Pharyngula

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 30, 2009 5:36 PM

I fear for my country.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 30, 2009 5:39 PM

Well, in honor of Glenn Beck on blasphemy day:

The corpse of fraudster Joseph Smith should be exhumed and sodomized by a syphilitic goat.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | September 30, 2009 5:42 PM

I like the new lyrics to the battlehymn better :-p

anyway, I find it ironic that the idiot who thinks Obama hates white culture is whining about the "abuse" of a song created by those who opposed the "white culture" of slavery.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | September 30, 2009 5:45 PM

That's the ticket, quit expecting the government to secure rights. Trust that nothing at all will grant you freedom and make us successful.

It's a lucky thing that our founders weren't anything like the sheep that Beck wants us to be.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: CJO | September 30, 2009 5:47 PM

The corpse of fraudster Joseph Smith should be exhumed and sodomized by a syphilitic goat.

What, again?!

Posted by: Trug | September 30, 2009 5:47 PM

@ #6:

We don't think of Glen Beck (or most of Fox News for that matter) as news. Its Jerry Springer dressed up nice.

Posted by: DrivenB4U | September 30, 2009 5:48 PM

makes me want to get a rubber hose ready...

Posted by: Ray Moscow | September 30, 2009 5:50 PM

OK, he needs to turn up the heat to match The Voice of London for sheer, loud, dangerous stupidity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzKqeG-KTEU

Posted by: truebutnotuseful | September 30, 2009 5:51 PM

Why why why did I watch that? It cannot be unseen.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | September 30, 2009 5:53 PM

also, someone needs to teach that moron some history; and geography. America being a world-power is not very surprising. shit, mere size (combined with decent population-density; sorry Australia and Canada)accounts for a LOT of it!

Posted by: Kyorosuke | September 30, 2009 5:55 PM

Amusingly enough, they weren't singing it to the tune of "Battle Hymn of the Republic", they were singing it to the tune of "John Brown's Body", which is a completely secular song about abolitionism that Union soldiers sang; "Battle Hymn" was written because the Becks of the day thought the original was too vulgar. I would actually agree with him that "Battle Hymn of the Republic" is a beautiful song, but in spite, not because of, its religious imagery.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | September 30, 2009 5:58 PM

Glenn Beck is a hero in my neck of the woods. Piles of his books almost block the entrance to the local Barnes & Noble. People I know listen to him every day. PZ missed one bet with this particular video, Beck doesn't cry. He's good at tearing up so much that he can hardly utter, "I love my country." The tears are much admired by his mormon followers. I think it reminds them of testimonies given at sacrament meetings. The more emotion the better. Tears = sincerity.

Here are two opposing reviews from amazon:

In the book Mr. Beck quotes the Constitution: Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
     ...then follows it up with a comment: "That's right, the Founders actually put a price tag on coming to this country: $10 per person. Apparently they felt like there was a value to being able to live here. Not anymore. These days we can't ask anything of immigrants -- including that they abide by our laws. [Arguing with Idiots, Page 278]"
     Uh, Glen, this provision of the Constitution has to do with IMPORTATION, not IMMIGRATION. This provision gave the founding fathers a right to place an import tax on slaves. Arguing with Idiots? Mr. Beck could simply start with the face he shaves in the mirror each morning...

Glen Beck's book is keen, perspicacious and fun. The trouble is that the socialist-politicos and fascist-new-dealers will have the NEA ban his books. I dread the day that the supporters of our current government will call for Beck's fans to be blacklisted and gathered for political re-education at a military base. When the First Amendment is modified to filter speech for governmental purposes I am heading to Switzerland.

Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | September 30, 2009 6:04 PM

Having public school teachers have children sing praises to the President is definitely creepy. Oh wait, that's not Beck's problem with the clips. Beck's problem is that he wants them to be singing praises to his sectarian deity. And somehow the current economic problems are because people aren't paying enough attention to God? Right, because Ken Lay and Bernie Maddoff are both atheists who donate regularly to the Society of Atheists for the Consumption of Tasty Babies. Wait? What's that? They didn't donate to SACTB? Oh, well surely there are atheists. Wait, what? They both believe in God? Well, you know Maddoff is one of those Jews. Killed Jesus and just care about money. Oh wait? Ken Lay was a Methodist raided by a Baptist Minister? Oh hmm. Maybe, just maybe there's something wrong with Beck's thesis.

I'm deeply ashamed that this idiot was connected to my alma mater.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | September 30, 2009 6:14 PM

The ex-mormons are discussing Beck. See http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agora/view.php?bn=exmobb_recovery&key=1253631322&newest=1253645053

"Meet the Man who Changed Glenn Beck"
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/09/16/beck_skousen/

I always thought the reports of Beck's behavior on his show were exaggerated until I gave in and watched part of his show one night and saw that it was even worse than I had heard and read. The only thing is, now I feel bad about making fun of him because it is clear that he has a serious mental illness, and I can't make fun of the ill in good conscience.

Posted by: timgueguen | September 30, 2009 6:17 PM

I find Beck's whining about godlessness amusing given that he's written a book touting Thomas Paine. Paine was a deist and likely would think the idea of the US being a "Christian nation" ridiculous.

Posted by: JHS | September 30, 2009 6:20 PM

I wonder how much of Beck is truly nuckin' futs and how much is shrewd niche talking head who knows his base to a T and works them for all they're worth. It's definitely some combination of both....the recent Salon article reveals a troubled man, even before he had a national soapbox from which to vent his madness, who (surprise) found Jeebus via Joseph Smith. Article here: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/09/21/glenn_beck/

@ #23, re: that positive Amazon review...

Who in the world could possibly find him fun but the sort of people who took picnic lunches to lynchings? And trust me, I doubt Switzerland (or anywhere else in the world) would want our right-wing rejects. It's scary to me that people actually think like this with any sincerity. Re-education camps? Blacklists? If we survived 8 years of W without descending into a 21st century "Handmaid's Tale".....then again, I'm sure that that reviewer thinks W was the bestest president ever, dontcha know. (At least since Reagan.)

Posted by: Lynna, OM | September 30, 2009 6:22 PM

Here's a response to Beck's conversion story:
http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon530.htm
Excerpt:

Every religious organization is populated by sincere people who have important social needs met by the organization, and who confuse the strong feelings that come from that experience with a divine encounter that justifies belief that their organization has "the truth". So, you find one of those people who perceives the institution to be particularly important for him ("Without Mormonism, I would be a drunk with no family and no job", says Beck), get him to tell his story using the usual, formulaic salvation narrative - "Things were going really bad in my life; then I fell into a crisis of some kind; then I found [insert name of religion]; then I had a powerful emotion experience [insert tears]; then some really great things started to happen in my life that are a sign from God; and now things are wonderful for me and my family", and you have poster boy that is highly useful for marketing purposes. The more high profile the individual, the better this works. A large part of LDS inspiration these days comes from a marketing firm named Edelman on Madison Avenue in NYC. Seriously.

Posted by: truebutnotuseful | September 30, 2009 6:24 PM

It's interesting how he decries the removal of The Ten Commandments from U.S. courthouses, and in the same breath breaks the 9th Commandment with his statements that students can't pray in school and that we can't sing Christmas carols in this country.

Just another Liar for Mormon-Jesus.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | September 30, 2009 6:29 PM

Beck is the man who can find a conspiracy where nobody else can.

speaking of which, has anyone here seen the clip where Beck explains how Rockefeller was a communist fascist who placed a sculpture of naked Mussolini on his building?

truly Lolworthy.

oh and btw, "swords into ploughshares" is an evil communist idea.

Posted by: Greginnd | September 30, 2009 6:32 PM

Hmm, anyone see this video of kids singing about how much they love President Nixon?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z199q-sZr4Y

Or how about this story about school children praising Bush and FEMA for saving them after Katrina?

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2006/04/17/out-of-the-mouths-of-babes/

Posted by: thepugilist | September 30, 2009 6:36 PM

Bwa ha ha ha ha. I bet Glenn really does "Paint With Poop". http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/real-time-bill-maher-mocks-malkin-her-new

Posted by: Crewvy | September 30, 2009 6:36 PM

It behooves me to suggest that Glenn Becks gaping void is between his ears.

Fucking simpletons and their "believe MY god " and all your dreams will come true. Dear O fucking Dear,somebody shoot me now.

Posted by: tigerhawkvok.myopenid.com | September 30, 2009 6:37 PM

Ugh, that man makes my brain hurt. Did no one else sing songs about the government in grade school? Isn't that standard fare?

Oh well, when we empty ourselves of deities maybe we can fill that empty spot with education, science, and technology. I'd love to see 2100.

Posted by: pixelfish | September 30, 2009 6:44 PM

I can't watch Glenn Beck for longer than 20 seconds, it turns out.

RE: The Ten Commandments in courthouses - It's not that Thou Shalt Not Kill is such a controversial notion, but that the ten commandments are RELIGIOUS LAW, codified thousands of years ago for another culture entirely. Propose putting the Vedic texts or Confucian ideals or Hammurabi's code of law in their place and Beck would probably have an aneurysm.

I'm sure back home in Utah, Beck has the exact same audience of folks that were idolising Rush and Bo Gritz back during the Clinton years. The same audience of religious white males who think OMG, we're losing our power, better organise a militia in our basements and have sekrit meetings. My friend's dad was in one of these little homemade militias back in the day. His group's password: Ruby Ridge. Seriously. These people would read books about how the Constitution was hanging by a thread, oh noes, and then sat on their asses for eight years watching Bush pretty much wipe his own ass with it.

I'm pretty unsurprised that he wants to blame the countries woes on the godless.

Posted by: Capital Dan | September 30, 2009 6:46 PM

I can agree with him in that rights aren't handed down by governments. If anything, it's more like across the street or around town.

Seriously. Glenn Beck had a better grasp of reality when he was a doped-up, raging alcoholic.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | September 30, 2009 6:53 PM

*eyeroll*
*gag*

Yeah, I like how his one example of the 10 Commandments is number 5 (or 6). How 'bout them first few? Maybe a little more controversy there.

Posted by: Porco Dio | September 30, 2009 6:58 PM

you yankees only have yourselves to blame for breeding kind of trash...

and only yourselves to blame for giving trash like this a forum...

Posted by: Benjamin "pardon my French" Geiger | September 30, 2009 6:59 PM

The Presidents
by Jonathan Coulton

Washington came first and he was perfect,
John Adams kept us out of war with France
Jefferson made a Louisiana Purchase
In 1812 James Madison kicked the British in the pants
James Monroe told Europe they could suck it
John Quincy Adams looked just like his Dad
Andrew Jackson got rid of all the Indians
Van Buren served one term but he wasn't bad

William Henry Harrison died early
John Tyler annexed Texas from Mexico
James K. Polk fought Mexico to keep it
Taylor was a Mexican War hero
Filmore gave a boat to Commodore Perry
Pierce repealed the Missouri Compromise
Buchanan saw the Civil War's beginnings
Lincoln saved the Union, then he died

Andrew Johnson just survived impeachment
General Grant thought getting drunk was fun
Rutherford B. Hayes ended reconstruction
Garfield was assassinated in 1881
Arthur suspended Chinese immigration
Cleveland made the railroad people squirm
Harrison signed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act
Grover Cleveland served another term

McKinley kept the Spanish out of Cuba
Roosevelt was handy with a gun
Taft was big and fat and had a mustache
Wilson kicked some ass in World War I
Harding said let's laissez-faire with business
Coolidge made the roaring 20's roar
Hoover screwed the pooch in the Great Depression
Then Roosevelt beat the Nazis in the war

Truman dropped the bomb on Hiroshima
Eisenhower kept the commies well in hand
Kennedy was killed by a magic bullet
Johnson murdered kids in Vietnam
Nixon was a sweating filthy liar
Ford gave Nixon pardon for his crimes
Carter lusted in his heart for peanuts
Reagan won the Cold War and lost his mind

George Bush senior poked at Saddam Hussein
Clinton gave an intern a cigar
W's reign of terror is finally over
Obama's been pretty excellent so far
In the year 2009 we're out of money
Somewhere surely freedom's on the march
I don't like to make political statements

Posted by: 386sx | September 30, 2009 7:04 PM

Hmm, anyone see this video of kids singing about how much they love President Nixon?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z199q-sZr4Y

With Henry Kissinger conducting them, too! Lol.

Posted by: Brian English | September 30, 2009 7:12 PM

Hi PZ, can you comment on this piece of excreta?

http://www.theage.com.au/blogs/the-religious-write/darwin-was-right--up-to-a-point/20090930-gber.html?comments=27#comments

It's basically a lot of tosh that uses Simon Conway Morris' thesis that convergent evolution must lead to humans therefore god did it. And a lot of attacks on neuro-science, biology and of course the new atheists. It made me want to puke. I thought it deserved a PZ evisceration. I know you're busy, but anyway.

Posted by: Andyo | September 30, 2009 7:18 PM

Did he just say in some new money there's no "In God We Trust"?

Posted by: truthspeaker | September 30, 2009 7:20 PM

Posted by: timgueguen | September 30, 2009 6:17 PM

I find Beck's whining about godlessness amusing given that he's written a book touting Thomas Paine. Paine was a deist and likely would think the idea of the US being a "Christian nation" ridiculous.

Consistency is not Beck's strong suit. On one occasion he claimed never to have taken government money when he was poor, even when he was on food stamps. If I hadn't seen the clip I wouldn't have believed it.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | September 30, 2009 7:21 PM

Did he just say in some new money there's no "In God We Trust"?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17501178/

Posted by: truthspeaker | September 30, 2009 7:27 PM

Posted by: crvw1607 | September 30, 2009 6:22 PM

He's ridiculous. When I was in public school, you were taught that the president was someone to look up to. So what if kids sing about how great the president is? If it was a republican in the office, Beck would be crying tears of joy over those kids singing. I honestly don't have a problem with public school children praising the president. What, are you going to have them sings songs about questioning every decision government officials make? They're kids. They also sing songs about George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Is that "creepy", too?

Yes. Yes it is. I don't know where you went to public school, but we never sang any songs about any president, living or dead. I would find that extremely creepy. And we definitely weren't taught that the president was someone to look up to.

I started kindergarten shortly after Nixon resigned, so that might have something to do with it.

Posted by: Trug | September 30, 2009 7:27 PM

@ 53:

Hey now, he's no Yankee. He's from Utah by way of Washington state! ;-)

-Offended Yankee from Massachusetts

Posted by: seanpatgallagher.myopenid.com | September 30, 2009 7:30 PM

Glenn Beck is completely insane

We've now reached the point in American politics where Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly appear wise and learned compared to Glenn Beck.

If the world does end in 2012 at least it'll knock Glenn Beck off the air. It might be worth it.

-S

Posted by: NewEnglandBob | September 30, 2009 7:34 PM

Glen Beck is insane.

Is this news to anyone? This is well known.

Posted by: alopiasmag | September 30, 2009 7:40 PM

Oh Man!!! Really.... How many of you could finish watching the video? I almost vomited at approx.1:30 into the clip. That filthy mot***#$%^@# ex-alcoholic converted to mormon because he could not live up to his own expectations Bastard!!

Posted by: Valdyr | September 30, 2009 7:55 PM

@Gregory Greenwood

"Since we are all such horrible, godless 'untermensch', how is old Beck going to square that circle?"

Clearly, you don't understand how it works. The godless homocommunist rise to power isn't because of THEIR efforts; it's because God is punishing US by letting them triumph. Remember: everything is about us and our politics, including--perhaps especially--the long-term plans Almighty God has for the universe.

Posted by: Qwerty | September 30, 2009 8:03 PM

As Glenn Beck knows there is nothing like wrapping yourself in the flag and Jebus.

Posted by: truthspeaker | September 30, 2009 8:08 PM

Posted by: crvw1607 | September 30, 2009 7:52 PM

Regardless, I don't think kids singing about the president to be creepy at all. When I was a kid, we sang about the founding fathers. What I do find a little disturbing is that we were brainwashed to believe that this country is the greatest and most infallible country, without any mention of its faults, even throughout high school.

Is it any more creepy when children in the UK sing "God Save the Queen"? I don't think so. They're just songs about the president. Granted, I didn't hear the songs in their entirety, so maybe I would have had some objection to what they were singing if I had, but from what I heard, they were just singing about the president. What is the big deal?

For one thing, "God Save the Queen" is a traditional anthem in the UK. It may even have some official status. This isn't true with songs about presidents in the US. More importantly, we don't have a monarch in this country, we have an elected head of government who also serves as head of state. The whole idea of the presidency is that he or she is a citizen elected to do a job, not someone to be revered or idolized.

Posted by: llewelly | September 30, 2009 8:10 PM

crvw1607 | September 30, 2009 7:52 PM:

Or perhaps it's because I grew up (and currently live) in Georgia and also sang patriotic songs when I was a child (I went to grade school during the Reagan and Bush Sr. terms). Regardless, I don't think kids singing about the president to be creepy at all. When I was a kid, we sang about the founding fathers.

... we were brainwashed to believe that this country is the greatest and most infallible country, without any mention of its faults, even throughout high school.

Posted by: Alverant | September 30, 2009 8:15 PM

A christian conservative blaming a religious minority for the problems of a nation. Where have we heard that before?

Posted by: Somnolent Aphid | September 30, 2009 8:18 PM

Is he still on the air? Does he actually have any sponsors left?

Posted by: truthspeaker | September 30, 2009 8:28 PM

There's a difference between singing about the country and singing about individual people. George Washington should be remembered for his acheivments, but also for the slaves he owned. Putting it into a song introduces the danger of romanticizing history.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | September 30, 2009 8:35 PM

I went to school in the 1950s and 60s. I remember singing "American the Beautiful" and "My Country 'Tis Himself of Thee" and suchlike patriotic songs. But I can't remember singing a single song about the president.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | September 30, 2009 8:40 PM

Is he still on the air? Does he actually have any sponsors left?

