The letters to the editor section of our local newspapers is where you find the proud regalia of the American boob in prominent display. Here's a fine example of creationist inanity from Dothan, Alabama. Try to count the misconceptions about evolution here.
Grade school textbooks teach evolution as fact. It is a monstrous lie that harms our children.
The evolution theory says we evolved from the original Big Bang and later crawled out of a green slime from the ocean.
Here is one example of its ludicrous hypothesis.
Of all the mysteries surrounding evolution, the one that is most baffling to the evolutionists, is "water." Where did all the oceans come from?
As explained on the National Geographic program, it came from a massive collision in space. As the Earth was cooling from the Big Bang, it was approached by a stray planet that was teeming with water. It collided with Earth, spilled its water onto the Earth, then careened off into space.
Talk about fairy tales. By the way, where did the stray planet get its water?
Come on evolutionists, surely you can develop a more plausible explanation that can be easier to swallow. Until then, I accept the Bible's answer. After all, the 4,000-year-old book has a perfect track record.
The evolution theory is only 140 years old.
Bill DeJournett
Dothan
Where to even begin? Evolution only starts once you have chemical and biological replicators; the Big Bang preceded it by a few billion years. We didn't crawl out of a green slime, other organisms evolved in the oceans that preceded us.
I have never heard of the "ludicrous hypothesis" he's talking about, and I rather doubt that NatGeo advocated anything of the kind.
His 4,000 year old book actually has a miserable track record — it's just that gullible fools keep making excuses for it. It also doesn't describe how earth got its water, other than to claim a god poofed it into existence.
It's an interesting strategy, though, to invent unbelievable claims for the other side of the argument and then laugh snarkily at how crazy they are. For another example of such disinformation, take a look at what Wesley dug up.
- Log in to post comments
That letter is setting off an almost perfect reading on my Epic-failometer...
Perhaps NatGeo could be contacted to see if they are willing to publish a letter refuting the defamatory claim he made against them - and even to speculate which programme the idiot might have misunderstood. They might broadcast it again, with subtitles for the hard of thinking.
I suspect the letter-writer does have some awareness that he's lying though.
You had me at, "Where to even begin?" You should have stopped there.
A perfect track record? Does that include "pi = 3"? And the unicorns?
The Bible is 4000 years old? Wow. In addition to all that stuff about Jesus being written 2000 years before he even existed, the Bible might well be older than the earth itself to some of the zanier subsets of YECs.
The only thing even close to what this man has allegedly seen on Nat Geo is a theory to the moon's creation.
However I do enjoy the thought in my head of some giant celestial water balloon spilling water on planets. Haha.
This man should write science books! He's a genius!
It's obviously a parody. Nobody can really be that stupid.
Never be surprised by a Christian's ignorance of their own holy book. When knowledge isn't a requirement to qualify as something you're going to get plenty of the ignorant.
Wasn't there someone on US television recently who described Adam & Eve as 'Christians'? Best one I ever heard was the survey where they found a disturbing number of Christians believed Sodom and Gomorrah were husband and wife.
Someone shops at Strawmen'R'Us
Actually ... water is about the only thing God didn't poof into existance. It's just there. Genesis 1:2
So it's about the most stupid example he could choose.
Well, the good point is that the Bible has no account of water creation. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters".
It seems plausible to accept the pre-existence of water or either a ex-nihilo creation before time.
In the case of the teacher that Wesley wrote about you have to wonder whether any sort of agreed curriculum or science standards would be enough to withstand the force of his religious idiocy.
The newspaper titled this letter "Evolution Debunked?". That question mark is an encouraging sign that there may be some hope for Alabama. The editor could not have printed a more convincing argument FOR science education than that letter; no doubt that is why it got printed.
Another thing evolution can't explain is why there are PYGMIES + DWARFS.
And people still wonder why I think that lying in public should be a crime. You get away with it once. After that, there's no excuse. If one exhibits a history of lying, that will be taken into account.
AL beat me to it. But I don't get the pygmies and dwarfs reference.(#14) Could you provide a link to that crazy, please?
I think it is accepted that some of the Earth's water came from comets - I guess this is what the guy saw on NatGeo. See this from Cornell. I don't see how it's particularly whacky though
OOO, Dude this is awesome; way cooler than anything in your Bible. Look up how hydrogen (the simplest atoms) was formed in the early universe (it's the stable state that electrons and protons naturally fall into). Then about how this hydrogen coalesced into stars!!1 And the pressure in the stars cause nuclear fucking fusion producing the heavier elements including oxygen. Cool huh?
Now when hydrogen and oxygen meet the most stable state they can fall into is water (H20), so a fair amount of it is scattered around in space and gravity will tend to make it coalesce with other matter into planets and comets and stuff.
Astronomy is win.
How about that? Emily Litella lives.
Considering how some people insist on the accuracy of the bible overall, including the parts which most other Christians automatically move into their own mental "junk" file, why should any other goofy ____ be any exception? I honestly believe that the more one deals with the general public overall, the less likely they are to be surprised by whatever stupidity is flung their way.
From my barely passing interest in the "History of the Bible," it seems to be at most 2700 years old, and has been added on to and subtracted from since that time. It is not a 4000 year old book.
But the water was all ready there when Genesis 1 opens the curtain on Hebraic Creation Myth, the Play, Act I, scene 1. We see God's face on the waters and pan to light creation.
(It may need a bit of re-write.)
I think the writer is referring to the impact that separated proto-earth from the moon by a now-vaporized fledgling planet. I must have been in the WC when they mentioned that as being the source of water in teh Nat Geo episode referenced. I have always understood that a large portion of our waters came from cometary bombardments.
The origin of the water on Earth is a genuine open question. New Scientist in 2007 suggested the hydrogen isotope ratios may be compatible with the formation on earth, as opposed to in comets and asteroids from further out; but the latter theory has had plenty of support. Perhaps someone has suggested the Moon-forming collision was with an icy planet, and National Geographic put that in a program; or they've confused 'asteroid' with 'full-size planet'.
Maybe PZ could find a tame astronomer to ask what the latest theory is. :)
The Big Bang collided with the earth? Hah.
Robin @16, here.
Er, PZ - Pretty sure its a joke.
Is it stupidity? Are these people missing out on any facts import to their life, or is whether most people believe in evolution or not part of the background wall paper of our lives? The biology teacher has a job. These people in general are managing to survive and reproduce. They are intelligent enough to succeed as modern humans by evolutionary standards of fitness. I like knowing how the world works, understanding the big picture as revealed by science, but I'm not sure I could weather a depression as well as the Amish. Perhaps we are a bit to smug here.
Thank you. That was from before I found you guys.
Wow, that is just so uber-dumb. *headdesk*
africangenesis@24,
Well, you see, if people swallow stuff like this, before you know where they are they'll be believing the invasion of Iraq was intended to stop Saddam attacking the US with WMDs, and help the Iraqi people.
africangenesis, sometimes it's stupidity, but mostly it's just willful ignorance.
What makes you say that?
I...I just keep thinking that things like this simply HAVE to be a Poe. But...but they always mean it... *loses faith in humanity and goes to cry in a corner*
I call Poe.
I think I understand what happened. The sheer amount of science in the National Geographic programme overloaded his brain and caused it to short out, and the letter above is the mental equivalent of the final fizzes and crackles of an faulty circuit board as it catches fire.
Poor sod. If I were his wife/child/sibling-and-now-carer, I'd sue.
That "passing planet water" business sounds like a misreading of Immanuel Velikovskyk, who was a scientific illiterate. It certainly didn't come from the National Geographic Society.
Neat squid picture - National Geographic http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/pf/98196571.html
"passing planet water"? So gawd pissed the oceans into place? ;)
We all want this to be a Poe, but we should know that it isn't. This is pretty much par for the course.
I agree that he was watching the moon formation bit and it was too much for his tiny brain to handle. I've seen about all of the NatGeo science specials and that was my first thought on the water remark.
This is what the term 'creotard' was created to describe.
Hey, you missed the other mistake: "The evolution theory is only 140 years old." Last time I checked, "Origin of Species" was published in 1859.
I agree with AlanWCan, Poe.
Ah yes, another irrationale fucktard (and I use that term easily since its obvious the author is just making bullshit up) who gets to vote. That's all fine and good mind you, there's no test to vote. However, as overlooked by #24, who is more likely to be swayed by those compelling arguments made by Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson? and does the existence of so many self-righteous proud-of-their-ignorance assholes bode well for the US or not so well?
#28, By smug, I mean there is a lot of empty mocking and vitriol here, I guess it makes people feel better, but by the standards of evolution, the Christians are more fit. They are passing more of their genes onto the next generation. Perhaps they are intelligent in the areas that really count.
