Pharyngula

Posted by: BAllanJ | April 3, 2009 11:45 AM

WooWoo... congrats Iowa! Minesota must be next, sandwiched between Iowa and those of us in Ontario as you are.

Posted by: Anon | April 3, 2009 11:47 AM

Yeah, well... I bet god will smite Iowa with tornadoes for this. Sometime this year. In some random location.

Posted by: JD | April 3, 2009 11:48 AM

It's all that hybrid corn.

Posted by: Adrian-T | April 3, 2009 11:48 AM

Great news - am really pleased to hear this. It seems reason, decency, and the moral obligation to show dignity to all have prevailed.

This must really stick the finger up at the fanatics (Alliance Defense Fund, Focus on the Family, Tony Perkins, crackpot Ex-Gay ministries and others) who have used religion to attack LGBT people. Hopefully their days are finally numbered.

PS It's also high time the ludicrous Don't Ask Don't Tell law was abolished too. It seems the Obama administration is going to shelve this inhumane legislation...

Posted by: withheld | April 3, 2009 11:50 AM

The referendum to amend the state constitution begins in 3...2...1...

Posted by: Walton | April 3, 2009 11:51 AM

Just in case anyone has any doubt: I support this decision.

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | April 3, 2009 11:54 AM

MAJeff, thank you for clarifying that. But I cannot help but to be paranoid that all of the groups I that named are working towards a challenge to this.

Posted by: Vic | April 3, 2009 11:55 AM

This surprises me (but in a good way, of course). Way to go, Iowa. Now MN must play catch up.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | April 3, 2009 11:56 AM

From the Iowa Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader:

Thanks to today’s decision, Iowa continues to be a leader in guaranteeing all of our citizens’ equal rights.

The court has ruled today that when two Iowans promise to share their lives together, state law will respect that commitment, regardless of whether the couple is gay or straight.

When all is said and done, we believe the only lasting question about today’s events will be why it took us so long.

Posted by: Zar | April 3, 2009 11:58 AM

Thank you, Walton. We all care deeply about your feelings. I was waiting with bated breath.

(Also: yay Iowa!!!)

Posted by: Becca Stareyes | April 3, 2009 11:58 AM

As a former Nebraskan, I have to say, go Iowa! Here's wishing that lots of happy couples will come visit you (and probably end up spending money on weddings and stuff, making people in the state happy).

Maybe the three years it'll take before the fundamentalists can even hope to get an amendment in the constitution will convince everyone else that, hey, same-sex marriage isn't a scary bogeyman at all.

Posted by: aratina | April 3, 2009 12:00 PM

Happy Day! I liked gay Democratic State Senator Matt McCoy's reaction in The Des Moines Register:

As he saw a stream of grim-faced activists from the Supreme Court passing through security at the Iowa Capitol, he said: “The God squad’s coming in the door now.”

Posted by: Alverant | April 3, 2009 12:03 PM

As another Iowan-born, I'm happy about this decision. I know the conservatives will throw a fit about "activist judges", but the court did what it is suppose to do, strike down a law that is unconstitutional. A sound legal decision that should be reflected in any state that claims to promote equality among all citizens.

Posted by: Xena | April 3, 2009 12:04 PM

I'm so proud to be an Iowan right now.

And don't worry, god smited us last year with tornados and floods. I think he was pissed about california. He'll need to pick another random location to smite for our actions this year.

Posted by: Desert Son | April 3, 2009 12:10 PM

Congratulations, Iowa!

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: Sarah in Chicago | April 3, 2009 12:13 PM

I said this on another blog about this ... but, you know that scene in 'Mars Attacks!' where the Martians have their heads explode inside their helmets due to yodelling music being played?

This is how I imagine the bigot when equality like this happens :)

This is wonderful, wonderful news ... yay Iowa!!! I do think this means a lot being a midwestern state for the first time.

Now we need to keep our fingers crossed for Vermont, New Jersey and New York (and California, of course).

Posted by: MissPrism | April 3, 2009 12:18 PM

Wonderful news! And in a year or two nobody will understand what all the bigoted fuss was about.

Posted by: Dahan | April 3, 2009 12:20 PM

Fuck yeah!

So Iowa ups the ante in the long held border-battle. Come on fellow Minnesotans, we can't let them have bragging rights for being more rational and less bigoted than us.

Posted by: FishyFred | April 3, 2009 12:21 PM

Awesome! Where can I see the fundie outrage? Has the AFA come out with a statement yet?

Posted by: the kardinal | April 3, 2009 12:23 PM

As a fellow Iowan, we can now proudly claim originating the following:
- Happy Joe's Taco Pizza
- Buffalo Bill Cody
- Rosanne Barr
- Equal rights for same sex marriages in the Midwest

Posted by: Martin | April 3, 2009 12:24 PM

Yeah, well... I bet god will smite Iowa with tornadoes for this. Sometime this year. In some random location.

Posted by: HenryS | April 3, 2009 12:24 PM

Posted by: MissPrism | April 3, 2009 12:18 PM

Wonderful news! And in a year or two nobody will understand what all the bigoted fuss was about.
***********
I suspect the next move by the homophobes will be to push for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on the 2010 election ballot.

Posted by: Brock | April 3, 2009 12:25 PM

Now they just need to stop calling it marriage (which has religious connotations that the state should stay away from) and stop giving people benefits for it (which is unfair to single folks, dammit).

In fact I'm not sure official "partnership" is good for much (from the state perspective) besides having a default owner for your belongings if you croak.

Am I missing something?

Posted by: Alex | April 3, 2009 12:27 PM

There go them damn gays again advancing their agenda...towards equality.

Posted by: Martin | April 3, 2009 12:28 PM

The usual suspects are already pouting:

"It's, quite frankly, a disaster," said Brian English, a spokesman for the Iowa Family Policy Center. "Obviously, we're extremely disappointed. We're saddened, perhaps a little bit surprised in the unanimous decision that the court handed down."

Posted by: Qwerty | April 3, 2009 12:29 PM

FishyFred: No, the AFA hasn't come down yet. (I just checked their website.) They're still outraged that Pepsi sponsored a "Family Guy" episode that suggested God hates homosexuals! So, go drink a Pepsi.

The FRC (Family Research Council) has warned that Iowa's move to legalize same-sex marriage will lead to the "end of democracy as we know it."

I would kind of agree as same-sex marriage would make our country MORE democratic.

Posted by: King | April 3, 2009 12:30 PM

Congratulations, Iowa!

No Roberts,

King

Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | April 3, 2009 12:30 PM

I can't help but be incredibly happen to hear things like this, as MAJeff posted earlier, come from a politician:

Thanks to today’s decision, Iowa continues to be a leader in guaranteeing all of our citizens’ equal rights. The court has ruled today that when two Iowans promise to share their lives together, state law will respect that commitment, regardless of whether the couple is gay or straight.

When all is said and done, we believe the only lasting question about today’s events will be why it took us so long.

Double bacon today for all those Iowanians who supported that and made it happen. It's just so nice to see that people are finally starting to get it.

They will be required however to give back quadrouple bacon if they pull a California about it.

For now, I'm staying optomistic that finally things are going to start changing and the extremist views on social issues will fade into non-existance only to be mentioned as the ass-end of a joke.

Posted by: Brock | April 3, 2009 12:33 PM

(following previous on partnership) Oh and emergency healthcare decisions are useful when you're incapacitated. I meant that too.

Posted by: AnthonyK | April 3, 2009 12:34 PM

Damn, I must remeber that "legal" is never far away from "l"

Posted by: DGKnipfer | April 3, 2009 12:36 PM

Huraaaa!!! Never thought my home state would manage this great leap in my life. My next trip home later this month is going to be interesting. I get to watch my youngest sister have fits over things she doesn't think should be seen in public because she might have to explain them to her kids. Maybe I should tell her I’m Bi just to see if her head explodes.

Posted by: Sgt. Obvious | April 3, 2009 12:39 PM

This is wonderful news, but now I have a dilemma. On one hand, the "marrying sheep" joke is homophobic and asinine. On the other hand, this is Iowa we're talking about, so it's very hard to resist.

Posted by: MikeM | April 3, 2009 12:46 PM

Too bad we can't have that kind of rational thinking in California. It'd prevent situations like this.

Posted by: Ian Monroe | April 3, 2009 12:49 PM

I'm going to move to Iowa in a few months, so this makes be quite proud since I'll shortly be from the state. :) A day for all Midwesterners to be proud, this is a bit of plains progressivism nostalgia.

Hopefully California is even more ashamed of itself after it was just shown how to conduct law by Iowa. I watched much of the Iowa oral arguments so I wasn't surprised much by this ruling (though I admittedly thought they may have thrown it back to a lower court and drawn things out more).

The recent court case in California... I could only watch like 5 minutes, it was going so horribly.

Posted by: Endor | April 3, 2009 12:53 PM

"Why can't I have a wife and marry our live-in girlfriend? (besides the headache of 2 mother-in-laws)?"

more importantly, why can't I have a husband and marry my mil's pool boy?

Posted by: www.10ch.org | April 3, 2009 12:56 PM

Clearly the tide is turning, and will never turn back.

Posted by: Spook | April 3, 2009 1:00 PM

Awesome!

IOWA : You're doing it right!

Posted by: www.10ch.org | April 3, 2009 1:02 PM

@#72 Janine, Insulting Sinner
Wow, those people really are pathetic. Conspiracy theories and religion go hand-in-hand.

Posted by: Sarah in Chicago | April 3, 2009 1:06 PM

Janine @72 -

I was especially amused by the prediction of crop failure.

My personal favourite was from Peter LaBarbera of 'Americans For Truth About Homosexuality' (AFTAH):

"The evil genius of the pro-sodomy movement is that it targets noble institutions like marriage and adoption in the name of ‘rights,’ and then perverts and uses them to normalize aberrant and destructive behaviors."

I seriously want "Evil Genius of the Pro-Sodomy Movement" on a t-shirt :)

Posted by: varlo | April 3, 2009 1:09 PM

As a moldy, but unrepentant straight hetero (Alright, kinky hetero) I applaud Iowa. Yes, it will be appealed, attacked, and vilified, but (to really mix metaphors) I believe the dikes will hold and the castle will remain secure. I may be overly optimistic, but I am reminded of what Churchill wrote about the battle of El Alamein: It might almost be said that before Alamein we never had a victory. After Alamein we never had a defeat.

Posted by: Marcus Ranum | April 3, 2009 1:09 PM

The whole notion that marriage brings certain economic benefits is inherently unfair. Those of us who prefer to remain single are getting the short end of the stick in many ways.

I think it's great that if the gays want to have mothers-in-law and whatnot, they should be able to. Anyone who wants to get married should be able to. But stop economically disenfranchising the singletons, OK?!

(Next up: why don't breeders pay more taxes than non-breeders; or, at the very least, keep it equal. Having kids is a "lifestyle choice" and I am sick of paying for yours.)

Posted by: EndUnknown | April 3, 2009 1:11 PM

YAY!

im crossing my fingers for Missouri being soon! I know so many lovely couples sad that they cant be married.

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | April 3, 2009 1:14 PM

Sarah, I have to agree, there is something so evocative of Evil Genius of the Pro-Sodomy Movement. Do they even realize how much we laugh at their purple prose?

Posted by: Alyson Miers | April 3, 2009 1:20 PM

Civil Rights for all: Ur doin it rite, Iowa.

Posted by: OrbitalMike | April 3, 2009 1:21 PM

WTF??? One of "His best creations" was the US Constitution? Did anyone ever tell that to Adams, Jefferson, and that ilk? Where do these folks get their civics education? Church? Cereal boxes?

Endor, what's wrong with that if hubby and you agree?

I think the concept of marriage is anachronistic in terms of the tax benefits as Marcus points out. There are other legal benefits such as medical access, partnership formation, etc. which I still think are valid and not as discriminatory towards "singletons".

Posted by: www.10ch.org | April 3, 2009 1:23 PM

It is funny how they equate same-sex marriage with sodomy.

Posted by: Attila | April 3, 2009 1:23 PM

For people talking about Polyamorous marriage I would be all for it. However it is a different animal than gay marriage. Essentially gay marriage has no difference in terms inheritance, health care, and property rights. It is a different animal when you get to Polyamory . Now which person in the relationship gets primacy in making medical decisions or inheritance. You now actually have to define new laws for this.

Or I always envision marriage becoming a civil corporation. All you assets go into the corp and you get shares based on assets in and time in the relationship. The shares give you voting rights over decisions. The corporation works for a couple, but it can define the responsibilities and rights better for groups of people. I seem to remember Robert Heinlein in the book Friday having this type of arrangement.

In terms of agendas lets get the marriage thing among human couples worked out for the US before we try for the more complicated stuff.

For me I am just trying to find one good person to get along with rather than trying for the full Poly thing.

Posted by: John | April 3, 2009 1:28 PM

I am surprised yet extremely happy to hear this! As a Californian who campaigned against Prop 8, my hopes for marriage equality in this country had dimmed considerably since last November.

I can only hope more states follow in Iowa's footsteps, and that conservi-tard Iowans don't find some way to reverse this decision.

Posted by: JustaTech | April 3, 2009 1:34 PM

Huzzah and WOOT Iowa! Now, Washington, see? It can be done! You've got Iowa and MA so now you have no excuses. Get your apple-picking, salmon-fishing, wine-stomping, bipolar ass in gear and pass gay marriage already! You're almost there, with that latest thing in the legislature, making civil unions *almost* exactly the same, let's finish the job!

Don't let Oregon beat us to this one too!

(If we have to wait for Montana I might cry.)

Posted by: Blackqwerty | April 3, 2009 1:39 PM

Iowa Supreme Court said gay-YES!
See the actual video.
video

Posted by: Abbie | April 3, 2009 1:43 PM

This is very, very close to happening in Vermont as well.

The bill passed last night, but the jackass governor has promised to veto it. We need 100 votes to override the veto; the vote was 95-53. Some democrats who voted "no" will vote "yes" against a veto, so we have a chance!

Posted by: Sarah in Chicago | April 3, 2009 1:46 PM

Janine @85 -

Sarah, I have to agree, there is something so evocative of Evil Genius of the Pro-Sodomy Movement. Do they even realize how much we laugh at their purple prose?

I honestly don't think they do ... I mean, they are so disconnected from reality that the fact that there are no rational reasons against same-sex marriage don't occur to them ... not to mention the horrible disconnect that they think that in country so explicitly about the separation of church and state that they should nonetheless have their own interpretation of their little myth-filled book imposed on EVERYONE, one has to realise that what is ACTUALLY occurring in the world around them is going to have very little impact.

I am sure these people are all sitting around, scratching their heads and wondering why on earth we all aren't persuaded by the 'obviousness' of their words.

That, and they're insane.

Posted by: Liberal Atheist | April 3, 2009 1:51 PM

I think polygamy should be allowed too. And yes, I'm serious.

Posted by: OrbitalMike | April 3, 2009 2:00 PM

I was serious as well regarding polyamorous marriages.

but cue the "atheists allow anything" whine from the godbots in 3,2,1 ...

Posted by: c-law | April 3, 2009 2:07 PM

For those twits who bring up human/animal marriages imagine this simple scenario:

"Do you, Bessie the cow, take Cletus as your lawfully wedded spouse?"
"...moo"
"Um, was that a yes or no? you need to be able to give informed consent for this sort of thing."
"..., munch-munch-munch"
"Bessie, please stop eating the marriage contract."
"MOOOO!"

so in closing. people who bring up the human/animal marriage bullcrap are idiots.
Bravo, Iowa. You are now more like Nova Scotia. We're not so different, youse and us.

Posted by: c-law | April 3, 2009 2:13 PM

For those twits who bring up human/animal marriages imagine this simple scenario:

"Do you, Bessie the cow, take Cletus as your lawfully wedded spouse?"
"...moo"
"Um, was that a yes or no? you need to be able to give informed consent for this sort of thing."
"..., munch-munch-munch"
"Bessie, please stop eating the marriage contract."
"MOOOO!"

so in closing. people who bring up the human/animal marriage bullcrap are idiots.
Bravo, Iowa. You are now more like Nova Scotia. We're not so different, youse and us.

Posted by: c-law | April 3, 2009 2:15 PM

whoops, sorry about the double post.
your server hates cow-marriage humor

Posted by: ??? | April 3, 2009 2:25 PM

you need to be able to give informed consent for this sort of thing

Would that be the same informed consent they give in the slaughterhouse? Just askin'.

Posted by: BAllanJ | April 3, 2009 2:33 PM

Of course, gay marriage hasn't been banned for some time in the US. Only registering the marriage with the government in order to receive certain odd privileges from said government was banned. This ruling shouldn't mean even one extra couple gets hitched in any meaningful way. There me be a slight, slight increase in gay sex, wedding nights being what they are, but not enough to be statistically significant. The legal recognition is very important, but the fundies shouldn't fool themselves into thinking that overturning this ruling would prevent any gay sex... and I don't imagine Prop 8 did either.

Posted by: Shaden Freud | April 3, 2009 2:50 PM

#72

so is this saying that homo's can get married and does this not have a way for an appeal ?

OK, this is just unacceptable. "Homo's" is supposed to be plural - no apostrophe!

(but seriously...well done, Iowa!)

Posted by: Endor | April 3, 2009 3:01 PM

"Endor, what's wrong with that if hubby and you agree?"

where did you get the idea that I think there's something wrong with it? I basically said "why can't I have two husbands"? How does that come off as "that's wrong"?