Yes, he still has sponsors. Karl Frisch wrote an article with quite a bit of detail on the otherwise execrable HuffPo site as a "guest blogger" -- excerpts below:

at least 62 companies have ceased advertising on his Fox News program in recent weeks.....tuning into Glenn Beck these days you're more likely to see ads from companies that are more at home during a 3 a.m. rerun of Golden Girls than a 5 p.m. cable news broadcast. It's out with name-brand companies like GEICO, Mercedes-Benz, AT&T, and Bank of America, and it's in with IRS counseling services, water filtration systems and, of course, convicted Watergate felon G. Gordon Liddy's great deals for the savvy gold investor.

Beck, appearing on Fox & Friends, said President Obama had "exposed himself as a guy" with "a deep-seated hatred for white people." After the conservative morning show's co-host Brian Kilmeade uncharacteristically pushed back, Beck reversed himself saying, "I'm not saying he doesn't like white people," before dropping the race hammer once again, accusing the president outright of being a "racist." Just days before making his controversial "racist" charge against Obama, Beck explained that the "thinking" behind the president's agenda "including this health care bill" was centered on "one idea": "reparations" and his desire to "settle old racial scores."

Perhaps you hadn't heard Beck's crack "reporting" about President Obama's secret plan to build a "civilian national security force," which of course is "what Hitler did with the SS" -- Beck's words. The basis of Beck's latest lapse in sanity comes from the president's goal of expanding the Foreign Service, AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps. That Obama is absolutely diabolical...      All is not lost, though. Beck's CNN kissing cousin, Lou Dobbs, has come out swinging in his defense, saying the Fox News host's detractors are up in arms "just because he had the guts to say what he meant. You know, there's a shortage of that. That ought to be encouraged." Sage words of support from a fellow conspiracy theorist who has yet to atone for his strange obsession with President Obama's birth certificate.

Beck pulls the biggest numbers of viewers on Fox -- and that's the nature of the problem.

Posted by: RickR | September 30, 2009 8:41 PM

'Tis @91- "But I can't remember singing a single song about the president."

Same here. I started elementary school in the mid 60's and graduated high school in 1979. No president songs, just the usual i.e. national anthem, America the Beautiful etc.

But then I grew up in California, obviously not part of Real Murrika™.

Posted by: crvw1607 | September 30, 2009 8:52 PM

Posted by: 'Tis Himself Author Profile Page | September 30, 2009 8:35 PM

I can't remember singing a single song about the president.

As I said, they were kitschy songs about the "founding fathers", certainly none I remember and certainly none about the then current president.

Posted by: tim Rowledge | September 30, 2009 8:58 PM

Oh, and regarding that money without the trust in god stuff - according to wikipedia today is the anniversary of it appearing.
1957 – First appearance of "In God We Trust" on U.S. paper currency.

Posted by: Susannah Anderson | September 30, 2009 9:24 PM

Cuttlefish #26:

Glory, glory, how peculiar...

I know a whole slew of hymns that will benefit from that little change.

Christ the Lord is ris'n today,

How-ow-ow-ow-ow pe-eh-cu-u-liar!
...
Who did once upon the cross,
(How-ow-ow-ow-ow pe-eh-cu-u-liar)
Suffer to redeem our loss,
How-ow-ow-ow-ow pe-eh-cu-u-liar!

Posted by: raven | September 30, 2009 9:29 PM

Glenn Beck reminds me a movie a few decades ago. It was a spoof or satire about a TV news reader who started to go insane. The title was Network or some such, I never watched it myself.

The guy started rapidly losing his mind and babbling on his show. The network kept him on because it drew an audience. Talking heads on TV are boring but someone going crazy in real time is more interesting. His tag line was, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more."

Maybe someone who saw it can fill in my blanks.

At any rate, Glen Beck is that guy in reality. A crazy guy spouting all sorts of lies, delusions, and nonsense. And people watch him for that reason among others. Talking heads hashing out real issues=boring.
Crazy guy ranting and raving=interesting

I wouldn't count on him getting worse though. Some categories of mental illness are progressive. Some are rock stable. They never get worse and they never get better.

Posted by: mikecbraun | September 30, 2009 9:35 PM

As for the preceding discussion about glorifying presidents with song, remember:
If kids put kerchiefs on and sing about the President of the United States, it is a beautiful display of patriotism and hallelujah, let freedom ring!
If kids put kerchiefs on and sing about Comrade Lenin, they are obviously part of an Evil Empire hell-bent on destroying freedom!
Thank Gawd fur craytin' 'Murrika!

Posted by: raven | September 30, 2009 9:40 PM

As a boomer, I've never seen the US so polarized and that covers the Vietnam war.

The lunatic fringe christofascist right seems to be getting smaller. The theothuglicans only poll around 20-30% these days.

They also seem to be getting more extreme and violent. FEMA concentration camps. genetically engineered swine flu vaccines that kill billions, commies under the porch, socialists with their Universal Health Care, Kenyan Moslem presidents and on and on.

Based on the numbers, they should just eventually grow old and die out. But there are no guarantees in life about anything. About all that is for sure is they have been violent and that is likely to continue.

This year alone three cops were killed in Pittsburgh, some Mexican immigrants in Arizona, a doc in Kansas. I'm sure there will be more, somewhere and sooner rather than later.

Posted by: Nebula99 | September 30, 2009 9:51 PM

Wow. This is my first time seeing Beck, and he is a failure. The way America is unique with respect to religion is that we have a separation of church and state, so the religious uniqueness he praises is the [i]source[/i] of the commandment-banning he hates.
I would be afraid of this guy... but apparently he's more scared of us than we are of him. If religion is really on the decline in America, and America is anomalously religious, then I'm feeling good. He seems to be treating this like a war, and if it is one then the freethinkers are slowly winning.

Posted by: aduzik.myopenid.com | September 30, 2009 10:32 PM

@12: I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet, but Jesus was Jewish so, um, there are some historical anatomical inaccuracies WRT His Holy Peen.

Posted by: circleh.wordpress.com | September 30, 2009 11:00 PM

Glenn Beck has been targeting this website and its video about waste by unrestrained capitalism:

http://www.storyofstuff.com/

Look at the blog entries referring to Beck.

http://www.storyofstuff.com/blog/?p=29

http://www.storyofstuff.com/blog/?p=30

Lots of hateful comments from Beck's deranged fans!

Finally, look at this:

http://circleh.wordpress.com/2009/08/18/the-insanity-of-glenn-beck/

Posted by: Brain Hertz | September 30, 2009 11:35 PM

PZ! Your snark tags are broken again!

Posted by: R. Schauer | September 30, 2009 11:43 PM

Yeow...what we need is the "Most Fycked-Up American Award" and then make Beck the first recipient.

Posted by: NixManes | October 1, 2009 12:17 AM

Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck: The Crazy Quadruplets of Calamity.

Posted by: ivo | October 1, 2009 12:31 AM

Glen Beck's book is keen, perspicacious and fun. The trouble is that the socialist-politicos and fascist-new-dealers will have the NEA ban his books. I dread the day that the supporters of our current government will call for Beck's fans to be blacklisted and gathered for political re-education at a military base. When the First Amendment is modified to filter speech for governmental purposes I am heading to Switzerland.

er... we don't want you. Besides the fact that you won't like it here, us being a God-less European country and all that.

Posted by: CW | October 1, 2009 12:48 AM

Lewis Prothero the Beck-esque character from V for Vendetta;

Here was a country that had everything, absolutely everything. And now, 20 years later, is what? The world's biggest leper colony. Why? Godlessness. Let me say that again... Godlessness. It wasn't the war they started. It wasn't the plague they created. It was Judgement. No one escapes their past. No one escapes Judgement. You think he's not up there? You think he's not watching over this country? How else can you explain it? He tested us, but we came through. We did what we had to do. Islington. Enfield. I was there, I saw it all. Immigrants, Muslims, homosexuals, terrorists. Disease-ridden degenerates. They had to go. Strength through unity. Unity through faith. I'm a God-fearing Englishman and I'm goddamn proud of it!

Posted by: CW | October 1, 2009 12:52 AM

Prothero's speech

Posted by: PsiCop | October 1, 2009 1:28 AM

Did anyone catch Beck's remark, early in his diatribe, that "In God We Trust" is no longer being put on some money? Looks like he fell for one of several urban legends to that effect. If he cared about facts, he might have checked Snopes before wailing about it in front of his millions of sheep.

Posted by: Richard Healy | October 1, 2009 2:08 AM

Beck's Mormonism already puts him w-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-y down my scale of CRAZY; I suppose he might actually be insane as well. I wonder how does one one tell?

File under "W" for woo-woo / wah-wah.

Posted by: Tom Anderson | October 1, 2009 2:14 AM

I have to give him one thing, the Obama songs (at least the parts he played, I don't have any context) were creepy. They sounded reminiscent of Mussolini's child-indoctrinating policies, though different in that this is not state-sanctioned. I'm an Obama supporter, but no man or god deserves worship.

Posted by: luna1580 | October 1, 2009 2:30 AM

forget beck, stephen colbert has just made it all clear:

dawkins: "and the proof of god is?"

colbert: "reese's peanut butter cups.

there's no way your peanut butter just got in my chocolate by "accident"."

-clearly the best way this argument has been "presented" in a long time!

Posted by: shonny | October 1, 2009 3:28 AM

There are times when I am very happy that I live in a country where 'people' like Beck get placed where they truly belong, in what Tom Lehrer referred to as 'home for the bewildered'.
Beck being a mormon would have expedited the placement, because that is a guarantee of 'bewilderedness'.
It is a very strange country indeed where the loonies get extensive exposure in the media instead.

And I take it for granted that you all are proud owners of The remains of Tom Lehrer.
No home, no living quarters, no abode, complete without that collection of wit and sanity.

Posted by: nothing's sacred | October 1, 2009 4:01 AM

I would rather have my kids forced to learn creationism in science than sing about the president.

And I would rather that morons like you didn't exist.

Posted by: Grant N | October 1, 2009 4:52 AM

Dogma's a bitch.

But Beck must be suffering from a bad case of temporal lobe epilepsy. As noted in...

Seizures and the Sight of God

Isabella Eguae-Obazee

Researchers interested in the connection of the brain and religion have examined the experiences of people suffering from Temporal Lobe Epilepsy. Apparently the increased electrical activity in the brain resulting from seizure activity (abnormal electrical activity within localized portions of the brain), makes sufferers more susceptible to having religious experiences including visions of supernatural beings and near death experiences (NDEs). Temporal Lobe Epilepsy (TLE) sufferers also may become increasingly obsessed with religion, the study and practice of it. Why is it that this form of epilepsy results in religious experiences among the other supernatural experiences possible? Can people who have never studied or practiced religion be susceptible to these same religious experiences? Why do some interested researchers claim that such notable figures as Paul on the road to Damascus, Joan of Arc, Ellen White of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church and other persons suffered from TLE because of their range of reported experiences with God, angels, and demons? In my first paper, I highlighted the connection scientists have made between religious experience and the brain. In this paper, I intend to focus on Temporal Lobe Epilepsy, as one of those connections, specifically the symptom of hyperreligiousity.

Posted by: catta | October 1, 2009 5:19 AM

Heh. To all the people who find the song-singing and the constant reiteration of "best of all possible countries" creepy: seconded.

It may have to do with being German - no, I don't want to Godwin this thread - but I always found the level of indoctrination extra-creepy. From the pledge of allegiance to referring to America in the 19th century as "we" in history lessons, I thought it was supremely weird.
I'm never sure how much of his has to do with the deep distrust of patriotic displays many of us have over here. I'd like to think, though, that you won't automatically want to overthrow the state just because you think it isn't always perfect. My favourite line on this is still "My country, right or wrong: when right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right." A lot of what I experienced in the US (and what I found creepy) seemed to boil down to "my country: always right", though.

As to the children singing: Not so sure. If they sang this every day, I'd find it very disturbing. I'd want schools to be mostly apolitical, and that includes not singing the praises of any particular politician, president or not, on a regular basis.

What I suspect, though, is that this was done on occasions when the kids were actually meeting the president. In which case it's perfectly fine to sing a song or two referring to him. I'm sure it was done for other presidents, and I'm fine with that too.

Incidentally, I don't see how Beck made the connection to "Jesus loves me"? All I hear is them reciting something, not singing -- and let's face it, "Jesus loves me" doesn't have the most original rhyme scheme or metre in the world. How does he know it's not "twinkle twinkle little star" they're, er, filking?

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 1, 2009 6:10 AM

Is it any more creepy when children in the UK sing "God Save the Queen"? - crvw1607

They very rarely do. I suppose if there was a royal visit to their town they might be drafted to provide some patriotic noise, but it's certainly not a regular thing. UK children are more likely to be pressured into singing hymns than the national anthem.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | October 1, 2009 7:01 AM

I think we all agree that Beck is a blithering idiot. At the same time, I agree with some of the commenters above: kids singing songs of praise to Obama is creepy, and totally inappropriate. I would say the same about any politician.

Jadehawk,

I like the new lyrics to the battlehymn better :-p

anyway, I find it ironic that the idiot who thinks Obama hates white culture is whining about the "abuse" of a song created by those who opposed the "white culture" of slavery.

Well, the Battle Hymn tune (possibly my favourite melody of all time) has been co-opted by plenty of different groups over the years. It was originally an African-American spiritual (Canaan's Happy Shore), then a marching song (John Brown's Body), and later a left-wing trade union anthem (Solidarity Forever). There's even a Battle Hymn of the Atheist, which would really make Glenn Beck's head explode.

Is it any more creepy when children in the UK sing "God Save the Queen"?

"God Save The Queen" is not remotely comparable to this. The Queen is not a partisan political figure; she's the unifying symbol of our country. Honouring her is honouring the nation as a whole.

Most British people would be completely freaked out, on the other hand, if kids started singing songs of praise to Gordon Brown (or, indeed, David Cameron). We don't revere our politicians like that; nor should we.

There seems to be a completely different notion of what "the news" is supposed to be in the States, compared with Britain.

I actually think American news is better. At least it's openly and unapologetically partisan. The BBC, by contrast, makes this insipid pretence of "impartiality" while constantly advancing its own agenda - all, of course, courtesy of the licence fee payer. I'm a strong advocate of privatising the BBC, or at least getting rid of the licence fee and making it carry advertising.

Posted by: SQB (fuck death) | October 1, 2009 7:12 AM

I don't have sound, at the moment (at work). Does anyone know where to find a transcript? I tried, but couldn't locate one.

And regarding the money, shouldn't that bo "In gold we trust"?

Posted by: Rorschach | October 1, 2009 7:18 AM

The Queen is not a partisan political figure; she's the unifying symbol of our country. Honouring her is honouring the nation as a whole.

Uhuh.
You're serious right?

I have this to say to you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4JBj0kxef8

Posted by: Stuart | October 1, 2009 7:58 AM

@Rorschach - it's irrelevant what a speech says in a comedy film, it is true that the Queen/King is a non-partisan, non-political figure. Unlike a politician they provide continuity. I'm not a huge fan myself but that is the good thing to be said about them.

@Walton - I'm not sure what you think the "BBC's agenda" is but it's a heck of a lot better than American TV news, not that I think it can even be described as news.

The BBC isn't perfect but at least it and it's rivals (Sky and ITN) actually provide news and not 24 hour opinion channels

Posted by: Stephen Wells | October 1, 2009 8:15 AM

@150: The royals are only non-political if you have royalist (or at least, non-republican) politics, and are only non-partisan if you are of a party that's okay with royalty. As it happens I also think having a constitutional monarchy is handy so as to have a head of state who's not a politicain, but let's not pretend it's not a controversial issue.

Walton doesn't like the BBC news because reality has a pronounced left-wing bias :)

The BBC news turns out to be pretty effective at chewing into politicians of all stripes. I would love to have seen George W. Bush locked in an interview room with Jeremy Paxman.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/OkTxAjgel4_QS9OQS7V19Cnj2xW.RIGcbzz.#ea8a6 | October 1, 2009 8:26 AM

This reminds me of Lewis Prothero's speech at the beginning of V for Vendetta.

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 1, 2009 8:33 AM

The Queen is not a partisan political figure; she's the unifying symbol of our country. Honouring her is honouring the nation as a whole. - Walton

Crap. The Queen and monarchy stand for hereditary privilege and unaccountable state power. Your monarchism is as completely at odds with your proclaimed libertarianism as with my democratic socialism.

Posted by: Roameo | October 1, 2009 9:11 AM

I actually think American news is better. At least it's openly and unapologetically partisan. The BBC, by contrast, makes this insipid pretence of "impartiality" while constantly advancing its own agenda - all, of course, courtesy of the licence fee payer. I'm a strong advocate of privatising the BBC, or at least getting rid of the licence fee and making it carry advertising.

Dude, i have no idea how you can say some of the things you say with a straight face...
The BBC may not be impartial, but it is reasonably reliable once you understand its biases. As long as it carries the pretence of impartiality, it can't get away with deliberate falsehoods and maintain its considerable international reputation. Contrast this to Faux News, which peddles nothing but republican propaganda. Fox may be obviously partisan, but the catchphrase of "fair and balanced" indicates that theyre never going to be honest about it. Their blatant idolising of the republican party is a direct product of the political views of, suprisingly enough, Fox's private owner Rupert Murdoch. A man who would give his wrinkly left nut for the opportunity to buy the BBC.
Here in Australia, the BBC's equivalent, the ABC is one of the few media outlets not owned by that monster. In the howard years it was also one of the greatest sources news and shows that actually went against the government agenda, in the interest of actual impartiality.
Given the damage done to journalism by advertisers and owners who all want to promote their own agendas, having the occasional network with a mandate to impartiality is incredibly valuable.

but then again... i get the feeling you only dislike the BBC because they're taking your money to educate others. Am i right?