I've learned not to look down upon the more primitive cultures, they are modern humans with our brains and they put them to good use. One eyeopener for me, occurred on my visit to Carlsbad Caverns, I stopped at the guided walks on the road to the entrance. It was a harsh west Texas, eastern New Mexico. I would have died in less than three days in the environment, yet each plant was labeled with a multitude of uses the Native Americans had for them. It became very clear that when the european trappers and frontiersman married "sqaws", just exactly who was doing who a favor. Yes, the squaw probably had some silly belief system, but she was just as intelligent as you or I, and found good application for that intelligence. These silly irrational belief systems may fulfill some role or need, but perhaps shouldn't be used to assess intelligence.
I can see no reason to think is parody. There's nothing in there I have not seen for real, least of all the confusing "evolution" with "all science that explains stuff that Genesis pretends to explain".
#27 That was the declared intention for the invasion of Iraq, so that declaration at least constitutes some evidence of the purpose/intent. Do you have an evidence based belief to the contrary? US behavior since that time, was consistent with that belief. There was a search for WMD that appeared sincere, it even appears that the fear of WMD was justified, since Saddam had taken measures to make the program easy to reconstitute once sanctions were lifted. The US hopes were perhaps for a more smoothly functioning democracy and a much less expensive experience.
africangenesis@24,
Well, you see, if people swallow stuff like this, before you know where they are they'll be believing the invasion of Iraq was intended to stop Saddam attacking the US with WMDs, and help the Iraqi people.
You mean reproduction? That's what counts in evolution, right?
africangenesis,
I don't think anyone here looks down on "primitive cultures". That's a weird term to begin with. However, what exactly is the benefit that Native Americans (a bit of my ancestry) gained from believing in gods? Is that what allowed them to live in inhospitable areas? No, don't think so.
You seem to be saying that that many of us here don't believe primitive people are as intelligent. I've been commenting on and reading this blog for over a year. I have yet to see anyone claim that or even insinuate it.
Your assertion that Christians seem to be more "fit" shows a complete lack of understanding of evolution. Time to start back with the basics of that theory. I have neither the time, nor will, to help you with that. There are plenty of resources, go use them.
Yeah, I'm gonna agree with True Bob and say they are pretty excellent at having babies amongst themselves. Also, excellent at indoctrinating said babies...
I don't think anyone was saying they couldn't hold jobs and live normal enough lives, but there is definitely a real intelligence issue when it comes to comprehension. Its either unintentional, making them not so bright or its willful, making them quite foolish.
Not hardly. The "search" was completely weak, and was needed because WE INTERRUPTED THE UN's SEARCH. The best evidence was as you cite, Saddam wanted to be able to reconstitute his programs - which meant he didn't have active programs.
Our own intelligence showed Saddam distrusted AQ and considered them a threat, not an ally. Our own intel showed the case was inflated, from Al tubes to WMDs N, S, E, and W of Baghdad, to portable WMD factories. The process was rushed, cutting off deliberation, ignoring diplomacy, in a mad rush to war.
Rebuilding funds went to sole source Merkin companies, with at most token Iraqi involvement. CPA declared that "our" guys were immune from Iraqi justice - how is that "helping the Iraqi people"? Further, how is lower availability of electricity and clean water "helping the Iraqi people"? How is torturing prisoners "helping the Iraqi people"?
I may have no clear evidence that the intent wasn't so noble, but there isn't any evidence that the intent WAS intended to help anyone. Biggest winner - our good friends in Iran. Who are we there to help? Who invited us in? Who made us World Police (and if we are, why are we so derelict in venues sans exploitable resources)?
Iraq was never a preemptive strike (on a non-threat) nor was it a humanitarian effort. Smedley had it right, 80 years ago. War IS a racket.
#44, Dahan, getting your genes to the next generation is the evolution fitness standard. In the mammalian approach that involves niche reduction through parental care. The Christians are nurturing investors in their children. Keep in mind, I think most of the vitriol here is being directed an the more fundamentalist Christians, I don't think we want to paint all of them with the same broad brush.
It is hubris to assume that modern humans won out because they were more rational. Perhaps the human innovation that allowed them to run over the Neanderthals and home erectus was that we were more fanatical. The poor suckers didn't have a chance. Is it any coincidence that one of the anthropological signs of a modern humans is symbolism and care for the dead, both hypothesized to be for religious or mystical purposes?
#46, The human mind sees patterns and threats even in random noise. The nefarious purposes you see in US activities is just so much suspicion that is prone to false positives. Suspicion of power is probably a good thing if it translates to the home front in support for a more smaller, more limited constitutionally constrained government.
The Kurds and Shiites invited the US in. The Shiites were abandoned by the US in the first gulf war, which was an abomination fought for the "new world order". It was the idea that Saddam had more right to oppress Iraqi's than Kuwaitis. It also involved purposeful targeting of non-dual use civilian infrastructure. This latter war, which I also could not support, was much more noble, and fought by some of the most just means, from a historical perspective. If you are a pacifist like me, you can oppose this war. But if you somehow think that FDR's, Wilson's or Lincoln's war were more "just" than Bush II's war, your kidding yourself. The civil rights violations were much greater starting with conscription and progressing from there.
Wow. This person is the pure definition of a christian idiot, that or he's mentally challenged. I really hope its the latter.
ag, did you read my penultimate paragraph? I admit I have no positive evidence for nefarious actions. I did point out that I cannot agree with you that the actions appear to bear out the initial justifications. Our actions appear to be irrelevant to the claimed justifications (much like Iraq's irrelevance wrt aiding AQ or other fundamentalist terrrst groups).
You might also read my conluding paragraph, and ponder how that supports your assumption about my perspective on other wars.
Hey Dothan and Enterprise Freethinkers!
I just started a group called the Southeast Alabama Freethought Association, so local freethinkers can discuss issues like this in a local social group of likeminded people.
Best,
Micah
africangenesis @47,
The Christians are nurturing investors in their children
What, like the ones who refuse to allow their children to be treated for diseases that are easily cured with medical help but fatal without it, because Teh Lord will cure the kid if only they pray hard enough? "Painting all of them with the same broad brush", how are you!
Here, try this instead:
"Most Christians are more-or-less nurturing investors in their children; this is not one of the characters that distinguishes them from most adherents of other religions and from most non-believers."
Most Christians, you see, like most non-Christians, are humans, and most of us humans who have kids try to do the best for them regardless of our religion or lack thereof. We do so because we love them and want to be good parents to them (and to the extent that this love, and this desire, have a genetic basis, they had already been honed by countless millennia of evolution before Yahweh got the hots for that Jewish babe Mary).
If anything, all else being equal, Christians (and adherents of many other religions) might on average be worse parents, because they are likelier to allow their beliefs to override the natural nurturing love they would otherwise have for their children in ways that cause the children emotional, psychological and even physical harm; vide those Christian parents, cited above, praying fervently as their child dies slowly and painfully from an untreated illness.
Now, maybe what you wanted to say was that there is something to Christianity that makes it better than other beliefs, or than non-belief, in getting subsequent generations to believe it. Personally, I think this sort of "memetics" is a greatly overstrained analogy, but maybe you like that sort of thing. If you do, you might profitably read Dennett's Breaking the Spell. Dennett clearly has more patience for "memetics" than I do, but as he points out, that a religious (or any other) meme is successful at propagation does not necessarily mean that it is true; and it certainly does not necessarily mean that the people in whose minds the meme propagates benefit from that fact.
As a student of entropology, I must point out the absurdity of claiming that God "poofed" water into existence. Everyone knows that H = U + PV; thus it is obvious that Jehovah first had to lift the sky.
africangenesis@41,
Yes, and Stalin's declared intention for invading Hungary in 1956 was to protect the Hungarian people against imperialist aggression.
1) The document I cited to you, PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defenses (2000) contains the following:
"Indeed, the United States has for decades sought tob play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein". PNAC's associates include Cheney, Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Perle, Wolfowitz, Khalilzad, Libby, and Bolton.
2) A National Security Presidential Directive, titled "Iraq: Goals, Objectives and Strategy" and signed by Bush in August 2002, listed as one of many objectives "to minimize disruption in international oil markets."
3) If the invaders had believed Saddam possessed WMDs, as they claimed, they would not have dared to assemble their forces in Kuwait and Cyprus, where they would have been highly vulnerable to chemical attack. I'm sure the invaders expected to find a few rusting mustard gas shells they could hold up as evidence - unfortunately for them, Saddam did his clean-up too effectively.
4) "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason," Wolfowitz, in a Pentagon transcript of an interview with Vanity Fair. In other words, this description of the reasons for the war was a political convenience. Gobsmackingly, Wolfowitz has also said:
"I think all foreigners should stop interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq". The man could give a master class in hypocrisy.
