't have any idea what you're talking about do you, "dude"? We do know. Many independent lines of consilient evidence point to an incontrovertable fact: the Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old. That's where you live. Get used to it.
About the goatherders, that was just a sarcastic reply to the person who concluded that all writers of the Bible were just lowdown goatherders of which is not true. Some were lawyers, doctors and prominent people in society at that time.
I have no investment in the notion that the authors of the diverse literature collected for simple-minded Christians under the heading "The Bible" were all goatherders; indeed, it's surely untrue, since nearly everyone in the ancient world was illiterate and a pastoral nomad was about the least likely person to be educated. But you can't show that anything in the bible, not one verse, was written by a named individual whose occupation is known to posterity, with the exception of the handful of epistles genuinely written by Paul, who was a tentmaker by trade.
Claiming we need to brush up on the "truths" of the bible is bible thumping. You're bible thumping to a lot of atheists and agnostics.
Cut it out.
I can't remember if you're a young earth creationist or an old earth version. But considering you thing the bible is factual... young earth.
" I could show you many things that support Biblical facts"
I'm listening - go ahead (start with one)
Your bible thumping...
you thiink the bible...
proofread, must proof read.
Leon, the simple fact that the quality of life improved for most people when people started using empirical facts as opposed to biblical truths should say something. You are merely a parasite, using the work and intelligence of other in order to push you backwards way to viewing knowledge.
Leon, with your religious idiot blinders on, you can't see the 18-wheeler bearing down on you at high speed, but you are a godbot, so that is to be expected. You have shown no evidence to date to indicate that what you say is true, but you just keep making the same claims, which makes you look simple. Why don't you go back to your basement. Your Mommy is calling.
People have been saying that ever since the bible was written, ~1900 years later and the earth is still going around the sun, which is going around a supermassive black hole, which is one galaxy of hundreds of billions in this universe. I'll let Monty Python sing it out for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk
Why do you think radiometric dating is inaccurate? Have you ever done experiments to show that radiometric dating is wrong, or even studied radiometric dating? Or are you just talking out of your arse?
So the people who brought you a device that does billions of calculations a second are merely speculating? Show me one who rejects science's findings on the internet and I'll show you a hypocrite. The science behind radiometric dating is well established - radiometric decay is a constant so we have mathematical formulas to work out how to use it. Different materials have different decay rates, so we have a way of confirming the results of any one technique. Older rock dates older than younger rock, and the fossil record pretty much becomes non-existent if we only go back in time 600,000,000 years. Here's a suggestion, pull your face out of your bible and do some goddamn science. Because there have been millions of scientists who over the last few centuries have accumulated knowledge and techniques to age the universe, to age the world and to look at how life came to be. And the consensus is in: farthest galaxy away - 13.2 billion years. Speed of light - constant. Universe > 13.2 billion years old. Oldest star - 13.2 billion years. Age of Sun - 4.6 billion years. Age of earth ~ 4.55 billion years.How do we know all this? By observing the universe and understanding the processes behind it. For while you've had your head in the bible, millions of people have dedicated their lives to studying the universe and based their understanding on empirical observation.
Leon,
You've studied the bible for 40 years? So what?If someone tells you they have studied the Greek gods for 50 years would that convince you to worship Zeus?
If you have evidence for your God present it. Telling us what you've done with your life and complaining about "bad words" proves nothing.
the thread that will not die gives us:
Even though the Bible does not give an accurate account of the earth's age, it does give examples that the 6 creative days were not literal 24 hr times, suggesting the earth could be perhaps millions of years old, but unlikely to be billions.
wait... so why is millions more likely than billions again?
what evidence does "6 days of not literal time" provide for determining probabilities of age, exactly?
Oh, you mean you were projecting?
ah.
Now it makes sense.
Creationists make the non-theist job a hell of a lot easier in that this fabled Judeo-Christian construct of a deity keeps being put in a direct dichotomy between it and scientific evidence. You'd think that any theist who would want to reach this type of non-theist would embrace the scientific method, but no.
Leon the Flaming Troll said of the Rev. BigDumbChimp -
I have to ask, Rev. BDC; are you metal? Or are you more industrial? Or perhaps classic rock or jazz?
Jazz, Funk and rock mostly with some occasional punk rock and metal.
Mostly, I'm just an asshole. An asshole who is right, but an asshole none the less.