Posted by: DLC | October 1, 2009 9:16 AM

Glenn Beck has a first class ticket for the crazy train.
His elevator doesn't go all the way to the top.
He's crackers. Wacky. A loon.

As for the BBC vs News thing.
As an American, BBC News is low bias. But I want to emphasize: Glenn Beck is not a news presenter, nor a reporter. He is merely a commentator, or blithering idiot, if you will.

Glenn: How about filling that "god-Void" with knowledge ?
how about arriving at human rights not because some magic-man in the sky which you yourself hardly believe in said so ?
How about acknowledging for once that rights must be protected by humanity because God never did nor will.

Until then, Glenn, get in the feckin sack.

Posted by: Psychodigger | October 1, 2009 9:39 AM

Eeeerm,

what is this nut talking about? He needs to get his gaping void stuffed with a lot of heavy duty medication.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | October 1, 2009 9:51 AM

The Queen is not a partisan political figure; she's the unifying symbol of our country. Honouring her is honouring the nation as a whole.

Huh? When considering the sovereignty of countries you call the idea of a "nation" a fiction, but when you consider meaningless symbols it seems very real to you.

I actually think American news is better. At least it's openly and unapologetically partisan.

We report, you decide is Fox News' Orwellian slogan. They also frequently make the false claim that they're independent. The fact that a news source has given up even trying to be impartial is not something to be applauded. Also, giving the insane Glenn Beck an outlet to speak is borderline irresponsible.
Rather than laughing/crying at Fox News other "news" networks have emulated them because of their success. American news illustrates the problem with everything being about profits. When you do that you end up filling hours of the day talking about celebrity vagina shots, being sensationalistic, and completely ignoring important events going on across the world that may not do well in the ratings.

Posted by: Faid | October 1, 2009 9:55 AM

I wonder if you realize how near-identical to parody this sounds to us non-americans.
I actually expected him to say "back to you Jon" at the end, and cut to Jon Stewart facepalming.

Posted by: Drosera | October 1, 2009 10:41 AM

Walton @144,

The Queen is not a partisan political figure; she's the unifying symbol of our country. Honouring her is honouring the nation as a whole.

Unfortunately, in my country, the Netherlands, which is a monarchy too, there are also a lot of people — the majority even — who hold ridiculous views like these.

To me the queen is nothing but a useless waste of money, a living atavism from an undemocratic past.

'Honouring the queen to honour the nation' is just pathetic bullshit. How do you 'honour the nation'? Do you expect the nation to stand up and take a bow in response?

Posted by: Creature of the Universe | October 1, 2009 12:42 PM

WOW....very hard core "GOD AND 'OUR' COUNTRY" rhetoric....what mindless crap.

Beck continues to dig himself deeper and deeper and deeper into the pit of extreme right wing fundamentalism. I have a relative who really admires Beck and the god. When we get together I always try very hard not to bring up politics or religion because things can get a bit...ummm...uncomfortable. The last time I mentioned religion was when I told him that Thomas Jefferson complied his own version(s) of the new testament by CUTTING OUT all the supernatural miraculous dogma fluff and keeping just the rational ethical teachings - and he literally started to physically shake. When I saw him quivering I realized that he was not able to cope with what I said. I felt like I was injuring a little child in some way, so I quickly changed the subject. I will never speak with him about religion again.

Posted by: Frankosaurus, Cupcake of Death | October 1, 2009 2:37 PM

@ 135

I would rather have my kids forced to learn creationism in science than sing about the president.

...and if that were actually Beck's point, rather than he would prefer the kids be singing about his specific deity, it might actually have been a more rational presentation.

so take the good with the bad. Beck has strange solutions, but he points out glaring problems. Obama's a creep. What kind of kool-aid is there in the school system to make teachers think that this is a man to sing songs about? I said that Bush would be a problem. But we're talking now about the most inept president in history

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 1, 2009 2:47 PM

Actually I might have dropped my reading comprehension...

I blame the flu

Posted by: Ichthyic | October 1, 2009 4:10 PM

Beck has strange solutions, but he points out glaring problems.

no, you decided he was pointing out a problem that he not only wasn't, it doesn't actually exist, period.

nice job.

Posted by: OriGuy | October 1, 2009 4:57 PM

I like that Amazon comment mentioned above that has the GB supporter planning to head to Switzerland.

Posted by: RamblinDude | October 1, 2009 6:02 PM

katydid13,

I'm not really convinced that he believes for instance that its a lack of religion that matters. . . .

I don’t think he believes it, either. I think he’s a ham who’ll perform for the highest bidder, an opportunistic muckraker who’s sold his honor for an audience—whom I’ve no doubt he has little regard for. He’s too smart to be respectful of the cardboard cutouts who are so easily inflamed with cheap theatrics.

As a commenter above asked: “I wonder if you realize how near-identical to parody this sounds to us non-americans.”

That’s what makes it so very disturbing; it is parody—and he’s getting away with it, and it may actually lead to violence. I don’t know who I have more contempt for, him or the gullible dupes who are conned by him.

He’s a rodeo clown, alright, but he’s not trying to help the cowboy—he’s trying to get him gored and stomped on.

Posted by: Cosmic Snark | October 1, 2009 6:57 PM

Geez what a clueless nitwit.

Another imbecile that uses the Declaration of Independence as "proof" we are a "Christian Nation".

A pathetic dipshit who uses videos of children sing about Obama to fuel the "Obama is the antichrist" babblers.

Hey Beck - since correlation does not imply causation, the onus is now on YOU to prove that the growing number of people who declare themselves "non religious" is the root cause of America's problems. Pony up some proof or STFU you ignorant jackass.

Gee, Glen, ya think, just MAYBE, that the reason so many are leaving Christianity is because they are actually starting to learn the TRUTH about it? People are starting to skip the apologetics and learn the historical origins behind this religion. They are also looking at how way too many of these so-called "Christians" conduct themselves (Praise be the Internet public discussion rooms!)

As a recent Christian apostate myself (those interested can click my name to see a metaphorical version of my deconversion), I can only say... go fuck yourself, Becktard.

Posted by: Kagato | October 1, 2009 9:05 PM

*blustering* Ten commandments in a courthouse, what, are you kidding me? That's horrible, take it down! Thou shalt not kill? Wha-ah-at that's too controversial!

But you don't just want "thou shalt not kill" posted up in a courthouse, do you now Glenn?

You want all ten.

How about number one?

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

Don't see any constitutional issues with that one, Glenn?

(And I had to watch the first two damned minutes again to make sure the quote was correct. Ugh.)

Posted by: Lynna, OM | October 2, 2009 11:55 AM

A post on the White House blog upbraids Fox News for dishing out lies about President Obama's campaing to bring the Olympics to Chicago. Fox News, especially Glenn Beck, is slammed for ignoring the facts "in an attempt to smear the Administration's efforts to win the Olympics for the United States." The White House post gives some details, for example:

RHETORIC: BECK SAID VANCOUVER LOST $1 BILLION WHEN IT "HAD THE OLYMPICS." Glenn Beck said, "Vancouver lost, how much was it? they lost a billion dollars when they had the Olympics." [Transcript, Glenn Beck Show, 9/29/09]
     REALITY: VANCOUVER'S OLYMPICS WILL NOT TAKE PLACE UNTIL 2010. Vancouver will host the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games from February 12 - 28, 2010 and March 12-21, 2010, respectively. [Vancouver2010.com, accessed 9/29/09]

Posted by: windy | October 2, 2009 1:34 PM

But you don't just want "thou shalt not kill" posted up in a courthouse, do you now Glenn?

What's the use of having the commandments in a courthouse, anyway? Isn't that a bit too late?

Posted by: Heidi | October 2, 2009 5:04 PM

I'm surprised that no one has brought this up, but Glenn Beck got his "favorite" lyrics to Battle Hymn of the Republic wrong. "As he died to make men holy let us LIVE to make men free..."
But religious people like him are all-too-eager to be martyrs to their cause, instead of contemplating what freedom really means - freedom from following an archaic, petty and scary religion, for one.

Posted by: Steven Mading | October 2, 2009 6:29 PM

Jim Stunkel: He's waaay out of the closet. Does he really think that his god is the only god to choose from, and that believing in that one god is the only way for a country to become powerful?

When pressed, they always fall back on the same excuse - They condescendingly explain it, as if to a three-year-old, like this, "But it's not a matter of having any evidence, Steve! That's why it's called faith! Faith isn't about evidence!" Yes. I know. That's why "liar" is an accurate term for someone who knows perfectly well that the only underpinning they have for their belief is faith. Once they admit that all they have is faith to back up their position, they HAVE just admitted to lying. They know perfectly well they have no reason to believe what they do.

It's high time we stopped accepting that answer. "Faith" is not something you do instead of lying. "Faith" is a word that simply describes a specific form of lying.

In a sense, I almost have more respect for the fundamentalists who claim the evidence actually backs them up. They're nuts, of course, but at least they're honestly nuts and not just pretending to believe for the benefit that such profession of belief brings them.

I do not believe that someone like Glen Beck is actually a nutsy delusional believer. I think he's professing belief because it helps uphold his social agenda, like most "believers" do, and that makes me despise him even more. The truely nuts believers who really DO believe it and think there is actually evidence of god, like the speaking-in-toungues charismatic Pentecostals (like Sarah Palin), I actually have sympathy and pity for. The liars like Glenn Beck, Depak Chopra, Oprah, and so on, I have nothing but contempt for.

Posted by: melior | October 3, 2009 12:39 AM

Glenn Blecch: "No government can fill the gaping hole inside of us, if god is chased out!"

(musical interlude)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U65_0TlycIw

How's your whole... family? (How's your whole?) How's your whole... family? (Tell me how's that great big whole) How's your whole... family? (How's your whole... family?) How's your whole... family?

(spoken) "Prick!"

Posted by: Lynna, OM | October 3, 2009 12:23 PM

Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher discuss Glenn Beck and mormonism (among other things):
http://atheistplanet.blogspot.com/2009/10/richard-dawkins-on-real-time-with-bill.html

Glenn Beck could be even more brain damaged. If he had been raised Mormon instead of converting as an adult, it's possible that his high school years would have provided another opportunity to strip a few IQ points. Many Mormon high school students in Utah and Idaho attend early morning seminary in a building that is usually across the street from their public school. I was reminded of the deleterious physical effects (let alone all the other deleterious effects) of seminary when I listened to a Fresh Air podcast this morning.

"For Parents, The Return of Tough Love", is an interview with author, Po Bronson, author of "NurtureShock: New Thinking About Children" (co-author is Ashley Merryman). While most of the 16-minute interview is general in nature, the last few minutes are spent discussing the function of sleep in children. Bronson quoted some research showing that even 3 nights of sleep periods shortened by half an hour reduced sixth graders to fourth grade level according to tests given before and after sleep deprivation. Even more interesting were the effects of 15 minutes less sleep, with A students averaging 15 minutes more sleep than B students, and B students averaging 15 minutes more sleep than C students. SAT scores for high school students rose by 200 points in a district where the start of the high school day was changed to begin later in the morning. You can listen to the Fresh Air podcast, and read an excerpt from the Bronson's book at:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113347007&ps=cprs

Here's an excerpt from an ex-mormon blog written by a young may who details his experience with seminary and with other church activities:

I began seminary at 14, during 9th grade. This, to me, was the height of the Jamiel family religious fervor. I’d wake up at 4:30-5:00 am every week day, go to seminary for an hour, come home, Dad would read scriptures every morning during breakfast, we’d go to school, I’d then go wash dishes at the wishbone until 9-10 pm, come home go to bed, wake up do it again. Monday was Family Home Evening, 1 hour. Wednesday night the Young Men would get together for 2 hours and have an activity or scripture study. Saturday there was usually a dance and then Sunday, 3 hours of church and then 2 extra hours of door to door tithing collection and or Home Teaching. Weekly that is 5 hours of seminary, 2.5 hours of home scripture reading, 1 hour of Family Home Evening, 2 Hours of Young Men’s, 3 hours at a Church Dance, 3 hours of Church on Sundays and 2 hours of Tithing collection or Home Teaching. That is a total of 18.5 hours a week of church. I began to resent it, my grades started to slip, I was tired all the time. http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agora/view.php?bn=exmobb_biography&key=1248278601&site=exmobb

Posted by: Lynna, OM | October 3, 2009 12:49 PM

I feel Janeane Garofalo's pain. She really, really wants to find an intellectually-defensible, cause-and-effect, excuse for terrorists flying planes into the World Trade Center. She has a lot of company among liberals, and although she's right that American foreign policy plays a part, she grants it too large a part. Like a lot of fairly reasonable people (note the "fairly", which means "not completely, but better than average), Garofalo can't comprehend the sheer brain-damaged batshit craziness of a well-indoctrinated religious mind.

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 3, 2009 1:31 PM

Actually, Garafolo (who I haven't come across before) has a strong case. Suicide bombing was pioneered by the entirely secular LTTE in Sri Lanka, and what studies have been done indicate that most Muslim suicide bombers are not unusually devout for their milieu (see, e.g. Judy Kuriansky's Terror in the Holy Land. Of course the 9-11 terrorists were religiously motivated, but such motivation is neither necessary nor sufficient to explain their actions. Bin Laden's own motivation does seem to be primarily resentment of US foreign policy in the Middle East, and particularly US bases in Saudi Arabia and relations with the "apostate" Saudi regime; and since the 9-11 terrorists were mostly Saudis, it's reasonable to conclude that their motivations were probably the same. In general, people seem to get into groups practising suicide terrorism for political reasons or because of some personal trauma, while actually going through with a bombing is a function of small-group psychology - similar to that which all armies use to keep soldiers fighting.

It ought not to need saying, but I'll say it anyway: none of the above in any way excuses terrorism. However, in order to combat an evil, it is useful to understand it; and neither Maher's "They do it because they are guilty about enjoying America" nor Dawkins' "It's religion" is anywhere near adequate.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | October 3, 2009 3:54 PM

Of course the 9-11 terrorists were religiously motivated, but such motivation is neither necessary nor sufficient to explain their actions. Bin Laden's own motivation does seem to be primarily resentment of US foreign policy in the Middle East, and particularly US bases in Saudi Arabia and relations with the "apostate" Saudi regime; and since the 9-11 terrorists were mostly Saudis, it's reasonable to conclude that their motivations were probably the same. In general, people seem to get into groups practising suicide terrorism for political reasons or because of some personal trauma, while actually going through with a bombing is a function of small-group psychology - similar to that which all armies use to keep soldiers fighting.

Good points, Knockgoats. I think I would say that political motivation is not sufficient to explain their actions, just as you said that religious motivation is not sufficient to explain their actions. It's true that religion is not necessary for a suicide bombing, but it's also true that there was some component (however much can be debated) of religious motivation in the 9/11 terrorist group.

It came off as purely snarky, but I meant it when I said that I understand the desire to understand -- that is, I too want to know all the motivations behind flying planes into the World Trade Center. But I don't want to simplify the situation so much that I leave out an essential component.

Bin Laden hasn't earned my trust. I don't trust his all-too-convenient blame of the Saudi government and of the U.S. government. It seems likely that he really thinks the Saudi Government sucks, and that he's really pissed about U.S. troops on Saudi soil -- but it also seems likely that he's blowing the issues up bigger than they are in order to inflame the faithful, just like Christian fundamentalists overstate how much they are being disrespected and persecuted, and how much they overstate the importance of "standing up for god." In Bin Laden's speeches there's the same element of rabble rousing by blaming a big bogey man, preferably a bogey man with a grain of truth at the core.

Atta became more religious as he got into the preparation for 9/11. His strict religious observance showed up while he was still in Germany. I wonder if, in committing to be alpha male in his terrorist group, he felt compelled to strengthen the religious explanations for his behavior? Perhaps both as a way to keep himself on track, and as a way to silence inner doubts? Anyway, we do have records that show Atta becoming stricter in even smaller ways, such as condemning women's clothing etc., as he became more committed to terrorism.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | October 3, 2009 4:41 PM

This is probably the most infamous of the Glenn Beck weepy videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rM4xqnukQrM&feature=player_embedded

Posted by: Walton | October 4, 2009 4:42 AM

strange gods,

Garofalo did not say anything incorrect. She did not excuse or defend the attacks. She said, correctly, that you cannot ignore political retribution for Western aggression if you want to understand the attacks.

Why do you (and David Cross, and Garofalo) presuppose that bin Laden's rhetoric accurately reflects his motivations? All homicidal wingnut leaders throughout history have demonised their opponents, and lied to their followers about the reasons for their actions. Taking their words at face value is rather naive.

If America withdrew all forces from Afghanistan and the Middle East tomorrow, cut off support for Israel, and retreated to the isolationist "fuck the rest of the world" policy that many Americans advocated back in the 1930s, I do not believe for a second that bin Laden would stop his campaign of terror. (And even if he would, giving in to terrorists' demands is an act of cowardice. And the above mentioned course of action would be enormously detrimental to the freedom of peoples around the world.)

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 4, 2009 7:22 AM

By your logic, Walton, the United States should still have slavery today, just to spite John Brown.

I suppose it's too much to ask for you to try to understand how Bush strengthened Ahmadinejad and Likud/Kadima strengthens Hamas.

But if the point of US violence is to impose our values by force, then it makes no sense to give unconditional support to Israel. An Israeli government like the current one, which will not remove the illegal settlements from the West Bank, is not upholding basic US values of liberty and the rule of law.