5) The "Iraqi Oil Law" which the US has consistently tried to push through, gives foreign companies control and profit-repatriation rights that have no parallel elsewhere in the Middle East - it would leave 2/3 of known and unknown fields open to foreign control. The Bush administration hired the consulting firm BearingPoint to help write the law in 2004. The Iraqi "cabinet" has agreed it, but it is unpopular in the country according to polls, so they have not yet dared push it through the "Parliament".
The State Department's Oil and Energy Working Group, part of the Future of Iraq project, completed its formal policy recommendations for Iraq's post-Saddam Hussein oil policy in April 2003. The group recommended reliance on production sharing agreements to manage the relationship between Iraq and oil companies. It stated: "Key attractions of production sharing agreements to private oil companies are that although the reserves are owned by the state, accounting procedures permit the companies to book the reserves in their accounts, but, other things being equal, the most important feature from the perspective of private oil companies is that the government take is defined in the terms of the [PSA] and the oil companies are therefore protected under a PSA from future adverse legislation." The Financial Times noted, "Production-sharing deals allow oil companies a favourable profit margin and, unlike royalty schemes, insulate them from losses incurred when the oil price drops. For years, big oil companies have been fighting for such agreements without success in countries such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia." (US Department of State, 4/2003; Financial Times, 4/7/2003)
6) Alan Greenspan has said in his 2007 memoirs The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World:
"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,"
7) Every poll taken, including the 2005 elections, has shown a majority of Iraqis wanting the prompt departure of the invaders. (In the election, a majority voted for parties that had signed the "Pact of Honour" pledging them to work for this. Most then reneged on their commitment.)
8) While the Bush administration has at last, and contrary to earlier pronouncements, that all American troops will leave Iraq by the end of 2011, the building of huge and very expensive military bases, and the vast new US embassy, cast doubt on this intention - plenty of time for "renegotiation". It should also be noted that the simple majority vote on the agreement - instead of a two-thirds majority vote - from the Iraqi parliament is in violation of Article 61, Section 4 of the Iraqi constitution.
You claim that Saddam "had taken measures to make the program easy to reconstitute once sanctions were lifted". Very easy for the invaders to say; and even if true, no justification for the illegal invasion.
The PNAC document provides a wider context in which to understand neocon policies. It is quite frank in its determination to maintain global US military dominance into the indefinite future. In this light, effective control of as large a proportion of global oil and gas supplies as possible, and military bases in the geostrategically crucial region of the Gulf and more generally south-west Asia, make sense.
You are either remarkably naive, or deceitful, in your apparent view of what imperialism is. Do you think the British held India for nearly two centuries by sheer force? Although they held formal power in their Empire and the US prefers not to, the methods were the same: divide and rule, make an example of those who resist (Falluja), recruit local troops and collaborators and make sure they are dependent on you for weaponry and economically. The Iraqi army (aka al-Maliki's militia) now relies almost entirely on US-sourced equipment. So do the police and the oil industry. The Iraqi people can be allowed to choose one set of puppets or another, but they will have very little real say, as has been the case since 2003, over how the country is run. That, I know, is just how you'd like it. After all, if given the chance to run their own country, they might even choose to go for public ownership of key resources and provision of essential services.
#50, I don't think Bush and Cheney were wrong about the potential for Saddam aiding al Qaeda. It didn't have to be based on evidence of a relationship, but rather an assessment of Saddam's character. He would attack the US if he could without significant risk to himself. That was within his character. He'd already tried an assassination of Bush I. Yes, he would never openly cooperate with al Qaeda, nor would he trust them in general. Perhaps he would be too fearful of discovery to have ever tried it. In the wake of 9/11, I don't think Bush was willing to take the risk.
BTW, the UN search was only made possible by forces mounting in Iraq's borders. US credibility would also have been damaged by allowing Saddam to keep pulling the strings too long. The damage to US reputation is largely a creation of the US and European left. The US has been ineffective at countering their deamonizing characterizations and propaganda. Fortunately, the governments are more practical and appreciative of the US protection of the Persian Gulf water ways, which most directly benefits them anyways. For imperialism, see Russia.
I appreciate your intellectual honesty on the evidence issue. regards
Creationists really hate National Geographic...
This letter is probably not a Poe. These guys do an awful lot of misunderstanding on purpose. They circulate emails that say pretty much what the letter above says and then practice being wrathful in imitation of their god. Onward Christian So-o-o-oldeirs. . . .
Poe or not why do newspapers print such crap!
Luke the website you link to from your blog... um..
damn.
wow
#54, none of that seems imperialistic. There is no doubt that oil and the oil shipping lanes are important to world commerce. Taking foreign oil companies as partners is a great idea and usually involves much better technology and stewardship of the resources than a fumbling third world government that tries to do it on their own. Yes it might involve evil profits for the oil company, which amounts to a good return on their capital investment, but capital is not free even for governments. Even if it isn't borrowed, there are opportunity costs. Now, given the sacrifices made, I think there was support even in Congress for directing the business towards the US. I think the Kurds would have been in favor of that in any case.
Yes many Iraqis are ungrateful. But imagine if some country invaded the US in order to end our mindless drug war and to allow gays to marry. We should, of course, welcome them, but there would be some nuts that don't want to give up their "rights" to oppress gays and drug users. I'm sure they get some jollies out of this oppression, even if it isn't as fun as Saddam's rape rooms.
We did not invade Iraq to free the Iraqis. Even taking the administration at face value at the time of the invasion it was because they claimed Saddam was a threat. It had nothing to do with freeing Iraqis.
'Is it any coincidence that one of the anthropological signs of a modern humans is symbolism and care for the dead, both hypothesized to be for religious or mystical purposes?'
Yeah but so what?... all that displays is that Christianity comes from a long line of supernatural mish mashed invented 'theories' on the principles that govern day to day living...
It was never based on reality just on superstition and the need to explain phenomenon that was beyond their comprehension and technology!
God or Gods have always been with us in some form...they are handy things to either blame when things go pear shaped or praise when things go right...neither is proof positive that they exist...
As for Jeebus...well he was in the right place at the wrong time...and hysterically ambitious snake oil salesmen decided he was the perfect vehicle to flog their dodgy merchandise...in so doing making these little heroes rich and powerful as spokespersons in chief for the delusion...they eventually morphed into priests pastors and ministers...all they are is just medicine men that appeal to the spirits but without the skill to actually heal...more like shamen without the wisdom!
Is this letter writer a Poe...maybe...the point being that there are charming little bunnies out there that swallow and believe whole heartedly in that sort of grossly distorted insanity anyway...or are extremely prone to believing it....it does not mean there is a evolutionary imperative in it...
Just that some folk lack basic intelligence to think objectively...and peer pressure ensures their continued ignorance...all orchestrated by self important churches and ecclesiastical imperatives...
Put these folks up against Homo neanderthalensis and they would probably not do quite as well at all...in fact it is debatable that the only reason they survive to day is the fact the rest of secular society carries them to a greater extent...
They would not survive as a cult by themselves...they are not Amish!...which is another kettle religion all together!
KnockGoats, cut that shit out.
Just because a bunch of dickheads told us what they were gonna do, and why, and then did it, fuckyouverymuch, doesn't mean that we shouldn't accept whatever ex post facto feelgood-flagwaving-freedomfry wanking bullshit justifications the Dickhead Fanclub comes up with and congratulate ourselves on being all fucking noble.
I suppose next you're gonna tell us that we shouldn't take Brzezinski seriously, either. You doggone America-hating conspiracy-monger, you.
Why do people keep feeding the troll?
I think bombing people's homes and businesses, killing their families or friends, and countless other things those poor people have had to endure...and then calling them UNGRATEFUL and comparing them to generally contented Americans losing their "rights to oppress" is...phenomenal. And wholly inappropriate.
Oh, of course. Of all the ignorant, ideologically blinded, and cosmically stupid things this bozo has babbled on this thread re history, politics, corporations, anthropology, atheism, religion, and on and on, that has to be the nuttiest.
this one is about the stupidest one i've ever seen here, but also pretty much THE funniest
#54, I want to address another specific part of your argument. You seem to argue for expanding the definition of imperialism to include use counter insurgency tactics: things like divide and conquer, economic incentives, etc. You main justification for calling it imperialist even though the US didn't seek formal power is because the British used the same tactics? Is that right?
The US convinced the Sunni insurgency that the Shiite majority now had the power and that they had better start participating in the government. The insurgent leaders themselves became disillusioned with al Qaeda's violence against muslims, and attempts to control them via terror, so they allowed themselves to be bought off by the US government. The Iraqi government has now taken over payments to these Sunni militias. I don't thing these reasonable tactics make the US imperialist. I agree that the US would like large money saving air bases in Iraq, so it could save on the expenses of the carrier fleet. The PNAC report made it clear that land bases are more economical. But that may not be practical if the Iraqi government opposes it, although I would not be surprised if the Kurdish region would welcome the deterence to Turkey they would represent and the economic benefits that come with a US base.