Eric Saveau,
Yet another great post. Just so you know, I've bookmarked it (#424) for future reference - I tend to use the Ford Pinto as an example of coporate malfeasance leading to people being killed; it never hurts to have a few more to throw in the faces of the Libertopians.
Though it may be to no avail, since the dead people were most likely poor; why, then, would they care?
Rev. BigDumbChimp-
I will have a moment of metal in your honor, then. Lacuna Coil okay?
Wowbagger-
I'm glad to be able to offer something of value. And, yeah, the Ford Pinto is an unfortunately effective and bloody illustration of habitual corporate malfeasance.
Sigh. I remember Walton mentioning something last year about dealing with some emotional turmoil; I find myself almost feeling bad for him. But, gorramit, you reach a point where the reasons why someone champions a destructive path don't really matter; it is sufficient to note simply that they do. And it wouldn't be so maddening if he could construct a coherent argument.
I mean, fer Starbuck's sake, SC is anarchist, we obviously disagree about government, but she is able speak coherently about her position and the bases for it. She uses thoughtfulness, history and reason rather than long-recycled talking points, and constructs an argument that one can understand and respect even if one doesn't agree. There's a reason she was awarded the Order of the Molly. Walton offers nothing more than slight variations on "Government shouldn't do X because OMFG! TAXES! AAAAHHH!!" And Africangenocide has his tongue so far up Walton's ass that I'm amazed he's able to talk at all.
Fuck 'em. My wife and I are going to go and get some ice cream. And probably have some of that "sex" thing that makes Walton squirm so much. Later, guys.
MOVE!
Eric Saveau,
I am truly flattered. Thank you. Enjoy your, um, ice cream.
:)
From our friend Leon:
Guess who this is:
Hefrick...that's not name calling, there is no individuality, nice try though.
CJO...2 Peter 3: 8 reads; However, let this one fact not be escaping your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.
New World Translation.
"But don't forget this dear friends, that a day or a thousand years from now is like tomorrow to the Lord. The living Bible
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
The world is 4.54 billion years and you have proof that those many independent lines of consilient evidence point to an incontrovertable fact...is a fact. Its not fact, remember in July 1957 when scientists agreed fully that the earth was indeed 6 hundred million years old, others though more or less, but the majority topped it off at 6 hundred million. Then about 7 years later they made a remarkable discovery and concuded on 1.?? billion. I wished I would have recorded that information at that time, because I have been trying to find articles that related to them but to no avail. Sounds like the science club decided to delete that info just for the sake of ridicule. When dates become that spread out, it points to guesswork and that's all evolution is...guesswork.
If you were paying attention to what my comment was referring to instead of eagerly trying to find fault with it, you'd find that the goatherder scenario was between me and Walton, so actually in a personal sense its non of your business, but since you already stuck your face in it, I might as well answer you.
Matthew was a tax collector, Luke was a physician, John was a writer, even Job was a partial judge and priest. Their means of life were not as important as the good news of God's kingdom. In fact, true Christians are not concerned about materialism in this world, they look forward to the time when this system of things is ended.
Leon, as long as you are hung up on you bible you will not learn anything. And we will not listen to you, since the bible is a work of fiction and is historically inaccurate. So you need to stop posting unless you quit the bible quotes.
Yes, that's what science does - it changes knowledge as new evidence comes to hand. It's not guesswork, it's that not all the evidence we have now was there in the 1950s. The scientific process is an accumulation of evidence, it doesn't stay static and as thus facts are prone to revision. You act like that's a problem.What you can't run from is what the facts say. We have rocks on earth that dated through multiple techniques age to over 4 billion years. We have meteorites that age to 4.58 billion years again through multiple techniques. If you remember, it was ageing the meteorites that first told us that the earth was around 4.5 billion years old. Even there are moon rocks that date close to 4.6 billion years. The simple fact is that while you may try and reduce the scientific process to absurdity by showing the mistakes of the past, you simply cannot run away from the facts as they have been discovered. We've seen galaxies over 13 billion light years away, and we've aged rocks to over 4.5 billion years. Those facts need explaining - that either the tests were somehow wrong, or that the data was faked. Because it's the facts on which we build our theories and thus understand what nature is telling us.
Ah. Leon of the Flaming Phlegm has returned to battle evil, has he?
[deep breath]
DEVIL BUNNIES!! I SNORT THE NOSE LUCIFER!!! BANANA! BANANA!
Once again we return to the fact that science is always open to adjusting what it knows because of the evidence.