Our support should be conditional upon evacuation of the illegal settlements, and compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 242.

Posted by: Walton | October 4, 2009 9:26 AM

strange gods and Knockgoats, I'll address both of you together since you're making very similar points.

(Knockgoats) If bin Laden says "I demand you do X", and X is in fact a sensible policy, you are saying we can't do it because that would be "cowardice"? Please.

(strange gods) By your logic, Walton, the United States should still have slavery today, just to spite John Brown.

That's not what I was arguing; I apologise if I wasn't clear. I was simply arguing that we should have the courage to pursue the morally correct course of action, and should not be deflected from that path by terrorist demands. Obviously, this doesn't mean that we are always bound to do the exact opposite of what terrorists want; that would be ludicrous.

(Knockgoats) Does it not occur to you, Walton, that there are other options than current policy on the one hand and isolationism on the other? Like, for example, a more even-handed approach to Arab-Israeli issues?

(strange gods) An Israeli government like the current one, which will not remove the illegal settlements from the West Bank, is not upholding basic US values of liberty and the rule of law. Our support should be conditional upon evacuation of the illegal settlements, and compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 242.

I agree. While I strongly believe that Israel has a right to exist and to defend itself, I would also argue that Israeli leaders need to compromise, and recognise that the Palestinians also have a legitimate claim to a homeland. Unconditional support for Israel is an unwise policy. I won't be any more specific than this, since the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is very complex and I'm not enough of an expert to offer detailed policy solutions.

(Knockgoats) Shifting some of the vast sums the US puts into military spending, into education and health at home and abroad?

With this, however, I strongly disagree. The US military (and its counterparts in the UK and allied nations) is a major force for good in the world. It is absolutely essential that the US, UK and other NATO countries retain the collective capability to take on any potential enemy in the world and win, preferably with the fewest possible casualties. If anything, defence spending needs to be increased, not lowered.

I believe that the invasion of Afghanistan was morally justified, and that we are morally obliged to stay the course in Afghanistan and do everything in our power to stabilise the country. This means that we need to continue committing troops - and our troops need to be properly trained and equipped and given adequate air-support, which costs money. While the present Afghan government is corrupt and far from perfect, it is better by far than allowing the Taliban to regain control.

Furthermore, even those areas of defence spending which are not directly related to Afghanistan - such as investment in new aircraft carriers - are essential on a long-term view. As I've pointed out elsewhere, it is distinctly possible that in twenty years' time China will have a working carrier battle group - giving it the theoretical capability to invade Taiwan. We need to be prepared for that eventuality, which means that NATO needs the capacity to fight a conventional naval and air war with China. (Yes, China has a nuclear arsenal, but I do not believe they would be foolish enough to threaten the US with it; conventional warfare is far more likely.)

The one area in which we can make continuing phased defence reductions is in the nuclear sphere; the US still has, as a legacy of the Cold War, far more nuclear warheads than it could possibly need to deter any potential enemy. Phased mutual disarmament between the US and Russia is an ongoing process. Gordon Brown has also said recently that he is willing to reduce the Trident nuclear arsenal, in partnership with other countries, as part of mutual disarmament.

Of course, if we were only concerned with defending our own borders, none of this would apply: the UK would be able to substantially reduce its land and air combat capacities, and there would be no need for any naval capital ships larger than destroyers. However, as I've said, I believe isolationism to be inherently immoral. We are morally obliged to stay the course in Afghanistan, and to be prepared to defend any of our allies whenever necessary. As such, I believe in maintaining (and increasing) existing global force-projection capabilities.

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 4, 2009 11:49 AM

The US military (and its counterparts in the UK and allied nations) is a major force for good in the world. - Walton

You might like to ask the millions of Vietnamese, Iraqis, etc. who have been crippled or bereaved by the US military in aggressive wars about that. More generally, the US military is there to maintain US global dominance and the massive economic inequalities of capitalism. It is therefore a major force for evil in the world - but of course these are evils you support.

I believe that the invasion of Afghanistan was morally justified, and that we are morally obliged to stay the course in Afghanistan and do everything in our power to stabilise the country.

Foreign forces' presence is quite clearly destabilising the country, and are probably the best recruiting agent the Taliban have. When you kill civilians - and such deaths are inevitable in a war - and back a corrupt government, this is resented.

it is distinctly possible that in twenty years' time China will have a working carrier battle group - giving it the theoretical capability to invade Taiwan. We need to be prepared for that eventuality, which means that NATO needs the capacity to fight a conventional naval and air war with China.

If the PRC attacks Taiwan, the outside world will not interfere - quite rightly, since such an attack on China's "territorial integrity" (recall that it is common ground between the PRC and the US that Taiwan is legally part of China) would risk triggering nuclear war. More likely, admittedly, is that it would simply trigger China selling off dollars on a huge scale, trashing the global economy. However, there is in fact practically zero chance of the PRC attacking Taiwan unless the latter foolishly declares independence, because of the economic fallout for China in doing so.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | October 4, 2009 12:24 PM

Heh. Kinda funny to be in the middle of Walton and Knockgoats still arguing over foreign policy issues.

I'm still sticking it to Glenn Beck. To each his own obsession.

There's a good analysis of Glenn Beck's worldview at:
http://frombehindthezioncurtain.blogspot.com/ It's the September 9, 2009 blog entry.
Here's an excerpt:

Is he [Beck] a cheap demagogue, or does he really believe the zany things he says, and are the emotional tirades from the heart or there purely for effect? Understanding Glenn Beck is a lot easier when you understand Mormonism as a culture and as a paradigm for examining the world and coming to conclusions.
     The first thing I would like to address is Glenn’s apparent seeing of demons everywhere and seeming to view the world in strict black/white or good/evil terms. In Mormon dogma, humanity serves as an on-going drama between the forces of good and evil. Man’s very existence is a test of whether he will follow good or evil and his future is unlimited if he follows good, to even to become divine. Another aspect of Mormonism that helps to explain Glenn Beck is the depiction of evil as cunning and deceptive. Much of this evolved out of the puritan beliefs the religion’s founder Joseph Smith culturally brought with him into his new religion. In the superstitious world of witches, evil spirits, and angels from former dispensations (a good book on this is Quinn's "Early Mormonism and the Magical World View"), much happens in the privacy of each individual’s own consciousness and subconscious. Secret combinations abound everywhere, where men who appear good, are in fact agents of evil, and only through the careful guidance of the spirit can one discern truth from error. The difference between imagination and revelation is blurred and depends upon the feelings one gets from the thoughts evoked or imagined.
     Truth in such a framework has less to do with the preponderance of the evidence, but upon the feelings engendered by the idea, feelings in the Mormon view that can only come from the spirit. When Glenn Beck says apparently crazy things with emotion, he does what so many Mormons do; they say that which they want to believe, and subconsciously try to engender enough emotional feeling to vindicate the idea as having a spiritual foundation. ...

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | October 4, 2009 5:05 PM

it's still galling that we are forced to recognise the dictatorial PRC regime as the legitimate rulers of China

In 1925 the dictator of China, Sun Yat-Sen, died. Chaing Kai-Shek, the army minister and senior general, took over the government. Chaing purged the Communists from the government (resulting in the Long March of 1926). A civil war between Chaing's Kuomintang (Nationalist Party) and Mao Zedong's Communists was fought until 1937, when the Japanese invaded. Chiang was forced to move his capital from Nanking to Chungking. He lost control of the coastal regions and most of the major cities to Japan. In an effort to beat the Japanese he agreed to collaborate with Mao.

During World War II the Koumintang was supported by Americans (although the senior American commander in China, Joseph Stillwell, thought Chaing was an inept general and personally corrupt) and Mao's Communists were supported by the Soviets. As soon as the Japanese surrendered in 1945, the civil war started again. Stillwell's assessment of Chaing was correct, he was a poor leader who managed to lose the civil war to the Communists in spite of starting with more and better equipped troops. By 1949 the Communists were in control of China and Chaing had fled to Taiwan with the remnants of his army.

The Koumintang was not loved in Taiwan. Stillwell was quite correct about Chaing being extremely corrupt. He established a single-party state, consisting almost completely of mainlanders. His government sought to promote Chinese nationalism and surpressed Taiwanese cultural expression, such as forbidding the use of local languages in mass media or in schools. Since Chaing's death in 1975 Taiwan has become less authoritarian and local Taiwanese have been elected to the legislature.

The Communist regime is both de facto and de jure the legitimate government of China. They regard the Taiwanese government as rebels (there never has been a formal cease fire between the Koumintang and the Communists).

Posted by: jeffhoverson | October 6, 2009 8:17 AM

I think alot of atheists and liberals don't like to hear Glenn Beck because he comes to close to the truth. Obama really wants to kill free market capitalism.
Capitalism, for example, brings poverty up. Liberals who hate Glenn Beck tend to hate capitalism and free market which gives the power back to the people along with liberty. They point out the gap between the rich and the poor, which is true, but they don't know or tell you that the bottom always goes up with free markets. Every society that has went away from a form of capitalism has brought all classes lower, especially the poor.

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 6, 2009 8:25 AM

Every society that has went away from a form of capitalism has brought all classes lower, especially the poor. - jeffhoverson

Liar. See: China, Vietnam, Cuba. Among capitalist countries, those with a strong welfare state (as in western Europe and particularly Scandinavia) have done far better in reducing poverty than the USA.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 6, 2009 8:29 AM

Posted by: jeffhoverson | October 6, 2009 8:17 AM

blah blah blah blah blah.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 6, 2009 8:38 AM

Obama really wants to kill free market capitalism. Capitalism

In practice there is no such thing as free market capitalism.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 6, 2009 9:07 AM

Make sure he cuts off the head after he plunges the stake through its heart. It has a nasty habit of coming back for more blood.

All of a sudden, I hear Homer Simpson:

Please, please, kids, stop fighting. Maybe Lisa's right about America being the land of opportunity, and maybe Adil's got a point about the machinery of capitalism being oiled with the blood of the workers

Posted by: Walton | October 6, 2009 9:27 AM

Bobber,

...or is it too early in the morning for me to be waving my red banner?

In the UK it's the afternoon - but it's still too early for red banners. (Or L'Internationale, great tune that it is.) :-)

Posted by: Kermit | October 6, 2009 4:07 PM

Why do non-Christians get so mad when one person attributes America's great and rapid progress to the blessings of the almighty? Why should they care? Are the clean, moral life styles that Christians try to live going to limit their freedoms somehow? Freedoms that allow them to not work and have the government provide, freedoms that allow them to say what they want to say, freedoms that allow them to cheat on their spouses, freedoms that allow them to not take responsibilities for their own actions, and in general, freedoms that allow them to do all the many perversions that one's mind can dream up and not have to be accountable for them - at least in this life. The Christian life style, when lived, will set one free. They need not worry about government spying on them, because they have nothing to hide. What needs to be feared are the results of a sinners actions - STDs, HIV, broken families, unhappiness, premature death, drug - alcohol - pornography dependencies, jail time, etc.. Is that what America wants? Glenn Beck and other good religious Americans need not be feared, but applauded or ignored. Why waste your energies on them, when they aren’t going to harm you? It is interesting to see how upset the liberal left can get over statements that are really meaningless to them. God, god means nothing to them, so why to they get upset when someone brings him up? Then to see the malicious acts that some of them commit when things don’t go their way. And with many of the comments here on this web site you see the language, the 4 letter words that many of them have used throughout their writings here really help me understand the kind of people they / you really are – and it’s not the kind that will make our country great.

Posted by: Alyson Miers | October 6, 2009 4:45 PM

What needs to be feared are the results of a sinners actions - STDs, HIV, broken families, unhappiness, premature death, drug - alcohol - pornography dependencies, jail time, etc..

Odd; these things tend to happen an awful lot more in places where people are the most religious.

But, then, who needs Facts when you can Lie for Jebus!

Posted by: Endor | October 6, 2009 4:51 PM

"Are the clean, moral life styles that Christians try to live going to limit their freedoms somehow"

LOL. Clean, moral, lifestyles, huh. This is the first Poe I've found funny.

It is a Poe, right?

Posted by: Lynna, OM | October 6, 2009 6:03 PM

Brother Kermit @231, I know you'll want your claims to match reality, so here's some more info for you to digest:

On February 17, 2005, the President of the Utah State Senate signed a bill (SB 182—“Direct Sales Amendments”) that effectively nullifies Utah’s Pyramid Scheme Act, at least as it applies to the most damaging of all the classes of pyramid schemes—product-based programs that have proven to cause financial loses to over 99% of participants. This extraordinary loss rate has been documented in at least four separate independent investigations. The financial harm is mathematically predetermined by the scheme’s multilevel and recruitment based structure and operation.
     These schemes have proliferated in Utah to the point that the state holds a commanding lead over all other states in per capita sponsorship of multilevel marketing (MLM) programs, with pay plans that primarily reward recruitment of participants as customers and in which relatively few products are legitimately sold on a retail basis to end users. In fact, Utah County has the highest concentration of MLM schemes, with no county in the country holding even a close second place. The vast majority of victims of Utah-based schemes are not in Utah, but in other states and countries. Approximately 85% of revenues of Nu Skin, for example, which is one of the nation’s largest MLM’s based in Utah, are from Asia. If Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr., signs the bill, victims will only have protection against the classic, no-product pyramid scheme, such as the “gifting scheme”—which has never been a Utah-based export.
     At hearings on SB 182, a Nu Skin company spokesperson stated claimed that the “direct sales” (actually “MLM”) industry brought in four times as much revenue as the ski industry, for which Utah is famous—and which was highlighted at the 2002 Winter Olympics. This may be good for Utah in purely monetary terms, but ignores the financial harm to people in other states and around the world caused by the Utah-based schemes. It also ignores the further damage caused to Utah’s reputation—or is already being called the “scam state”—for its affiliation with pyramid selling schemes.

That's 99 percent of the participants experiencing financial losses in the scam state. In Glenn Beck's emotionally-based, factually-challenged, "family-values" religious rants people are encouraged to come up with conclusions like Kermit's. The facts don't back Kermit up. Kermit is peeing into the wind.

Of course 4-letter word usage must be worse than Christian-backed unethical business practices, worse than god-centered communities causing harm that reaps a flood of prozac, and worse than twisted attitudes towards human sexuality that turn people into porn addicts.

Posted by: jeffhoverson | October 7, 2009 5:10 PM

Getting back to the original content of the Glenn Beck video.

Beck hinted that atheists tend to be against capitalism and for big government. PZ says he is an "egalitarian". Darwins books, Origin of Species and other were far from egalitarian. They were actually racist model for preserving the favored race. (see his full title). My question is two fold:
1. "is it true that atheist tend to be against capitalism for socialism as a way of attaining egalitarian society?" or am I off on that.
2. If it is true, how does that mesh with Darwin?
jeffh

Posted by: Sastra | October 7, 2009 5:17 PM

jeff hoverson #239 wrote:

Darwins books, Origin of Species and other were far from egalitarian. They were actually racist model for preserving the favored race. (see his full title).

No, this is an error: Darwin used the word "race" in a very different sense than the modern usage. For instance, he talked about "races" of cabbages.

1. "is it true that atheist tend to be against capitalism for socialism as a way of attaining egalitarian society?" or am I off on that.

You're off on that: it depends on the atheist, and his economic theory -- same as it would depend on which theory a particular Christian is following. The category of "atheist" is too broad to draw any conclusions here.

2. If it is true, how does that mesh with Darwin?

Well, since it is not true, and you misunderstood Darwin in the first place, the question's moot.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 7, 2009 5:34 PM

Darwins books, Origin of Species and other were far from egalitarian. They were actually racist model for preserving the favored race. (see his full title).

Jeff hasn't read Darwin.

Then again, his own preferred book, the Bible, is a model for genocide and slavery. I wouldn't really expect him to have a moral core the includes something so simple as honesty.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 7, 2009 5:37 PM

My question is, why does jeffhoverson want to stop gay marriage?

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 7, 2009 5:41 PM

Odds are 1:1 on that, nobody's going to take up the bet.

Posted by: jeffhoverson | October 7, 2009 11:00 PM

Strange god before me #245, "Not sure how you got that I am against gay marriage from posts about capitalism and egalitarianism, but oh well."
Another question I have is this?
When evolutionists see similar things, like brains of apes and humans, I can understand why they postulate common ancestry, but why do they rule out a common designer?
jeffhoverson

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 7, 2009 11:15 PM

Not sure how you got that I am against gay marriage from posts about capitalism and egalitarianism, but oh well.

Because you are a religious nut with a poor grasp of history and science, I presumed your ignorance and bigotry. I see no reason to think otherwise. You are opposed to gay marriage.

Posted by: jeffhoverson | October 7, 2009 11:20 PM

#250, response to what? gay marriage? I think a free country should allow gay partners, but I don't think they should have a special right by the hi-jacking of marriage, which is a biblical concept, not a secular idea.
Is that the issue you wanted me to address? I wasn't ducking the issue, I was just surprised by the accusation having not heard me address it, that's all. Relax, I wouldn't make too big of a deal out it. jh

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 7, 2009 11:23 PM

but I don't think they should have a special right by the hi-jacking of marriage

surprise, surprise...completely anti-gay 'wingnut.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 7, 2009 11:24 PM

A liar, an idiot, or a homophobe?

Must it be "or"?

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 7, 2009 11:29 PM

jeffhoverson, you've had your numerous mistakes explained to you by several people, including DaveL, Sastra, and Knockgoats.

Are you going to acknowledge any of your mistakes?

And if not, why should anyone waste any more time correcting your misunderstandings?

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 7, 2009 11:30 PM

If you are trying to engage in an honest pursuit of truth and actually getting people on the other side to talk to you, I'd recommend displaying more respect.