Posted by: Matt | April 3, 2009 3:04 PM

America is not a Christian nation. I also think that the "same-sex marriage violates our religious rights" argument is hilarious. What about religious denominations that accept same-sex marriage? Their freedoms are being violated every day that it is illegal.

Oh, and animals cannot provide a "yes" or "no" consent. And if marriage is solely for procreation, let's round up the infertile wives and husbands, eh?

Posted by: Lavi | April 3, 2009 3:14 PM

POLL alert. Scroll down to the bottom of the Iowa marriage news page (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090403/NEWS/90403010?GID=WGsr3TQT+Z8CE4iwoo7sRrKOaOK+sew8D82YGoz2fbU%3D) and vote.

Posted by: Tony Sidaway | April 3, 2009 3:15 PM

Pandagon has a lovely posting on this complete with a joint press release from the majorities leaders in both legislative chambers of Iowa welcoming the ruling, and a sample of fundy nutcake response.

My favorite so far (from freerepublic):

"This is scary. Unlike Massachusetts, Iowa is an agricultural breadbasket. Watch crop yields plumett now. God takes His revenge in many ways. Just ask those people burned out of their homes (or had their crops dry up from drought) in California. Russia’s crop yields plummeted too, once she became an atheistic nation in 1922."

The news from Vermont is encouraging, but the governor has sworn to veto it and the vote to overturn is a little too close to call at the moment. It needs a 2/3 majority in each separate Vermont chamber to overturn the veto.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | April 3, 2009 3:23 PM

I thought I smelled brimstone this morning!

Posted by: stephanie | April 3, 2009 3:34 PM

well, they were practically promised that gay marriage would result in legalizing bestiality.

Posted by: frog | April 3, 2009 3:39 PM

Brock: In fact I'm not sure official "partnership" is good for much (from the state perspective) besides having a default owner for your belongings if you croak.

There's a huge number of accounting issues -- beyond inheritance, you're talking about default parentage, conmingled taxes, default medical decisions, default authority on financial matters...

Really, if you're committing to a serious family life, it makes thing much, much simpler too have a uniform set of defaults, rather than some gigantic contract (or 100 smaller contracts), delineating every right and responsibility you're planning on transferring to each other.

Why do we have corporate law, instead of just requiring that every detail of every corporate organizational decision be spelled out? You quickly reach untractable contracts if you make contracts stand-alone documents.

Posted by: DGKnipfer | April 3, 2009 4:08 PM

The Des Moines Register Pole is not receiving nearly enough of our attention.

Do you agree with the Iowa Supreme Court's decision?

Yes 59% (10016 votes)
No 41% (6824 votes)
Total Votes: 16840
Comments (154)

Come on people. I want to see 100% YES!!!

Posted by: Bill Dauphin | April 3, 2009 4:24 PM

MAJeff:

It's MUCH harder to amend the Iowa constitution.

This is an excellent point, and one that bears repeating. I don't think enough people realize that the main reason something like Prop 8 could happen in supposedly liberal California is their system of ballot initiatives.

Folks, when the activists try to institute popular referendum/initiative measures in your state (as they tried to in CT in the last election), they will sell it on the basis of "enhancing democracy" and "giving individual citizens a voice," but that's the bunkum: What they're really after is paving the road to shit like Prop 8, or l-word-arian tax revolts that will bankrupt your state government.

Popular referendum seems pro-democratic on its face, but what it does in practice is give disproportionate power to small but highly motivated minority opinions (aka extremist whackjobs). The proponents of referendum will ask how you can possibly be against "empowering individuals," but you must stand firm.

You've been warned!

Posted by: CatBallou | April 3, 2009 4:46 PM

I know it's become suddenly popular on this blog to say "I'm from Iowa," but in my case, it's really true! I even know the state song.
"Oh I'm from Iowa, Iowa!" [/singing]
Iowans seem to maintain a difficult balance of "I'm personally conservative but what you do is none of my business." The balance occasionally falters, but sometimes...

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | April 3, 2009 4:52 PM

OMG, I'd forgotten about Happy Joe's!!! Haven't forgotten Hickory Park, though. Or Cafe Baudellaire.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | April 3, 2009 4:57 PM

What about AI's that are at least on a human level?

I think they'd have to at least gain legal "personhood" status before the marriage issue would be relevant.

Other species on our level?

Or RL genetic furries? Eep!

But seriously, they'd have the same problems as AIs.

Posted by: Paul Lundgren | April 3, 2009 5:13 PM

True, we ARE anticipating a blizzard, so we figured we'd give Dog a reason to be mad at us...

Posted by: stogoe | April 3, 2009 5:20 PM

I never knew there were so many of us Iowegians here. Why don't we already have our own Pharyngula Meetup?

Posted by: GMacs | April 3, 2009 5:23 PM

I never knew there were so many of us Iowegians here. Why don't we already have our own Pharyngula Meetup?

If you're in LAmes I know that the ISUAAS would love your company, so long as you are nice to the agnostics and Unitarians.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | April 3, 2009 5:52 PM

Hooray for Iowa. Rationality will prevail at times.

Posted by: Miranda Hale | April 3, 2009 5:59 PM

Wonderful news!! ♥

Posted by: anon | April 3, 2009 6:30 PM

Some of we Californians are feeling pretty jealous right now. No offense, but Iowa is not supposed to beat us in the say no to bigotry department.

Posted by: CatBallou | April 3, 2009 6:48 PM

Sorry, Stogoe. I can't join you for a meetup in Iowa. As Jake Johannsen says, "I grew up in Iowa. But then I found out that we were free to leave."

Posted by: Rieux | April 3, 2009 7:18 PM

As Jake Johannsen says, "I grew up in Iowa. But then I found out that we were free to leave."

- Rieux, a Minnesotan who spent much of his first twelve years mocking Iowa, and who must now repent

Posted by: Ciaphas | April 3, 2009 7:25 PM

This is really great news. Hopefully it won't take another five years for another state to get a little more sane.

When I hear about the issue of same-sex marrige I think about my uncle and his partner who have been together for almost two decades. Whenever I see them I always think "They are such a great couple, when are they going to get married?" And then I remember that they can't and I want to cry.

Posted by: Tim H | April 3, 2009 7:40 PM

I grew up on the IL side of the Quad Cities....dammit.....now I have to apologize for all those jokes!

Same here. Not in the QC area anymore, but still in IL. And Iowa's ahead of Illinois now. Illinois is one of the blue-est (ok, how do you really spell that) states around. We should have had this three years ago. And Oregon's Death-with-Dignity.

we can now proudly claim originating the following: - Happy Joe's Taco Pizza

Yeah. Had one last fall while visiting. But being from the IL side, gotta go for Harris overall.

Posted by: Rob | April 3, 2009 7:59 PM

Well, boys and girls and things (for people who don't know if they are a boy or girl), enjoy it while it lasts, becuase one day Christ is going to return and amke things right.

Besides, Iowa's wacky "judges" did not have the final say. You see, "gay" people cannot really get married anyway. In order to get married the couple has to be of opposite sex. For another thing, marriage in itself is absolutely a "religious connotation" becase it was created by God himself. Therefore, gay people can think that they are married, but they only have approval from the state - a human institution, not from the God who has the final say.

Besides, do you people really think that conservatives are going to recognize gay "marriage" anyway. If it were legal in every state and was happening on a daily basis in every county do you actually think that we will change our minds about it?

Just becuase some loony "judge" says that something is legal, does not mean that it is not wrong. If some judge said today that murder is okay, does that make it right?

I don't know, maybe we should ask OJ Simpson.

Maybe our Dear Leader can answer these tough questions. he seems to know it all anyway.

Our country is turning into a marxist hell.

Here is a synopsis of our future:

One day an illegal alien ran for president, won by help of the ACLU, chnaged our language to ancient Eqyptian, forced the people to marry and mate with their pets, killed God in order gain even more political power for itself (it did not know if it was a boy or girl), seated jusges with law degrees from Pee Wee Herman's Playhouse school of Lew (could not spell law), socilzed medicine so that a dictatorship could convene to kill people with whom the dear leader did not agree, and finally appointed crazed lunatics to run the financial system of the country that fell into communism.

Wait a minute, that's not the future. THAT'S NOW!

Posted by: frog | April 3, 2009 8:13 PM

I nominate Rob as a super-Poe!

He should get some kinda medal or something. Maybe a little American flag.

Posted by: sioux laris | April 3, 2009 8:15 PM

#165 Rob, or should I call you LOKI???? HMMMMM????

It's a nice package, Mr. Troll. You'll get some bites, but they won't disguise the fact that your mother wore army boots (and was a male war bride).

Posted by: Lee Picton | April 3, 2009 8:45 PM

Hey Rob!
Poor widdle diddums. Got your panties in a bunch? See, what is finally happening in this country is that you religiotards are at long last having your presumption of privilege challenged. And you don't like it one little bit. There are other religions besides yours, and those, like us evil atheists, who are steadily becoming a countervailing power. Our time is long overdue, but it IS coming. Deal, baby, deal!

Posted by: Dahan | April 3, 2009 8:56 PM

Rob = Poe. Gotta be! If it's not I don't think I could stand it. I'd laugh myself until I strained something.

Posted by: nothing's sacred | April 3, 2009 9:00 PM

Rob, are you aware that it is obvious to everyone else here that you are quite stupid? Everyone else, please go easy on Rob, he is what he is.

Posted by: Rey Fox | April 3, 2009 9:07 PM

"At least my mother knew she was a girl."

I knew she was a girl too. LAST NIGHT!

Posted by: Pharyngulette | April 3, 2009 9:10 PM

One day an illegal alien ran for president, won by help of the ACLU, chnaged our language to ancient Eqyptian [sic], forced the people to marry and mate with their pets, killed God in order gain even more political power for itself (it did not know if it was a boy or girl), seated jusges with law degrees from Pee Wee Herman's Playhouse school of Lew (could not spell law), socilzed medicine [inane blather continues]

So if I get your gist properly, Rob, you're speaking in "ancient Eqypian" now, is that right? Is that why your rant makes so little sense? And you're cranky because you've been forced to marry a horse and have sex with your goldfish, by the insistance of the new government of your country? (I pay quite a lot of attention to the US news, but I must have missed that story.) And then your god was killed -- uh, how? Was it that damned "iron chariots" thing again?

Seriously, Rob, nobody is forcing you to do anything. You don't have to marry a person of the same sex, in spite of it being made possible now in Iowa.

A lot of your fellow religionists have had politics their own way for most of the last decade, but that time is over now. The fact is that Christianity is fading as a political power, and your all-powerful juju-man-in-the-sky seems to want it that way, since he's done nothing to prevent it. Though if you want to continue to talk to your invisible friend, nothing about this change of law will prevent you. Get over your persecution complex!

(P.S. Speaking as a person who has socialised medicine in her country, it's the best. You can only hope that your leaders are smart enough to arrange it for you.)

Posted by: The MadPanda | April 3, 2009 9:18 PM

Reading the decision now. While I personally find the obligatory civics lesson the court seems to find mandatory somewhat tedious and a touch self-congratulatory, that's me...and I don't have to listen to loud-mouthed bigots calling me 'activist' for doing my job the next morning.

I am soooo stealing that quote from Oliver Wendell Holmes on page 17.

WELL DONE, IOWA!

The MadPanda, FCD

Posted by: hubris hurts | April 3, 2009 9:30 PM

I have not read every comment above, so I apologize if this is redundant, but...

I grew up in Des Moines, Iowa, and although I haven't lived there in 20 years, I visit several times a year because my parents still live there. People tend to sneer at Iowa, thinking that it is full of ignorant hicks, but it has always been quite progressive.

Iowa was one of the first states to make positive moves to reduce waste and promote recycling. For decades, they've only allowed a small amount of trash for weekly pickup, forcing people to recycle everything possible. They were also one of the first states to charge a deposit fee for drink bottles and cans. That may seem like a small thing, but I remember when this was implemented about 40 years ago, the amount of litter I saw dropped overnight as people started saving bottles and cans to return for money.

I don't know if it is still true, but up until recently, Iowans had the highest level of education per capita of any state. (When I told Californians this, they always responded with "that's because there's nothing better to do there." Right...because becoming educated is soooo lame, compared to hanging out at the beach.)

Again, I don't know if it is still true, but 30 years ago, Iowa had more underground and energy efficient homes per capita than any other state.

If you love books, you should check out the Planned Parenthood Book Sale held in Des Moines every March and September. Tens of thousands of donated used books are sold each year to raise money for PPGI.

So, in case you can't tell, I'm very proud to be from Iowa and I'm so pleased to see that they are continuing to progress in such a positive way.

(Sorry for the long post!)

Posted by: Kseniya | April 3, 2009 9:36 PM

Thanks for the lesson, h.h. We're all Iowans today!

Posted by: Dianne | April 3, 2009 9:41 PM

At least my mother knew she was a girl

I'm so sorry. My mother was an adult woman when she had her children. The world would be a better place if children weren't forced to complete pregnancies but that would require serious marriage reform in some of the more backwards conservative states (and countries).

Posted by: Sabazinus | April 3, 2009 9:58 PM

Awesome news. Elder Gods be praised. Especially glad it was a state outside New England for a change.

Posted by: stogoe | April 3, 2009 10:48 PM

If you're in LAmes I know that the ISUAAS would love your company, so long as you are nice to the agnostics and Unitarians.

I'm already part of a very nice UU group, thanks (the local Atheist Group doesn't have a choir).

But it looks like all the Iowegian Pharyngulites escaped the state long since and there won't be any drunken tentacle orgies until I can entice the Great Beard to trudge southward.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | April 3, 2009 10:55 PM

Rob, if you made any sense at all, I couldn't find it. Just idiocy upon idiocy.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | April 3, 2009 11:00 PM

Yawn, Rob, are you ever going to make sense? Loose the 'tude, then you might.

Posted by: aratina | April 3, 2009 11:01 PM

Take a hike, Rob!

Posted by: Rob | April 3, 2009 11:07 PM

PZ stated "their supreme court has surprisingly made a strong and progressive decision".

Wy did you people start calling liberalism "progressive" when it makes no progress at all?

Call it liberal decision, not progressive. Why do you people have such difficulty calling things by a real name?

Illigal aliens not undocumented immigrants
Islamic terrorists not insurgents
liberals not progressives
Christmas, not happy holidays

Is it so hard?

Why does political correctness run amuck with the far left?

Why are you peope so delicate and sensitive? Meathead!

Posted by: The MadPanda | April 3, 2009 11:10 PM

(looks at the title of the thread)

(looks at Rob's digital vomit)

I think you've got the wrong room. Abuse is in Room Ten-A, down the hall. This is Practical Dialectics. And you're only worth 845 XP divided by the size of the party that flattens you, virtually speaking.

But by all means, keep talking. Our Benevolent Overlord is paid by the post. The more you serve forth, noxious though the results may be, the more he makes.

Besides, we can all tell that you're really a Communist agitprop specialist, here to discredit true American patriotism by shifting the Overton Window.

The MadPanda, FCD

Posted by: Rob | April 3, 2009 11:14 PM

Hey!

In a gay "marriage", who decides which person is the husband and which one is the wife?

Which one plays the female role and which one plays the male role?

Do they take turns?

Isn't that confusing to a child (God Forbid)?

Which one weras the pants and which one wears the dress?

Which one mows the lawn and which one cooks dinner?

Which one is the stay at home mom?

OOOOOH! I know!

Which one gets custody of the kids in case of divorce? Most judges side with the woman. This will be interesting indeed! Who pays the child support? How can you tell which one is the mother or father? interesting!

Posted by: Feynmaniac | April 3, 2009 11:22 PM

siMon,

Fuck off. You've been banned. Take your shit elsewhere.

Posted by: The MadPanda | April 3, 2009 11:25 PM

Hey, Nerd...you suppose The Banned One is a wee bit jealous of those lucky folks in Iowa?

I mean, we all know what it means when a little boy gives a little girl dead flowers and a hate valentine, right? Same thing, only this is a pair of trolls taking on a whole state...

The MadPanda, FCD

Posted by: hubris hurts | April 3, 2009 11:30 PM

Phew, Rob, welcome to the 21st century.

I am in a very happy heterosexual marriage (just in case the big word confused you, that means that I am a woman married to a man), but we don't fit your narrow gender roles.

My husband, brilliant man though he is, does not have many marketable skills. I, however, have a good paying job that I love, and I make enough to support both of us. So I go to work every day and bring home the paycheck, and my husband takes care of the house and does volunteer work.

If we lived by your rules, we would be poor and miserable. My husband would be forced to work at an unfulfilling, low-paying job and I would be staying home trying to stretch every penny instead of working at a job I enjoy and am good at.

Hmmmmm. Thanks anyway, but I like our way better.

Posted by: hubris hurts | April 3, 2009 11:35 PM

Oh, by the way Rob, in case you're wondering if my husband is effeminate, the answer is no. Even without knowing what you look like, my guess is that he could easily beat the crap out of you. He's also a pretty darned good shot with a rifle or a pistol.

Posted by: strange gods before me | April 3, 2009 11:43 PM

Which one weras the pants and which one wears the dress?

Which one mows the lawn and which one cooks dinner?

Which one is the stay at home mom?

http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/nc_wingnut_save_marriage_or_there_will_be_man_robot_nuptials/

the fundamental difference between reality-based people and the fundamentalist extremists—they don’t believe marriage is an arrangement between consenting adults. Apparently the man is in control and the woman is simply chattel.