Even my 9 year-old could rip that to shreds.
After reading that turd of burning stupid left on my doorstep, my neurons are undergoing apoptosis as we speak in response to the waves of horrific dumb washing over them.
Thanks a lot.
Yeah.
Worst. Analogy. Ever..
/comic book guy
In the wake of 9/11, I don't think Bush was willing to take the risk. africangenesis
More crap. This is simply hooey for which neither you nor anyone else has ever presented any evidence whatever, AFAIK. On the other hand, there is evidence that the invasion of Iraq was determined on long before 9/11. Aside from the PNAC document already mentioned, Paul O'Neill is quoted by Ron Suskind in The Price of Loyalty as saying:
"From the very first instance [i.e. as soon as he took office], it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,"
According to Suskind, O'Neill gave him National Security Council documents confirming this. Suskind posts unclassified documents on his website http://thepriceofloyalty.ronsuskind.com/. According to wikipedia "Administration officials have contended that O'Neill confused contingency plans with actual plans for invasion." Well they would, wouldn't they?
This pitifully ignorant person writes: Grade school textbooks teach evolution as fact.
______
Yes, they do, because it is a fact. Your inability to accept facts does not mean that science teachers should be required to lie in order to keep the fact-free bubble in which you reside from being punctured.
"As the Earth was cooling from the Big Bang, . . ." These are lyrics from a Spinal Tap song, right?
Cheney, Rummy and Wolfie have had a hard on for Iraq for decades.
Remember, it isn't about Iraq at the end of the game. It's alllllll about Iran.
That comparison of an Air Base to an Aircraft Carrier is a false economy from PNAC. A base is fixed. A carrier moves to troublespots and is an enormous visible signal. Unless you mean the kind of base that hosts a large standing army suitable for holding territory and not the kind that allows mere support and attack but not conquer roles.
Besides, we also now have a "global strike" doctrine that allows us to put our B-2s in friggin Missouri and have our amphetamine-hyped aircrews bomb any place on the planet.
Who has been making the sacrifices?
If the price of ending the drug war and allowing gays to marry was for the US to go through what Iraq has gone through the last 5 years I don't think anyone with half a brain would support an invasion.
#76 The PNAC believed a permanent air presence in the Persian gulf region was necessary. It wasn't that they didn't recognized the benefits of carrier mobility, it is just that for permanent work, a fixed air base is more economical. Much of their argument was aimed at reducing expense, because in a post-cold-war world they thought funding was going to be harder to come by. So they were proposing ways to more rationally deploy forces and save money, since they thought the projection of power was still necessary. The recognized the benefit of carrier mobility, they just hoped to deploy this limited resource elsewhere. I think I recall, didn't they propose reducing the number of carrier task forces?
I too am pretty sure that the writer is conflating two seperate programs about the origin of the Earth. The planetary collision theory to explain the origin of the moon, and the cometary bombardment theory to explain the quantity of water on the earth. Also, I don't think either were on NatGeo, but either Discovery Channel ("If We Had No Moon") or History Channel ("The Universe").
Ok,
Genesis 1: 6-8
@africangenesis
Funny - I didn't see the US of A liberating the likes of North Korea or Darfur. The latter in particular could use a helluva lot of liberating from the local warlords - how many millions dead from starvation was it on last count?
Yes many Iraqis are ungrateful. - africangensis
Shocking. Ungrateful for having their country invaded, millions displaced, hundreds of thousands dead or maimed, infrastructure and ancient monuments destroyed, years without reliable power, water and medical services, their views ignored, foreign troops and mercenaries immune from local law roaming their streets, their entire economy subordinated to that of the invaders - how dare they???!!!!111!one!!!
I call it imperialism because of the long-term stranglehold the US has now imposed on Iraq, which will be subordinated to US interests unless and until it can free itself. British imperialism was not restricted to areas under direct rule - ask the Argentinians and the Chinese for example.
But imagine if some country invaded the US in order to end our mindless drug war and to allow gays to marry. We should, of course, welcome them, but there would be some nuts that don't want to give up their "rights" to oppress gays and drug users.
I realise this is not intended seriously, but it is still one of the stupidest and most callous things I've read in a long time. You know damn well, you despicable shit, that you are in no danger of having your country invaded and taken over.
africangenesis,
I think your idea on Christians or other religious being more deemed more "fit" due to their success depends on a lot of factors, and is complicated by religion not being a genetic trait. It's further made more ambiguous by the uncertainty of what exactly you're looking at -- is it religion that reproduces, or is it willingness to go along with the majority that reproduces?
Of course, even if there is some evolutionary advantage to believing in a deity (not sure why there would be, but let's say there is), that doesn't mean there is actually a deity.
As for whether the letter is stupidity, of course it is. It's just that there are other influences on short-term survivability than intelligence. Without using intelligence, though, we could easily cause our own extinction through either resource depletion or more direct means.
As much as I like a discussion of global politics, this ain't the place for it. Can we get back to pointing and laughing at the ignorant?
A possible source of the water planet mis-understanding:
GUBA video "If we had no moon". Below is a search that was successful a few minutes ago. GUBA changes links so often even their internal ones fail.
http://www.guba.com/watch/3000120563?duration_step=0&fields=23&filter_t…
In it the theory that the moon was formed by the debris blown into obit from a collision between the earth and a mars sized planet. When the collision occured the earth was a water covered planet. The collision drove the excess water off of earth, not provided water from the smaller planet. The video is worth watching.
It theorizes that if the moon hadn't been formed, stabilizing the earth's orbit and the climate at any point on earth, the earth would be a completely water covered planet and the highest intelligence would belong to squids. Got to love it!
#52, Mrs Tilton, I agree with most things I've read from Dennet, Dawkins and Pinker. I haven't read any of the specifically anti-religion tomes. Memes were an interesting thought experiment which generated productive hypotheses, but I agree that they probably won't make any rigorous grade.
I agree that other religions may similar exhortations to be responsible parents, but in the fundamentalist Christian movement in particular this investment in children reaches observably high levels such as homeschooling, and the testing results appear to exceed the public schools even if some aspects of science are neglected. The birth rates also appear quite high, contributing to evolutionary fitness. Of course, evolutionary success doesn't require that the beliefs be "true".
If you consider the fitness and parental investments of the atheists and less religious, although the investment per child is high if higher education is included, the documented birth rates are low both in the US, and Europe. The libertarian atheists do seem more into homeschooling than the progressive atheists, but I don't know if that investment is paying off in higher birth rates. Although I am hopeful that the emphasis on family might have a salutory effect.
Funny, I don't think I've yet met an actual biologist who claims that we evolved out of the Big Bang.
Of all the claims that we evil-lushon-ists supposedly make about the history of life on Earth, I think the one above most aptly demonstrates the dangers of the Young Earth idea. All the steps involved between the Big Bang and the advent of hairless primates walking on two legs suddenly make a lot more sense when you realize that we're not claiming it all happened in 10,000 years (or less). If you must insist on believing the Earth is only 6-10k years old, then you can only assume that humans walking around with dinosaurs is patently obvious.
Oh, and the US invasion of Iraq was a dumbassed idea from the start and should never have happened. We fucked up, and the Iraqis are going to spend decades cleaning up the mess we made.
#67 Dave, I believe one can be a bit tongue in cheek and still move the essence of the discussion forward. I'm glad you enjoyed it. I do hope that this faith of nationalism becomes outmoded.
Of course I meant "blown into orbit" not into a newspaper death announcement. Damn spell checkers only check what I typed, not what I meant.
From ". . . take a look at what Wesley dug up."
I wonder how much actual damage has been done by people like this and other liars for jesus who have infiltrated schools to sabotage science.
I do hope that this faith of nationalism becomes outmoded. - africangenesis
You moron, at least two of the people you are arguing with here - SC and me - are as anti-nationalist as anyone you could find. It's just that we apply this to the USA as well as other states, rather than believing all the neocon lies as you do.
Mr. Meyers! You missed the best part!
"Talk about fairy tales. By the way, where did the stray planet get its water?"
He just admitted that God is a useless fairy tale, thus confirming the cognitive dissonance required to be a theist.
Who?
#83, I agree that no religion is in the genes, and that Christians are not an isolated gene pool likely to diverge. But cultural phenomena that eschew reproduction don't appear to do as well, take the shakers for instance. Catholicism has done well despite also being one of the largest producers of atheists. The Muslims may reproduce themselves into an increasingly formidible force, while the atheist Soviets were depressing themselves towards oblivion. The zero population growth people are ceding the future to the offspring of others. Perhaps the reason religions have adopted beliefs that increase the evolutionary fitness of individuals, is because those are innate human values (reproduction, caring for children, not gods), and being associated with them makes the religions seem more true and compatible, and the success is mutually reinforcing.
We can do both at the same time.
I thought it was.