Like using language of "special rights" and "hijacking"?
Bigot.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 7, 2009 11:34 PM

If you are trying to engage in an honest pursuit of truth and actually getting people on the other side to talk to you, I'd recommend displaying more respect.

Again, your mistakes have been explained and you have not acknowledged them. Why should anyone think that you are honest or pursuing truth?

Also, in what way have you earned any respect? As far as I can tell you are a dumb-as-dirt homophobic bigot who lies about the living and the dead, wants my country to be a theocracy, and wants me to burn in hell when I die. I see nothing decent or respectable about you.

Posted by: Ragutis | October 7, 2009 11:37 PM

Posted by: jeffhoverson | October 7, 2009 11:20 PM

which is a biblical concept, not a secular idea

Errr... so there were no marriages prior to the ancient Jews writing their folktales and history down?

Can two atheists get married? How about two Hindus? What if you have just a civil ceremony? Ever hear of common-law marriage?

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 7, 2009 11:41 PM

by they way, is it too much to ask that we stay above name calling and the latest "pop" attacks on each other's character?

what character?

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 7, 2009 11:44 PM

#251- sure I make mistakes. I was wrong on my assumption that most atheists have liberal politics. If that is all you need, that is easy.

Not so fast. You have made several other major mistakes, corrected at #241, #242, and now #258, #262, and #265.

I think you'd better acknowledge all the ignorant errors you've already made before you Gish gallop on toward the next one.

by they way, is it too much to ask that we stay above name calling and the latest "pop" attacks on each other's character?

It's too much for me, yes. I think you are a bad person.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 7, 2009 11:48 PM

God bless jeffh

fuck you too.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 7, 2009 11:49 PM

Talk to you later God bless

God bless yourself, jerk.

Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | October 7, 2009 11:59 PM

This is just too funny, the god botherer who whined that;

...is it too much to ask that we stay above name calling and the latest "pop" attacks on each other's character?

said this earlier this day;

I think alot of atheists and liberals don't like to hear Glenn Beck because he comes to close to the truth. Obama really wants to kill free market capitalism.

An honest discussion cannot be had when one side bases their arguments on lies and misinformation. Jeffhoverson, you have not even addressed your mistake when you claimed that On The Origin Of Species was as racist tract. One cannot have an honest discussion, one complains when their mistakes are pointed out. One cannot have an honest discussion when one complains about being disrespected, especially when one gives no reason to be respected.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | October 8, 2009 12:02 AM

When evolutionists see similar things, like brains of apes and humans, I can understand why they postulate common ancestry, but why do they rule out a common designer?

Sure, a common designer could have done it, but there's no evidence of the designer so there's nothing to support such an idea. The fossil record shows that life began around 3.5 billion years ago, complex life a lot later and the fossils shown clearly show that life has changed. What would a designer do in this process? Cause mutations in the genetic code? Act as a breeder and select the forms most desirable? Or are you positing that the common designer created each species individually, including those species that morphologically and chronologically show intermediates relative to its position in the fossil record?

What does one want to say about a common designer? If one wants to posit that species were created as they were some 6000 years ago, then such a statement is flatly contradicted by the evidence. The latter statement of a God-guided evolution, that the designer worked through nature is completely meaningless and unsupported by the evidence. But the need to put in a "common designer" in any case is one of ethical and existential implications - there's no reason to say there's a designer but for the desire to be one!

So that's why common ancestry as opposed to common designer. The evidence supports common ancestry, mechanisms have been observed - while the same cannot be said for a common designer.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 8, 2009 12:08 AM

You are really attacking God and those who believe in Him

I can only guess that you have been either mistreated or misled by a religious upbringing or a home.

I hope someday you can know the forgiveness that is for you, as well.

Posted by: jeffhoverson | October 8, 2009 12:10 AM

Kel, 277, thanks. good post. You have me back in. Good points about the evidence on fossils. I sort of get your point, but it still doesn't answer the fossils that were formed rapidly. Isn't more evidence, like St Helens, proving that millions of years is NOT needed to form a fossil and in fact the opposite may be true? I have a small book on this, and yes, I have read it. jeffh

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 8, 2009 12:14 AM

One more thing before I turn in. I find that most of you, not all, are not really searching for the truth.

Unlike you, who is already certain that he has The Truth.

You are really attacking God

I also dislike Darth Sidious.

and those who believe in Him.

No. I'm attacking you because you are a homophobe, a theocrat, a bigot, and a prideful fool. I have no problem with god-believers per se.

That is obvious. I can only guess that you have been either mistreated or misled by a religious upbringing or a home. If it was the church that hurt you, for that I am truly sorry on it's behalf. I hope someday you can know the forgiveness that is for you, as well.

Wrong, presumptuous, and condescending. Not a clever way to win converts to your cult, since pretty words are all you've got going for you in the first place.

Yes, I have made mistakes, strange god guy, but I didn't realize that the premise here is to answer every point that is made, that is too many for the time I have.

So instead you want to waste other people's time, because their time is less important than yours.

The civil thing to do is at the very least to acknowledge that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, and start asking honest questions. But honest questions presume the possibility that you are wrong, and in fact the great likelihood that you are very, very wrong, since you don't know the first thing about science.

Honesty would be saying "help me, I am very ignorant, and I don't understand any of the evidence for evolution; how can I start to learn?"

And I might say "hello, glad you asked," and direct you to http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ or http://talkorigins.org/ to begin with.

Dishonesty would be saying "The same evidence you claim points to common ancestry, I claim points to design. One example is the cell. Not simple." You are way too ignorant to even understand the issue. You certainly do not know what any of the evidence is. And you definitely cannot make a coherent argument for why the evidence you don't even understand might point to either evolution or design. So it was exceedingly dishonest for you to feign knowledge like you did.

So, out of respect for all of you, I will not say God bless this time. I didn't realize that was so offensive to you. I am sorry, please forgive me. And how about, good night? jeffhoverson

I forgive you on that count. Thank you for the apology. I still think you're a homo-hating bigot. Good night.

Posted by: jeffhoverson | October 8, 2009 12:18 AM

Janine 280, I am curious about your journey from a church to where you are at. If it is ok, with you, could you elaborate?
And don't take this wrong, but if you would, could you share how old you are?
jh

Posted by: jeffhoverson | October 8, 2009 12:27 AM

Nerd of Redhead, 284, I will get you a couple of books, right now, I can't remember the titles. Yes, I am sure it was written by a young earth creationist, but that doesn't mean it is wrong or that they lack intelligence or truth. You can have fossilized items that only existed recently from what I understand, and don't worry those of you who are anxiously wanting me to admit my mistake. I could be wrong on this. Does that help? jeffh

Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | October 8, 2009 12:32 AM

jeffhoverson, so I do not fit into your story of what an atheist is supposed to be so you must pick at it. I left church because I could no longer give believe in a being that was no better then a cosmic tyrant. In other words, I could no longer be honest and attend a church. And that happened a quarter century ago.

jeffhoverson, I am curious about why you cannot recant your lie about Darwin and The Origin Of Species? And what is the book you are reading where you are learning about Mount Saint Helen and fossilization?

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 8, 2009 12:36 AM

Good night, Nerd. God bless you! :)

Posted by: Aratina Cage | October 8, 2009 12:45 AM

Oh Janine, that was good!

Posted by: jeffhoverson | October 8, 2009 12:48 AM

Janine, 289, I didn't know that was so important to you. I will look at the copy of "Origin of Species" that I have on my shelf of Harvard Classics and look into what you are referring to as a lie. But, with all due respect, I am not convinced that the "favored races" he refers to in the title are simply animals. Yes, you could be correct, but I am not convinced yet.
You have pointed it out and I am glad, but calling for a recant is a bit of an over-reaction.
And, honestly, I may have a copy, I think it is called, "fossils" but it is at my office and I am at home. Please don't assume that I am avoiding that. I think most here would understand that. jeffh

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 8, 2009 12:56 AM

And, honestly, I may have a copy, I think it is called, "fossils" but it is at my office and I am at home.

Regardless, see the link at #286.

Posted by: Peter McKellar | October 8, 2009 12:58 AM

jeffhoverson - as you may be learning, the people that post on this blog can be brutal correcting minor errors. Do not feel as if you are singled out - we maintain the same strict standards for ourselves.

Pulling numbers out of your arse works to a certain extent - if they are close to correct and you can give a citation if asked. The issue of peer reviewed sources is pretty strict though - if it doesn't pass muster, it doesn't get to be used in argument. Scripture does get used here, but only when used in ethical discussion - never as sciencific evidence. Biblical history however must be regarded from historical evidence, not self-referential assertion.

You are correct when you said the cell is not simple. The argument of "irreducible complexity" is an old one and has been disproved a number of times. Biology however is something members of this blog know a great deal about. If you seriously wish to learn, people here will gladly guide your reading - from basics right up to tweaking genes in a lab. Just ask.

Janine - the reprimand of SGBM above reminds me of one I heard a parent use on her kids once many years ago - "stop your bloody swearing you little shits!" - and she was serious.

Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | October 8, 2009 1:01 AM

Yes Peter, but I was not serious at all. But I am sure you know that.

'raspberry'

Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | October 8, 2009 1:09 AM

Even if you are right, it is a dangerous path, in my humble opinion, as it sets up the "Hitler" types for genocide. No, I am not putting you there, but am making a point that I think, even you'd admit has some validity.

You are now using yet an other creationist canard and one that has no validity at all.

This is why it is important that I ask you about The Origin Of Species. It is obvious that you have no idea what in contained within the book yet you are willing to point at it as the source of racism and genocide. And you wonder why none of us have any respect for you. You have earned that lack of respect.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | October 8, 2009 1:33 AM

One of my favourite fossil evidences for evolution is sitting in the genetic code of all old world monkeys and great apes...

Humans cannot synthesise vitamin C, we need to get it from an external source. And we aren't alone in this, all other apes and old world monkeys also cannot synthesise vitamin C. Yet in our DNA exists a pseudogene - a gene that has been inactivated, to synthesise vitamin C.

This is quite interesting, it's not that some old world monkeys as well as gorillas have it active while the rest have it inactive - the pattern if the gene is turned off is exactly what we should expect if it was turned off in a common ancestor to all forms living today. And the mutation that inactivated the gene? It's the same mutation.

And one more thing, since the gene is inactivated then any mutations occurring in the gene are not selected against. Thus genetic drift on the gene should show the pattern of life that we would expect from common descent - that is that the pseudogene should be more similar for humans and chimpanzees than any other ape / monkey. And this is exactly what we see.

Yet that is but one piece of fossilised evidence in our genetic code that show common descent. The point is that all evidence must fit the pattern while none contradicts it, and in 150 years of searching through multiple disciplines not a single piece of evidence has ever contradicted evolution while many predictions have come true!

Posted by: Peter McKellar | October 8, 2009 1:54 AM

JH -

Janine makes a very important point @ 298. A biologist could go their whole careers without ever opening Origins. The emphasis placed on Darwin is made by the creationist camp, not by people that study evolution. Evolution by Natural Selection has gone from controversial hypothesis to irrefutable theory supported by mountains of evidence. Anything that comes along that hopes to overturn this must address current theory and evidence - not the initial thoughts and idle speculations of the science's founder. Remember at the time that Darwin was not even aware of Mendel's work on genes.

The references to Hitler's social eugenics program however shows how easily religion distorts fact. Hitler (a good catholic) demonstrated a total ignorance of the process of Natural Selection and Evolution. "Fitness" does not infer bigger (with more teeth) and there is nothing "natural" about selecting non-aryans for extermination. Maybe through a better understanding of evolution and ecosystems this very problem can be avoided in future.

Another point that hasn't been raised: atheist biology geeks don't worship anything, least of all other people and certainly not "evolution". I can look at the awesomeness of DNA and what it has produced, but I never bestow it with the attribute "good". I hate it. DNA is a tyrant that ultimately leads to misery and death. Legions of scientists work to overthrow this tyranny, to debug the code of life and provide in-place upgrades, temporary patches or where we can't get to the code, clean up the mess that results (eg surgically remove tumours, provide insulin supplements etc). It is a long, laborious process that we take step by step.

Anti-science intellectual terrorists are only interested in furthering their own petty goals (to become overlords of the rubbish heap), not progressing humanity. No king of centuries ago would have enjoyed the material comforts, life expectancy or medical outcomes available to the average citizen of a western nation today. Kublai Khan, for all his wealth and power, academics, advisors and armies couldn't google, he couldn't buy an ipod or get vaccinated against measles. Three thousand years of the god of abraham has seen the systematic destruction and whitewashing of all available knowledge. This process has slowed but every year attempts are made to corrupt science in schools and every day theist drones are sent to blogs like this to try to browbeat us. It won't work - and any of those drones prepared to think critically will soon realise they have no credible case for creationism.

Posted by: Peter McKellar | October 8, 2009 2:12 AM

Kel:

Humans cannot synthesise vitamin C, we need to get it from an external source. ...... Yet in our DNA exists a pseudogene - a gene that has been inactivated, to synthesise vitamin C.

BASTARDS - fucking wowsers want us to give up everything!!! I want my vitamin C producing ability returned. NOW.

Posted by: Rorschach | October 8, 2009 5:04 AM

Kel @ 305,

This is quite interesting, it's not that some old world monkeys as well as gorillas have it active while the rest have it inactive - the pattern if the gene is turned off is exactly what we should expect if it was turned off in a common ancestor to all forms living today. And the mutation that inactivated the gene? It's the same mutation.

Trout have no problem making their own Vitamin C, as a matter of fact.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 8, 2009 10:02 AM

I have seen young earth creationists hold modern fossilized items that are known to have been made.

link?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 8, 2009 10:19 AM

I am not looking to attack just want your thoughts, either way, to me it is evidence that millions of years is NOT necessary as the scientific community has been assuming.

Whereas we have scientific evidence via radiometric dating that the rocks fossils were found are millions, or in the case of old Austrailian stomatolites, billions of years old. In order to change this, you must publish the evidence in the peer reviewed scientific literature, which means that the paper is checked for following the methods and ways, but not necessarily the present conclusions of science. Creationist avoid the peer reviewed literature, both in the submission of papers and in not citing the work therein.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 8, 2009 10:28 AM

JH you need to read this post on false equivalence.

Creationists do not approach scientific questions with the same rigor that scientists who use the scientific method do. They do not use the scientific method honestly. They work backwards. Creationists start with a conclusion (that the bible is correct) and then hammer square pegs into round holes to prove it at the expense of honest inquiry and facts.

Their conclusions are not equal in validity to those that can be shown through actual empirical base science. If they could back up their claims without the glaring instances of handwaving, distortions and plain lying then maybe they'd be taken seriously. They aren't, other than being taken serious as a threat. Like a drunk 8 year old with a hammer in pottery shop.

Please read that link.

Posted by: Chiroptera | October 8, 2009 10:37 AM

jeffhoverson, #300: Even if you are right, it is a dangerous path, in my humble opinion, as it sets up the "Hitler" types for genocide. No, I am not putting you there, but am making a point that I think, even you'd admit has some validity. jh

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. If you're saying that scientists, science journalists, and science junkies need to be careful about how they communicate, you might have a point. However, a devoted foe can always find a way of twisting what someone says no matter how careful that someone is.

If you're saying that the risks of genocide and Social Darwinism (which, by the way, are two different things) make the theory of evolution unpalatable, so what? Either it is true that all species evolved from a common ancestor through natural selection acting on random heritable variations, or it is not true. The possible social consequences of people learning about the theory, whether those consequences are justified by the theory, or whether you or I find those consequences unpleasant have nothing to do with whether the theory is an accurate description of reality or not.

Posted by: DaveL | October 8, 2009 10:58 AM

I also couldn't help but notice how you just kind of glossed over the fact that whoever sold you the idea that rapid fossilization somehow rescues the idea of a young earth was lying to you.

I see this all the time with creationists. They present misinformation from a creationist source. That misinformation gets soundly debunked and exposed as a lie. They then return to the same source and bring forth another lie, which again gets exposed. This is a cycle that gets repeated again and again, and it baffles me. Just how many times do you have to have it demonstrated to you that they are lying and we are telling the truth before you start treating creationist sources with more skepticism than mainstream scientific sources?

Posted by: jeffhoverson | October 8, 2009 1:01 PM

1. My assumption and pre-supp is that the Biblial record is true. I don't consider that a bad way of finding truth.
2. There is a story of a world-wide flood that is referenced by various sorts, legends, etc in virtually every part of the world
3. Dinasaur Fossils are mostly found in the similar layers of the earth.
4. All (or almost all) dating methods can be thrown off by ONE element: water. This causes me to wonder and have more confidence in the idea of a flood as the cause of most fossils - "Brian Young (YEC) - Dating methods
5. There is evidence (perhaps only a few) but there is evidence of rapid fossilization which goes against the theory of the need for millions of years. Floods are ideal for making fossils due to the right conditions (sudden trapping under water-borne sediment). Many are found in sedimentary rocks like limestone.
6. More on the geological scale later

One can call this line of thinking a fairy tale, but you must admit it is developing a more and more cohesive picture of reality. The evidence is beginning to fit the picture.
Not to mention the explanation for the development of language.
BY THE WAY, for the person asking for the source on rapid fossilization, I found one. A small book by Gary and Mary Parker called "The Fossil Book".

gotta run, jeffh

Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | October 8, 2009 1:44 PM

2. There is a story of a world-wide flood that is referenced by various sorts, legends, etc in virtually every part of the world

Do yourself a favor and think this one out. All human societies are dependent on large bodies of water. This is for reason of sanitation, transport of goods, agriculture and consumption. There are dangers inherent to being next to bodies of water, be it rivers, lakes, seas and oceans; they do flood from time to time. Yet the benefits of living next to bodies of water outweighs the risk of floodings.