Right-wing extremists like Rob don't like gay marriage because it undermines their basic assumption about what marriage is supposed to be: a form of slavery where one person owns and completely dominates the other. In traditional marriage, the kind before feminism and no-fault divorce, the kind that Rob and his brethren still practice through "covenant marriage", it was always obvious who owned who. Men owned women, naturally, that's the way God wanted it.

But if men can marry men, and women can marry women, then who owns who? It blows their little reptile minds. And what happens if their women start getting ideas?

In this narrow sense it's true that gay marriage erodes the institution of "traditional" marriage. And that's a good thing.

Posted by: hubris hurts | April 3, 2009 11:49 PM

What kids?

And what Sunday School? Have you not noticed that you are posting on an Athiest blog, you twit?

Posted by: Ace of Sevens | April 3, 2009 11:55 PM

Another Iowan happy with the decision. This sort of thing is why I've stayed all these years. Well, that and in-state tuition.

Posted by: strange gods before me | April 3, 2009 11:58 PM

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article642788.ece

Sweden and Denmark are tied for best places on Earth to live. USA is 27th. I like the US and have no desire to leave, so I'll do my best to bring socialism here instead of going there.

Posted by: Cafe | April 3, 2009 11:59 PM

This is not even interesting. Classic T-R-O-L-L (s).

Posted by: aratina | April 4, 2009 12:03 AM

No point in mentioning post numbers anymore in this thread, there are going to be plenty of posts erased from memory shortly. I wouldn't be surprised if Rob suddenly poofed out of existence, too.

Anyway, the Iowa decision was astonishing. Was anybody expecting it to come this quickly and be unanimous? Here I was waiting for the California Supreme Court to axe same-sex marriage once again, and then this victory happened out of the blue.

Posted by: Primewonk | April 4, 2009 12:19 AM

plum grenville @ 220 said: I have a simple suggestion: let's put them in the room next door the honeymoon suite at a nice hotel in Iowa or Massachussetts or Canada and tell them that there might be a newly married gay couple next door who might be having sex at THAT VERY moment. The very possibility of it would surely give them a fatal case of apoplexy.

Problem solved! Bigotry eliminated!

PW - Schrodinger's gay cat?

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | April 4, 2009 12:48 AM

there are roles that both genders play in life.

Posted by: plum grenville | April 4, 2009 1:27 AM

Primewonk | April 4, 2009 12:19 AM

PW - Schrodinger's gay cat?

Nah! I don't want to settle for a 50% chance of Rob and SiMon dying or having them simultaneously dead and alive (Zombie Rob and Zombie SiMon).

I think my idea may have been even more successful than I anticipated - it didn't even have to be implemented to work! Just imagining themselves imagining that they are next door to a gay couple having sex (sodomy, no doubt) has caused premature apoplexy in Rob and SiMon, which explains why they have suddenly stopped posting.

Tolerance triumphs!

Posted by: Bone Oboe | April 4, 2009 2:38 AM

Wow, reading Rob's posts, and I think that he might be one of those chimps that they locked up with all those type writers, eons ago And he's starting to see the direction he needs to head in order to start cranking out "The Bard". Just a couple of spelling errors, and a touch of madness probably stemming from what could to be a chunk of the "true cross" lodged betwixt the hemispheres of his brain. All splintery and such. Or maybe it's a fragment of a bullet that hit his bible. Who knows? Rob, go play in traffic. Pick a busy intersection, and forget what you learned about looking both ways before crossing yourself and then the road. Then try to step out in front of a tanker carrying gasoline, so everyone can see you do the gratuitous walk of fire.

Lewis Black says it well enough with the "Gay Banditos" bit:

Posted by: siMon | April 4, 2009 2:48 AM

#229
Why do Rob and SiMon remind me of a story about TH Huxley and Bishop "Soapy Sam" Wilberforce? According to legend, when Wilberforce died by falling off a horse, Huxley remarked that it was the first time Wilberforce's head had ever come into contact with reality and the result was fatal.

I have a simple suggestion: let's put them in the room next door the honeymoon suite at a nice hotel in Iowa or Massachussetts or Canada and tell them that there might be a newly married gay couple next door who might be having sex at THAT VERY moment. The very possibility of it would surely give them a fatal case of apoplexy.

Problem solved! Bigotry eliminated!

good suggestion, sounds scientific !

Like "Children Raised in Brothels", they are used to see their mother's job.

Would you allow bestiality for the sake of tolerance ?

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | April 4, 2009 2:59 AM

simon again, not understanding the concept of consent.

Posted by: The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge | April 4, 2009 3:36 AM

What is with these retarded pimplebrains and the conflating of same-sex marriage and bestiality? They would undoubtedly be the first to disagree with the animal rights activists' claim that "Meat is Murder;" killing a cow is totally different from killing a human. But marrying a human (of the same sex) is exactly the same as marrying a cow? WTF?

Posted by: Walton | April 4, 2009 7:40 AM

Why is it that people like Rob can be right (broadly) on the economy and healthcare, but so profoundly wrong, bigoted and anti-freedom when it comes to homosexuality, gender roles and other people's life choices ? And why is it that the rest of you are so open-minded and sensible when it comes to other people's lifestyles, but so deluded and anti-freedom when it comes to the economy and big government?

The world needs fewer "conservatives" and fewer "liberals" (in the US senses of those words) and more people who believe in consistent freedom; who recognise the value of the free market; and who don't intend to interfere with their neighbour's lives either in the "moral" sphere or the economic sphere.

Posted by: Sili | April 4, 2009 7:58 AM

Well, fuck me.

Kudos, Walton. That was beautiful.

Posted by: clinteas | April 4, 2009 8:26 AM

@241,

Kudos, Walton. That was beautiful.

Yeah,I thought that was pretty good too,until here:

And why is it that the rest of you are so open-minded and sensible when it comes to other people's lifestyles, but so deluded and anti-freedom when it comes to the economy and big government?

LOL

But we're getting there,slowly..:-)

What a week,really,sensible posts from Walton all the time,from Heddle in an increasing number,and from the Rookie at times,what the hell is happening??
Thank god there's maggie and Rob !Oh,and Simon the beastie of course...

Posted by: Ben | April 4, 2009 8:42 AM

Everyone seems shocked that this would happen in Iowa. What is it that makes people think that Iowa is a conservative state? It's been carried by the Democratic nominee in 5 out of the past 6 presidential elections. It was carried by Dukakis for Christ's sake.

Posted by: Pooka | April 4, 2009 8:59 AM

The links below show how simply but eloquently the Iowa Supreme Court deconstructed the arguments against civil unions.

http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/wfData/files/Varnum/40209Varnumsummary.pdf

http://lawdork.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/our-liberties-we-prize-and-our-rights-we-will-maintain/

Posted by: Sili | April 4, 2009 9:18 AM

And even if it's challenged it will just mean that the issue gets to the Scotus sooner.

Not that that necessarily is a good thing ...

Yes, Clinteas, I deliberately ignored #239 in favour of #240.

Posted by: ROB | April 4, 2009 9:52 AM

Jessica:

I never said anything about people with disabilities. I'll open my mouth when I please. I can't help it becuase you stupid militant jackasses cannot comprehend common sense.
I meant the comment for men who are perfectly healthy, but you as a liberal took it the wrong way becuase no one told you how to think. Think for yourself for crying out loud. you might learn something - if your tiny leftist pea brains can handle thinking for yourself.

Posted by: ROB | April 4, 2009 9:59 AM

Kseniya:

I refuse to adhere to your left wing propoganda. These links are pro-gay marriage and you know it. Why don't you give some links that are not politically motivated? The APA is a joke now as well becuase they have been threatened by far left terrorists to keep their mouth shut on issues of homosexuality being pshychological. It's sad when the far left pressure physchologists to change thier professional viewpoints to make a political statement. So much for freedom and free speech. Will these far left pests ever use a fair method of debate rather than threats of lawsuits by criminal organizations ike the ACLU?

Posted by: ROB | April 4, 2009 10:08 AM

Hey people.

I have another question.

As you all may recall EHarmony was forced to have gay dating posts. Does this mean now that all gay dating websites can be forced to allow straight personal posts? Isn't that fair?

Posted by: blf | April 4, 2009 10:13 AM

Is there anything rob does not consider to be a left/liberal/whatever terrorist plot?

Posted by: ROB | April 4, 2009 10:17 AM

Well, I hate to say it, but i have to leave now. I have important things to do. I have fire ants to kill, sights to set on a .45 colt, grass to mow, weeds to poison, and wasps to kill. It may be a long day. maybe I'll pick up the argument tonight. See ya later boys and girls and people who don't know if you are a boy or girl.

Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | April 4, 2009 10:20 AM

I wouldn't bet that it's over yet. You know someone's going to challenge it and keep gay marriage in legal limbo. The whole separate but equal approach to gay marriage simply doesn't work because civil unions don't give the same benefits as marriage, i.e. shared life insurance, power to make decisions about each others' healthcare during a time of emergency, taxes, etc.

At this point, the defendants (the state,) see no purpose in challenging it. They would be the only ones who could appeal it to the federal courts, so no matter how much the bleaters hate this decision they are powerless. So, they will try to get a Republican legislature over the next 6 years and use that to get an amendment to the Constitution put on the ballot to try to overturn this decision. By then there will have been so many same-sex marriages that the people living next door to same-sex couples will wonder why they were ever opposed to the concept in the first place.

Now, the question that I have is in states that chose a "civil union" compromise on the issue, a "separate but equal" clause which forbids that churches and religious institutions use the word "marriage" in their ceremonies, there would be a nifty case for a church-state separation argument, as the state would be trampling on a religion's right to conduct itself independently.

Entanglement is a double-edged sword, as the legal-beagles at the Alliance Defense Fund would soon find out.

Posted by: Steve_C | April 4, 2009 10:24 AM

Haha. Big man rob is gonna be killin some bugs. What a big strong verile man. Gaydate.com would love you.

Posted by: Rick R | April 4, 2009 10:31 AM

Steve_C- is that what rob's post was, an "I'm a big strong real man" display?

A dude with a lawnmower and a can of Raid. I think I'm getting a woody.

Posted by: aratina | April 4, 2009 10:35 AM

And why is it that the rest of you [liberals] are so open-minded and sensible when it comes to other people's lifestyles, but so deluded and anti-freedom when it comes to the economy and big government?

The world needs fewer "conservatives" and fewer "liberals" (in the US senses of those words) and more people who believe in consistent freedom; who recognise the value of the free market; and who don't intend to interfere with their neighbour's lives either in the "moral" sphere or the economic sphere. - Walton

Everyone seems shocked that this would happen in Iowa. What is it that makes people think that Iowa is a conservative state? It's been carried by the Democratic nominee in 5 out of the past 6 presidential elections. It was carried by Dukakis for Christ's sake. - Ben

Posted by: SC, OM | April 4, 2009 10:41 AM

This Rob guy just has to be American,no way he could have come out of any civilized society.

Oh, how funny. While we're on the subject of "civilized," clinteas, care to return to "I have no idea what this thread is about" and answer our responses to your comment @ #300?

Posted by: blf | April 4, 2009 10:46 AM

The site our mighty bugkiller is posting links to is something of a hoot! Admittedly, the first(?) link, to an article about a study confirming liberals tend to be less religious than conservatives, was reasonable and prossibly not made-up. (I didn't try to chase down the study mentioned.) But as for the rest of that site—woo-hoy!

Its tag-line, “Keeping You Informed of World Events From A Biblical Perspective”, is a rather good clew as the nuttery within. They do have links-to / republish stuff from respectable sites, but invariably filtered through an lens that seems to result in your mind melting and turning into a threat to bugdom.

Posted by: clinteas | April 4, 2009 11:40 AM

Ahem,

after review of the appropriate literature(i.e.urban dictionary) and further comments,I will hide under a rock,apologize to Janine,and go away and feel a bit underwhelmed by my post.....

Posted by: SC, OM | April 4, 2009 11:49 AM

Ahem,

after review of the appropriate literature(i.e.urban dictionary) and further comments,I will hide under a rock,apologize to Janine,and go away and feel a bit underwhelmed by my post.....

Ay. Then I take back my last comment, which crossed with this one.

You're killin' me, clinteas. :)

Posted by: clinteas | April 4, 2009 11:55 AM

Trying hard not to kill anyone,SC.....
Posted an apology to Janine on the "I have no idea" thread also.
Slightly embarrassed here.

Posted by: SC, OM | April 4, 2009 12:06 PM

Posted an apology to Janine on the "I have no idea" thread also.

Yes, I saw that. Good on ya, as you guys say.

Slightly embarrassed here.

Well, I should've considered more seriously (before windy suggested it) the possibility that you didn't really mean what you wrote. I should've given you the benefit of the doubt. At the same time, you should have given me the benefit of the doubt that there was a reason for my reaction, instead of trying to paint it as you did.

Posted by: BMS | April 4, 2009 12:13 PM

Mike, #261-

At this point, the defendants (the state,) see no purpose in challenging it. They would be the only ones who could appeal it to the federal courts

Well, technically, no. The State's only option for challenging the decision is to petition for a rehearing before the Iowa supreme court.

There are no grounds, as far as I can tell, for a run through the federal system - the case was brought on purely state law grounds, and there is no federal question at issue.

This case is done! Marriage equality for consenting adult couples begins in Iowa on April 24th!

Posted by: Matt Heath | April 4, 2009 12:25 PM

Besides, do you people really think that conservatives are going to recognize gay "marriage" anyway. If it were legal in every state and was happening on a daily basis in every county do you actually think that we will change our minds about it?

raven @278: Is it cool if you don't use "retard" as a general purpose insult against the hateful and wilfully ignorant?

Posted by: raven | April 4, 2009 12:49 PM

This is only slightly OT, but our resident funditard Rob brought up revelations. I didn't click his link, but I'm sure all the signs point to Obama as being hellspawn.

I didn't click his link either. Afraid it would lower the IQ of my computer's cpu.

The antichrist is an all purpose demon for the fundies who don't do thinking or logic. At any given time, it usually is the ever popular RCC pope, Ratzinger. But it is frequently moved to whatever democrat is in power or the UN.

PZ and Dawkins will know they have really arrived when they become the antichrist.

More likely IMO, the antichrist would be Dobson, Hagee, Falwell, Robertson, Palin, Parsely, Warren, and a few other fundie toads. If the god can be three beings, the trinity, the antichrist can be 10 or so, a decinity.

Posted by: The MadPanda | April 4, 2009 2:10 PM

Exactly, Comrade Abian. Our little agitpropper is following Beloved Leader's mandate to make true American patriots look like loud-mouthed ignoramuses. Now if only he'd quote from the Little Red Book more often like he's supposed to...

The MadPanda, FCD

Posted by: Rick R | April 4, 2009 2:29 PM

I don't know, Marc. It's possible Rob's a poe. What makes me doubt it was his attempt to pass off his hicksville to-do list as a "Me, Tarzan" moment.

That just seemed too uproariously pathetic to be anything but genuine.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | April 4, 2009 2:51 PM

Yawn, Rob, we would be just shivering in our boots--except your god doesn't exist, so nothing to worry about. Your bible is full of bad cactus juice ravings too. Only to be believed by the delusional, like yourself.

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | April 4, 2009 2:59 PM

Yeah! Just imagine.

Posted by: ROB | April 4, 2009 3:02 PM

Hey you liberals were right. We are already challenging the illegal decision made in Iowa by criminal judges.

Here are some interesting links:

http://www.missionamerica.com/

http://www.libertycounsel.org/

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | April 4, 2009 3:05 PM

Yawn, Rob, links for idiots like yourself who are sheeple to imaginary deities. We think, and we think you are a turd, as your ideas look bad and smell. What else can one expect from sheeple poop.

Posted by: ROB | April 4, 2009 3:09 PM

To make things fair, I'll give you liberals a chance to rebuke me on my on turf. My blog is http://robhood.us/weblog.php

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | April 4, 2009 3:12 PM

Rob, you have presented nothing except excrement. No need to refute excrement, just clean it up. Give us the coordinates of your place so we can send your shit back to you by trebuchet.

Posted by: Rick R | April 4, 2009 3:18 PM

A blogwhore. I should have known.

Judging by your stats, I'd say you need it.

Posted by: Ace of Sevens | April 4, 2009 3:22 PM

Rob, what crime, exactly did the judges commit? Keep in mind that your answer may constitute libel if what you already said didn't.

And to all of you complainign about this being anti-democratic: the purpose of a liberal society is to maximize the freedoms of the individual. Democracy is a means to achieve this end. It is not an end in itself. This means the majority cannot restrict a minority's rights just because they are unpopular.

Posted by: ROB | April 4, 2009 3:34 PM

Ace of Sevens :

The judges commited this:

They forced the will of political leftists onto the face of the majority who voted it down. I thought that America was a country of "we the people", not we the judges.

Besides America is not a democracy. It is a Republic. Have you ever recited the words to the Pledge of Allegiance? never mind, look who I am talking to.

"the REPUBLIC for which it stands".

There is only one thing we can do and that's call for impeachment on judges who illegally make decisons against the voters. What's the point n voting on something if some nutty appointed judge is just going to use his own personal political bias to cast it down anyway?

Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter | April 4, 2009 3:38 PM

I don't think Rob's a poe. I think he's a lonely little wanker who wants to get some traffic for his completely neglected blog by coming here and making deliberately incendiary statements.