By the way,
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/whoa_hitchens_endorses_obama…
But arguing evidence with people like ag is pointless. KnockGoats' comparison with the invasion of Hungary is completely apt. Their dream is of global corporate rule, and they will support anything and anyone they see as contributing to bringing this about. If they can dress it up as (or even try to convince themselves that) being driven by noble motives, they will. When this breaks down, they simply fall back on a vapid celebration of their idealized version of capitalism. Governments, in their moral calculus, are bad and corrupt and inefficient when they act against the corporate-rule project, and good or at least excused when they promote it (thus the the support for violent imperialism seen here and the "breaking a few eggs" sort of rhetoric when I've confronted them with the Grandin article about Pinochet).
Poverty of Theory, 4.0. Fortunately, they're increasingly up against it.
I believe the side trip into geopolitics bypassed a salient point. The religious by definition buy into a delusion. Does that make them more prone to buying into other delusions such as WMD's, supply side economics, the basic goodness of man, libertarianism, communism, etc?
On the surface the answer would have to be yes.
Soviet populace fail.
Tediously, I feel obligated to explain for the dimmer set:
Atheism was the policy of gummint for power control reasons. The people didn't just switch off their religions.
I think the "author" of the letter, if it isn't a Poe, is confused by a variety of early Earth models presented in the course of a NatGeo program. I've been watching a few of these lately and they are quite interesting. Basically I think he combined a couple of the models of the early solar system, with multiple proto-planets colliding into the mass that became the earth as well as the major collision that is increasingly accepted as the method for the creation of the earth/moon system. Added to that there are a number of models for the creation of the oceans, a variety including inner system comets colliding and seeding the earth with the necessary hydrogen.
I have to agree with the skeptics, for the guy to be so amazingly stupid as to put these different mechanisms together and create a "water planet theory" it is highly questionable that they would watch NatGeo except perhaps in the hopes to see "native boobies."
Green slime? What is this guy talking about?
Evolutionist dogma clearly dictates that the slime was a kind of orangey brown color (Darwin 47:39).
I wonder why newspapers allow such inanity to be published.
Maybe its a add-on to the comic strips ?
In fact, exposing those morons to the public its sad. Only could give birth to mocking and disdain.
Anyway, its a shame than all his "scientific knowlence" came from the church and tv shows. I guess most of the bible belt population shares this trait.
I'm not sure I see the problem.
I think this *magic water from nowhere* idea is fairly commonplace in hardcore evangelical/fundamentalist circles. Especially among the scientifically illiterate.
I once had a friend who was a southern baptist (I should also mention he had a very limited formal education). This friend honestly believed that all the water in all the oceans of the earth used to orbit the Earth in space in liquid form. Sort of like a giant shell or bubble around the Earth. Then one day God decided to cause the Great Flood and sent all that magical floating water crashing down to earth. In his mind, this solved both the problem of where the oceans came from, and meshed nicely with the Great Flood/Noah story.
Yes, yes, I know there are about a billion technical problems and biblical contradictions here...but he honestly believed this. He thought it made perfect sense (certainly much more sense than those ridiculous "scientific" theories that those "scientists" are always coming up with), and he thought it sounded totally sane.
I smiled and nodded, bid him good evening, and I haven't talked to him since.
africangenesis @ #41:
All crude oil sold anywhere in the world is currently priced in US Dollars. This effectively means that the USA gets to skim off a fraction of any transaction involving oil anywhere else in the world.
The UK and Mainland Europe between them buy more crude oil than the USA. If the UK were to ditch the pound and join the Euro, it would be a no-brainer for exporting countries to price oil in Euros rather than US Dollars (and to start measuring it in cubic metres or kilowatt-hours instead of "barrels", however much one of those is).
Even whether or not Britain adopts the Euro (and we probably will; although it will happen at a time when it best suits Big Business and the Government in London, and not necessarily at a time when it best suits the majority of the population), if some oil-exporting country were to decide to go it alone and sell their oil in Euros per cubic metre, the USA would suddenly lose a source of free revenue. And, don't forget, Europe exports a few things that America doesn't; so at least some of those nice, colourful banknotes with the gateways on the front and the bridges on the back would be coming straight back home. And once one country starts, the rest may follow.
This obviously would not be a good thing for the US economy.
To date, exactly two countries have experimented with pricing oil in Euros: Iraq and Iran. You may draw your own conclusions.
What's even worse is those who then say that the cometary bombardment theory proves the bible to be correct all along. After all, scientists are saying water came from the heavens, and the bible is saying it came from the heavens. The "colorful" imagery in the bible is just the only way the human "tanscribers" could interpret god's word at the time.
Speaking of the water on earth, this is so cool:
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/03/11/all-the-water-and-ai.html
What? We charge a royalty for use of the "$" sign? How exactly does pricing something in dollars let the US "skim off a fraction" of the transaction?
The oceans evolved from puddles duh!
#104, The currency market is much bigger than the oil market with very low transaction costs. It doesn't matter what currency the oil is priced in as long as the currency volume is large enough to be liquid.
The US is indeed fortunate that China, India and the middle east are willing to honor every dollar we print. The stupid thing is we didn't print more and prevent this economic downturn, when deleveraging destroyed somewhere between 4 and 7 trillion dollars of the money supply.
I believe the side trip into geopolitics bypassed a salient point. The religious by definition buy into a delusion. Does that make them more prone to buying into other delusions such as WMD's, supply side economics, the basic goodness of man, libertarianism, communism, etc?
On the surface the answer would have to be yes.
I'm not sure. There may be, so to speak, competitive exclusion operating between some of these pairs of delusions. Certainly there are between religions, although some newage types seem able to believe in several at once. But certainly habits of credulity or rationality get established, so the net effect is difficult to gauge.
SC, OM,
Arguing against the likes of ag is certainly pointless if you mean he might be susceptible to reason, but I don't think his toxic effusions should go unanswered. But maybe this is just my SIWOTI syndrome ;-)
I cannot argue that there is a religion gene, or gene complex (altho it wouldn't astonish me). But some combination fo genes and upbringing produce fundamentalists, who are depressingly uninterested in how reality works, and who are very uncomfortable with change. While American fundies are reproducing at a faster rate than American liberals or atheists, I am not at all sure they have the advantage in the long run. How do they handle global climate change, for example? Most seem in utter denial. Many of them show no interest in conservation, because, after all, Jesus is coming back any day now. My grandpa, a Southern Baptist preacher, was furious when anyone suggested that the Earth's resources were not here for us to use up freely and without worry. One problem is that they may drag the rest of us down with them. If the American Taliban ever succeed in getting control of this country (can anyone say President Palin?), they will have their fingers on the buttons for tens of thousands of nukes.
Not to mention how well they will fare if anything truly strange happens. Were, say, a global and deadly epidemic strike, fundamentalism would see an upsurge. Humans do not impress me with their tendency to get *rational when times are dangerous and unpredictable.
Nearly (but not quite) perfect fail, yes.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Oh, I'm not suggesting you of all people should stop! I think I'm more trying to rationalize my own lack of energy in rebutting them of late. I think it was jcr's calling you a government-worshipper or something similar on that recent thread that made me wonder: At what point is someone so divorced from reality and resistant to evidence and its reasonable interpretation that it ceases to be of value arguing with them? But I think it's more a matter of mood (temporary SIWOTI remission?) than anything.
I notice we have a couple of vocal idiots recently (AG, HWYD). I stopped reading both after a few posts. Repetative, loud and obnoxious where their only characteristics. If they want people to read them, loose the attitude.
AG, I thought we invaded Iraq because Saddam wouldn't let the weapons inspectors do their job.
I thought we invaded Iraq because he was building nukes.
I thought we invaded Iraq because we were liberating the Iraqis.
I thought we invaded Iraq because we were spreading democracy.
I thought we invaded Iraq because we wanted to establish a regime change.
I thought we invaded Iraq because Saddam blew up the twin towers.
I thought we invaded Iraq because Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (scud missiles which could reach New York!)
And those are just the *official reasons. Don't get me started on the conspiracy "theories" I've heard. The Neocon core wanted Clinton to invade Iraq, but he wouldn't go for it. I think he became gun shy after attacking that "weapons factory" which turned out to be a pharmaceutical factory (IIRC).
There are people where I work who think we are at war with Iraq. Normal, decent people. I can see how they would get that impression. Don't you remember how the administration fought for a year against the use of the word "insurgent"? They didn't lie the suggestion that some Iraqis were ...ungrateful.
The kindest explanation I have for our war in Iraq is that Bush and company were indulging in wishful thinking. Look at our (USA) current political, military, and financial status. It all seems due to a handful of powerful people holding reality in disdain. I suspect this is very much what fundamentalism is all about.
You are as ignorant as a creationist, and, like a creationist, you don't have the slightest idea that you're ignorant. It's baffling.
Let's see.