Creationist are never willing to adjust anything because of the evidence.
Which is more honest?
Which is why many see Christian dogma as a truly abhorred doctrine, and see Christianity as a potentially dangerous influence on this planet. Many of us actually like existence and would like to keep existence going for as long as possible. We would want the world to be lived in by our descendants, we would want them to see the beauty of nature and live in a world that celebrates this planet in all it's grandeur. Instead what do we get? A significant majority of the people in the world wishing that their respective deity will end this existence for everyone.
Congratulations. I didn't think there was anything you could say that would make me think even less of your substandard intellect than I already did, but you've proved me wrong.
Calling one person something is an insult, but calling a group of people that same thing isn't? That's some fantastic logic. Tell you what, find a group of African-Americans and call them 'niggers' and see how far your logic works to stop them from kicking your stupid ignorant ass.
It's 2009, Leon. Did that pass you by? Science is cumulative - knowledge increases. That your own worldview is stuck with believing the inerrancy of what some enthusastic ideologues concocted thousands of years ago doesn't mean ours has to be.
Except for the thousands upon thousands of research papers in numerous fields which support evolution, many of which were predicted prior to the research being done. Go and read about tiktaalik for what an understanding of evolution allowed scientists to predict.
You goatherder discussion was actually with me, since I was the one who brought it up in this post - so, even if it wasn't pompously idiotic to tell someone they can't comment on something you've written in an open blog, you've still got me to contend with.
So, I can freely say that, no matter what the profession of the apostles, they were still ignorant of modern science. They probably knew more about it than you do, however - thought that's hardly anything to brag about. And they have the excuse of not having the option to do anything about it while your ignorance is willful.
Aye, and nae true Scotsman would put marmalade in his porridge either!
Steve...Bile thumping and stating Bible issues for sake of debate are two different things. Do you actually see me trying to convert you over, but if you need to get your two cents in...fill your boots.
Sure Jamine...life has improved for many, but life has also thrown in its increased share of cancers, pestilences, unwanted preganacies, homeless people, sexually transmitted diseases, broken families and homes, mental illnesses, stress and now the whopper of all whoppers a fast approaching depression. Yes sir, life has sure improved hasn't it.
Dean...read the entire chapter of Matthew 24 and take a look at 2 Timothy 3 1-7 of which I have partially covered above.
Kel...13.2 billion years...........13.2 billions years..........13.2 billion years.......4.6 billion years.........4.5 billion years.......Some scientist throws all these impressive numbers at you and you swallow it up as fact. Talk about easily led. Recorded history of man only goes back 6000 years and nothing prior is spoken except when some evolutionists start making up exaggerated claims that some skeltons are 100,000,000 years old.
Leon, you sir are an idiot.
Nerd...if you don't like the Bible quotes, then its simple, don't reply!
Wrong again, douchebag. Ever heard of Çatalhöyük? Obviously not, because it's a settlement that dates back to c 7500-5700 BCE. That's a lot more than 6,000 years ago, by the way.
How ignorant are you? Maybe you should try reading something other than the bible and your well-thumbed copy of Pissant Apologetics for the Mentally Deficient for a change.
So that's what I've been told Rev! What's matter, didn't quite approve about the truths that I quoted Jamine about our so called improved lifestyles. If that's idiotic then you are about as blind as they come about reality.
Are you familiar with the increase in human life expectancy over that time, you cluess dimwit? Your perception is on par with your coherence. And you're 62? Good grief; how teh stupid hasn't killed you by now may actually be evidence of a miracle.
Anyone got the Pope's number?
Scientists throw around these numbers because that's what the evidence says, and that's what has been published in peer-reviewed magazines. These are the accepted ages and dates currently known through the scientific method. But I see what you did there, trying to call me gullible so it would be your word against mine. We know both beer and glue predate your 6000 year claim, we know that dogs were domesticated around 15,000 years ago. Hell we can date trees through rings back 10,000 years and ice cores back 800,000 years. We talk about the dawn of man being in Africa around 250,000 years ago because that's what the evidence points to. If you took your face out of the bible and actually checked scientifically what you are preaching then you would see - or win several Nobel prizes and become the most famous person of all time for proving yourself right. Instead you just sit and argue like your opinion is authoritative in it's own right.
leon seriously you are fucking deluded.
You ignore all the advances in medicine, technology, food preservation, food safety, water safety, transportation, communication, housing, sanitation, entertainment, textiles, agriculture, distribution and a myriad of other things that were brought about by ... what?