Such a pity he's a moron; he might actually have generated some traffic. But he doesn't realize that we don't care what stercor he chooses to spread in his own living room.

It's not like anyone here or the real world is going to care what he thinks, now, is it?

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | April 4, 2009 3:39 PM

There is that pesky little detail about protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

Also, are all of these awful leftists going to forse you to marry a man?

The reason I have no desire to click to your blog is because of all the ignorant bullshit that you have already said here. You are making monsters out of people who have no desire to take away your rights, just claim the rights that other people have.

Posted by: Rick R | April 4, 2009 3:42 PM

Sorry, I was replying to- "It's not like anyone here or the real world is going to care what he thinks, now, is it?"

Certainly not in Iowa, they won't.

Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter | April 4, 2009 3:45 PM

Rob, you truly are a moron. More importantly, you're ignorant of politics (and religion, I note from your posts):

There is only one thing we can do and that's call for impeachment on judges who illegally make decisons against the voters. What's the point n voting on something if some nutty appointed judge is just going to use his own personal political bias to cast it down anyway?

And there are conservative judges in that group. They are supposed to make legal judgments about what's constitutional. And they did. The fact that you're in the closet and in denial about it shouldn't make you so jumpy when someone acts intelligently. After all, given your track record, SOMEONE needs to balance you out.

Posted by: GMacs | April 4, 2009 4:20 PM

My sincerest apologies to schizophrenics for my previous post.

Posted by: ROB | April 4, 2009 4:52 PM

Te next thing we knowsome judge will force preachers to "marry" "gay" people in churches. They better not! Keep the state issue out of the church. Let those judges who said it was okay marry them.

Some atheists wish to ban the word "marriage" becuase it is religious and deals with God's plan of a covenant marriage. That's fine by me. Let the gay people co-exist and let regular people marry.

I can't help it because some people choose to be with the same sex - even though it is disgusting.

If they want to do that, keep it indoors in the privacy of your own home - not in public where kids can see it.

----------------

If America hating Godophobes can burn American flags, don't that gives regualr Americans the right to burn rainbow flags? Free speech anyone?

Posted by: Rick R | April 4, 2009 5:12 PM

"Some atheists wish to ban the word "marriage" becuase it is religious and deals with God's plan of a covenant marriage. That's fine by me. Let the gay people co-exist and let regular people marry."

You're not getting it, Rob. It's not sinking in.

Come April 24th, gay people in Iowa can be legally married. Married.

And you don't have a damned thing to say about it.

Posted by: ROBB | April 4, 2009 5:21 PM

Rck R:

I cn d smthng bt t. And I wll.

N thy wll nt b mrrd bcs tht s nt Gd's cvnnt. Th trm my lglly b "mrry", bt th "mrrg" s fk bcs t ds nt g lng wth wht Gd dsgnd. t wll b fk "mrrg".

----------------------

Wll, wht m I cmpnng bt? My stt bnnd t n 2004.

I wndr wht wld hppn f I slppd tststrn spplmnts nt gy mn's drnk vrydy? Intrstng. I wndr f h wld chng? Nc xprmnt. NAH! Prbbly cm t wth hry gy mn thn.

---------------------

Y ppl r t stnc rntd t rlz tht hmsxlty s phschlgcl nd nt physcl. Ask yr gy bdds bt thr chldhd. I'll bt y mny thtmst f thm wll hv hm n whch thr s n bcns f mthr r fthr, hv bn sxlly bsd s chld, r ws nglctd.

Posted by: GMacs | April 4, 2009 5:24 PM

Again, YOU are the wrong one. The flood was WORLDWIDE and God promised to never bring another WORLDWIDE flood.

Wow, this God fella is a crafty, sneaky bitch. I don't imagine he has many friends. Can you imagine how horrible the world would be if people followed such a shifty little shit?
...oh, dear

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | April 4, 2009 5:28 PM

No they will not be married becuase that is not God's covenant.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | April 4, 2009 5:34 PM

No they will not be married becuase that is not God's covenant.

Then why doesn't the alleged god do something about it? Why does he sit back, pulling his pud, while his pissant followers flail and blather and achieve absolutely nothing?

Omnipotent god? More like impotent god.

Posted by: ROBB | April 4, 2009 5:36 PM

Pr rltd "scnc" s jk. Th fld dd hppn. It hppnd wrldwd. Lk t th Grnd Cnyn. Lk rnd. Hw d y thnk ll ths fssls frmd. If n nml ds, thn th bctr dtrrts th skns nd bns bfr t cn fsslz. Th fld wld hv brd bllns f plnts, nmls, nd hmns lv n shrt mnt f tm, thrfr fsslzng thm.

Bsds, n n gvs crp bt thst crp thr. Y ppl cs mr prblms thn y slv.

Posted by: Steve_C | April 4, 2009 5:40 PM

HAHAHAHA." Take that you atheists! My stupid defeats you!"

Hehehe. This guy is hysterical. Did you shoot any wasps with the big 45 of yours hot stuff?

Posted by: raven | April 4, 2009 5:42 PM

Rob the mentally ill idiot; Sorry I called you merely stupid and ignorant. With the load of hate you are carrtubg around and inability to think coherently, you have to classified as mentally ill.

These are the sort of xians that gave the religion its bad name and are destroying it. When xian become synonymous with crazy, hating, lying, and stupid, who would want to be one?

Geneis 8
21 The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though [a] every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

22 "As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest,
cold and heat,
summer and winter,
day and night
will never cease."

Dueling bible verses here. Genesis 8 has priority over Genesis 9. Floods are a subset of general destruction and what god promises himself is more important than what he tells Noah. Besides which, he never said, no more floods but next time I'll massacre y'all some other clever way. Given the multitude of ways a deity can kill everyone, that would make it a trivial promise and meaningless. You are just making stuff up.

Irrelevant anyway. Genesis is just mythology.

Jehovahs Witness or some similar cult. Did they teach you to hate so much or did you pick that up on your own? Either way, the thread is yours. Repulsive kooks are dime a dozen and quickly boring. Best I can say, we have cops, judges, and armies to keep them from going totally crazy and killing everyone and destroying our society.

Last poll I saw, Pew, pointed out that the majority of the US, mostly xians BTW, are sick and tired of fundies. You are well on your way to being a despised minority the hard way, by earning it.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | April 4, 2009 5:45 PM

Robb, the only joke is your god and bible, both exist as true only between your ears. You must show physical evidence to convince us otherwise. Your testament is worthless, as you are already shown to bear false witness.

Posted by: RObo | April 4, 2009 5:47 PM

No but I have shot a spider with a .22 rifle. i used to hunt them when i was a kid.(in the woods). it makes for great accuracy training - for when Obama causes the second civil war - in which the South will win this time. They should have won the first time, but our stupid general surrendered like an idiot. never surrender to the enemy. Fight till death.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | April 4, 2009 5:49 PM

Robb, when are you going to clean up after yourself? The amount of mindless sheeple shit you are leaving is becoming hazardous due to the amount of stupidity, insipidity, and wanking in it. We will have to start charging you to haul it out safely.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | April 4, 2009 5:50 PM

wow, there's another set of 100% guaranteed fact-free posts from rob. also, please do tell me, how many windows have I broken exactly?

and since you're such a fan of the status-quo and do not find violence a solution to problems, I suggest you give Britain her colonies back.

Posted by: raven | April 4, 2009 5:54 PM

Robb the homicidal maniac:

Rick R:

I can do something about it. And I will.

Typical fundie. Lies are all they have. And violence and murder are just below the surface.

A threat. So, what are you going to do? Shoot up a gay bar or run over a couple of women or men walking together? They could be gay, after all.

We will probably be hearing from Robb again someday. In the headlines when another kook goes berserk and starts randomly shooting people. They probably won't even be gay but the Robbs don't really care by this point.

The fundies really turned xianity 180 degrees. "Jesus loves you; xianity is a religion of peace, love, and tolerance. And anyone who doesn't agree will be tortured, mutilated, and killed." Like I said, this is why we have cops, judges, and armies. Among other things, they protect society from the Haters, Liars, and Killers for jesus.

Posted by: Steve_C | April 4, 2009 5:58 PM

If Robb is part of the next civil war... the "north" will win again, easily.

Oh ok. He's one of those TowneHallLGFAIGDITTOHEAD fuckwits.

Posted by: raven | April 4, 2009 6:00 PM

Robb threatening mass murder:

No but I have shot a spider with a .22 rifle. i used to hunt them when i was a kid.(in the woods). it makes for great accuracy training - for when Obama causes the second civil war - in which the South will win this time. They should have won the first time, but our stupid general surrendered like an idiot. never surrender to the enemy. Fight till death.

Speaks for itself. This guy really is truly crazy. He may very well end up the next mall shooter. We're done here and I am so glad I don't live in the south central USA.

Posted by: RObo | April 4, 2009 6:02 PM

No but I have shot a spider with a .22 rifle. I used to hunt them when I was a kid.(in the woods). It makes for great accuracy training. Too bad the liberal kids didn't have gun. We could have played cowboys and indians.

Posted by: Riverman | April 4, 2009 6:09 PM

Wht rctm sntchr kps ncnrtng my wrds n hr? Whtvr hppnd t fr spch? Oh, yh I frgt. Fr spch s fr lbrls, nt rglr ppl. Srry, frgt.

[morphing will also get you banned. --pzm]

Posted by: Lakeman | April 4, 2009 6:11 PM

You aks what is a Godophobe? Well silly liberals made up the word homophobe like we are scared of gay people or something, so Godophobes must be godless liberals who are afraid of conservatives God believers.

Godophobes

Posted by: GMacs | April 4, 2009 6:14 PM

Is anyone else getting seriously concerned?

My mind is just recalling headlines I've heard in the news the last couple years about people posting in chat rooms and message boards before going on rampages.

Fortunately most are hoaxes, but this guy is still damaging my calm.

Posted by: ROBBBBB | April 4, 2009 6:16 PM

PZ: fine I'll leave, but I was just defending myself. However, you are hateful to tell me to hang out with Ayrans. Why don't you hang out with the devil. oops Too late.

Bye Godophobes, I shall return in the future
...

Until then, happy American hating Godophobe gay lickers organizer post it alls.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | April 4, 2009 6:20 PM

ROB, in the bottom right corner

Posted by: GMacs | April 4, 2009 6:31 PM

Josh,

You are my new god.

Sorry, PZ

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | April 4, 2009 6:47 PM

I was thinking - as I was boiling the kettle to make a cup of tea - that this would have been exactly what we'd have seen had the internet existed during other periods of significant social change.

The 1860s equivalent of lowbrow scumbags like Rob would have been on the blogs ranting about how us abolitionists hated America; in the 1920s, supporters of women's suffrage would have been the target of this kind of barely-coherent whining.

And the 1960s? Hoo-whee, the pissant Robs of the world would have been shorting out keyboards everywhere with all the froth and spittle exploding from their slack-jawed mouths - equal rights, desegregation, and - worst of all - ending the miscegenation laws.

But there'd have been plenty of people like us around to revel in the schadenfreude of knowing these embarrassments to humanity would be wailing and gnashing their teeth, crying and screaming in impotent fury as their ridiculous ideals got flushed down the toilet like the turds they - and their proponents - are.

Suck it, Rob. The salt tears of your pain and rage and humiliation are delicious to me and forward-thinking folks everywhere.

Posted by: derender | April 4, 2009 7:06 PM

Josh who is questioning your patriotism?

If you do not hate your country the way that it is, then why change it? Be careful with you language young man, there are ladies present - maybe.

Posted by: sioux laris | April 4, 2009 7:38 PM

Just dropping in to see the bannation. What! TWO nice, if obviously laboriously so, warnings, then disenvowelation (how DO you spell that?)???

If only so-called "saints" had the patience of PZM!

Once I no longer have to see anything written by RRrooObbBBrrRoOoOoBbbb, I will wish him the best in his fight to be something more than he now is: "Nuthin' but a nuthin'!"

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | April 4, 2009 7:52 PM

derender, are you implying the women here are to delicate to handle a full vocabulary? cuz if so, you're either a condescending as, or a bumbling idiot

and also: fuck you.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | April 4, 2009 7:54 PM

also: my spelling sucks.

Posted by: derender | April 4, 2009 8:02 PM

All you can get is ONE woman on here? That's hilarious! No wonder you support the Iowa position. You look forward to company. Hilarious!

Posted by: zombywoof | April 4, 2009 8:25 PM

"All you can get is ONE woman on here? That's hilarious! No wonder you support the Iowa position. You look forward to company. Hilarious"

That's exactly right derender-come join us-take a walk on the wild side sugar. Don't be afraid- are your knees all aquiver at the prospect?- a little touch of the lavender perhaps?

Posted by: zombywoof | April 4, 2009 8:44 PM

Jadehawk :

maybe in a little while. Care to join me? -derender

Jadehawk-I think he's started without you-what do you want to bet he's got a sneezeguard over his keyboard? He better keep the kleenex handy!

Posted by: derender | April 4, 2009 9:06 PM

http://www.simplewaterfuel.com/?hop=ddl4all

the easy way to be environmentally friendly. In this case, just mentally friendly. Forget water, just pee in the tank.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | April 4, 2009 9:13 PM

All you can get is ONE woman on here? That's hilarious!

Oh dear. There's going to be a shitstorm once this idiot gets his deficiencies noticed. Try looking here to see how Pharyngulites feel about women.

For someone who obviously feels he is defined and made superior by the possession of testicles you sure do put them at risk by coming here and being as stupid as you've been. Stick around and you'll see what I mean - and you'll leave singing a couple of octaves higher.

Mind you, the women will have to be quick to get in before MA Jeff does.

Posted by: Josh | April 4, 2009 10:35 PM

One of the things that annoys me about many conservatives is their refusal to believe that liburls could actually have served in the military or even know something about firearms (excuse me, bang-bangs, we have to keep things simple for conservatives).

Indeed. I would wager that the full measure of what I've been taught about firearms would scare the everliving hell out of Rob.

Posted by: SC, OM | April 4, 2009 10:57 PM

random troll of the VD variety:

Be careful with you language young man, there are ladies present - maybe.

...All you can get is ONE woman on here?

Well, as I've said before, I may not be a lady, but I'm all woman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4waY_ZHmeYw

(Yes, I do like that song. What can I do? It's sad and touching.)

Posted by: aratina | April 4, 2009 11:04 PM

How did a thread about marriage rights turn to the topic of weapons manufacturing and illegal immigration? In that case, I was driving through the Red state of Georgia today and wouldn't you know it, a small American flag was blowing around in the wind like a piece of litter on the side of the freeway. I almost ran over it. I repeat, this was in the Red state of Georgia. Symbolism? Think about it, derender.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | April 4, 2009 11:23 PM

the blind hatred that some liberals have for the USA.

Fuck you, asshole. We love the US more than some conservatives who cheer George W. Bush for wasting American prestige, treasure and lives in Iraq because of non-existent WMD (or was it because Saddam Hussein was a big meanie, I could never keep Shrub's excuse du jour updated).

Posted by: derender | April 4, 2009 11:25 PM

Again people - the harsh language of "tolerant" people - there is one lady present - maybe.

Posted by: aratina | April 4, 2009 11:30 PM

Thy shld hv wn th frst tm, bt r stpd gnrl srrndrd lk n dt. - rb

Posted by: Steve_C | April 4, 2009 11:35 PM

Go away you hate filled fundie winger. You are exactly what's wrong with this country. If anyone hates this country it's you dumbass cry baby scaredy cat deluded right wingers. Grow the fuck up you piece of shit.

Posted by: Josh | April 4, 2009 11:37 PM

Yes I do question patriotism of those who fail to see the blind hatred of Islamic terrorism knocking on our door and refuse to act on it.

I was reacting to Robs thinly veiled implications that no liberals ever act on it. What part of that did you miss?

And if you question peoples' patriotism, then perhaps you shouldn't write things like "No one should question one's patriotism."

Oh, and you're an evolution denier. Of course. Could we have predicted that? Apparently you're also a hypocrite, since you're using a computer powered, at least in part, by fossil fuels.* Nice.

*we use the principles of evolution, in part, to prospect, successfully, for petroleum.

Posted by: aratina | April 4, 2009 11:49 PM

@Janine>>> Yes, I knew. Derender is also over on the Summers thread causing trouble, unfortunately, but I should have known that Rob had come back to muck up this thread even more (just got to his secession post). I totally agree, Janine, and am myself laughing about how ridiculous it is (if only the Democrats in power were really liberal rather than centrist!), but it is a little frightening with the nutters getting so worked up, almost like a window back into the McCarthy era.

Posted by: Monado | April 5, 2009 3:48 AM

I only read the first 50 or so comments, so I don't know if anyone's mentioned this, but it's very clearly explained on Open Salon: judicial opinion dismantles the discriminatory rationalizations that accompany prejudicial laws. And you'll love the illustration.

Posted by: Monado | April 5, 2009 3:59 AM

Please, nobody click that video link! It's a trojan. # 98 - 99

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | April 5, 2009 4:55 AM

refuse to lear the language of the country

Posted by: GMacs | April 5, 2009 7:26 AM

Well there I go criticizing someone else's grammar, and I suffer from punctuation fail. Damn you, Karma!