1) Osama bin Laden called Saddam an "apostate and communist" (yes, that's a quote). You see, Saddam was a secular ruler, a more or less military dictator, who (at least around the beginning of his career) admired Stalin for other reasons than just the mustache and only started spouting the occasional religious phrase in 1991 when he noticed that most people weren't loyal enough to him personally to defend his regime.
2) All over the Middle East there are monarchies or dictatures and an Islamist opposition. What do you think, then, that Saddam would think of al-Qaida? That they'd want to topple (and kill) him, of course. They said as much, after all (the Sharia penalty for apostasy is death, for so it is written).
3) Being generally paranoid about staying in power, Saddam would never have given anything dangerous in the hands of any group he didn't exert total control over. Let alone a group over which he had no control whatsoever, like al-Qaida.
4) Not all evil people think in the same way. For example, as history has shown, Mutually Assured Destruction works with communists, who believe that death is The End™, but, as I hope history will never show, it does not work with religious fanatics who believe they'll go to heaven: you threaten to nuke them, they just say "bring it on already!". What advantage would Saddam have got from randomly raining death on a harmless enemy in an utterly hypothetical situation? Why waste all that money that could be invested in yet another palace or ten, or in yet more secret-service agents for keeping the real enemies in his own country under control?
5) Did you notice what you're saying?
Did you fucking notice what you're saying?!?
Did you listen to yourself while thinking or at least typing?
You're saying "it's allowed, necessary even, to start wars with all countries who are ruled by someone evil".
If that ever becomes international law, the future will be bright, beaming, radiating even. (Can you say "a radiant smile" in English, or am I confusing that with French or something?)
You're a dangerous mad(wo?)man, africangenesis.
What strings? Making his generals believe that he's hiding the WMDs (so they don't consider him a traitor and/or coward and plot against him), while in fact destroying them (so that the UN inspectors can't find anything, no matter how much access they get)? Because that's quite clearly what he did.
ROTFLMAO!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
While Turkey, that faithful ally of the US, protector of the pipeline from Baku to Ceyhan, and bulwark against all manner of Islamists, would not at all welcome the deterrence to Turkey...
You seem to be utterly unfamiliar with the concept of "he's a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch".
WOW! I wouldn't have thought that a well-known pro-evolution site would have noticed a LTTE in a little town's newspaper.
I live in Dothan and will work up a reply LTTE and see if it gets printed. In the meantime, I did post the following in the COMMENTS section that is just before the LTTE on the web page.
Evolution is about biological change: read Darwin's book "The Origin of Species" sometime to see what evolution IS about, and what it is NOT about.
Evolution does not say that humans evolved from the Big Bang. There were some 9 BILLIONS years separating the Big Bang and the origin of the Earth, and none of that has anything to do with evolution because it doesn't have to do with life.
Evolution also does not say that we - humans (if that's not what you meant then it's your fault for being sloppy) - crawled out of the ocean: our distant ancestors did. And there's plenty of fossil (and other) evidence for the transition from fish to terrestrial tetrapods. You might want to read "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin.
The origin of water on Earth is again NOT about evolution: it's not about biological change.
And contra your claim, there's no mystery here either: water is plentiful in our solar system and beyond. Comets, including main-belt comets, have large quantities of (frozen) water on them. In the distant past, Mars had water on it. Water is even found in interstellar space.
Oh, and the Earth was NOT cooling from the Big Bang, but rather from its accretion: two events separated by some 9 BILLION years.
And the Bible does not have a perfect track record.
It's Creation myth in Genesis has the appearance of birds vs. land animals backwards. Make a day as long or short as you want and it won't help: the order is wrong.
The Creation myth also has the order of appearance of flowering plants vs. animals backwards.
In addition, there are passages in the Bible that say the Earth is circular (a circle is two-dimensional, like a penny, not three-dimensional, like a basketball), sits on a foundation, and cannot move. Wrong, wrong, and wrong.
He makes it seem like cyanobacterial green slime is a bad thing. Then make your own oxygen, you ungrateful human!
The evolution theory says we evolved from the original Big Bang and later crawled out of a green slime from the ocean.
Absolutely ridiculous. My ancestors were animated from rock and topsoil by the Tunguska impact, traveled to North America on the backs of migratory unicorns, and then pupated in Mrs. Santucci's portulaca garden, just across the street from where my mom lives now.
I don't know where these people get these silly ideas.
Not to pick nits, Rick, but Mars still has water on it, as does our moon.
cheers. post your LTTE after you send it.
I'm ashamed to say that I was in Dothan over Christmas and yes it is this bad.
the Earth was NOT cooling from the Big Bang, but rather from its accretion: two events separated by some 9 BILLION years. - Rick Pierson
I suspect that people who think the universe is only 6000 years old get vertigo when they even think about "deep time", and so mentally compress it. 9 billion years is hard enough for the rational to get their heads round!
africangenesis is one crazy MF.
Only in the countries where the fewest people have an education.
Nope, the cause was the economic situation, which was bad and kept deteriorating.
1/3 of the French are outright atheists, and what happens? The birth rate has recently climbed back up to 2.1 children per woman. Why? Rampant socialism -- crèches everywhere, and so on.
About 159 l.
#111, KG, the argument shouldn't be with someone, it should be about whether the evidence supports a belief. Someone mentioned in the climate change interchanges, "do we have to convince every skeptic?" That isn't the point at all, if the skeptic raises issues or errors that are evidence based, you should want them addressed and assessed.
A "believer" in the AGW hypothesis, should want it to be able to dismiss or account for the best that competing hypotheses have to offer. Yet, when the 20th century simulations are run, almost invariably they use the best estimate for the solar forcing, NOT the upper end of the admitted error in their knowledge of the forcing. They should want models that if they err in representing the solar response, they err on the high side rather than the low side. So, quite simply, those expressing 90% confidence, really just have a gut feeling, and their lack of confidence is expressed in trying to silence, daemonize and dismiss the skeptics. It isn't about convincing the skeptics, it is about the science itself.
There's only one, AFAIK, that says it's circular. All others say it has four corners.
I have to think his planet collision idea is a misinterpretation of an ice bearing comet or meteor being a source of water on this planet.
Is this actually true? Sounds to me like you assert that nobody did any sensitivity analyses on their models. I find that hard to believe, especially if they are professional modelers. I would not be surprised if they report out the "most likely" scenario and leave others and details of sensitivity analyses in appendices, but to outright not perform the analysis - I don't think so.
After "Jesus Camp" and after having personal experience with Fundies, I am convinced this letter is not a Poe at all. The man is absolutely sincere.
In my book, this does not make it better.
Raining for 40 days and 40 nights, and completely flooding the world, however... I call Poe on that ridiculous story. Especially since it was supposed to wipe out evil, but has been used for generations to justify slavery and racial injustice. You can't simultaneously wipe out evil and introduce racism in the same moment. It's impossible.
SC,OM @ 114 :
I am certainly experiencing some of that atm,really cannot bring myself to debate the retards anymore.....
Making up phony absurd things that evolutionists claim and then ridiculing them is a favorite Ann Coulter tactic: "They want us to believe a bear fell into the ocean and became a whale" is something she said in an interview last year. The sad thing is that if this primitive sophistry didn't work, people wouldn't use it.
Speaking of squids:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/4160791/Piglet-squid-is-alway…
made my day...
Wesley / Nelson's story is proof of intelligent design. Surely the people who spread such lies are intelligent enough to know that their power and influence derives from the ignorance of those who listen to them.
David @117,
Mutually Assured Destruction works with communists, who believe that death is The End™
Oh, sure, it works with some communists -- state-capitalist ameliorationist Trotskyite deviationist wrecker "communists"! It would never have worked with true communists.
La lutte continue!
I know there are literally all kinds of crazy things "out there." Let me try to put your minds at ease a little. I am a Christian for starters, so you can erase fears about New Age, cults and crazy stuff. I have twelve years of higher education and three degrees, a BS Ed, MS Ed, and a DMD (doctor of medical dentistry). I taught first and second year physics, chemistry, first and second year biology and general science for five years, and I have been a dentist for twenty-six years. I have attended many, many, many religious seminars and many, many, many dental seminars in my day. I can be fooled, but not easily!
For instance, I was taught and believed the theory of evolution until I started working on my MS Ed with a National Science Foundation grant through the biology department at the University of Georgia in 1971. In one biology course, I realized that everything I had learned in physics, chemistry and mathematics totally negated what they were trying to tell me in biology about supposed evolutionary theory. I realized that evolution never had and never could have happened. I pondered the alternatives and realized that the only alternative that made any sense was that the Bible was true from Genesis to Revelation, no exceptions. So believe me, I have a rational faith in a rational God, and I do not like funny stuff.
um humm
you fail.
TrueBob,
This is what gets published and yes they probably do run sensitivity tests, but I haven't seen it reported in the appendices.