Creationism and the celebration of willful ignorance?
no
by science. The evilist of all evil. SCIENCE!
You incredible incredible dolt. You small minded myopic disgrace to the modern human. You, you..
Creationist.
I'm surprised you can turn on a computer being that it is a technological advancement brought about by scientific pursuits.
You fucking, fucking idiot.
This is from the Salt Lake Tribune, dated February 2, 1958:
Some experts think that
our beautiful earth is about
3,000 million years old,
some believe the grand old
lady may be nearer 4,000
million years old. From
these figures we now estimate
that the world has
had between three billion
and four billion birthdays.
But only the earth knows
the exact number. And, like
most lovely ladies, she
leaves us guessing. However,
our scientists have
clues to help them make a
reasonable guess at the age
of the earth.
For one thing, the geologist
can read the earth's
diary. Yes, the proud old
lady has kept a diary which
dates back millions and millions
of years. It was written
as she formed the rocky
layers of her crust. The
whole history of mankind
is but a moment in the history
of the world.
Suppose we could telescope
the 3,000 or 4,000 million
years into a single day.
The earth would seem to be
-a boiling pot of soup. Mountains
would rise and fall in
hours, seas would slop over
the lands and retreat in
moments. Volcanos would
spit like b u b b l e s , lakes
would fill and dry up in seconds.
The Ice Ages would
- come and go in minutes.
All these dramatic events
left their scars on the face
of the earth. The experts
can tell which rocks were
made by seawater .arid
which were made by volcanos.
They can date these
events and tell when the
rocks were clawed by Ice
Age glaciers. For these are
the rocky pages of the old
earth's diary.
Wowbagger...No, can't say I have heard of them so you are correct on that assumption. From the beginning to the year of 1657 BCE when Moses penned the first accounts of the Bible, that settlement may have been around at the time of the nephilim.
The dates you quote may not be entirely correct either.
What do Hebrew fairies have to do with it? None of what you've said in any way discounts the evidence that there is recorded human civilization at least 1,000 years prior to the date you provided. So, you are wrong - yet again.
And Moses in 1657 BCE? How much archaeological evidence can you provide to support that figure? Or are you just going on the figure Ussher pulled out of his ass?
Based on what, exactly? Your 'feelings'? Archaeology isn't able to be as precise as other fields. That's why the range - 7500-5700 BCE - is given. Science - unlike religion - doesn't mind admitting when it isn't able to provide 100% precision.
Oh, and I couldn't help noticing you used BCE in the date you gave rather than sucking up to Jesus with 'BC'. I like it!
Hey Rev...who's denying all those scientific facts that are a part of everyday life, I'm certainly not. I'm just saying your supposively scientific facts about evolution are highly exaggerated and most scientists will even agree on that accord. You sound like a frustrated child.
Ben...interesting transcript from Salt Lake City, but my question within all the quesswork as mentioned, how they came up with that ball park figure. There have been modern archeologists who have found rocks and their estimates of age are no where near the billion mark.
Kel...my opinions carry no authoritive rights whatso-ever, but God's right as creator does and till the day when one proves it over the other, I will stick with creationism. There have been enough events that have occured in the last century up into my time and to the present day that shows the Bible accurately true with its predictions.
Just so I can clarify this position... despite all the evidence pointing to common descent through evolution, you use the bible as a means of validating creationism. At the same time, you say you'll stick to creationism until it's proven otherwise. Yet there you are ignoring the last 150 years of data in cosmology / astronomy, geology, nuclear physics, palaeontology, genetics, zoology, climate science, botany, archaeology and anthropology in order to stick with creation. The evidence is in and it's in on so many levels that shows your position to be false.
Liar. You're changing the subject of the comment I was replying to.
you specifically said
So has life improved or not?
idiot
I'd be surprised if archaeologists found rocks billions of years old. Geologists on the other hand have found rocks of various ages, yet correspond to relative dating when put in the geological strata. You see rocks on top will date younger than rocks below it, so recently formed rock will give a recent date. Older rock will give an older date, and ancient rock will give an even older date. So we should see young rocks, not so young rocks, slightly old rocks, very old rocks, really old rocks, and super ancient rocks because rocks are continually formed and destroyed.It would really serve you well to check up on the basics of geology. It's like explaining to a child that doesn't want to learn.
Emphasis mine.