Posted by: derender | April 5, 2009 9:30 AM

CHE was a terrorist. Same as Bin Laden, Hamas, Hezbollah, columbia guerillas, Mexican drug whores, Bill Ayers, and the like. They are all the same.

Posted by: Rick R | April 5, 2009 9:41 AM

"there's simply no hope left for American conservatism"

Quoted for truth.

Posted by: Josh | April 5, 2009 10:07 AM

The flood of Noah kille most o the dinos.

Show me in Genesis where Noah was permitted by God to not collect dinosaurs and put them on the ark? Where was that flexibility offered to Noah? Which verse in Genesis 6 would that be?

Show me in Genesis where Noah is shown to have failed in collecting all of the animals that God commanded him to collect? Genesis 6:22 would suggest that Noah didn't miss any animals.

How exactly is it that the flud killed the dinosaurs?

Posted by: derender | April 5, 2009 10:10 AM

Well, like all floods, animals drown, JOSH. Thye term dinosaur was not invented until the mid 1800s. I am sure they were called "beasts of the field" and not he collected two of every KIND, not two of every animal - there is a difference.

Posted by: Josh | April 5, 2009 10:15 AM

not he collected two of every KIND, not two of every animal - there is a difference.

Define Kind. Support your answer. Go.

I agree with you that it doesn't matter what they were called, but the whole point of putting KINDS on the Ark was so that the KIND wouldn't DIE OUT. So why did the dinosaurs not make it?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | April 5, 2009 10:16 AM

Diety-Darwin-only in the minds of stupid godbots. Church-Biology class NONE. Holybook-The origin of species NONE. Followers-atheists,darwinists, liberals. Tithes-federal government, ACLU, George Soros, left wingers Only in the minds of stupid godbots like yourself.

By the way, do you have any physical evidence for your imaginary deity that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine origin? Something like an eternally burning bush say? Or is god just another of your delusions, like your politics?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | April 5, 2009 10:22 AM

I see I was right in describing derender as an ignoranus. He doesn't even know his own Bible, which specifically says:

And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. Gen 6:19

Nothing there about excluding dinosaurs.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 5, 2009 10:26 AM

Nothing there about excluding dinosaurs.

No one, not even god, wants to anger Tyrannosaurus Rex.

Posted by: siMon | April 5, 2009 10:56 AM

What should children of America call the couple of the same sex marriage ? wife and wife ? husband and husband ?

If those couples adopt children, what should the kids call them ? big daddy and daddy ? big mommy and mommy ?

if the kids know their "parents" sex behavior, penis to anus and vigina to vigina (with artificial penis), what is the effect ?

wow... very interesting to watch the change of human civilization in America ! it's a self destruction for their next generation. It's more destructive than 9/11.

Posted by: SAWells | April 5, 2009 11:06 AM

@431: All these questions have simple answers. Two men married? Husbands or spouses. Two women married? Wives or spouses.

Your obsession with what gay people do in bed is psychologically revealing but irrelevant.

All kids (except, apparently, Simon) eventually grasp that their parents have sex. It's no biggy.

No destruction. Just happy families.

Posted by: Josh | April 5, 2009 11:12 AM

I'm sorry all, but this one is just too priceless. This guy makes Rush Limbaugh look thoughtful.

After that, the following ice age and extreme climate chnage (good thing Al Gore didn't know Noah)killed most of the rest of them along with other species.

Huh. How come we have fossils of other species preserved in rocks related to the "Ice Age" (the "one" that I suspect you're referring to), but not one fossil of a non-avian dinosaur. Not one. How come? If the "Ice Age" killed all of the dinosaurs who didn't drown in the flud, then why is it than NONE of these huge animals were preserved in these deposits, when the deposits are ripe with the fossils of smaller animals?

The rest were hunted down by humans and slaughtered.

Oh, that's just too funny.

Posted by: Walton | April 5, 2009 12:24 PM

I do hope you come to America. Come out into the small towns of the Midwest and South. Sit in the bars and diners and strike up conversations. Take this charge seriously, keep it up for a few months. I've been doing it my whole life.

What you will find, and I say this with no exaggeration, is that the US Republican base are some of the. worst. people. on. earth. Millions and millions of Adolf Hitlers, Timothy McVeighs, David Dukes and Pat Robertsons.

I will reserve judgment on this until I've actually visited rural Republican America. Thus far I've only been to Washington DC and urban northern Virginia, and most of the American conservatives I've met have been elite DC Republicans rather than the rank and file. So I can't judge the veracity of your claims.

Posted by: strange gods before me | April 5, 2009 12:49 PM

They elected David Duke.

They elected him.

To the Louisiana House in 1988.

Most of the people who voted for him are still alive.

Go to the SPLC's webpage. Look at their map of hate groups. Find a highly concentrated area. Go there.

Or go hang out with a chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens. cofccDOTorg i won't actually link to it.

Or just have some fun and watch the American Vacation episode of Top Gear. :D That's probably better. No need to endanger yourself.

Posted by: BMS | April 5, 2009 1:00 PM

Walton,

To gain some insight into the US right wing republican mind, please visit Free Republic and read as many comment threads as you can stomach.

The folks there are just about the farthest thing from the educated, well-heeled republicans you encountered in DC.

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | April 5, 2009 1:17 PM

Either that or decide that if these are the people you want as your allies. Just remember, those are the people that makes up the crowd that loves Limbaugh and Coulter. Sorry, I will not let people forget, when you first came here, you expressed your admiration for them.

Posted by: timebender13 | April 5, 2009 4:32 PM

Good for you Iowa! Good job!

Posted by: derender | April 5, 2009 6:00 PM

T Rex andveloicaptor were not vicious to humans until after the folld. Read Gen 9. that goes for all animals.
---------------

I was told to refut evolution with scientific evidence, but that would take a long time and you would just ignore it anyway. I'll accept the challenge if anyone can prove evolution. If you can prove that 100 foot long 50 tons cold blooded reptiles turned into little chickens over a trillion mellinia, go for it. I'm waiting ...

First the earth is less that 10,000 years old, and even if it were 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, melennia old, that is still not enough time for anything to evolve with someone tinkiering with genetics on purpose.

Go ahead creation deniers, impress me with your molecules to man anti-Bible stuff. At the point, I'll even bet our cousins the monkeys are listening... God ahead give a so called logical scientific explaination as to how nothing turned into something. Start with thee Big Bang... How did the Big Bang start?

I have my explanation. while you so called scientists run around frantically looking and hoping for an answer to the universe, I already have one. Have had for the last 6,000 years. Seems to me you are 6,000 years behind schedule.

Go ahead mighty thinkers, impress me... Give me your explaination as to what existed before the Big Bang, and before that, and before that, and before that?
Goe ahead. You have all the answers, explain away. I'm waiting...

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | April 5, 2009 6:14 PM

Derender, you have no idea what you are talking about.

T Rex andveloicaptor were not vicious to humans until after the folld.

Oh shit! He is going to use the coconut cracker defense!

Posted by: aratina | April 5, 2009 6:20 PM

derender, I'm tempted to think your moniker is code for derriere.

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | April 5, 2009 6:24 PM

But Nerd, derender could prove that evilution could not have happened if he could have a "Trial By Combat", or, in derender's case, a "Trial By Firearms". That is why all of you gay libral support the Islamic Fascist Barry. He will take away the guns from all of the righteous Americans, thus making them unable to refute our atheist lies.

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | April 5, 2009 6:27 PM

Look at that! The dumb ass cannot even spell right the name of the person he is trying to insult. Fits in with all of the other misspellings in his nonsensical screeds.

Posted by: Matt Heath | April 5, 2009 6:37 PM

full-fledged, committed global socialist
Brown? Srsly? I mean... Brown? I don't think he call himself a socialist with a straight face.

Posted by: Coemgenus | April 5, 2009 6:42 PM

Why is it that none of these creation nutters can spell? Does the dribble make their fingers slip?

Posted by: derender | April 5, 2009 6:48 PM

Radiomatric dating is a joke.

several years ago in Germany, there were some human remains found in a cave and radiometric dating put their age at about 10,000 years old. Then the scientists found it the the teeth of the skulls had DENTAL FILLINGS.

So much for accuracy of dating methods - that is, of course dentists were prevalent 10,000 years ago.

Radiometric dating is not used to date the fossil itself, but rather than the contaminated rocks surrounding the area.

Much of the samples taht we date are contaminated by the sun's radiation and gives a much longer lifespan than what the real age is.

I would love to get a hold of a T Rex bone and carve some of it up and take it to be dated. i would tell the scientists there that the bone was of a cow - probably, but I need to knwo how long it has been dead.
It helps if the scientist does not know what I am up to when dating something, so that presuppostions do not get in the way.

Posted by: aratina | April 5, 2009 6:56 PM

...the the teeth...

Posted by: derender | April 5, 2009 7:01 PM

man, you people sure do talk nasty around here. Must be a liberal thing - or maybe no morals. Then again, how could there be. Morals come from God. You don;t believe in God, therefore no morals, and nasty talk. Do you talk like this around children? That's abuse

Posted by: Josh | April 5, 2009 7:10 PM

Damn-I'm sitting in a bar right now. Hold the line for me for a bit Janine, then I've got your six.

And Derender? Stop lying, ok? You have no idea what you're talking about.

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | April 5, 2009 7:14 PM

I didn't know that would work.

Ha ha ha ha.

Posted by: Carlie | April 5, 2009 7:15 PM

No, no, no. There are plenty of creobot threads derender can go spew on about evilution. It happens all the time around here. This thread is for teh gayz! I think it would be much more interesting to probe derender a bit, firmly if need be, to discover his innermost desires and urges on what should be done with gays. I'm sure it would be a very stimulating conversation. Seems as though he's thought about it enough to become quite detailed about his preferences.

Posted by: Josh | April 5, 2009 7:26 PM

Carlie, spank this fucker, will you?

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | April 5, 2009 7:26 PM

Morals come from God. which one?

Posted by: Josh | April 5, 2009 7:31 PM

Carlie, I like you more and more all the time.She is spot on, derender. Show us what you've got.

Posted by: Carlie | April 5, 2009 7:33 PM

Carlie, spank this fucker, will you?

I'm afraid he might like it.

I'll be happy to have something ready to go, but first I want derender to put up. Derender, what is your understanding of how radiometric dating works, and what about the process makes it faulty? Unacceptable answers include "the speed of decay has changed over time" (untestable) and "carbon-dating of really old things doesn't work" (we know that, which is why we use different isotopes for old things).

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | April 5, 2009 7:45 PM

Radiomatric dating is a joke.

Do you lie like this around children? That's abuse.

Posted by: derender | April 5, 2009 7:55 PM

Wowbagger:

Infanticide comes from humans too, it's called abortion.

---------------------------

Jadehawk:

What do you mean which one? There is only one!

-------------------------------
Carlie:

"the speed of decay has changed over time" (untestable)

Absolutley it is untestable. you are correct. Evolution is also untestable. Have you ever set in a lab for 350 millions years and watched your bateria grow into dinosaurs?

Didn't think so.

My answer is:

The speed of decay depends on many things. it depends on the environment, weather, bacterial growth, whether the animal is buried under a flood of salt water, whether it is lying in the sun and the radiation hits it full force, etc. Radiation has alot to do with the radiocarbon dating. Read up on and what better place than Answers In Genesis.

I'm glad I financially support them. Just think. if I had the money that Bill gates or george Soros has, you people would be doomed.
---------------------

Okay people. Now that I have explained my version, someone with the brains around here explain to me how big lizards tun into little chickens and change from cold blooded reptiles to warm-blooed mammals. I'm still wating...

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | April 5, 2009 7:58 PM

Jadehawk: What do you mean which one? There is only one!

but even if we just take yours for a moment... which of the over 38000 interpretations is the right one, with the correct set of morals?

Posted by: derender | April 5, 2009 8:02 PM

The one of the Bible. Haven't youever heard of "No other Gods before me". That includes little wooden idols MADE BY HUMAN HANDS!

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | April 5, 2009 8:05 PM

The speed of decay depends on many things. it depends on the environment, weather, bacterial growth, whether the animal is buried under a flood of salt water, whether it is lying in the sun and the radiation hits it full force, etc. Radiation has alot to do with the radiocarbon dating. Read up on and what better place than Answers In Genesis.

That is not an answer. That is the stammering of a child tossing shit on a wall, hoping that some magical combination of words will sound convincing.

Also, no said that chicken are the descendants of 100 foot long 50 tons cold blooded reptiles. That is just you mischaracterizing what biologists have to say.

Posted by: derender | April 5, 2009 8:07 PM

(a child less than one month old has no value) - so, if he's okay with it, why aren't you?

Where did you get a concoction like this? If you are referring to the pagans, He wiped them out becuase they were idol worshippers.

If you were referring to Israel escaping Egyptian slavery, yes He wiped them out, but gave them a chance. He always gives a warning and a second chance before doing so. Only when people ignore it will He bring destruction. Besides, i figure if He created and owns the entire universe, He can do with it what he pleases.

Posted by: Menyambal | April 5, 2009 8:08 PM

What has radiometric dating got to do with marriage? After one marries, one usually stops dating, whether radiometric or on-line.

Or is radiometric dating something like a little buzzer to carry in a pocket that detects interested strangers? You know, derender, like the colored bandannas gay men sometimes use--different colors for different perversions, left or right pocket for pitching or catching. I'm thinking you are yellow in the left pocket.

Seriously, derender, we've seen hordes of godbots that cannot spell or read or reason coherently, show up to spew hate at us. All they accomplish is to make their religion look even more ridiculous, evil and unlikely.

Evolution is a fact. Deal with it in your own way, but don't expect to convince anyone here that they are wrong. We aren't stubborn or close-minded, we just have a method of getting to the facts, a willingness to face the facts, and a desire to discover them. What we know, we know--which is a heck of a lot different that having blind faith, and hating anyone who disturbs that faith.

Take a breath, and take it far away. But don't take it to Iowa, or you might see some happy people.

Posted by: derender | April 5, 2009 8:14 PM

Janine, Insulting Sinner:

My aren't we creative in our language today? I seemed to have touched a nerve. So much for tolerance. You know all of that cursing might be bad for the environment. If kids are reading this, no woner they grow up to smoke dope and protest. They don;t know any better. Poor kids. Having to grow up in such a vulgar environment. Maybe we shoudl call child services and report it. Oh, and I love Free Republic. Thank you

I shall now refer to you as Janine, The four letter word person who destroys children.

Posted by: Kel | April 5, 2009 8:14 PM

lol, answers in genesis. The speed of decay is constant - it remains constant, and if you know of a way to speed up the process please let the nuclear industry know. What varies is the amount of parent element, if you can make more parent element - like having uranium contaminating coal - then you can make substances look younger than they are. Remember more parent, less child = younger substance. More child, less parent = older substance.

Surely that's not too hard to understand.

Posted by: Guy Incognito | April 5, 2009 8:15 PM

Radiation has alot to do with the radiocarbon dating.

That sounds like a line from a bad high school essay.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 5, 2009 8:17 PM

The speed of decay depends on many things. it depends on the environment, weather, bacterial growth, whether the animal is buried under a flood of salt water, whether it is lying in the sun and the radiation hits it full force, etc. Radiation has alot to do with the radiocarbon dating. Read up on and what better place than Answers In Genesis.

That's not even wrong. It's past wrong.

you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

Posted by: Steve_C | April 5, 2009 8:22 PM

Derender the defender of fairy tales. Wow. You're really boring. The morally superior thing is really tired. I don't know of too many "kids" that read this blog and if they do, they have GREAT parents. If they're mature enough to read it they can handle the spicy language.

I doubt anyone here "speaks" like they post because quite frankly we don't have to talk to absurd ignorant godbots on a daily basis.

Do you have a point, other that clenching your pearls and pretending you know a fucking thing?

Didn't think so.

Do fuck off.

Posted by: Kel | April 5, 2009 8:23 PM

I wonder if derender likes the idea of burning in hell. Especially seeing he broke two commandments today: he bore false witness by lying about science, and because he did that on the Sabbath, he didn't keep the day holy. You're going to hell derender. Hope you enjoy the eternal fire!

Posted by: BMS | April 5, 2009 8:23 PM

Klokwork -

So, if the governor does manage to veto what would come next? Is this open to appeal?

I think you're conflating two different states - Vermont and Iowa.

As for the Iowa sitiation - no, no appeal.

The State has the option to petition for a rehearing, which it has announced AFAIK it will not do.

The case was brought on state law grounds. There is no federal question at issue.

The case terminates here at the Iowa supreme court.

Posted by: The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge | April 5, 2009 8:27 PM

That the decay rate of radioisotopes did not vary enough in the past to make a 6000-year-old earth look 4,500,000,000 years old is hardly unprovable: if it did, the earth would still be molten through and through and probably mostly evaporated. Derender is completely innumerate as well as illiterate and willfully ignorant.

Posted by: BMS | April 5, 2009 8:28 PM

What about the gays? Will someone please think of the gays.

I do. Every time I kiss my wife I think about us.

Posted by: Kel | April 5, 2009 8:31 PM

You'd think that now that we are in the year 2009 and we have a global communications network, that believers would have clued in to the fact that arguing from scientific ignorance is never going to win over those who are scientifically literate. Keep your arguments to theology and history because arguing from science when you know nothing on the matter is just going to show up how ignorant you truly are...