All societies have stories of catastrophic floods because they will happen, given enough time. Do not mistake stories of local catastrophic floods with a global flood. These stories of floods occur at different times through out history.

For example, it seems that Egypt did not notice the biblical flood. Also, India and China was around before and after the said flood. What? Did the descendants of Noah find the flooded out ruins of India and China and decide to carry on in those traditions?

Posted by: Ichthyic | October 8, 2009 2:02 PM

1. My assumption and pre-supp is that the Biblial record is true. I don't consider that a bad way of finding truth.

then you have considered very little.

here's one for you to consider:

37 Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. 38 Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, 39 they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted.

Surely you know which chapter that's from, right?

your cobbled collection of goatherder fables rather failed to provide you with truth there, eh? I mean, I think we've had a long time to figure out that breeding animals in front of striped sticks doesn't produce striped young, wouldn't you agree?

Or is this an exception to your book being a great source of truth and wisdom?

shall we explore other such exceptions?

there are thousands to choose from.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 8, 2009 2:13 PM

1. My assumption and pre-supp is that the Biblial record is true. I don't consider that a bad way of finding truth.

It is when every single bit of evidence goes against that.

2. There is a story of a world-wide flood that is referenced by various sorts, legends, etc in virtually every part of the world

How would an ancient civilization know it was world wide? Floods happen world wide today, just not world wide floods and we know this because of our ability to communicate past what we can see. Beyond this there is absolutely no scientific support for a world wide flood. No geology, no archeology, no paleontology. Nothing.

3. Dinasaur Fossils are mostly found in the similar layers of the earth.

Um and this supports world wide flood and goes against actual science how?

4. All (or almost all) dating methods can be thrown off by ONE element: water. This causes me to wonder and have more confidence in the idea of a flood as the cause of most fossils - "Brian Young (YEC) - Dating methods

You'll need to supply some actual support for this claim (FYI YEC claims are not actual support). Plus you have to understand that radiometric dating is used in conjunction with other methods to verify the dates.

How do you verify against the biblical claims?

5. There is evidence (perhaps only a few) but there is evidence of rapid fossilization which goes against the theory of the need for millions of years. Floods are ideal for making fossils due to the right conditions (sudden trapping under water-borne sediment). Many are found in sedimentary rocks like limestone.

Some types of fossilization but not all. Unfortunately every single other piece of empirical science goes against the flood.

Explain the process of how limestone is formed.

6. More on the geological scale later

I can hardly wait.

One can call this line of thinking a fairy tale, but you must admit it is developing a more and more cohesive picture of reality. The evidence is beginning to fit the picture.

No its not. In fact, the more we learn about the history of the earth the more creationism looks like the thing it is. A not so nice story.

Not to mention the explanation for the development of language.

Oh please explain this.

BY THE WAY, for the person asking for the source on rapid fossilization, I found one. A small book by Gary and Mary Parker called "The Fossil Book".

Interesting

From the abstract

This one-of-a-kind book explains how coal and oil are formed, how the Grand Canyon was created, how to interpret the geologic column from a creationist perspective, and how to identify various fossils.

It's not about from the creationist perspective or not creationist perspective. It's about from the data and facts perspective. This is the problem. Creationists don;t work from data and facts first. They work from biblical inerrancy first and twist things to make them fit.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 8, 2009 2:27 PM

Posted by: Josh Author Profile Page

Oh goody. Let the learnin' commence.

Posted by: Josh | October 8, 2009 3:15 PM

jeffhoverson, in comment #316, wrote:

From what I understand (from YEC), is that in order for the fossil I find to be dated, they need to know where it was found so they can put it on the chart.

Not really.

We want to know where it was found for a variety of reasons, only some of which have to do with the age (e.g., there are lots of things out there that look like fossils, but aren't; if your fossil isn't a very good one, then we're going to want to know if it came from a horizon that's known to produce a lot of "aren't" (called pseudofossils), because that increases the odds of it being "aren't").

Regarding the age, we want to know where it was found, so we can study the rocks. We want to study the rocks for a variety of reasons. But there are two main ones:

1. We hope to find a layer of igneous rock (stuff that was once magma or lava) close to (in terms of above or below) the layer where your fossil came from. This is because we cannot generate absolute ages from lots of sediment types (absolute age = actual numerical date (e.g., 335Ma)), but we can date most igneous rocks fairly easily. An actual numerical date is what we really want.

2. If we can't find an igneous horizon proximal to your fossil layer, then we hope to find a layer nearby (above or below) that has one or more good index fossils preserved it in. Index fossils are fossils that were widespread and lived for a short period of time. Thus, when we find one, we know that we are in such and such time period* or just above or below such and such time period.

If we can't do either of these**, then we have to look at rocks that are increasingly far (above and below) from your fossil horizon in order to find index fossils or datable horizons. This all requires knowing where the fossil came from, and none of it involved putting your fossil "on the chart."

*In order for such and such time period to be pinned to a numerical date (i.e., how we figure out how old such and such time period is), we still need to find these index fossils proximal to an igneous rock or something else that can be dated (this has been done for most fossils that are considered good, reliable index species).
**There are lots of other, not very user-friendly ways of determining ages. These are all beyond the scope of this little blog discussion and I won't go into them now.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 8, 2009 4:24 PM

One bit of evidence that helped me believe it as a reliable book is that it is 66 books written over 1500 years with amazing consistency and prophetic accuracy. It also weighs above any other book for manuscript evidence (but that is more history than science)

Posted by: DaveL | October 8, 2009 4:43 PM

But, evolutionists have a pre-supp as well. Everyone does.

People who accept evolution do not presuppose anything that you do not every time you get out of bed or pull up to an intersection- namely that the information of our senses means something about an objective external reality. We just apply it more consistently.

Because one disagrees doesn't mean they have pointed out a lie.

The claims of these creationists are false to fact. This is not a matter of opinion. The falsity of these claims having been pointed out to them again and again, they can no longer plead ignorance. Ergo they are lying.

Also, good point on my pointing out the "favored races". You were correct, that doesn't disprove much for this issue.

That's right, but that's hardly the only thing you've been corrected on so far.

Things I think make as much and more sense as anything I've heard from this website.

I'm afraid that isn't saying much. Everyone believes things that make sense to them. Often they "make sense" because of ignorance, prejudice, and various forms of intellectual dishonesty and faulty thinking.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | October 8, 2009 4:55 PM

But, evolutionists have a pre-supp as well. Everyone does.

The notion of presuppositions are absurd and contrary to the way humans learn. It's just bullshit that people espouse to hold onto worldviews long considered wrong and silly while criticising the evidence to the contrary.

Evolution is true because the evidence supports evolution. It's that simple. Go look at the fossil of archaeopteryx and see the wonderful discovery that evolution predicted and was found just two years after the publication of the origin of species. Go look at the fossils showing the return to sea of the terrestrial mammals we now call whales. Again, a prediction of evolution that has turned up in the fossil record. Finding the fossil of Tiktaalik in Devonian rock? The palaeontologists were looking in that rock because that would be where they would find such a creature if evolution were true.

No, presuppositions don't cut it. Evolution is true not because we presuppose evolution is true but evidence after evidence is found supporting evolution. Why do you think that we say the earth is ~4.5 billion years old and the universe is ~13.7 billion years old? It has nothing to do with presuppositions, rather that's what the evidence shows us. Presuppositions are not how science works - it's nothing more than lame religious apologetics for wanting to believe what has long since been disproved.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | October 8, 2009 5:12 PM

It's worth noting too that geologists did away with the flood model long before evolution came on the scene. The flood model didn't fit the record in the rocks.

Posted by: Alan B | October 8, 2009 5:33 PM

#334 jeffhoverson said:

"I think the pace -330 -of fossilization does offer evidence in favor of a young earth."

No. You may think whatever you like but you are wrong in simple logic.

IF you were arguing for a young earth (say 6,000 years) along with a 1 year flood AND if even a few fossils took much longer than the flood year to form then this would be evidence AGAINST your young earth plus flood idea.

IF you were arguing for a young earth AND you could show that ALL fossils formed within a year then you would have support for a young earth but that would not be evidence against an old earth. There are lots of 1 year periods in the age of an old earth for fossils to be formed within. Hence, the finding that all fossils formed rapidly does not distinguish between the two models. It is a nul result. You are no further forward and you need to look for more evidence.

Your argument therefore is an excellent test for your 6000 years with a flood lasting for a year idea. It is not a test for an old earth model unless it can be shown that fossils required more than the age of the earth to be formed (which, of course, would destroy the young earth model).

I know you will pick and choose between posts you want to answer but this is one that needs your attention. Your acknowledgment will demonstrate that you are serious and not just a troll.

Having acknowledged the reality of the argument we can go on and consider whether there are fossils which require longer periods of time to form and forget whether there are fossils that can form "quickly" (which, of course, you are yet to define or provide evidence).

Posted by: Sastra | October 8, 2009 5:42 PM

Alan B #338 wrote:

You have 2 choices. If you acknowledge that what you are saying is religion you will be respected unless you try to impose it on us. If you say that your approach is science you had better have evidence. If you don't, you will be in for a rough ride.

This is not strictly true: even if jeff acknowledges that what he is saying is religion, he will not be respected and left alone -- presumably on the assumption that it's not fair to try to interfere with someone's faith, as long as they're not trying to "impose" it (whatever that means.)

Instead, he will still be met with demands for evidence, and given a rough ride.

PZ, and his blog, is a repository of the so-called new atheism. In the words of Sam Harris, one of its central themes is that

"religious moderates are the bearers of a terrible dogma: they imagine that the path to peace will be paved once each of us learns to respect the unjustified beliefs of others.... the very idea of religious tolerance -- born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God -- is one of the principle forces driving us towards the abyss."

I would qualify that quote by noting that of course we're talking about rational challenge to belief, not force. We refuse to buy into the argument that honest debate is a violation of faith's sanctuary. Faith is not a virtue. It's a set-up for problems. And we take its claims seriously, and respect the fact that the believers do, too.

So it's probably not a good idea to advise poor jeff to seek refuge behind claims that his beliefs are religious, and therefore we can't touch them with science; we'll just smile in relief and approval, and shrug it off.

Won't work. We're too mean.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 8, 2009 5:52 PM

jeffhoverson:

have you begun to learn how ignorant you are?

and are you still a homophobic bigot?

Posted by: jeffhoverson | October 8, 2009 6:33 PM

Alan, Kel, DaveL 338-39-40
38 - Good point on the fairy tales. I think the big bang is a fairy tale. Actually, one could (I don't) but one could say that science is finding evidence for a God because of the big bang (and God said, ....)
39- I think the presupp for most here is not evolution, but "no-god"
40 - DaveL - I am willing to doubt the dating method being thrown off by water but not just because you said so.
Why not the Koran? For starters, because the Koran is one book written by one man The Bible is written by 40 authors over many generations from different locations and is 66 books. More I could say if you want more.
thanks, jeffh

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 8, 2009 6:40 PM

I think the big bang is a fairy tale.

science is finding evidence for a God

the Koran is one book written by one man

Posted by: Alan B | October 8, 2009 7:10 PM

jeffhoverson

You have commented in a trivial way to 338,339,340 and 347.

Are you prepared to comment on the meat of #343? If not, I am not prepared to let you waste any more of my time. I have too few days left to waste them on someone who seems only to be playing games. Prove me wrong.

Alan

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 8, 2009 7:25 PM

What's that smell?

Ahh yes, burnin' burnin' knowledge that's what.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | October 8, 2009 7:30 PM

39- I think the presupp for most here is not evolution, but "no-god"

The geologists who talked of an old earth back before evolution were not atheists - the man who coined the term "dinosaur" was a devout believer.

Darwin came up with his theory when he was still a believer, and despite him falling away from his religious beliefs he still contended that his theory didn't mean that there was no god.

Many biologists who contributed in the past and still contribute today are devout believers. The head of the human genome project is a fundamentalist Christian. The biggest advocate for evolution in America today is a Catholic. Certainly neither of them presuppose there is no god.

Many theologians and religious bodies support evolution. The Catholics, the anglicans, the orthodox - the religions constituting the majority of Christians all support evolution

There's nothing presuppositional about there being no god, rather it is a conclusion. I wasn't born with any knowledge at all, let alone of gods. I didn't presuppose that God didn't exist, rather after being taught about God I rejected the premise. Nothing presuppositional about my atheism, I just don't think that gods exist.

Facts exist external to humanity. The earth doesn't orbit the sun because we presuppose that the earth orbits the sun. The earth orbits the sun external to what we think of it. The fact that it took until the 16th century* to be recognised doesn't change that the earth must have always orbited the sun. It looks like we are stationary on a flat earth with the sun going through the sky - it rises in the east and sets in the west. But the hypothesis of both notions shows that geocentrism isn't supported by the evidence beyond the superficial while heliocentrism is.

Presuppositions completely go against how humans learn. I used to believe in ghosts, now I don't. I don't presuppose that ghosts don't exist, I changed my mind by looking at the evidence. Of course to an outsider, it might seem that my materialist perspective means that I dismiss the immaterial on presupposition. But that completely neglects the reality of what it is I believe an why. I don't presuppose there is no god, at one stage I didn't know about gods, I learned about gods, and when I was learned enough I came to the (tentative) conclusion that gods don't exist.

*to be fair, a greek did come up with the idea long before Copernicus

Posted by: DaveL | October 8, 2009 8:10 PM

Good point on the fairy tales. I think the big bang is a fairy tale.

We observe that all the distant objects in the universe are receding from us. Play that back in time and tell me where it puts us. We also observe that in every direction we look there's a background wash of microwave radiation- radiation with a non-uniformity that exactly matches what would happen if the universe had once been concentrated in one extremely dense, extremely hot volume. Do you have a better explanation?

There are observations, not fairy tales.

Actually, one could (I don't) but one could say that science is finding evidence for a God because of the big bang (and God said, ....)

You could say it, but it wouldn't be worth much.

39- I think the presupp for most here is not evolution, but "no-god"

Do you have any reason to think this, or do you just find the thought comforting?

40 - DaveL - I am willing to doubt the dating method being thrown off by water but not just because you said so.

Jeff, since you last post I've been trying to find a way to communicate with you how your claim about water throwing off dating methods came across.

Imagine you're having a discussion with a group of people about, say, Mao Tse-Tsung's Great Leap forward. At one point someone mentions the part about peasant farmers having to keep furnaces in their backyards for steel production, and someone breaks in with "Why didn't they just use their heat-ray vision instead of furnaces? You know, since they were all Chinese people."

When you waltz in and matter-of-factly declare that water defeats most or all of the dating methods known to man, this is how you sound.

First, The igneous rocks that are the subject of most radiometric dating methods in geology are impermeable to water. Second, isochron methods like Potassium-Argon dating or Rubidium-Strontium dating measure isotope ratios of several minerals between the same rock. Water cannot alter the number of neutrons in an atomic nucleus, nor can it act differently on two isotopes of the same element, since their chemical properties are the same. Also, such isochron methods would reveal any gain or loss of daughter or parent elements the data points would fail to plot on a line.

Now, you say you won't just take my say-so, but you swallowed this ridiculous claim from some creationist source hook, line, and sinker. Again I ask you: how many times must it be shown that your creationist sources have lied to you and that we have been truthful before you start treating their claims with more skepticism than ours?

Why not the Koran? For starters, because the Koran is one book written by one man The Bible is written by 40 authors over many generations from different locations and is 66 books. More I could say if you want more.

The problem is not one of those reasons has any bearing on why you would presuppose any book to be inerrant.

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | October 8, 2009 8:50 PM

That there are many thousands of religions, and subsets of religion, is enough evidence for me there is no one single deity (or set of deities) allowing its/their divine influence to seep into human consciousness via 'other ways of knowing'.

If there were only one religion, adhered to by every tiny, far-flung tribe scattered over the globe then it might be the case. But it's not.

Basically, they can't all be right - and, since they've all got equivalent levels of validity to support them, there's no way of objectively determining if one is 'more right' than another - the only rational solution is that they are a) all wrong and no gods exist, or b) all but one is wrong and the one that is right has as its deity (or deities) a malicious god (or gods) deliberately deceiving humanity.

Which rules out Christianity either way. Sure, it doesn't mean no gods could exist - but it certainly does away with any I've heard of.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | October 8, 2009 10:48 PM

One thing I find very annoying about creationists is their utter lack of knowledge about the science they're so against. jeffhoverson dismisses the Big Bang without accounting for 3K microwave radiation, cosmological redshift, the hydrogen-helium ratio, and galactic age discrepancies. I strongly suspect he doesn't have a clue about what I'm talking about, yet he's happy to describe the Big Bang as a fairy tale.

What are the scientific problems with the big bang theory? Does the evidence supporting it lead to no other conclusion? Are there alternative models that explain the evidence better? Does the evidence supporting it stand on its own?

Though in a way I can understand why people would dismiss it as a fairy tale - after all they hear about it in the same way we here other tales. Most people would have no idea about how much evidence supports the big bang or evolution, or why scientists accept them. The idea sounds absurd, it sounds implausible, but the bit that is left out is that the evidence supports it.

Yet here we are, again having to go through and try to correct what is essentially an argument from personal incredulity. Having to fill in ignorance that has manifested itself in dismissal. Again, matters of science are being treated as cultural products, forgetting that the "story" of the big bang is one born out of immense amounts of observation and theoretical work using the scientific method and has made many successful predictions about what we should observe in nature. But it's easier to forget that there are people who actually look at the evidence surrounding the origins of the universe and just write it off as a fairy tale for atheists - even though there's no reason for us to believe in the big bang any more than an infinite universe!