Where do you come by this information, Leon? If this is true then surely you can provide us with links to the relevant articles where all these scientists have indicated they have issues with the data supporting evolution.
On the other hand, if you're lying your ass off, you'll be unable to. While you're thinking about that, here's an article for you that would indicate otherwise.
You didn't read it, did you? If you had you wouldn't use the term 'guesswork' or 'ballpark' any more than you would use the terms to describe how a surgeon removes a brain tumour.
Yet another tick in the 'wrong' column for Leon. Archaeologists study people and cultures - not rocks. The people who you're misrepresenting (to put it politely) are geologists.
You are aware that there are Christians who aren't creationists, aren't you? You belong to an embarrassing minority, even amongst Christians. Heck, even the Catholics laugh at you - that's got to make you unhappy.
Tell you what, though - if you can get your god to show up and tell us what he thinks about it I promise we'll listen.
I guess this could be true - if you've got no idea about either the bible or history, and if you apply more distortion than is used at the average Sonic Youth gig, that is.
Ok boys and girls, its obvious this entire discussion is a stalemate regrdless who has evidence and who doesn't. It makes no difference of that. If evolution is proven to be true, I will be dead and long gone, but if evidence is true on the other hand and God carries out his tribulation against this system of things, then it will be all of you who will be dead and gone. Myself, most likely also, as I told you, I'm not a Christian, at least of all not a true one.
Wowbagger...still trying for a hit huh! People prior before the deludge lived hundreds of years, but of course you can't be glued to atheism to recollect such things.
Before the Common Era, hey, at least we agree on something. Not a total loss huh!
Can you show this? By all accounts I've heard from an overwhelming majority of scientists (over 99% of evolutionary biologists and over 95% of scientists in general) agree that evolution is how life came about on this planet; that the evidence to supports it is staggering. Jerry Coyne when he wrote his book "why evolution is true" said the problem was not what evidence to include but what to leave out. He could have written the book three times the size without even beginning to start running out of evidence. I'm curious, when you say that creation has as much support as evolution, or that evolution doesn't have the evidence, or that scientists admit the evidence for evolution is exaggerated, do you have anything you've based those claims on, or are you talking out of your arse? Because it seems to me that you don't know the first thing about the subject at hand.
Geologists, yes, I stand corrected.
Leon,
Do you honestly believe that Moses wrote the Torah? Even my Catholic high school teachers saw that as ridiculous (and these were people who thought they were eating a Zombie God during Mass).
I remember being presented with two big problems with the idea of Moses writing the Torah:
1) It claims that Moses was the most humble man on Earth, something you don't expect the most humble man on Earth to write.
2) It contains events Moses couldn't possibly have written about, most notably his own death.
I recommend you read Who Wrote the Bible? , which I finished reading a few weeks ago. In addition to the two points above Friedman points out the Torah contains the names of tribes which didn't even exist in Moses' times.
Friedman also makes the excellent point the Bible has influenced Western civilization more than any other book, millions base their life on its teachings, yet we have no idea who exactly the authors are.
We do know a few things. The book discusses how the Torah is simply a hodgepodge of different documents made from different authors, each primarily concerned with their own self-interest.
If you want to base your life on a book consisting of the fairy tales of goat herders, ancient regal propaganda, and absurd priestly legislation, go ahead. Just don't assume we haven't heard it before. Hell, the Bible is probably a better recruitment tool for Atheists than it is for Christians.
Wrong. A stalemate implies you aren't losing - but all you've done is lose. Repeatedly and profoundly. So, we win.
We have evidence. You have fantasy. We win.
Evolution has already been proven to be true. No if about it. We win.
Pascal's Wager. Discarded as useless for years. We win.
You quote the bible, including the new testament, believe in creationism and revelation and yet you're not a Christian?
I guess a new species of idiot is still an idiot. We win.
Except I have proof that humans used to live shorter lives than they do now. You have proof of...nothing. We win.
Not for me it's not; thrashing fools like you is quite entertaining. For you - well, I'm not so sure.
True Kel, I'm not as advanced on the subject of eveolution as you are, but then you aren't as advanced on creationism as I am, so how can a debate ever be concluded when it is supposively one sided each way. I still say the time factor will prove it. If the Bible is correct about the destruction of this system of things and if the signs of those times are as accurate as they seem, then very shortly we'll all have our answer won't we, but if science can come up with a gadget that can keep me tickin for another hundred years, then you could say and I would willfuly accept..."I told you so!" How's that sound?