And if you have to argue on matters science, actually understand the science from a scientist's perspective as opposed to a religious apologetic perspective. Remember that when trying to convert someone, you need to understand the mindset of the person you are converting. So arguing based on your own mindset will not work unless they happen to be intune with you - i.e. the only people you will convince by arguing science from a biblical perspective are those who are scientifically ingorant and already biblically-inclined.

Posted by: Klokwurk | April 5, 2009 8:32 PM

BMS:

I think you're conflating two different states - Vermont and Iowa.

Oops, why yes I am! ...apologies. I obviously need to read my Google news headlines more closely. Well, good work Iowa!

Posted by: aratina cage | April 5, 2009 8:33 PM

He always gives a warning and a second chance before doing so committing infanticide. -derender

Posted by: BMS | April 5, 2009 8:38 PM

Hey, derender:

Fuck you, you maggot-ridden piece of horse shit.

Go back to Freeperville where you belong, ass.

Posted by: strange gods before me | April 5, 2009 8:41 PM

derender thinks that decaying carcasses and radioactive decay rates are the same thing

That was hilarious.

Derender, when you go to hell, I'll be teaching a class on geology there. I'll save a seat for you.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | April 5, 2009 8:42 PM

The speed of decay depends on many things. it depends on the environment, weather, bacterial growth, whether the animal is buried under a flood of salt water, whether it is lying in the sun and the radiation hits it full force, etc.

radioactive decay is not the same as organic decay. they are different things. they are different categories of things*. fuck, they're two completely different SCIENCES!

*I'm plagiarizing Josh, cuz that line was Teh Awesome

Posted by: Kel | April 5, 2009 8:50 PM

Derender - remember just what techniques we use to age the earth.

Carbon dating is for organic material - works only for materials between 200 and 50,000 years old. The half-life of C14 is ~5,500 years, so using the formula for exponential decay (I'm going from high school memory here so this formula may be off) Ae^-kt. Think of it this way: in 5,500 years, half the C14 atoms will have decayed. So in 5,500 more years, half those remaining atoms will have decayed. 5,500 more years, half those remaining atoms will have decayed. 5,500 years = 1/2 remaining11,000 years = 1/4 remaining16,500 years = 1/8 remaining22,000 years = 1/16 remaining27,500 years = 1/32 remaining33,000 years = 1/64 remaining38,500 years = 1/128 remaining44,000 years = 1/256 remaining49,500 years = 1/512 remaining55,000 years = 1/1024 remaining60,500 years = 1/2048 remaining66,000 years = 1/4096 remaining And so on. So you can see that after about 50,000 years the amount of C14 left would be virtually undetectable and that's why we can't use it on organic material that is any older.

But for ageing the earth, we don't use radiocarbon dating, there are dozens of other substances that decay and all at different rates too. So when we test a rock, we can do the test in different labratories to see if it gets the same result, then we can test it against other dating techniques on different scales and see whether they line up. We can also test rock on lower layers to see whether it's older than rock on layers above.

By doing all that we have worked out that the age of the earth is approximately 4.55 billion years old. Yet we can date the sun through a different method - by the amount of hydrogen it has fused into helium, and guess what? It comes out at ~4.6 billion years. Just as we would expect. And when we look out into the skies, we can use the constant that is the speed of light to see just how far away objects are. And we have seen galaxies that are over 13 billion light years away. That means the light has taken over 13 billion years to reach us, meaning that the universe is at least 13 billion years old!!!

Posted by: BMS | April 5, 2009 8:50 PM

My one teeny, teeny tiny little comfort in this dreary life of mine is that when I go to hell ALL of my friends will be there!

We've already decided we're going to have a BBQ (what better place, right?). Y'all bring whatever dishes you like, but see the sign-up sheet so that we don't have too many duplicates.

Posted by: derender | April 5, 2009 8:52 PM

You people definitely have fetish for bad words.

Freeperville? Where is that? Is it anywhere near San FranSICKO? Maybe Gob Dot will tell me.

--------------------

JANINE: I am NOT lying about you. You willfully said that you use these words. You willfully saiud that you do believe in your imaginery crap called evolution, and you willfully told be you belive that abortion is okay. YES! That is destroying any child that this left wing stuff rubs off on. There, it is not a lie, but a fact. Just look at how San FranSICKO turned out after the left-wingers invaded.

Well, at least you didn't foulmouth me again. Maybe you should use Listerine.

Posted by: BMS | April 5, 2009 8:55 PM

Freeperville, aka Free Republic. Referenced above to Walton.

You will be most happy there in the swamp among your own kind, fuckface.

Posted by: derender | April 5, 2009 8:56 PM

Kel: You said it works for organiza material between 500 and 50,000 years old. That's nice. The earth is only 6,000 years old, so nothing can be older than that. WrONG ANSWER.

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | April 5, 2009 9:01 PM

JANINE: I am NOT lying about you. You willfully said that you use these words. You willfully saiud that you do believe in your imaginery crap called evolution, and you willfully told be you belive that abortion is okay. YES! That is destroying any child that this left wing stuff rubs off on. There, it is not a lie, but a fact. Just look at how San FranSICKO turned out after the left-wingers invaded.

Well, at least you didn't foulmouth me again. Maybe you should use Listerine.

Well people, is there anything that this sad sack of shit state here is true?

Derender, you are the most foul and dishonest smear of shit to be found. Take your gun, lube the barrel and fuck your self in the ass. But first make sure your safety is on. I do not want you to shot yourself.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | April 5, 2009 9:03 PM

The earth is only 6,000 years old, so nothing can be older than that. WrONG ANSWER.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | April 5, 2009 9:04 PM

oh wow. Internet Vapors and bigotry make for an interesting and rather hypocritical mix

Posted by: BMS | April 5, 2009 9:05 PM

I've now read about 3/4 of the way through the Iowa decision.

Very thorough explication of how the justices arrived at their decision. Lots of citation to persuasive decisions from other jurisdictions (including CA's In re Marriage Cases) which elevates us for our ongoing and our future work.

They also explain why they found no need to go through a strict scrutiny analysis:

Because we conclude Iowa’s same-sex marriage statute cannot withstand intermediate scrutiny, we need not decide whether classifications based on sexual orientation are subject to a higher level of scrutiny.

That is a good thing.

I'm so happy.

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | April 5, 2009 9:06 PM

No, you shit stain on the panties of life. BMS was highly accurate with the name. What's the matter? Did she strike a nerve?

Posted by: BMS | April 5, 2009 9:08 PM

Janine, it must've been a short nerve.

Posted by: Kel | April 5, 2009 9:10 PM

You said it works for organiza material between 500 and 50,000 years old. That's nice. The earth is only 6,000 years old, so nothing can be older than that. WrONG ANSWER.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | April 5, 2009 9:12 PM

You revert to a book that you claim is not even real and you have the arrogant audacity to call me a loser? I would rather be a loser than a ... whatever you call youself ... Gob Dot.

Posted by: derender | April 5, 2009 9:16 PM

Okay all of you perverted foul mouthed nutjobs. Can you people not make a point without your curse word fetish being in overdrive? Is that possible? Are you capable of of such a simple thing? Do I need to hunt you down and wash your mouth with soap?

Too bad nuts cannot make a point without using harsh words. it is impossible.

How about this one:

Sourpus?

All of you gargle goobers with litesalt and meth. It;s the only explaination for your vile tongues and cheap shots. Googer garglers. Rectal reamers. Blowhole burners.

Janine is by far the worst I have ever seen. She should be award foulmouth freeloader of the century. How does that feel?

If you can't make apoint without your ill wished vocabulary, then get prepared for battle - goober garglers.

Posted by: strange gods before me | April 5, 2009 9:17 PM

Holy Shit.

Hey Walton.

That murder in Pittsburgh I linked to earlier?

Serendipity, my friend.

Published: April 5, 2009 at 8:26 PM

The 22-year-old man charged with killing three Pittsburgh police officers was frequent visitor to far-right Web sites, his Internet activities reveal.

Richard Poplawski posted his profile and photographs of his tattoos on the white supremacist Web site Stormfront, which serves as a clearinghouse for neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic groups, using the site to display an eagle tattoo spread across his chest, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette reported Sunday.

"I was considering gettin' life runes on the outside of my calfs," he wrote on Stormfront, referring to a common symbol among white supremacists, especially followers of The National Alliance, a neo-Nazi group linked to a a collection of violent organizations, the newspaper said.

Poplawski also believed in conspiracy theories espousing beliefs that a secret cabal running the United States was bent on eradicating freedom of speech and gun rights at the behest of Jews, a friend told the newspaper.

Didn't see that one coming a mile away.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | April 5, 2009 9:19 PM

derender, if you don't like how we talk, you can always go away. But then, a defective like yourself is incapable of showing mature actions by actually backing off a situation they find distasteful. Choose wisely cricket. *Chirr*

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 5, 2009 9:22 PM

I want more sciency stuff from derender.

Derender tell us about how the grand canyon was formed.

Posted by: Kel | April 5, 2009 9:24 PM

derender, I could have called you a clueless fucktard, but I didn't. Instead I stuck to the science of things. Why is it that you are getting indignant over those who are insulting you instead of taking the high-ground and actually engage in those who are arguing with you? If you want to ignore the profane among us, go ahead. But don't think that their profanity means that you have won an argument by getting offended over such words. There are substantial arguments here directly countering your position; those are what you need to answer if you want to make headway with us.

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | April 5, 2009 9:27 PM

Yeah BMS, but GLBT marriages, swearing, evilution and allof the other mean thing librals like made the shit stain on the panties of life very upset.

Posted by: BMS | April 5, 2009 9:30 PM

Sorry, my #562 was in response to Kel's post #559.

Innit too bad that my mom officiated at our lesbo wedding? Too bad for Steerfucker that is.

Gotta run now! ;)

Posted by: Kel | April 5, 2009 9:38 PM

assface has no room to talk after calling me a destroyer of children. That is much worse than swearing.

Posted by: BMS | April 5, 2009 9:40 PM

(Sorry, one more and then I'm away.)

On Andrew Sullivan at The Daily Dish just now, a snippet from Why Do We Swear by John Grohol, Pys. D:

Virtually all people swear, and people swear pretty consistently throughout their lifetime — from the moment they can speak to the day they die. Swearing is almost a universal constant in most people’s lives. Research, according to [Timothy Jay], has shown we swear on average from 0.3% to 0.7% of the time — a tiny but significant percentage of our overall speech (frequently-used personal pronouns occur at approximately 1.0% rate in speech). Swearing is more common than you might think. But personality research suggests that people who swear more, not surprisingly, score higher on traits such as extraversion, dominance, hostility and Type A personalities. Swearing is not just for the uneducated or people of a lower socioeconomic class — it knows no social boundaries in its expression.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | April 5, 2009 9:43 PM

You revert to a book that you claim is not even real and you have the arrogant audacity to call me a loser?

Care to cite the post where I said the bible 'is not real'? Can you manage that much, you barely-literate pile of smegma?

Of course bibles are real - I've seen several. That most of what's in it never happened, of course, is another issue - but you're far too stupid to comprehend the difference. The point is you think it's real and claim to live by it. So, by condemning abortion you're either saying your god is wrong or that the bible is wrong.

Which is it?

Either way, you're still a loser. But you're a good example of how low the bar is set for the intellectual demands of Christianity.

Posted by: Josh | April 5, 2009 10:00 PM

Careful, Wowbagger. Intellectual has more than one syllable. It's probably beyond him.

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | April 5, 2009 10:08 PM

The assclown seems to think that if a person swears, he has somehow touched a nerve. It is one of his self deluding tricks to make it seem that his stupidity has worth.

Posted by: derender | April 5, 2009 10:18 PM

Rev. BigDumbChimp:

The Grand Canyon was formed as a result of the flood and probabaly took a number of years to complete, but the majority of it was formed suddenly and catastrophically.

------------------

I know where you people are headed with the whole gun nuts thing and neo-nazi orgs, and such I am not a Jew hater. if anything I am on the Jews side - the ones who are for real - the orthodox Jews. I hate to see the persecuted the way that they have been. The land os Israel is rightfully their and the supreme allied ragheads of HAMAS won;t move to the other 95 percent Islamic territory in the region. They have to steal it from the Jews. What pshychos. It's the Islamic terrorists you should be worried about, not me. Yes I own guns and target practice and read "far-right" websites. Yes I am a Sarah Palin fan, a Ted Nugent fan, and a Ronald Reagan fan, and GW Bush fan. So there.

I would never intentionally kill someone for no apparent reason like these sick people have done the last few days.

However, the Second Amendment does give citizens a right to defend themselves from a police state if it ever comes to that. The FEMA camps do scare me though and the fact that HAMAS gave $20,000 plus to the Obama campaign is scary too.

Don't worry about me, worry about the far left.

------------------------------------

Steve_C:

The idea of a 6,000 year old earth refers o the geneology of family traced from today until jesus' birth, then from Jesus back to Abraham, and then from Abraham until Adam. Add it up.

-----------------------

Carlie:

You have students? I hope it's not a science class, becuase I know that they have definitely been indoctrinated. You need to read One Party Classroom by David Horowitz.

--------------------------

BMS:

Is your mom a pastor? (Woemn pastors are not common in my denomination - God called men to preach)

If not, then the whole thing is fake.

It's not done by virtue of the person who created it to start with.

------------------

Steve_C:

I don;t play golf. And i tell you creationist stuff to bug you. By the way what was it you were doing with that unicorn's horn that made you rear end so sore?

-------------------

BMS :

Go take a bath pervert.
Perferbaly in the sewer where you reside. You super duper dookie scooper!

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 5, 2009 10:24 PM

The Grand Canyon was formed as a result of the flood and probabaly took a number of years to complete, but the majority of it was formed suddenly and catastrophically.

Show your work.

Posted by: strange gods before me | April 5, 2009 10:25 PM

The FEMA camps do scare me though and the fact that HAMAS gave $20,000 plus to the Obama campaign is scary too.

Walton. These are your people.

Posted by: plum grenville | April 5, 2009 10:29 PM

gargle goobers with litesalt and meth... Googer garglers. Rectal reamers. Blowhole burners... foulmouth freeloader of the century

Yes, deranged, er derender, that's much nicer than swear words.

If you can't make apoint without your ill wished vocabulary, then get prepared for battle - goober garglers.

Remember, dermwit, it's the meek who are going to inherit the earth. I think you may find yourself the the bad place with us.

Posted by: Josh | April 5, 2009 10:31 PM

#580 should have been mudcracks, not mudrocks.

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | April 5, 2009 10:34 PM

No, you simpering shit stain on the panties of life, you answer to Josh. You have no right to demand that anyone keeps out of a conversion. You want to know why you are wrong about radiometric dating and the flud, talk to the geologist.

And also, you fuck faced pigfucker, you have no reason to talk to Carlie that way. But it is telling that you recommend that she read a book by a professional liar.

And one more thing, you cretinous gun sucking creep, the only thing here that comes from the sewage is your sacred stupidity.

Just blow it out of you ass.

Posted by: Kel | April 5, 2009 10:37 PM

derender, from all observation points, the unverse has to be over 13 billion years old and the earth over 4 billion. The laws of physics dictate that. If you are defending a position that the world is substantially less than 4.55 billion years old, you need to demonstrate that the laws of physics that govern nuclear reactions are wrong - and wrong by a factor of almost a million. If you want to say the universe is much less than ~13.72 billion years, then you need to show that the speed of light is not constant. You will need to either show how light can speed up, or that e=mc² is wrong.

Either way, you have a strong body of evidence against any attempt to disprove - or you can concede that God is a liar...

Posted by: Josh | April 5, 2009 10:38 PM

you fuck faced pigfucker

Janine, I absolutely love you.
I'm so using that.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | April 5, 2009 10:43 PM

Harsh Words
a Poem by derender

Sourpus?
All of you gargle goobers
With litesalt and meth.
It;s the only explaination for your vile
Tongues and cheap
Shots.
Googer garglers.
Rectal reamers.
Blowhole burners.

Posted by: Kel | April 5, 2009 10:44 PM

Fine believe what you will and I'll believe what I will too. The only reason that I keep on replying to these goofballs is that they keep coming back with worse and worse insults and relatively little knowledge of what they are talking about. I am sure they call all do algebra and calculys until theyr hair falls out, but what's the point in making stuff up that started with a man who proposed an idea . Evolution is an idea, it's not provable. The other thing is that Darwin himself was a slave owner, yet his followers name him as something as a saint. What's that all about?

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | April 5, 2009 10:45 PM

The other thing is that Darwin himself was a slave owner, yet his followers name him as something as a saint.

You are a goddamned ignorant pig fucking liar.

That is the reason why we mock you.

You come to people with much greater actual knowledge and experience and tell them they are bullies and liar.

Nothing you have say about science bares any resemblance to reality. And claiming that only libral believe in evolution denies the existence of all the conservatives who also know that evolution is true.

You are one pathetic little dumb fuck. Nuzzle close your gun. It is the only thing that makes you a big bad man.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 5, 2009 10:46 PM

The only reason that I keep on replying to these goofballs is that they keep coming back with worse and worse insults and relatively little knowledge of what they are talking about.

derender you have demonstrated you you have no idea what you are talking about.

Tell us about radiometric decay again please

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | April 5, 2009 10:50 PM

I suppose that all of Obama's book are pure sacred truth?

The pigfucker assumes that I am a fan of Barack Obama.