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 8, 2009 11:18 PM

someday, you really need to just sit down and read the damn thing, cover to cover, and see just how many gross inconsistencies and erroneous statements there really are in it.

not just that, but what an evil monster he worships. Any fool who claims that the god of the Bible is a "loving god" either hasn't read the fucking book, or believes that genocide, slavery, murder and rape are good things--'cause that's what their deity and the people it favors do.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 8, 2009 11:29 PM

Shorter hoverson:

"I ain't got shit, but i'm still clinging to my willful ignorance."

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 8, 2009 11:33 PM

shorter hoverson @ 368

blah blah blah blah blah

Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | October 8, 2009 11:34 PM

I am highly amused that jeffhoverson stopped communicating with me when I told him about my sexuality. Can anyone say that they are surprised? MAJeff, do you have anything to say?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Posted by: jeffhoverson | October 8, 2009 11:35 PM

Wowbagger 361 - could the fact that there are so many religions and religious people be logical evidence that there is something - call it God, ID, or whatever you wish?
jeffh

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 8, 2009 11:41 PM

could the fact that there are so many religions and religious people be logical evidence that there is something

or it could be a simple Type I Error combined with the human tendency to anthropomorphize EVERYTHING. unless you show objective evidence for the existence and intervention in the world by supernatural beings, my explanation is more parsimonious, and thus has priority over yours.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 8, 2009 11:47 PM

Curious, how old are most of you. I am guessing 19-26. Am I off? Shorter Hoverson

Not curious. Assholish.

Posted by: jeffhoverson | October 8, 2009 11:51 PM

MAJeff, I am really surprised you are hanging in there this long. With how you are throwing the f bomb and other adjectives, I would have thought you'd be long gone by now.
BTW, I went to talkorigins, whoever sent that, thanks. I will be interested in a site like that. jh

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 8, 2009 11:52 PM

I am guessing 19-26. Am I off?

ROTFLMAO

Posted by: 386sx | October 8, 2009 11:54 PM

Found another one:

http://uemap.com/image/english/world/atlantic.gif

It's the Atlantic ocean. A GIANT OCEAN OF WATER!!

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 8, 2009 11:57 PM

I'm not far off, am I Jadehawk?

I mean, this is a very difficult place to live as someone who is anti-racist, pro-woman, and pro-queer.

That and the allergy to flavor that exists here....

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 8, 2009 11:58 PM

MAJeff, I am really surprised you are hanging in there this long. With how you are throwing the f bomb and other adjectives, I would have thought you'd be long gone by now.

swearing is not a bannable offense on this blog, if that's what you're suggesting. being willfully ignorant and boring OTOH sometimes is.

Also, I second Jeff's observation on North Dakotans, at least on part of them. There's a significant chunk of the population who can't even be bothered with "nice"; they're blatantly and rudely and aggressively racist misogynist assholes.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 9, 2009 12:04 AM

That and the allergy to flavor that exists here....

though, homemade chokecherry jelly and homemade crabapple jelly are actually tasty...

Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | October 9, 2009 12:06 AM

386xx, does the Indian and Antarctic Oceans also stand as proof of a global flood? How about the Great Lakes, the Black Sea and the Mediterranean?

Damn, I am beginning to think that any standing body of water is proof of a global flood. where else could they have come from?

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 9, 2009 12:11 AM

though, homemade chokecherry jelly and homemade crabapple jelly are actually tasty...

true dat. But damn, they use fewer spices than Marge Simpson in this culinary hellhole. There was better food in Mankato. IN FUCKING MANKATO!!!!!!!! that's beyond sad.

Posted by: jeffhoverson | October 9, 2009 12:17 AM

Jadewalk 387, I am not suggesting that MAJeff's words are bannable offenses, I meant to say I am surprised that as upset he is with me and my arguments, that he hasn't gone somewhere else. I have no problem with him staying. Fun to chat. Those words don't bother me, they just make him sound like he is really angry. I could be wrong, been wrong before. BTW, MAJeff, are you from ND?
jeffh

Posted by: E.V. | October 9, 2009 12:18 AM

Oh by the way, I assume that you have memorized every single paragraph of science,...

For a guy/deity who could heal the sick, raise the dead and multiply fish and bread, turn water into wine why the fuck did he curse a tree to wither and die for not producing fruit out of season? Why didn't he make it instantaneously sprout figs? If he could walk on water and ascend to heaven, why didn't he just fly across to the shore or fly off the cross as proof of his divinity, once he croaked? Hint:people can't fly or walk on water as is, no matter how divine due to the properties of physics but you wouldn't know much about that.

(I'd say he's 16 or 17, or sheltered beyond belief)

Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | October 9, 2009 12:23 AM

Funny thing, Lawrence Welk was from North Dakota.

I said I could not hit it sideways.

Posted by: 386sx | October 9, 2009 12:27 AM

More global flood evidence!!

http://images.google.com/images?&q=potholes

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 9, 2009 12:29 AM

Jadewalk 387,

walk, hawk, same shit.

I am not suggesting that MAJeff's words are bannable offenses, I meant to say I am surprised that as upset he is with me and my arguments, that he hasn't gone somewhere else.

upset? bwhahahahahahaha!!!!!!
you silly fuckwit, you're a chew toy.

I have no problem with him staying.

How fucking magnanimous of you

Fun to chat.

Let's just say this--the physical and biological scientists will take care of those issues. On issues dealing with sexuality, you have nothing of value to say to me. There's nothing to chat about. Other issues, we'll see. So far, though, I haven't seen you put forth anything of substance or value to chat about...on any topic.

Those words don't bother me, they just make him sound like he is really angry.

Chew toy.

I could be wrong, been wrong before.

And will be many, many times more, particularly since you're not particularly interested in learning, but in exposing your own willful ignorance. AFter all, the geological stuff put forward by other folks here likely will have no impact on you.

BTW, MAJeff, are you from ND?

From MN, via Boston and now in ND. And, the more time I spend here, the less impressed I am with North Dakotans. The "niceness," again, is a shield to keep from actually dealing with the populace's racism, misogyny, homophobia and hostility toward knowledge.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 9, 2009 12:31 AM

I assume you don't pray, but if you are willing, know that He really does care about you......

blah blah blah blah blah

content please

Posted by: jeffhoverson | October 9, 2009 12:36 AM

One more: MAJeff, do you live in Fargo. If so, it would be fun to chat in person. Would you be up for Perkins or something sometime. jh

Posted by: 386sx | October 9, 2009 12:37 AM

Damn, I am beginning to think that any standing body of water is proof of a global flood.

Yes, any standing water. Or also any running water, so long as it has a canyon attached to it.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 9, 2009 12:42 AM

One more: MAJeff, do you live in Fargo. If so, it would be fun to chat in person. Would you be up for Perkins or something sometime. jh

We shan't ever be meeting. I may be forced to deal with bigots in my work life, but you are in no way welcome in my personal life.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 9, 2009 12:48 AM

I assume you don't pray, but if you are willing, know that He really does care about you

two things:

one, we don't think your god exists, so telling us it cares carries less weight than being told that Emperor Ming cares.

two, since we're talking about Emperor Ming and your god: if either of those two proved to be real, I'd rather they didn't "care" for me, being that they're both evil tyrants that would need deposing, not worshipping; and when bloodthirsty tyrants "care", that's generally a sign that you're about to suffer greatly.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | October 9, 2009 12:49 AM

I think jeffhoverson just crossed into T.Estes territory.

Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | October 9, 2009 1:06 AM

Jeffhoverson, I would be willing to meet you but only if I can bring along a male kakapo.

Posted by: J Myers | October 9, 2009 1:11 AM

Sam Adams Octoberfest is in right now--not as good as last year's but still pretty decent.

Really? I think it's much better than last year's... best it's been in quite some time, I'd say...

Posted by: raven | October 9, 2009 1:25 AM

He's waaay out of the closet. Does he really think that his god is the only god to choose from, and that believing in that one god is the only way for a country to become powerful?

Of course he believes his god is the only one. His god is the Mormon one. God is named Adam, lives on planet Kolob, is married to an unknow but large number of women, spends all his time fucking them to make spirit babies. Which ended up as jesus, satan, and you. Jesus and satan are brothers. No big deal, they both are your brothers as well.

Needless to say, Glenn Beck's god bears no resemblance to the xian god known as Yahweh. Mormons claim to be the one True Xianity. Most xians claim they are heretics at best or nonxians. In recent times past, the two groups occasionally killed each other.

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | October 9, 2009 1:37 AM

Dear Brother jeffhoverson,

Please forgive me for not being here sooner to support a fellow Christian whom the atheists are giving a good kicking.

May I say how much I admire your work? You have the perkily irritating "nothing you say can hurt me, I wear the armor of God" tone honed close to perfection. And as for offering to meet MAJeff ... classic! I so admire the Godly offensiveness of inviting for a drink a man that many Christians (would you say you are among them?) loudly proclaim is going to burn in Hell for all eternity. Of course there's no reason why such a minor matter should prevent the pair of you cracking a couple and shooting the breeze like good ol' boys, is there? How bizarre that MAJeff should take Christianity's naked hatred and institutionalized discrimination against people like him to heart! So thin skinned, dontcha think?

Unlike the atheists, I pray to Jesus all the time. Like now...

SB: Dear Jesus, Smoggy here.

JC: Yes, servant Smoggy?

SB: Jesus, I'm witnessing at Pharyngula, and I just wanted to sort of thank you for sending jeffhoverson to back me up.

JC: Who?

SB: Jeffhoverson...you know, perky-sounding guy with the teflon-faith schtick. He's busy attempting to patronize the atheists, while giving them further evidence that most Christians are weak-minded, prejudiced tossers.

JC: Oh...him! He's irritating isn't he? Whenever he gets Heaven on the line, we put him on hold. Eternity's too short to waste it listening to the burblings of the inane and the limited.

SB: So how come he's turned up at Pharyngula?

JC: Dunno. I'll ask the Holy Ghost [pause] Er, um, sorry Smoggy. Turns out it was a small error on the part of the Holy Spirit. He was trying to dial out, and jeffhoverson was blocking up the line, so he transferred him to an atheist blog to shut him up for a while.

SB: Great, just great, Jesus. Now what do I do? I've spent ages trying to convince the atheists I'm not a small minded wanker, and just when some of them are thinking that there may be some substance in my message up turns jeffhoverson and they all remember what close-minded, hateful trolls most 'real' Christians really are.

JC: Well, I'm not sure there's much remedy for that, Smoggy. Truth is, anyone who is a Bible-believing "true Christian" is bound to have a bit of that. For people who respect others and believe in human rights there's really no way of reconciling with the Bible. It's why most Christians never read the Bible properly, if they did their heads would explode.

SB: Sigh. Is there any way you could stop jeffhoverson coming back?

JC: Me? No. But if you sent Floyd Rubber to pay him a little visit he might find he has an enlarged perspective on life. Let's face it, why is he so keen to meet up with unlucky MAJeff? Isn't that the classic behavior of a repressed Christian homosexual? Perhaps all he needs to stop him being a religious bore is for Floyd to give him a re-bore.

SB: Wise as ever, Jesus. I'll tell Floyd to grab his grease gun and head on over.
AMEN

You there jeffhoverson? Good news, brother. My friend Floyd Rubber is heading to your place for a bit of mutual colonic Christianity. You've just got time to wad up your Bible and slip into your quick-release shorts.

Posted by: strange gods before me | October 9, 2009 1:40 AM

ha -hope you have a sense of humor. jeffh

Why? Do you think you are funny?

It's not likely. Not all smart people are funny, but stupid people are almost never funny.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | October 9, 2009 1:42 AM

"Devout Mormon" leads a pack of killers. Must be the result of all that clean-living and healthy lifestyles.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20091007teen/srvc=home&position=0

MAJeff, I was relieved to see that refused the offer of meeting at Perkins where Jeff H. could try to force you to be nice to his face -- common courtesy and all that. The Perkins was a dead giveaway. :-)

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 9, 2009 1:54 AM

MAJeff, I was relieved to see that refused the offer of meeting at Perkins where Jeff H. could try to force you to be nice to his face -- common courtesy and all that. The Perkins was a dead giveaway. :-)

In North Dakota, Perkins is haute cuisine.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | October 9, 2009 2:10 AM

I assume you don't pray, but if you are willing, know that He really does care about you......

Oh, you're talking about God.

Before you go attributing positions to God, surely it would be better to first establish that God in-fact exists. None of that presupposition nonsense (it makes as much sense to be presuppositional about Yahweh as it does about Helios - actually less sense because I can see and feel the effect of Helios as described right now!) but solid evidence that firmly establishes that a) there is an external supernatural agency that is actively a part of this reality and b) is the supernatural agent as described in the bible.

Now I'm going to impose a restriction on the kinds of evidence, you can't use the bible to prove the bible - that's making a circular argument. Instead it needs to be physical evidence, evidence that can pass Humean scepticism that clearly shows both aforementioned points.

I've actually been challenged to ask God to reveal Himself on here before, and I took that challenge. Taking inspiration from my (now) favourite miracle from the bible, I set up an experiment where I waited to see if God could turn water into alcohol. It's been about a year now and still nothing. But this is the kind of expectation I have in terms of evidence. After all, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and where would be be if we believed in any old notion without checking it? [church presumably ;)]

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | October 9, 2009 4:05 AM

Dear Brother Ichy

Floyd is a considerate fornicator, he always takes his own lube.

That is why I told Jesus that Floyd would 'grab his grease gun'? He has it packed with top quality industrial strength lubricant. Between us, it's Heaven's own formulation. Verily I say unto you, this is the stuff they use to get the camels through the eye of the needle. More than that, it's what Yahweh used when he slipped his omnipotent meatstick up Mary's virgin vagina. Didn't you ever wonder how the deity with creation's biggest penis managed to shaft a simple underage virgin without her noticing?

Come to think of it... there must be a market for this among Christians. Heavenly gully grease! What good Christian man isn't gonna want to make it easy for his virgin bride to get her quiver started!

Yours in anticipation of slippery salvation

Smoggy

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 9, 2009 4:27 AM

I rather thought he typically used the holy spirit as a medium.

that sounds as if it would burn. spirits are probably the last thing one should use as lubricant (unless we're talking social lubricant)

Posted by: Rorschach | October 9, 2009 6:07 AM

One more: MAJeff, do you live in Fargo. If so, it would be fun to chat in person. Would you be up for Perkins or something sometime. jh

Dont know what Perkins is, but I still think that is one of the funniest comments from a fundie I have read here for a long time...-) It's like me going for a safari in Africa, to see the lions and elephants in real life :D

Posted by: DaveL | October 9, 2009 8:29 AM

Curious, how old are most of you. I am guessing 19-26. Am I off?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCrqy5S-H_A

Posted by: Bobber | October 9, 2009 9:11 AM

MAJeff, OM, said:

I should say something here. North Dakotans like hoverson pride themselves on being "nice." They also tend to use niceness as a shield to deflect anything and everything. the fact that this is an intensely racist place, a place where the citizenry are proud of making life worse for women and for queers...well, we're not allowed to point that out because it wouldn't be "nice." Niceness is a cover for an actual lack of human decency.

The same holds true here in rural North Carolina. I spent my first 38 years in New England, and the culture shock I experienced when I moved down south was, while expected, still a little surprising. I had often heard that New Englanders are snide, rude, and just plain mean at times; but the hatred that hides behind a smiling facade is, in my opinion, far, far worse. All around me are the "salt of the earth"-types, the vast majority of them professing their love of Christ while at the same time they are telling me, quite openly, "I can't vote for Obama because he's black" or contributing to church-sponsored campaigns to prevent passage of laws protecting the human rights of homosexuals.

I know this kind of thing happens across the U.S. - there are pockets of Maine, for example, where I would feel just as out-of-place as here in North Carolina, and with a nod to the good Reverend Chimp, there are many places in the South where progressive ideas and human dignity are celebrated. But there are still many parts of rural America where being an outspoken proponent of liberalism and/or rationalism can still earn you pariah status, where people will tell you, almost literally, to shut the fuck up - all behind a nice smile.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 9, 2009 9:31 AM

I know this kind of thing happens across the U.S. - there are pockets of Maine, for example, where I would feel just as out-of-place as here in North Carolina, and with a nod to the good Reverend Chimp, there are many places in the South where progressive ideas and human dignity are celebrated. But there are still many parts of rural America where being an outspoken proponent of liberalism and/or rationalism can still earn you pariah status, where people will tell you, almost literally, to shut the fuck up - all behind a nice smile.

yep. No argument there

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 9, 2009 9:42 AM

Jeffhoverson, you talk about presups. For science, there are very few.

Science does not look at theology, or proving or disproving deities. Although it can look effects of deities on the world, or archeological evidence for what is reported in holy books.

Question everything. This includes not only the evidence, but also who said it. For example, if someone says radiometric dating doesn't work, look at his credentials. If he is a preacher, and not a physicist, take what he says with a huge grain of salt. Then check his data and conclusions with those of physicists who work in the field. This questioning also extends to books and web sites. Question who said this. If Richard Dawkins, a well known evolutionary biologist talks about evolution, he is probably correct in what he says. Note the qualification, as even Dawkins can be wrong, but it is highly unlikely. A MD talking about statistics on how protiens couldn't form due to complexity, is probably much less correct, and his data, methodology, and conclusions need to be verified independently. This also means scientific theories are constantly being tested, and evidence double checked.

When in doubt, the evidence wins. A Cambrian rabbit would mortally wound the Theory of Evolution as it stands now.

I'm sure some others will pipe in too.