Sorry Wowbagger...there are no winners in this life.
Think you thrashed me Wowbagger...just wait, you'll be a winner all right.
Please - direct us to specific passages that were proven true, and specify which version of the bible you're sourcing this from.
I came in late, what did I miss? Oh, Pascal's Wager. Huh. Brahma's gonna be pissed, and you're gonna be reincarnated as a liver fluke.
"If the Bible is correct about the destruction of this system of things and if the signs of those times are as accurate as they seem"
This time it's really gonna happen too! Really! Not like all those other times when some nutbars went around saying it was gonna happen! Really really!
You are doing it again. This isn't me vs you, this is a debate purely where the evidence points. On life and it's diversity, I can cite multiple lines of evidence that even without evolution would stand up on their own. Just what lines of evidence do you want? Geographical distribution of life? Progressive fossil record including many transitional forms between major lineages? Morphological similarities and differences? Inactive genes? Vestigial organs? Observed mutations? Observed adaptation? Observed speciation? These are all facts that we've observed in the universe, and these need to be accounted for.As for age of the earth - relative dating, the layering of geological column, radiometric dating, plate tectonics, erosion and formation of new rock, mountain formation, meteorite impacts, all these point to an old earth and these have nothing to do with evolution. Again these are facts that stand up on their own and even if life didn't evolve, these still need to be accounted for.Age of the universe - size of galaxies, speed of light, distribution and distance between galaxies, measuring distances in space using a variety of standard candles, the expanding universe, cosmic background radiation, e=mc², all these come together to show that the universe is well over 10 billion years old. Again, this has nothing to do with evolution and needs to be explained.What I'm trying to say here is that I couldn't give a shit how much you know on creationism because it's completely irrelevant. What is relevant is what the facts show, and the facts clearly demonstrate an old universe, an old earth, with gradually emergent inter-related life on this planet. Theories in science explain facts and quite simply if your theory doesn't explain the facts then it is a useless theory.
People have been predicting the end times from the moment Jesus died, 2000 years later and still nothing. It's quite obvious to anyone who isn't wearing Jesus Glasses that the bible is not a scientific textbook, nor is genesis an accurate account of history. We have the ability to test creation and evolution alongside the facts now and evolution wins. This says nothing about the existence of God, however. Whether there is a god or not is entirely irrelevant to the question of the truth of evolution. If you would open your eyes now and just look at the evidence, you'd realise you won't need to live another 100 years to find out the answer - the answer is there now, the answer was ther 50 years ago. What have you been doing in the last 50 years?Leon, please read a science book; I'd personally reccomend Neil Shubin - Your Inner Fish, though I have heard Jerry Coyne - Why Evolution Is True is a must read for anyone who isn't sure. I implore you to check out what evidence there is now, for your own sake. Because the answers you seek are there and they have been there for such a long time. So please please please please please read those books and see what is supporting evolutionary theory.
Actually, Leon, you don't even seem that bright when it comes to creationism. But that's hardly relevant, considering creationism is a fantasy. Does being an expert on Harry Potter make any difference to it being a work of fiction?
Christians have had two thousand years! And we've seen bupkis! How much longer do you expect us to wait? As I've already mentioned, Pascal's Wager is worthless - why do you keep pretending otherwise?
But they aren't accurate. You've provided nothing to indicate anything even close to accuracy in anything you've said. The Bible fails at prediciting events, just like it fails at everything else.
You feel that way and yet you cling to your belief system? Hate to break it to you, but I'm extremely happy; my life is great. That makes me a winner in my book - and that's the only one that counts. Maybe you should try atheism - there's no monstrous, vengeful sky fairy to fear. That makes it much easier to be happy.
Oh, I know I thrashed you, Leon. It's right here in front of me.
Again with the waiting! Sorry, not good enough. It's now or never, Leon. Otherwise you can take your sense of impending doom and cram it. With walnuts.
Notice how much in recent times he's tried to turn this into a theist vs atheist debate rather than an evolution vs creation? It's no surprise that he's trying to pull pascal's wager out on us, claim the authority of God (through the bible) and talking about end times as if they were anything more than ignorant fantasy...Recently I spoke to my youngest brother and he had an astronomy question for me: he wanted to know about the planets, well one: Planet X. And why is that? Because people have tied that planet to the Mayan Calender that people say predicts the end of the world in 2012. So why am I bringing this up now? Because it illustrates one beautiful point, predictions of the end of the world are not limited to Christianity. The destruction of the planet and the obliteration of all life is something that's present in religions and belief systems all over the world, so the Christian end times are none more special than the Mayan end times. People have beep predicting Jesus would come back and signal the end times for almost 2000 years now, so far 0% success rate. I call schenanigans on the whole endeavour!