Just one more bad assumption for a stupid asshole filled with them. And guess, I hate Al Gore, I have for over a quarter of a century. But not for the reason you do, you fetid pile of shit.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | April 5, 2009 10:51 PM

Wait, I'm catching up here, but what was that about Darwin owning slaves?

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | April 5, 2009 10:53 PM

The other thing is that Darwin himself was a slave owner, yet his followers name him as something as a saint.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 5, 2009 10:56 PM

Darwin himself was a slave owner,

Um, no. Once again you don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about.

Posted by: Kel | April 5, 2009 10:57 PM

derrender just can't get his mind around atheism - that there are no saints or holy books. It's projection, his sacred cow is being insulted so he's hurling out insults at what he perceives are the sacred cows of atheism. It's amazing how little insight this person has into the mindset of others, it's so sad that many theists can't ever see the world any other way but their own. It may be that their way of thinking is true, but they will never ever convince anyone of that unless they are able to understand what problems others see in their worldview.

derender - have you taken the Outsider Test For Faith?

Posted by: Josh | April 5, 2009 11:00 PM

Derender, this is a question perhaps you'd be interested in answering: what is your opinion on the flood? Why did God erase all evidence of it? What do you think his plan was in doing that? The event was written about in the Bible. So why did he erase all evidence and create a rock record that indicates it never happened? What was his point?

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | April 5, 2009 11:09 PM

A truthful geologist. And I never heard of a truthful creationist geologist.

Yes, you shit stain on the panties of life, you have every right to ask question. But when you ask stupid and incoherent questions, you will get the answers you deserve.

As you your baby whining about bad language, your very first statement on this thread was to question Josh about his patriotism. You had no respect for anyone when you came here. You are getting what you gave

Grow the fuck up you sniveling little brat.

Posted by: Kel | April 5, 2009 11:10 PM

Darwin owned slaves. Your savior was a black hater. Get over it already! Haven't you ever read anything by him?

Posted by: derender | April 5, 2009 11:11 PM

Josh said: this is a question perhaps you'd be interested in answering: what is your opinion on the flood? Why did God erase all evidence of it? What do you think his plan was in doing that? The event was written about in the Bible. So why did he erase all evidence and create a rock record that indicates it never happened? What was his point?

--------------------

Why would He want it erased? The point of the flood was that all people on earth was so sinful and had fogotten about God and refused to turn back to Him that He destroyed the entire earth with a flood, but saved one righteous man and his family along with a number of animals. The ark could have housed up to 50,000 animals plus food, water, etc. We can remember this story to keep us the striaght and narrow would be the point of it. The rock record alomng with billions of fossils is evidence for the flood. we see evidence of animals whci were buried alive rapidly all the time. We have seen dinosaurs fighting. Do you think those two dinosaurs just had a heart attack and died suddenly and fossilized in a fight scene. Why would a sudden burial not explain this?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | April 5, 2009 11:16 PM

Derender, whether Darwin owned slaves or not is irrelevant. You have fallacious thinking going on. You think if you put some mud on Darwin, you put mud on evolution. It doesn't work that way because scientists don't worship Darwin. We admire Darwin as a great scientist, but that is as far as it goes. He made many mistakes in this theory, which are freely acknowledge because scientists are honest in their professional dealings, simply because certain information would not be available for many years, like genes and DNA. The theory of evolution has had 150 years of improvement since Darwin's book, and it gets stronger every year. Why? New evidence is added, and the theory is modified as needed to fit the new information. When was the last time the bible was updated? Definitely much longer ago than the last issue of a scientific journal. And when was the last time a religious leader didn't lie? (Never, they always lie.)

Posted by: Kel | April 5, 2009 11:17 PM

Are you actually going to argue the science derender, or just make red harring arguments against perceived authority figures? Evolution is accepted because it's the only theory that has been able to explain all of life as we know it, and survived 150 years of intense scrutiny and millions of possible potential falsification. It has nothing to do with Darwin, it has everything to do with the evidence.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | April 5, 2009 11:18 PM

Haven't you ever read anything by him [Darwin]? Read Darwin's Plantation sometime.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | April 5, 2009 11:21 PM

. Stop being a pest.

Posted by: Kel | April 5, 2009 11:22 PM

Be nice, and I'll do the same.

Posted by: aratina | April 5, 2009 11:23 PM

The land os Israel is rightfully their and the supreme allied ragheads of HAMAS won;t move to the other 95 percent Islamic territory in the region. -derender

So why did he erase all evidence and create a rock record that indicates it never happened? What was his point? -derender

Posted by: strange gods before me | April 5, 2009 11:24 PM

*facepalm* - Darwin is not a saviour.

*facepalm* - This is not even an appropriate reply. Darwin was not a slave-owner. Sure there are other reasons why he wasn't perfect, but Derender is just lying.

Derender, you are going to hell for lying. We'll have a slideshow of your lies for entertainment the first evening. BYOB.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 5, 2009 11:25 PM

We have seen dinosaurs fighting. Do you think those two dinosaurs just had a heart attack and died suddenly and fossilized in a fight scene. Why would a sudden burial not explain this?

good grief it just gets worse. Sudden burial sure but not the flood. If they got hit by a flood they would have been swept away. The material surrounding the fossil is from a wind borne sand dune that more than likely is what caused their death. no flood. No evidence for a flood. Nothing at all.

Plus the two fossils are not complete. There is no actual proof that they are "fighting". It just sounds good to idiots like yourself.

oh and it was around 80 million years ago, not 6k.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 5, 2009 11:28 PM

Kel, I do not discount that evolution has been studied for over 15o years now. Not do I discard the idea that it is the prevalent theory to explain biology on the planet. I am not say that I do not believe that. The point that I am making is that some schools teach it as absolute undefiled total 100% proven fact rather than a theory that is still being tested and still being learned about to this day.

Drink!

Posted by: strange gods before me | April 5, 2009 11:30 PM

The point that I am making is that some schools teach it as absolute undefiled total 100% proven fact rather than a theory that is still being tested and still being learned about to this day.

No, they don't.

Liar.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | April 5, 2009 11:31 PM

I'm quaffing a Brooklyn IPA for the just a theory hit.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 5, 2009 11:32 PM

derender not a single thing you have offered as your understanding of science or the world has been shown to be factual.

You need to re-asses where you are getting your information from.

I would start by stop using AIG or Ken Ham for anything.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | April 5, 2009 11:33 PM

The point that I am making is that some schools teach it as absolute undefiled total 100% proven fact rather than a theory that is still being tested and still being learned about to this day.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 5, 2009 11:34 PM

I'm quaffing a Brooklyn IPA for the just a theory hit.

Damn, I'm all out of beer.

Posted by: Aquaria | April 5, 2009 11:36 PM

Wow. Only one woman here? Now, that's funny. Funny too is our latest chew-toy's name. Derender. Sounds like "the end of..." What? One could only hope it's that brackish mire called his gene pool.

Posted by: strange gods before me | April 5, 2009 11:37 PM

Ever heard of High school Biology. The whole book is preaching Darwinism without question. Students are turned away when they question the book.

I took high school biology.

There is no question about evolution. It is correct. That is not the same as saying that it's not "a theory that is still being tested and still being learned about to this day."

You're not just a liar, you're too stupid to understand this conversation.

Did Christianity make you stupid, or were you born that way?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | April 5, 2009 11:38 PM

Ever heard of High school Biology. The whole book is preaching Darwinism without question. Students are turned away when they question the book.

Posted by: strange gods before me | April 5, 2009 11:39 PM

Sounds like "the end of..." What?

derrièrender

Posted by: derender | April 5, 2009 11:40 PM

Patricia:

Who are you? Dracula's personal bodyguard?

I better put some garlic up before i get bitten.

Care for some garlic?

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | April 5, 2009 11:42 PM

Garlic?
Right so here we are again with the troll-stomping thing. But what occurs to me is the Dawkins quote about anybody who claims to reject biological evolution is either stupid, ignorant, insane, or wicked...it's pretty clear which category this guy derender exemplifies, no? So why waste time with somebody like that? I'm looking for a thread where the smart, educated, sanely realist and good people are hanging out.

Posted by: Tulse | April 5, 2009 11:44 PM

What geologist would you recommend? A evolution based one or creation based one?

A reality-based one.

Posted by: derender | April 5, 2009 11:48 PM

Kel:

I do believe that some aspects that Darwin studied is indeed fact. For example, when Darwin studied the beaks of finches, he noticed that some were entirely differnt, but wer of the same bird.

I can hadle that. I realize that naimals as well as viruses and bacteria can change over time to adapt to their environment. That is one apsect of evolution I do beleive. it's the whole molecules to man thing that seems far fetched. You have to understand that mixing evolution with religion is a diffucult task simply becuase the two contradict each other. Anyway, I'll continue tomorrow night. I have to go to work in the morning.

Posted by: Ken Cope | April 5, 2009 11:51 PM

So why waste time with somebody like that? I'm looking for a thread where the smart, educated, sanely realist and good people are hanging out.

If we were on zombie patrol, and, in response to our challenge, heard any random sample of the shite that derender is spewing, we'd have shot his head clean off, and then would have been only marginally surprised to discover that it was entirely bereft of brains. Unfortunately, picking off zombie lies and trolls seems to be what brings smart, educated, sanely realist and good people together here, thanks to our gracious host.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | April 5, 2009 11:51 PM

it's the whole molecules to man thing that seems far fetched.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | April 5, 2009 11:54 PM

Look out Kel, de-rearender has a crush on you. *wink*

So Janine is a destroyer of children? OK, me too. Over 400 in my life time. Oh, and just to be perfectly plain, I do not regret destroying any one of them. Got that derender?

Creationism basically deals with te age of the earth from a historical and geneological point of view rather than froma universe point of view.

So derender is a mormon with a Raid and tongue fetish?

Inquiring foulmouthed vulgar child destroying minds want to know.

Posted by: BMS | April 5, 2009 11:55 PM

I guess he hasn't worked out we're laughing at him.

Well, his attempts to insult me were pure comedy gold.

Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | April 5, 2009 11:57 PM

Sadly, I am a fan of the Chicago Cubs. Go ahead and make fun of me, I deserve it.

Posted by: Menyambal | April 5, 2009 11:58 PM

The business about Darwin being a racist comes from a few misunderstandings. He used the word "races" in a way that was clearly meant to encompass everything from breeds to species, and he used the word "favored" with "races" only in terms of survival value. He once referred to living conditions in Africa and said that conditions there would improve to be more like Europe, but folks assume that he meant that Africans were at fault and would be eliminated--he meant that the higher apes would probably be accidentally eliminated, providing an even greater contrast between civilized humans and the remaining monkeys.

Darwin himself was a very good man, but his goodness or badness has nothing to do with evolution. He described natural selection, which is the mechanism that drives evolution, but he did not invent evolution. He just explained what makes evolution happen.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 6, 2009 12:01 AM

Sadly, I am a fan of the Chicago Cubs. Go ahead and make fun of me, I deserve it.

At the risk of boring the non-sports fans here, the Cubs are actually pretty good or rather should be this year.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | April 6, 2009 12:12 AM

I do believe that some aspects that Darwin studied is indeed fact. For example, when Darwin studied the beaks of finches, he noticed that some were entirely differnt, but wer of the same bird. I can hadle that. I realize that naimals as well as viruses and bacteria can change over time to adapt to their environment. That is one apsect of evolution I do beleive. it's the whole molecules to man thing that seems far fetched.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | April 6, 2009 12:14 AM

Shit! I thought I was getting that HTML stuff pretty good for a hillbilly.

Derender you're going to need much more than garlic to defend yourself against me, you namby pamby, sissy assed wannabe christian. Your gawd is a pale coward compared to MOCCUS the god of bacon and pork chops*.

Lay off Janine & snort some Raid, you'll feel better.

*Moccus, Romano-Celtic local swine god.

Posted by: Ken Cope | April 6, 2009 12:21 AM

If you aren't convinced, there's plenty of other evidence that shows common ancestry

Appeals to the intellect are here, I'm afraid, generous to a fault, Kel; as you well know, you can't reason someone out of any position that reason had nothing to do with in the first place.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | April 6, 2009 12:23 AM

I have hated the Cubs with a white-hot burning hate since that evening in 1969 when a benchwarmer named Jimmy Qualls singled with 1 out in the ninth to break up Tom Seaver's perfect game. That crappy little single is seared into my amygdala forever.

Posted by: Kel | April 6, 2009 12:28 AM

You have to understand that mixing evolution with religion is a diffucult task simply becuase the two contradict each other.

Posted by: Ken Cope | April 6, 2009 12:36 AM

I wouldn't doubt Ken Miller's sincerity as a biologist or as a Christian for a second, nor would I do the same for Robert T Bakker or Francis Collins.

And I can't help but wonder what they could have accomplished if they hadn't hobbled themselves with religion. If you haven't read Francis Collins, or worse, heard him on the radio gabbling about taking three frozen waterfalls as a message from gob about "the trinity," then you don't know what it's like to be embarrassed on behalf of somebody who then claims to speak for science.

Creationism is killed by science, God is not.

God has never been so coherent or consistent a concept as creationism has been--something that's never been alive can hardly be said to have been killed, no matter how many times a stake has been driven into the empty coffin a body would be buried in, had it ever existed in the first place.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | April 6, 2009 12:38 AM

Kel, most excellent points.

The next question for the christian is: what part of the bible is relevant today?

Stoning lesbians, stoning sassy children, stoning the checkers at Wal-Mart? Stoning gay men, stoning anyone wearing a cotton shirt, rayon skirt and leather sandals? Stoning someone eating shrimp salad for lunch? They have no clue.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | April 6, 2009 12:40 AM

Uh-oh, driving off the Wodehousians with sports talk. Who's next? Let's see...say, I'm listening right now to the latest archival release from the Grateful Dead, Carousel Ballroom SF 2/14/68--mind-searing amazingness.

Posted by: Aquaria | April 6, 2009 12:42 AM

Ugh. Sports. Well, basketball is okay. It at least moves a lot, except for the last 3:00 of regulation. If you're at a game, it's the perfect time to go to the bathroom or hit up the concession stand. No lines!

Posted by: Ken Cope | April 6, 2009 12:50 AM

The very least you can do is try, if they haven't examined the evidence then it seems that it's pertinent to demonstrate the validity of an idea before mocking them for rejecting it.

When a scumbag troll shows up here frothing at the mouth and, in the name of Jay-Zuz, using our status as atheists as an opportunity to slag off everybody, the calm rational response of rattling off the facts about the twin-nested hierarchy, even though I understand the impulse and applaud the perspicacity, just starts to look like a disposable character in the B-move, fumbling for the right religious icon even as the monster shuffles closer and closer. It will not have the intended effect, other than to make the rest of us proud of you for having the wherewithal to calmbly share some basic facts-o-life with the shuffling zombie.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | April 6, 2009 1:07 AM

Menyambal - Yep, hillbilly. My grandmother was from Old Misery. The rest from Kentucky and Tennessee. The farms my folks and brothers live on now were paid for with shine money.

Gawd it makes me feel old to say that.

Posted by: Kel | April 6, 2009 1:13 AM

The next question for the christian is: what part of the bible is relevant today?

Posted by: Patricia, OM | April 6, 2009 1:20 AM

Kel I don't want to misunderstand you.

I think you are for punching back ... is it the lateness of the hour, or the amount of wine?... Inquiring minds want to know. :D

Posted by: Kel | April 6, 2009 1:33 AM

Kel I don't want to misunderstand you.

I think you are for punching back ...

espousing NOMA as if it were a good thing

Appeals to religion-accommodating scientists, who got to be scientists while still being strung out on religion, aren't going to be any more effective than trying to teach him the eight-fold path, or phenomenology.

Posted by: Kel | April 6, 2009 1:41 AM

Ken, would I say that I think the ideas are incompatible if I was trying that Matt Nisbet coddling bullshit? All I can do is be open and honest about the options. I make no secret of the fact that I'm an atheist, that I don't think the bible is a book of any value in this modern world, and that I feel that NOMA is a weak way of looking at both science and religion. God to me has always been a god of the gaps - born out of human ignorance and propagated in the absence of a suitable challenger, and that in 2009 we have enough understanding of the universe in order to declare the God hypothesis dead. Merely pointing out that there are differing opinions on this issue and pointing someone to look at Ken Miller (is anyone on here really going to complain that a creationist is reading Miller?) is not being accomodationalist. It's being honest.

Posted by: Ken Cope | April 6, 2009 1:44 AM

It's that they understand how science works - that's the real goal in my view.

Whatever gets them through the night, I agree, I've got no beef with wherever anybody happens to believe, if they've got the slightest shred of human tolerance and are willing to reciprocate. I spent years thinking I could accommodate science and woo with each other. But most of these guys go beyond fideism and either assign credit for their science skills to their religion, or try to claim they hold their religious beliefs for scientific reasons. While heddle will defend Collins, even heddle claims the reason he's a believer is not out of any rational cause, but because he was singled out for a kick-in-the-head miraculous intervention from his god. Apart from the narcissism approaching Zaphod-Beeblebrox proportions, he at least isn't usually trying to claim that it's scientific to think as he does.

Posted by: Kel | April 6, 2009 1:54 AM

What part of the bible is relevant today? I say, not much.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | April 6, 2009 2:18 AM

Kel, The Outsider test for faith is a bunch of sissy, non-believing wannabe christians. They aren't worth their weight in gopher wood.

Posted by: Bone Oboe | April 6, 2009 5:00 AM

Derender?