Posted by: Ichthyic | October 9, 2009 5:54 PM

@DaveL:

Curious, how old are most of you. I am guessing 19-26. Am I off?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCrqy5S-H_A

I like how Dr. Cox does it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3y3QoFnqZc

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 9, 2009 5:56 PM

Also, I encourage you to watch the series that Kent Hovin (sp?) made. I will try to get the name. He is a scientist, biologist and something else. jh

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Josh | October 9, 2009 5:59 PM

I encourage you to watch the series that Kent Hovin

Been there.
Done that.
Got the t-shirt.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 9, 2009 5:59 PM

Also, I encourage you to watch the series that Kent Hovin (sp?) made. I will try to get the name. He is a scientist, biologist and something else.

BWHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

"something else" is right. he's a liar, criminal, and con-man. he is not a scientist or biologist however. he has no education in any science whatsoever.

Posted by: Alan B | October 9, 2009 6:01 PM

#376 jeffhoverson asked:

Curious, how old are most of you. I am guessing 19-26. Am I off?

Yes.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | October 9, 2009 6:15 PM

Curious, how old are most of you. I am guessing 19-26. Am I off?

Argumentum ad adulescentia?

Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | October 9, 2009 6:40 PM

Also, I encourage you to watch the series that Kent Hovin (sp?) made.

I encourage you to watch the series that Thunderf00t made . I believe he even replies directly to Kent Hovind's claims in several of the episodes.

Posted by: Owlmirror | October 9, 2009 6:53 PM

Just thought I'd ask jeffhoverson to address my comment #344. Where's the consistency? Where's the accuracy?

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | October 9, 2009 7:14 PM

jeffhoverson wrote:

Wowbagger 361 - could the fact that there are so many religions and religious people be logical evidence that there is something - call it God, ID, or whatever you wish?

You don't really spend a lot of time thinking these things through, do you?

This is one of those things that bugs me about pretty much all religious believers; the idea that, for most of them, the religion they happen to have been brought up to believe - as opposed to the thousands they weren't brought up to believe - must be the one true religion. Without ever doing any further investigation into why it is there are so many people believe in something vastly different from what they believe in - or dwelling upon what that might actually mean.

There are so many religions because it's an unfortunate human tendency to believe in shit that's not real. The fact that sizable proportions of humans across the world believe in vastly different - and yet similarly unsupportable - supernatural beings is evidence that humans are reasonable consistent, even cross-culturally, in this respect.

Widespread belief may be considered (by some) evidence for a god - just not any of those proposed by the major theistic religions. Deism/pantheism, sure - but certainly not Christianity. That, as they say, just don't add up.

Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | October 9, 2009 7:42 PM

Lynna, you are not going to let that one go, are you?

-snort-

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | October 9, 2009 8:36 PM

jeffhoverson,

First, I'm 61 years old.

Next, I'd like you to respond to my post #362. I mentioned several pieces of evidence for the Big Bang, something that you dismissed as "a fairy tale."

Here's an easy one. Explain Olber's Paradox without using the Big Bang. Or admit that you're just parroting shit you don't actually understand.

Posted by: jeffhoverson | October 9, 2009 10:22 PM

362 - you are correct, I have no idea what you are talking about and I am still happy to call the Big Bang a fairy tale. Still need an origin. easy - jh

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | October 9, 2009 10:25 PM

jeffhoverson, could you summarize what you've learned?

Posted by: John Morales | October 9, 2009 10:33 PM

jh:

Still need an origin. easy

So... what originated said origin?

Have you even thought about this?

For 'easy', you should've substituted 'simplistic' or 'facile'.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 9, 2009 10:41 PM

I have no idea what you are talking about and I am still happy to call the Big Bang a fairy tale.

Translation: "I happy with my willful ignorance and nothing will change that."

Posted by: Ichthyic | October 9, 2009 10:57 PM

don't apologize.

go fucking learn something.

come back if you ever do.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | October 9, 2009 11:13 PM

Willful Ignorance for Jesus™!

Posted by: John Morales | October 9, 2009 11:28 PM

jh:

Sorry, my arrogance got ahold of me.

I don't believe you're sorry.

In fact, I consider your arrogance is evidenced by your employment of intended sarcastic self-deprecation as a form of condescension.

'Tis amusing, though. Carry on.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | October 10, 2009 2:38 AM

I have no idea what you are talking about and I am still happy to call the Big Bang a fairy tale.

There's something really dishonest in dismissing science on non-scientific grounds, it's like me dismissing Christianity because my feet hurt. If you think the big bang has scientific problems, then speak up. If not, then all you are doing is projecting your ignorance onto established science for the sake of religious dogma. Incredibly pathetic

*figured it's worth trying to use the word

Posted by: jeffhoverson | October 10, 2009 7:47 AM

George Lamaitre, a priest apparently came up with the idea of the Big Bang. His idea started as a hypothesis. Soon science rallied with evidence. Good job for science in trying to find evidence
Kent Hovind has some hypothesis as well. I am intrigued by his thoughts about the pre-noahic world (assuming a global flood). He proposes a water vapor and subterranian water in massive amts. So, why it intriques me is that it has some merit. There is traces of water being found beyond earth. It also explains the largeness of dinasaurs. There could have been more oxygen and conditions for animals to get larger and for humans to live longer. It is true that oxygen, for example, can heal the body or aid healing quickly. So, his idea about more atmospheric pressure then is also intriquing.
That is one example. May sound silly to you. But the problem here is that a couple of you are falling into the same trap as PZ. Hiding behind calling someone names or accusing them of being a liar just because you disagree. I caught PZ in a lie and didn't make that my argument. Can someone here actually refute what Kent said about his scientific hypothesis?
Hawkings and PZ are smart, but they sure don't always use it when interviewing. I watched the youtube where they interview each other about the movie, "expelled". They spend the whole time complaining about not getting in, but never refute the truth claims in the movie.
Ad hominem and Ad populum are not good arguments for either side. I hear them both ways.
Sure, you can call me willfully ignorant, I am sure I am, I actually agree with Jeff on the ND nice stuff. My admitting my shortcomings is a habit. Go ahead and analyze it, but you still need to convince me in basic arguments.
But when it comes down to it, I'd rather speak to an evolutionist who can explain things in SIMPLE terms like Kent Hovind does publicly.
I have tried with an atheist I know who simply refers to long, technical books that, those of us who are not scientists (most of the world) can understand.
PZ spends most of his public time bashing Christianity, which he has the right to do, but then he complains that most of the US believes in creationism, then, instead of moving, he resorts to names like stupid and morons. Sounds like he is saying, "I am taking my ball and going home". He does a good job of getting students to clap because he swears too. Wow, impressive.
When he gets to the content, he does fairly well at putting it in simpler terms, but not for long. Example, he was trying to refute M Behe in what Behe said about irreducible complexity. PZ starts by openly taking Behe out of context then offers other explanations like scaffolding, coevolution, etc.
Those explanations are good ones, even plausible, but offering other explanations does not mean they are true or false. That is my whole point, both YEC and Evolutionists are looking at the same evidence and offering different explanations and hypothesis.
I have no reason to disbelieve that the biblical record is true and saying that someone lies or calling is a fairy tale doesn't help.
So far, being biased, I favor the biblical record until proven otherwise. If it is true, then God who cared and to the point of death for me for my shortcomings, adds to me, a huge blessing in my life. God led me out of a horrible life to a life of joy and adventure. He is doing that for many, many people in the US and world. So to say He is evil, is a bit of an over-reaction to something else in my opinion. As far as scientists, Hovind leads the way on explanations until I hear a better one. The fact that he is in jail is ad hominen. After seeing Expelled, nothing would surprise me about how far some are willing to go to shut down guys like that, which actually reinforces that he might be speaking the truth.
I also notice that it seems the most targeted group by the evolutionists are YEC, bible believing people. That is revealing as well.
jh

Posted by: Dania | October 10, 2009 8:15 AM

Those explanations are good ones, even plausible, but offering other explanations does not mean they are true or false.

No, but when those other explanations fit the evidence better and are more parsimonious, then they're preferred by scientists over the other ones. And Behe's explanation is not scientific.

That is my whole point, both YEC and Evolutionists are looking at the same evidence and offering different explanations and hypothesis.

No. Scientists are taking all the available evidence into account while YECs are ignoring most of it just because it contradicts the Bible. There's no way you can actually look at the evidence and say it supports a young earth perspective.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 10, 2009 8:39 AM

Kent Hovind has some hypothesis as well. I am intrigued by his thoughts about the pre-noahic world (assuming a global flood)

But when it comes down to it, I'd rather speak to an evolutionist who can explain things in SIMPLE terms like Kent Hovind does publicly.

Example, he was trying to refute M Behe in what Behe said about irreducible complexity.

That is my whole point, both YEC and Evolutionists are looking at the same evidence and offering different explanations and hypothesis.

I favor the biblical record until proven otherwise.

then God who cared

After seeing Expelled, nothing would surprise me about how far some are willing to go to shut down guys like that, which actually reinforces that he might be speaking the truth.

Posted by: Josh | October 10, 2009 8:55 AM

Can someone here actually refute what Kent said about his scientific hypothesis?

Kent has said a lot of things in a lot of places. You're the one making the claims that his hypotheses are correct; it's on you to put up the specific hypothesis to be discussed. So, how about doing what we do:

Please choose a particular "hypothesis" that Kent has proposed and point to exactly where he proposed it (e.g., he said such and such in a video; here is a link to the video; the specific idea that I want to talk about is mentioned at 4:54 minutes in). I ask you to do this for two reasons:

1. It allows all of us to stay on the same sheet of music with respect to what is being discussed.
2. If I'm supposed to go through the effort of fact-checking one of Kent's ideas, it's not fair to also ask me to go find the idea in the first place.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 10, 2009 8:59 AM

Go ahead and analyze it, but you still need to convince me in basic arguments.

You aren't open to basic arguments.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | October 10, 2009 9:09 AM

That is my whole point, both YEC and Evolutionists are looking at the same evidence and offering different explanations and hypothesis.

The YECs cherry pick their data, distorting most of it and discarding the rest. Another common tactic of YECs is lying. Ray "Banana Man" Comfort has been corrected on various points, even acknowledged the corrections, and then he repeats his original claims as if the corrections had never happened.

Posted by: Sastra | October 10, 2009 9:21 AM

jeffhoverson #485 wrote:

So far, being biased, I favor the biblical record until proven otherwise. If it is true, then God who cared and to the point of death for me for my shortcomings, adds to me, a huge blessing in my life. God led me out of a horrible life to a life of joy and adventure.

From your perspective, whether or not evolution occurred is a different question than whether or not Christianity is true. There are plenty of Christians who accept both. If you were faced with a 'crisis' -- you discover that evolution really is the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth -- I think that, given your desperate need to frame the events in your life in terms of God and His love for you, you would figure out some way to think that evolution doesn't undermine your faith: it strengthens it. Now that you understand evolution, the Bible is richer and deeper, and you're even more impressed and awed by the magnificence of God than you were when you were a Young Earth Creationist.

That's what the theistic evolutionists say. They say that recognizing that Biblical literalism is shallow and wrong is the key to becoming closer to God than ever.

Knowing yourself, and the way your mind tends to work things out, and the way you feel about your religion -- are you so sure that you wouldn't be able to take this line? It's handy, it's easy, and it's open to you. It's filled with a lot of really smart, dedicated Christians.

We atheists think it's a cop-out, of course, but since when did Christians go by what atheists think and say? We don't have faith, you know. Faith is the commitment you made to yourself, to find God in everything.

You can find God in evolution. Doing so is actually going to be less work than trying to find science in creationism. Really.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 10, 2009 9:30 AM

Sastra wins the thread.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 10, 2009 9:47 AM

Nice thread winner, but he isn't trying to find science. He's a denialist. He's trying not to find science. He's looking for denials, not science.

Exactly.

I also notice that it seems the most targeted group by the evolutionists are YEC, bible believing people. That is revealing as well.

What's amazing is how revealing this statement is. Is there another politically motivate group of folks challenging basic science that should be focused on? Sure, the IDiots get criticized as well, but is there another group of people actively challenging evolutionary biology that evolutionary biologists should be focusing on?

Your comment was beyond stupid.

Posted by: DaveL | October 10, 2009 10:22 AM

Kent Hovind has some hypothesis as well. I am intrigued by his thoughts about the pre-noahic world (assuming a global flood).

Why would you assume that?

He proposes a water vapor

A vapour canopy covering the entire earth would blot out the sun, and the heat from its condensation into rain would cook everything on earth.

and subterranian water in massive amts.

Which, since the waters would have had to recede, should still be there. It isn't.

So, why it intriques me is that it has some merit.

Why would you say that when no competent scientist takes him seriously? What background do you have that enables you to evaluate his claims?

There is traces of water being found beyond earth.

I have no idea what that's supposed to have to do with Kent Hovind's ideas.

It also explains the largeness of dinasaurs. There could have been more oxygen and conditions for animals to get larger

Nonsense, it does no such thing. Oxygen is not the limiting factor in animal size.

And since I'm familiar with Hovind's arguments, let me inform you that dinosaurs are not just really big lizards. They're structurally different from lizards, with their legs under their bodies instead of splayed out to the side. No matter how long a lizard lives, and how much oxygen it has available, it will never grow into a dinosaur.

and for humans to live longer.

Listen, given the way the Nobel prizes came out this year, it would behoove you to actually learn something about Telomeres. In particular, pay attention to this part:

Evidence suggests that elevated levels of oxidative stress and inflammation further increase the telomere attrition rate

There is absolutely zero reason to presume that living in a high-oxygen environment would actually extend human lifespans.

It is true that oxygen, for example, can heal the body or aid healing quickly. So, his idea about more atmospheric pressure then is also intriquing.

You do know that oxygen becomes toxic at high pressures, right?

That is one example. May sound silly to you.

I doesn't just "sound silly to me", I have excellent reasons based in actual science to reject it as complete nonsense.

Again, I can't help but be amazed. Just upthread we showed you how Hovind was not a scientist as you claimed. Either you were lying about Hovind's credentials or else, more likely, you were misled about them. Yet, somehow, you overlook this lie and continue to swallow whatever he comes up with uncritically.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | October 10, 2009 12:12 PM

Ramen.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | October 10, 2009 3:08 PM

But when it comes down to it, I'd rather speak to an evolutionist who can explain things in SIMPLE terms like Kent Hovind does publicly.

As for a "simple" introduction, try youtube user potholer54. From The Big Bang To Us - Made Easy: it's a really good starting place.

Posted by: raven | October 10, 2009 3:45 PM

JeffH the lying, mentally ill fundie kook:

I also notice that it seems the most targeted group by the evolutionists are YEC, bible believing people. That is revealing as well

Wow!!! Is this Jeff kook crazy or what!!!

Science targets no one. We just study the natural world. We also created a Hi Tech 21st century, lengthened US lifespans 30 years in a century, and create what the ancients would call new miracles on a daily basis. What in the hell have fundies done except try to destroy the USA and assassinate a few MDs.

If your mythology is wrong, that is your problem. Science has falsified every single primitive creation myth that ever existed.

The fundie xian perversion of xianity are the haters with a list of targets that includes most of the human race. They hate scientists, MDs, other xians, other religions, the USA, commies, Democrats, and on and on.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | October 10, 2009 5:15 PM

It's quite sad that yet another creationist discussion has devolved* into a discussion about Jesus. Not the science, but about God. This is really sad, that all that time people spent actually explaining evidence to JeffH, he's ignored that in order to turn it into a discussion of religion.

This is one of the reasons why I take an anti-accommodationist stance. There is evidentially a philosophical barrier between science and religion, and it's something we see on an almost daily basis when on a site like this. Time and time again we have to defend scientific concepts who reject it out of ethical and existential implications, yet when we point out that out we are accused of scientism, of fundamentalist atheism, of overstepping philosophical boundaries - when quite clearly there is an irreconcilability of the notions of God and evolution.

It's quite obvious that God is a substitute for human ignorance, because the people who seek to put God in as an answer put in what should be a linguistic placeholder as a final answer.

*I know, I know.

Posted by: Sastra | October 10, 2009 5:57 PM

Kel #511 wrote:

This is one of the reasons why I take an anti-accommodationist stance. There is evidentially a philosophical barrier between science and religion, and it's something we see on an almost daily basis when on a site like this.

The accomodationist stance doesn't deny that science and religion conflict in practice: it says that it needn't do so, and encourages religious people to find a way to make the two fit together. This, they say, is how religion really ought to work. My post at #497, where I urged jeff to "find God in evolution," was very much an accomodationist-style of argument.

But I'm not an accomodationist, because, even though jeff might find my argument compelling, I wasn't putting the option forth as if it really was a respectable, reasonable, consistent approach to reconciling science and religion -- one which atheists should respect. It isn't. It's disingenuous, and manipulative, working on the cynical assumption that jeff of course wasn't interested in pursuing the truth, but in keeping his faith. If he also got the science right, that was secondary to him. So bend down to his level, forget about what's really correct, and cynically offer a bad argument that will coax him on a more reasonable path. Pander to him.

And don't hide the fact that it's pandering, from him. Give him a chance.

From my point of view, referring jeff to the theistic evolutionists is like telling a creationist new ager that some people think the prophets of Atlantis predicted Darwin's theory: so let's keep creationism out of the textbooks, okay? It may be effective, but the advice doesn't come from a ground of mutual respect. It's strategy, and it basically gives up on real respect before it gets started. The consumer will find the product more attractive if neither one of you are completely honest. They're really just pulling their religious beliefs out of their backsides. Tell them to make up something else.

I often bring up theistic evolution as a more respectable option than creationism -- which it is -- but it's not hard to read between the lines, and figure out that this reconciliation of science and religion is only pseudo-accomodationism. I'm being too transparent.

Posted by: NiVeKeR14 | November 4, 2009 11:12 PM

This might have been mentioned already, haven't read all 500+ comments, but WTF #12!? Jesus was a jew!!! Theres no way he was uncircumcised!