Because, for the most part, people used to die before they lived long enough to have cancer.
The bible is full of those.
Which has been reduced, thanks to cheap condoms, birth control and a more enlightened view of sexuality.
Also to be found in your bible.
See what I said about pregnancies.
Childbirth is a dangerous event for human females. Families were routinely broken because the mother died giving birth. Sound like a broken family to me.
You do realize that many people who believe in biblical truths think that people with mental illnesses are processed by demons.
Nothing at all stressful about the Black Plague, famine, half of all children dying before they became adults.
Funny how history came to an end tn 1929.
By american standards, I am poor. But I would choose to live my life as it is as opposed to the life of a noble woman three centuries past. Yes, the quality of life has inproved for many.
Be thankful for the safety nets that has be installed, Leon. A dumb fuck like you would have died before you had a chance to became an adult.
Actually, if the Bible is correct, the world will not end for a very long time.
See, in Genesis 22:17, God promises Abraham that that he "will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore;"
Now, how many stars are there? Well, one estimate is 70 Sextillion, or 7*1022. That's a pretty damn big number.
How much sand is on the sea shore? Well, one estimate is 7.5*1018. That's also a pretty damn big number. But I'm going to go with the number of stars, which is bigger.
The current population is 6 billion, or 6x109. That looks like a big number, but it's damn piddling by the standards of the numbers above.
How many of those 6 billion are descendants of Abraham? Well, as far as we know, the only living descendants of Abraham are Jews and Arabs. One estimate of the number of Jews is about 13.5 million, another says 18 million — lets be generous and call it 20 million, or 2*107. The estimate of the number of Arabs is 315 million, for a total of 3.35*108, give or take.
Now, Abraham supposedly lived about 4000 years ago. It took 4000 years to get to 3.35*108 descendants.
I'm too lazy to fiddle with population growth rates just now, but I note that our planet can only hold so many people. 6 billion isn't quite capacity, but let's put the upper limit at about twice that, or 12 billion, 1.2*1010. In order for there to be 7*1022 descendant-of-Abraham humans alive at the same time, they would have to be spread out over 7*1022/1.2*1010 , or roughly about 6*1012 planets. That is 6 trillion planets, far more than the number of stars in the Milky Way alone!
So however long it takes for the population of Jews and Arabs to grow that large, the humans race still has to spread out and populate 6 trillion planets, with an enormous amount of travel time between planets, before God can even think about destroying the universe.
So there you go: you can relax. God wouldn't lie to Abraham, now would he?
Anyone notice how Leon is completely ignoring the comments made to him by the geologist in the room...?
Leon ignores everything but his fictional bible. Which is why he has trouble with real facts and real evidence. Leon, Moses didn't write any of the bible. Watch a show that Nova had on last fall, The Bible's Buried Secrets, available at the PBS web site or U-Tube. It indicates that the first five books of the bible were put together over hundreds of years with at least half a dozen major authors and many more minor ones. The whole purpose of the five books were to cement Jewish identity during their exile in Babylon. The exodus never occurred, and Noah's flood is purely fictional. Mental masturbation by reading the bible over and over gains you nothing. You need to understand the cultural climate when it was written. Perspective is lacking without a bigger picture than the one painted by one book.
There's a geologist here?
Nerd wrote:
blockquote>The exodus never occurred, and Noah's flood is purely fictional.
I don't know if it's entirely fictional, just the extent of it - part about the size of the ark, God telling him to build it, the pairs of animals, the forty days, the amount of flooding involved and so forth.
That some dude had built a boat just before a big local flood happened and got himself, his family and their three best goats (and a chicken or two) on board and floated around for a few days before reaching shore is perfectly plausible. That sort of thing still happens - and plenty of the credulous want to make it about god; that recent plane crash into the river being a good example.
I suspect at least a few of the bible stories have real-life bases; it's just they, like all folk mythology, have been blown out of over the years. Oral storytelling almost always includes an amount of embellishment to make it 'more interesting' - so something unusual but hardly miraculous eventually became an epic story of survival.