Posted by: Josh | April 6, 2009 6:59 AM

We have to do this on two fronts, now? Seriously?

We have seen dinosaurs fighting. Do you think those two dinosaurs just had a heart attack and died suddenly and fossilized in a fight scene. Why would a sudden burial not explain this?

No one is disputing that these two individuals were buried quickly. There are disagreements about exactly what happened, but no one is disputing quick burial for these two dinosaur skeletons.

www.mnhn.ul.pt/geologia/gaia/9.pdf

Why is it that you creationists are so convinced that everything in geology is a slow, gradual process? What--you don't think we see the tsunamis happen and the volcanoes erupt?

The rapid burial isn't a problem for us. However, the problem for you is how several months of receding flood waters can deposit thick sequences of river sediments and semi-arid desert sand:

www.jstor.org/pss/3515294

gsa.confex.com/gsa/2008AM/finalprogram/abstract_147501.htm

www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1206/0003-0082(2005)498%5B0001:NSSDEA%5D2.0.CO%3B2

www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VHG-4V47CMB-
2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221
&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=59f62de1a008705e97396e9b82ac9d97

Posted by: Carlie | April 6, 2009 7:18 AM

It would be nice if we could have a couple of 101 threads: Evolution 101, Geology 101, and the like. That way when ignoramuses like derender show up, they can simply be directed to those threads with "Sorry, the grown-ups are trying to have a conversation here. Go to this thread (link). When you're done you can come back, but if you try to bring up anything already covered there you will be ignored."

Posted by: Stephen Wells | April 6, 2009 8:24 AM

Historical trivia item re. Darwin and slavery: while a student in Edinburgh, Charles Darwin paid for taxidermy lessons from a freed slave by the name of John Edmonston, who lived in the city and made his living as an instructor in that art.

I have no idea where the latest idiot got his "Darwin owned slaves" line from. It would be odd, given that he was an abolitionist and strongly condemned the horrible cruelty that he witnessed among South American slave-owners. From the journal of the Beagle voyage:

"On the 19th of August we finally left the shores of Brazil.
I thank God, I shall never again visit a slave-country. To
this day, if I hear a distant scream, it recalls with painful
vividness my feelings, when passing a house near Pernambuco,
I heard the most pitiable moans, and could not but
suspect that some poor slave was being tortured, yet knew
that I was as powerless as a child even to remonstrate. I
suspected that these moans were from a tortured slave, for I
was told that this was the case in another instance. Near
Rio de Janeiro I lived opposite to an old lady, who kept
screws to crush the fingers of her female slaves. I have
stayed in a house where a young household mulatto, daily
and hourly, was reviled, beaten, and persecuted enough to
break the spirit of the lowest animal. I have seen a little
boy, six or seven years old, struck thrice with a horse-whip
(before I could interfere) on his naked head, for having
handed me a glass of water not quite clean; I saw his
father tremble at a mere glance from his master's eye.
These latter cruelties were witnessed by me in a Spanish
colony, in which it has always been said, that slaves are
better treated than by the Portuguese, English, or other
European nations. I have seen at Rio de Janeiro a powerful
negro afraid to ward off a blow directed, as he thought, at his
face. I was present when a kind-hearted man was on the
point of separating forever the men, women, and little
children of a large number of families who had long lived
together. I will not even allude to the many heart-sickening
atrocities which I authentically heard of; -- nor would I have
mentioned the above revolting details, had I not met with
several people, so blinded by the constitutional gaiety of the
negro as to speak of slavery as a tolerable evil. Such people
have generally visited at the houses of the upper classes, where
the domestic slaves are usually well treated, and they have
not, like myself, lived amongst the lower classes. Such
inquirers will ask slaves about their condition; they forget
that the slave must indeed be dull, who does not calculate
on the chance of his answer reaching his master's ears.

It is argued that self-interest will prevent excessive cruelty;
as if self-interest protected our domestic animals, which
are far less likely than degraded slaves, to stir up the rage
of their savage masters. It is an argument long since protested
against with noble feeling, and strikingly exemplified,
by the ever-illustrious Humboldt. It is often attempted to
palliate slavery by comparing the state of slaves with our
poorer countrymen: if the misery of our poor be caused
not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is
our sin; but how this bears on slavery, I cannot see; as well
might the use of the thumb-screw be defended in one
land, by showing that men in another land suffered from
some dreadful disease. Those who look tenderly at the slave
owner, and with a cold heart at the slave, never seem to put
themselves into the position of the latter; what a cheerless
prospect, with not even a hope of change! picture to yourself
the chance, ever hanging over you, of your wife and
your little children -- those objects which nature urges even
the slave to call his own -- being torn from you and sold
like beasts to the first bidder! And these deeds are done
and palliated by men, who profess to love their neighbours
as themselves, who believe in God, and pray that his Will be
done on earth! It makes one's blood boil, yet heart tremble,
to think that we Englishmen and our American descendants,
with their boastful cry of liberty, have been and are so
guilty: but it is a consolation to reflect, that we at least
have made a greater sacrifice, than ever made by any nation,
to expiate our sin."

Posted by: cinteas | April 6, 2009 8:45 AM

Things happening very quickly are compatible with either a young or an old earth. Things happening very slowly are only compatible with an old earth. Therefore the earth is old."

Or just:

"Timescales matter" !

Posted by: Kseniya | April 6, 2009 8:56 AM

Rob spewed:

I refuse to adhere to your left wing propoganda. These links are pro-gay marriage and you know it. Why don't you give some links that are not politically motivated? The APA is a joke now as well becuase they have been threatened by far left terrorists to keep their mouth shut on issues of homosexuality being pshychological. It's sad when the far left pressure physchologists to change thier professional viewpoints to make a political statement. So much for freedom and free speech. Will these far left pests ever use a fair method of debate rather than threats of lawsuits by criminal organizations ike the ACLU?

LOLOLOLOLOLOL! LOLOLOLOLOLOL! LOLOLOLOLOL!

Brainwash alert!

You poor creature. Everything you say is a lie. You feeble-minded, paranoid, ignorant fool.

By the way, the APA dropped homosexuality from the DSM almost 40 years ago. They were way ahead of the social curve on the issue of sexual orientation and the psychological aspects thereof, not because "left-wing terrorists" threatened them (what a paranoid construct that is! seek help immediately) but because they examined a vast array of facts, and made an informed conclusion - unlike, say, YOU, who refuse to examine facts or make rational conclusions at all. You've swallowed the hateful mind-worm of your political forebearers, and do nothing but vomit up its filthy, squirming, photophobic progeny. You know nothing of freedom of thought, for you exercise none.

Posted by: Walton | April 6, 2009 9:46 AM

For extra credit, try to see yourself in them. Your and their politics have a common root in casual human selfishness, fear and distrust.

Are you comparing the intellectual tradition of Friedman, Hayek, Mises, Nozick and Rothbard - some of the most influential economists and philosophers in human history - to the rantings of third-rate trolls like Rob and derender?

I'm not a genius myself, and at times I don't doubt that I talk utter crap. In my defence, when I realise that I've done so, I usually retract it. But the ideology to which I subscribe is one which has attracted many of the greatest intellectuals, and my role models, through the ages.

Yes, there is lowbrow conservatism of the type espoused by Rush Limbaugh, and there are plenty of idiots and bigots on the "political right" (whatever that broad blanket term really means). I have little in common with them, however. I am pro-immigration; liberal on social issues; and in favour of a secular state.

I just happen to support the free market and small government. I know I don't always do so very coherently or articulately; but the fact that I myself am inadequate in expressing these ideas doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the ideas themselves.

Posted by: Menyambal | April 6, 2009 9:54 AM

"Far left terrorists"?!? What? Who? Where can I sign up? What will we do? Do I get a weapon? What kind of weapon would a far left terrorist use to threaten the APA, anyhow? The complete works of Charles Darwin? What? What?

Posted by: Menyambal | April 6, 2009 10:16 AM

Walton says:

Friedman, Hayek, Mises, Nozick and Rothbard - some of the most influential economists and philosophers in human history ... many of the greatest intellectuals, and my role models, through the ages.

See, there's part of what folks are trying to get across about you having things in common with the lower right. You have picked out a troupe of people to follow, and you puff them up as being marvelous. You are a follower, not a free-thinker.

I know that you are going to think that I am an idiot when I say this, but I've never heard of ANY of those people other than Friedman, who I assume is Milton. And I've read a lot. I'm thinking that they aren't all that influential in the world.

But they may have been a big influence on you, Walton, which is where you and the lower elements of the right wing match up. You may not be a fan of Rush Limbaugh, but you are a fan. You follow. You find a guru, and associate yourself with him and his work, not your own.

Charles Darwin, God love him, was a good man and a great scientist, but I do not follow him, no matter what people on the Christian right think. I like Barack Obama, and have hope for him, but I do not worship the man, no matter what Bush worshippers think.

Your influences may be better people, but rattling off a list of influences is a right rightist trick.

Posted by: Carlie | April 6, 2009 10:32 AM

No, can't be a link to talkorigins. That's just information. I was envisioning threads where they'd be cordoned off, where they could as a question (ONCE), and have everyone go at it. Much more lively than talkorigins. Plus, since it would be in-house, they couldn't complain of people kicking them out and telling them to go elsewhere.

Posted by: KI | April 6, 2009 10:46 AM

simon-de-vile, attacking Walton is as low as you can go. Really, man you need self-administered .45 caliber lead therapy.

Posted by: Josh | April 6, 2009 11:00 AM

In the fossil record we see evidence of some things happening very quickly and other happening very slowly. Things happening very quickly are compatible with either a young or an old earth. Things happening very slowly are only compatible with an old earth. Therefore the earth is old.

In general, I don't see how, if I do that, this is anything more than me making an unsubstantiated counter-assertion in response to an unsubstantiated assertion. And I don't see how that helps, because it's essentially a string of "No, you're wrong" statements being sent back and forth. But if that's what's preferred, then fine.

Posted by: strange gods before me | April 6, 2009 11:26 AM

Are you comparing the intellectual tradition of Friedman, Hayek, Mises, Nozick and Rothbard - some of the most influential economists and philosophers in human history - to the rantings of third-rate trolls like Rob and derender?

Yes, inasmuch as they use high-falutin language to obscure the fact that they are nothing more than apes hoarding food and baring their teeth in defiance.

And Rothbard was a dummy.

But the ideology to which I subscribe is one which has attracted many of the greatest intellectuals, and my role models, through the ages.

Uh, wow. Argument from authority. Good job, Walton.

I am aware of all libertarian traditions. Have you studied any of the better leftist thinkers?

Posted by: Walton | April 6, 2009 11:41 AM

I am aware of all libertarian traditions. Have you studied any of the better leftist thinkers?

I'm very superficially familiar with the ideas of Marx and of Noam Chomsky, though I haven't read many of the works of either and wouldn't be qualified to discuss them in any depth. As to any other leftist philosopher, I don't have a clue.

The most credible leftist writing today is, of course, Paul Krugman. As I'm not an economist of any sort, I couldn't even begin to critically analyse his work within his area of expertise (and it would be supremely arrogant for me to try to do so). But I've read many of his newspaper editorials and columns (written for laymen); and it is fairly clear that his left-of-centre political stance is not merely a product of his economic research, but is also, to a very great degree, a consequence of his values. As a self-proclaimed "progressive", many of his political ideals are clearly informed by a belief (express or implicit) that it is part of the role of the state to save people from themselves and from their own poor decisions. I profoundly disagree with that; and despite his economic brilliance, I cannot accept his ideas about public policy where his normative goals are so substantially different to mine.

Posted by: Walton | April 6, 2009 11:59 AM

who went to a failing underfunded school

Libertarians have an answer to that - school vouchers.

and never quite had enough to eat to pay attention in class rather than think about how hungry he was

How many people in modern Western society are suffering from undernourishment? IIRC, a larger problem among the poor is overnourishment/obesity caused by the abundance of cheap high-fat processed foods.

who had no peer influences that were any good

That's sad, but what can the State do about it? If anything, enabling the kid to go to a good school - via providing a system of school vouchers, so that private education won't be just for the rich - will help with that.

Posted by: Carlie | April 6, 2009 12:18 PM

How many people in modern Western society are suffering from undernourishment?

According to the USDA, 36.2 million in the United States. But that's no big deal; just be careful not to trip over them on the way to your assumptions.

IIRC, a larger problem among the poor is overnourishment/obesity caused by the abundance of cheap high-fat processed foods.

You recall incorrectly. Nutrition and calories are two entirely different things. You cannot say that someone who eats too many calories is "overnourished", and again, there are far more who don't even have enough calories. Besides, this is once again a systemic issue. The entire system of food production in the US is set up with the side effect that poor people cannot afford nutritious food, and are left with only being able to buy empty, processed starches. If you had a family of 5 to feed all week and only $10 to do it with, which would you buy: four tomatoes, two heads of lettuce, and a bottle of salad dressing, or 14 boxes of mac and cheese?

Posted by: SC, OM | April 6, 2009 12:24 PM

How many people in modern Western society are suffering from undernourishment?

You're an ignorant twit. If you ever come to the US, why don't you volunteer at a food bank?

IIRC, a larger problem among the poor is overnourishment/obesity

This is not "overnourishment." People are suffering from micronutrient malnutrition and the conditions that causes due to a lack of good food. This diet is causing disease. People aren't "overnourished" or "well fed."

caused by the abundance of cheap high-fat processed foods.

All that's available/affordable to many people, thanks to corporate industrial agriculture: Killing People and the Planet Since the 1950s.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | April 6, 2009 12:28 PM

Did you know that there is more to life, and more even to political philosophy, than just economics?
It's true!

Posted by: Stephen Wells | April 6, 2009 12:30 PM

Carlie wins. Walton, you need to be better informed before your opinions have value to others.

Posted by: Emmet, OM | April 6, 2009 12:31 PM

... but the fact that I myself am inadequate in expressing these ideas doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the ideas themselves.

Okaaay, but how can you support, indeed advocate for, ideas that, by your own admission, you can't even articulate?

Posted by: Walton | April 6, 2009 12:38 PM

Carlie wins. Walton, you need to be better informed before your opinions have value to others.

What am I not "informed" about, pray tell? I have addressed Carlie's points. I am waiting for her to show me the statistics she cited regarding undernourishment in the US population, so that I can find out what definition of "undernourishment" is being used. This makes a substantial difference to the strength of her argument.

Posted by: Carlie | April 6, 2009 12:50 PM

Walton,you're right, I should have provided a link.
Here is the main USDA page with all their reports on food security in the US.

You are also right in wondering exactly what the definition used is, but it's really tiring when the first response to contrary data is "I don't believe your data." That's the easy way out, to not believe that anything is true. Wouldn't the USDA have some impetus to be somewhere around accurate, given that they're the main government food agency and it kind of looks bad form them to say that a lot of the population has food problems? "Sorry, we suck" doesn't usually get one reappointed to one's job. If anything, I would guess that it's underreported.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | April 6, 2009 12:52 PM

Should someone like that be raising children in the first place?

I am not that kind of Libertarian, really; I don't hate poor people.

Posted by: SC, OM | April 6, 2009 12:56 PM

We see this kind of nonsense when leftists assert that "X number of people in the US/UK are living in poverty", using an index of so-called "relative" poverty; they calculate what constitutes "poverty" by reference to the average earnings and standard of living in the country. So what they are really measuring is not absolute destitution, but merely inequality.

You don't know what you're talking about. Poverty figures are determined by an income threshold below which people cannot fulfill basic human needs (food, shelter,...) such that they can live healthy lives. Figures cited for the number of people and families living in poverty don't even take into account that the average family living in poverty in struggling on half that threshold income. Your distinction is ideological tripe. Poverty is poverty. The line between not having a home and not being able to nourish your family or get medical care and absolute (life-threatening) poverty is not at all clear, and to imply that these people are not "really" poor - "Oh, they're just being compared to people living in mansions - they're doing fine!" - is ignorant and outrageous. And using poor people in Africa to try to dismiss or minimize the reality of poverty in the West while you promote policies that plunge the people in Africa further into poverty is really obscene. You don't know anything or care anything about poor people anywhere. Stop being an ignorant ideologue.

Posted by: Carlie | April 6, 2009 1:01 PM

Heh. Word substitution fail. I had put "her" as my example person with many kids, then changed it to "them" to indicate that it's not solely the burden or issue of the woman involved, but forgot to change all the associated verbs. And didn't fix it everywhere, for that matter. Sorry for my bads English.

Posted by: Endor | April 6, 2009 1:05 PM

"The bigger question is: why would anyone be so irresponsible as to have so many children, when they can't afford to spend more than $10 a week on food? Should someone like that be raising children in the first place?"

So, if this were the family of a former GM factory worker who's just lost their job after it was sent to a foreign country, this person is irresponsible?

Are you saying that no one should have kids unless they are wealthy?

Posted by: Endor | April 6, 2009 1:09 PM

EDIT: Are you saying that no one should have kids unless they are wealthy AND have can foretell the future and can absolutely positively guaranty that no hardships will ever befall them?

Monster is correct. Callous, clueless, heartless monster.

Posted by: CatBallou | April 6, 2009 1:11 PM

Walton, why do you imagine that people plan to find themselves in those circumstances??
Regarding the "Big Macs or veggies" decision, it's indisputable that there are very few grocery stores in poorer neighborhoods, at least in the U.S. People have to rely on convenience stores for much of their food, where any fresh items are grossly overpriced.