But what I think seals the case are studies where they make the claim that solar cannot explain the recent warming, yet only report using the most likely reconstruction of past solar variation. If they were really supporting their claim that solar can't explain the warming by having tried solar forcing at the error limits to which its is known, then they would have reported that. It certainly would have made their claim more credible. Of course the less sophisticated earlier work that did not include a fully coupled ocean can be dismissed out of hand.
You also have to appreciate how computationally expensive these simulations are, many months of runs on large clusters. And it is only AFTER these kinds of runs that proper diagnostic studies can be done, and that is when they find out that all the models for instance show a positive surface albedo bias, or fail to reproduce the amplitude response to the solar cycle. Of course, they want to publish in the meantime, they don't want to have to wait for another multiyear developement cycle. But that is no excuse for their claims of confidence, or for their claims that the models agree with the climate or with each other. Yes they all agree, to some extent,"agreement" is a very flexible term. But they are not capable yet of attributing a 0.8W/m^2 energy imbalance.
Lets see. Avowed Xian. Argument from feeble authority. Denying science. Disbelief in evolution. God. Bible. No citations of the primary scientific literature to back up claims. Yep, we a true creobot here. Not an original thought or evidence anywhere in sight. Massive fail.
Given that "letter" has only two more letters than "LTTE", and that we already use LTTE as an abbreviation for the much longer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_Tigers_of_Tamil_Eelam , I suggest that calling letters to the editor LTTEs may be more confusing than is necessary.
B.C. @136,
I realized that everything I had learned in physics, chemistry and mathematics totally negated what they were trying to tell me in biology about supposed evolutionary theory.... I pondered the alternatives and realized that the only alternative that made any sense was that the Bible was true from Genesis to Revelation, no exceptions
Now that is really funny. Great stuff! Have you thought about asking Sadly, No! whether they need another writer?
I think her ancestors crawled out of green slime...
And BTW from the Nat Geo I watch, water was brought to earth by frozen comets that bombarded earth, and melted because at that time it was hot and volcanic.
The person mixed up episodes I think. The planetary collision was used to explain the creation of the moon. It is comet impacts which explain the water. They also did an episode on Darwin where they attempted to explain some of the seemingly unexplainable things like how eyes could evolve from light sensitive patches of skin. NatGeo rocks.
Regardless, I'm sure the letter writer only heard about NatGeo's programming second hand and didn't actually watch it themselves. If they actually watched it, they'd probably have a better idea of where the science is coming from. They could chose to believe it or not, but at least they'd know these theories actually make sense.
There is also the very likely possibility that the writer of the letter is totally messing with you. :)
B.C. This my paste of a response I composed at another site. I hope it addresses the issues you though physics posed:
"How can random mutations create information?" Of course, they are right, they can't, but natural selection can. Mutations expressed in germ cell lines that don't prevent successful fertilization have now passed one level of selection, mutations that don't cause failure during embryological development have passed another, onto mutations that don't prevent successful survival and reproduction have passed another. Of course, genes that enhance any of these or produce some neutral variation that may someday be of value are a bonus. TANSTAAFL, energy was expended along the way, there were no physical laws violated including the laws of thermodynamics, but information was created. As to the accelerating pace of information creation, well it didn't happen overnight. Life was simple single cells for much of its existence. The development of robust gene networks and higher level adaptations for evolvability such as niche reduction through parental care took time.
PAH! UGA explains it all.
Ga Tech '85
Actually, it is the mutations that create the information. Natural selection is what preserves fortuitous information and arrangements of information.
The problem is that many people think of "information" as if it were knowledge or some such thing, when scientifically "information" is generally considered to proliferate enormously precisely in random situations. Indeed, random DNA configurations would be more information-rich than what exists in genomes.
Mutations regularly create information (2nd law and all that), but natural selection both winnows down the total information (away from the random state), and keeps the information that is useful for reproducing the organism. Natural selection is more the editor of information, while random mutations are the creators of that information.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
I am a Christian for starters, so you can erase fears about New Age, cults and crazy stuff. - B.C.
I call Poe!
Suppose they had a culture war and nobody came.
The comments here are very very sad.
The Bible has a perfect track record?
OK, quiz time... Which came first? People or animals?
Genesis 1 says animals came first.
Genesis 2 says people came first.
The Bible can't keep it's story straight from chapter 1 to chapter 2.
your concern is noted.
#146, Glenn, I don't think the creationists or ID folks would find that specialized definition of information very satisfying, I don't find it close to the common usage myself, although it has some nice mathmatical properties. It is the natural selection that creates the information they have in mind, through a screening process. Yes, what gets screened out also coded for something, just something that didn't work well enough in the particular circumstances.
Wait a minute? The earth was created during the Big Bang? Wouldn't that make the planet almost 20 billion years old instead of 4.5 billion years old? Did I really just read that, or am I just stoned on NyQuil and imagining things?
"Wait a minute? The earth was created during the Big Bang? Wouldn't that make the planet almost 20 billion years old instead of 4.5 billion years old?"
13.7 billion, give or take a few ...
It is not a specialized definition, it is a reified and consistent definition which is frequently used beyond science.
And yes, we know that the IDiots fail to understand science and its consistent definitions of information. However, we cannot abandon the consistent and quantifiable understandings of information and cater to their ambiguous and inconsistent misunderstandings of information.
When discussing evolution and the rest of science, we use scientific meanings. Anything else leads to lack of proper understanding.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
OK, this guy has finally convinced me that evolution does not exist for his branch of the family tree.
We used to drive through Dothan from Auburn on our way to Panama City, and that's all I have to say about that!
"If the American Taliban ever succeed in getting control of this country (can anyone say President Palin?), they will have their fingers on the buttons for tens of thousands of nukes."
Thank you, Kermit, for at least partly illuminating something in my mind. Human beings are now globally interdependent to a scale never before seen, and may, in short order, be subject to global selection pressures in a short time frame that would totally swamp any supposed differences in reproductive fitness and activity between races, cultures, nations, etc. This is just one reason why these notions of Christians being better evolved than non-Christians are complete bunkum. (Another being the usual Christian confusion of Is with Ought)
Nerd:
"If they want people to read them, loose the attitude."
Africangenesis might have some silly ideas, but I don't see any problems with his attitude. I think we really ought to save the term "troll" for those who really deserve it, most of whom are in the dungeon right now for those reasons.
"WOW! I wouldn't have thought that a well-known pro-evolution site would have noticed a LTTE in a little town's newspaper."
PZ gets a lot of e-mails alerting him to these. Personally, I think this blog does go after the low-hanging fruit a bit too much, but that's creationism and its pernicious influence in this country for ya.
" Suppose they had a culture war and nobody came.
The comments here are very very sad."
Tom Gray, try to make sense, please. You'll find your interactions with people much more fruitful.
Yea. That's why I don't read local rags (I live in birmingham, alabama).
Water! Where'd it come from, Darwin?!?!?
what an imbecile.
@140: Crud! If that's true, I've got to find another acronym to describe attractive women with children whom I would like to fornicate with. Damn you, Moro Islamic Liberation Front!
Rey Fox, maybe AG has toned down since his intial posts, where I thought he showed some attitude with his voluminous and numerous anti-AGW screeds. I've just skipped over him since about the third one. I'll check him out on other threads. If the evidence is there, I will change my mind.
africangenesis @39:
Um. What a quaint idea; it's a version of the "marching morons" argument.
ag,
No, natural selection preserves the beneficial information that has already been created. It is the random mutations that are indeed creating the information.
As far as I know the only way to measure information content of something is to use Information Theory, which creationists are exceptionally inept in. They like to refer to Complex Specified Information (classical goal post moving BTW) which does not have a quantifiable definition and no associated theory.
Well I don't know about anybody else here but I'm convinced.
I really don't think this guy is a parody- I know it is hard to believe but I really do think that there are people out there that are this STUPID. I have heard similar things from other nutjob fundies.
I found the sentence below particularly amusing. This prat actually thinks the formation of the Earth occured just after the Big Bang, when in fact there is a gap of about 8 billion years between the two!!! Cooling from the Big Bang indeed, what a joker.
"As the Earth was cooling from the Big Bang, it was approached by a stray planet that was teeming with water"
Ritchie P,
He also forgot to mention that we are made from third generation star stuff. Think about that for a minute, if that doesn't peg your curiosity level to off the scale I don't know what would.
Doug Little,
Yes it is an interesting point you make. Of course you could also add that the levels of the heavier elements are increasing with each stellar generation and so you wouldn't expect intelligent life (which requires said heavier elements) within the first 4 billion years or so, say.
I am not too sure it is the third generation exactly, it could quite easily be the forth or maybe more. The smaller stars have such long lives compared to the massive stars that it isn't easy putting a figure on the number of generations.
Doug Little, Could you clarify why you think it is the third generation exactly (I would be really interested to know)?
"Grade school textbooks teach evolution as fact."
They also teach the Axiom of Choice as fact. Grade school textbooks are full of shit.
Bill DeJournett
(334) 794-1169
1919 Fairfield Dr
Dothan, AL 36303
I just want to say that people are being a little dismissive of the evolutionary implications of religion. I believe that religion/mysticism was likely a crucial first step to collective culture and, probably more importantly, abstract thinking.
That said, those people didn't have thousands of years of hard science data at their fingertips. We've reached a point where religion is a cultural vestige. We'd be better off it disappeared tomorrow, but if you wished George Bailey-style it had never existed you might be surprised to find yourself a nomadic hunter-gatherer with rudimentary language skills.
I realize that the above comment does not necessarily describe a role of religion in biological evolution, as implied by the opening sentence, but I think the point stands.
Who's "They"? Yes, if "they" would cease and desist, "it" wouldn't be an issue.
Listen up: If nobody on this side showed up, in a couple of generations there wouldn't be any such thing as a textbook - just Bibles.
michael @#168: Is that really necessary?
Michael @168,
what do you hope to achieve by posting the creationist moron's address and phone number here? No, don't answer that; it's quite clear what you hope to achieve.
And it's also very uncool. Seriously: worthy of Michelle Malkin's website, not this one. There are many appropriate responses to creationist morons. Douchebaggery isn't one of them.
PZ, please consider redacting the creationist moron's contact info.
[quote]The evolution theory says we evolved from the original Big Bang and later crawled out of a green slime from the ocean.[unquote]
I bet the slime wasn't green!
Sadly, letters like these are all too common here in Alabama.....
Statistically speaking, fifty percent of the people are of below average IQ. It's a never ending battle with stupidity.
B.C.: What exactly were you taught in that one biology class that made you reject evolution?
#140: You're right. If I see one more post on the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.
And another thing, if water didn't exist before Noah's flood, when god told Noah to build a big boat, why didn't Noah say, "What the fuck is a boat?"
well he just disproved evolution on his own because if he is breeding our species is not evolving. maybe our species is diverging, we classify him as a new sub-species of human... yes he fills the newly formed ecological niche by pumping gas,and working the night shift at Mcdonalds... lets hope this new sub-species isn't asexual.
Many Dothans died to bring us this infor....
Wait, WHAT?
Oh. BOTHANS.
Never Mind!
I felt the oddest mixture of emotions upon reading that letter. I felt pity for the person who wrote it, because obviously that person is only propagating memes with which he was already infected; I also laughed, because, well, it was either that or scream "We are doomed!" Aside from any religious issue or even any issue of belief in evolution, straight logic just seems lost on him. I know religious people who can think, and even a few who admit the possibility that Darwin might have been at least partly right. Ignorance is one thing, but willful ignorance is hard to deal with.
Ritchie P,
The sun is a third generation star according to Wiki. I pretty sure they know that by how much metal they contain.
Checkout.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallicity#Population_I_stars
So in actual fact because the sun is third generation then the stuff we are made has gone through two of the most violent explosions known, making it 2nd generation stuff. I find this fact extremely comforting and awe inspiring. Most of the atoms in our body have been around for 13.7 billion years who knows where they have come from or where they will eventually go? What stories could they tell?
#162 and #154, Using this specialized definition of information hurts rather than helps, because it doesn't address their perception of "order" and complexity. It looks like obsfuscation to avoid the issue. Of course, we can't tie our actual concepts of order into such a nice tight mathmatical bundle, because ultimately every state, even the random ones are unique, and our concepts of order are subjective based on what our brains evolved to see. Calling random bits "information" makes us look like we are avoiding the issue. Of course, a discussion like this, rather than our more concise attempts will help elaborate the issues. I have found that addressing their concept head on, gives less room for them to spin the encounter to their neophytes, who will not have understood the more technical dismissal of their perception of order. The human brain may not be able to rigorously define order, but it knows it when it sees it.
"The 4000 year old book has a perfect track record."
Well, you know, there are two ways to have a perfect record. Did anyone say Detroit Lions?
BC @136 "In one biology course, I realized that everything I had learned in physics, chemistry and mathematics totally negated what they were trying to tell me in biology about supposed evolutionary theory."
Could you give an example of something you learned in physics, chemistry and mathematics that negates evolution. And could you explain why physicists, chemists and mathematicians haven't learned it?
Alabama = Sister fuckers.
AG @182:
When we're confronted with the demand to say where new information comes from in evolution we simply cannot say that it comes from natural selection. That is simply a lie. NS only "selects" information, it does not create or produce it in any way. Even the IDiots know that, and they would fault us for saying otherwise, were we craven or stupid enough to make that claim.
Your constant return to a merely asserted "specialized definition of information" without adequate reference, argument, or evidence, indicates that you merely wish to repeat the mistakes that you made, rather than to correct them. I do not doubt that many simpletons would charge us with shifting the issue when we simply address it in the only meaningful way possible, but the latter fact is a big reason why many of us revolted when we were told by Nisbet and Mooney to "frame evolution." We cannot, for we are defending science as science, and this includes the well-worked out definitions and understandings that are necessary within science.
I'm probably done with this issue (that is, likely I won't even read anything further on this thread--I let them drop after they get so far down) after this post, since you really make no sense at all in response to what is written to you. Go ahead and tell Behe that NS is the source of information, and he'll laugh at your naivete and produce quotes that say otherwise. I will not participate in any such fraudulent scheme, both because I will not normally lie, and because it is foolish to claim that NS produces information when from the very beginning it was understood that it only preserves what arose through different means.
Darwin didn't know the source of new information, but he knew that it wasn't NS.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
#185, "Selecting" information works for me. Perhaps we can also state that over time many branches of life have also accumulated information through such selection, plus duplications, plus horizontal transmission, etc.
But it isn't butchering the truth or a "lie" to state that the information came from natural selection, much the way a museum may say that a collection of Egyptian artifacts came from a particular donor, rather than insisting the must only say it came from Egypt. You are being a bit fundamentalist on this.
Where are you from asshole?
What's wrong with being a sister fucker? In fact, nearly all of ladies with whom I've been, how shall I put it, acquainted, have had at least one sibling...
Oh, you meant one's own sister. Hmm, methinks you might be generalising just a little, and that's not cool.
I have to side with Glen on this one. Selection merely preserves or destroys information by allowing some lines to persist while others die out. It's a passive filter. The information came from elsewhere. It's not unimportant to be precise about these things when you're dealing with a) an organized and tenacious campaign of disinformation coming from the cdesign proponentsists, and b) a largely uninformed or misinformed public. Being correct about fundamentals does not necessarily equate to "fundamentalism". The museum analogy is interesting, but weak in this context. Sorry.
A member of my family was the victim of incest by multiple perpetrators over a span of several years when she was a girl. This occurred in a very affluent suburban town in a liberal and cosmopolitan metro area in the northeastern part of the United States. Sisterfuckers know no political or economic boundaries. In fact, they know no boundaries at all.
#189, Well go ahead and use it in a more technical discussion. But claiming you have by definition tautologically addressed their issue, will only create distrust and look like you are scurrying for a way to avoid addressing the issues they think are important. The uninformed public will be suspicious and question whether you really understand the issue very well, if you can't explain it in their terms. You will feel clever but you won't communicate.
The actual creationist/ID activists must either know they are distorting the issues, or be working hard to decieve themselves. If you show the others that you know what they mean, they are more likely to believe you understand what you are talking about. I think there is better success being on offense and addressing problems with their theories, than in defending evolution anyway, they are more interested in their theories, and tend to lose interest when they find out they really don't advance their religious believe, but create problems they don't want to think about.
Analogously, I have found that the doorbelling Seventh Day Adventists, even though they believe in Satan, don't feel comfortable spending the whole visit discussing proofs for the existence of Satan, and how much more active he appears to be in their theology. With ID, discussing the quality of the designs (or lack thereof), and defending the intelligence of the designer isn't quite as fun as worship and prayer.
"The evolution theory says we evolved from the original Big Bang and later crawled out of a green slime from the ocean."
Tell me. You don't what a thankless task it is going down to the beach to watch for stragglers. "Hey, you! Human! Outta there! You're evolved! Quit muckin' about!"
They just love squishing that stuff between their toes.
@Peter: (#10)
oh good! somebody else posted it so i don't have to.
@Didac: (#11)
not to get TOO technical, as this is not a bible interpretation or translation blog, but... not really? people like to read an ex-nihilo creative act in genesis 1:1, but it neither holds up linguistically nor culturally. genesis 1 opens,
strictly speaking, b'reishit is the beginning of a prepositional phrase. it's not an absolute temporal marker. a good translation will read something like:
the emphasis being that this story takes place at the beginning of that creation of, slightly more idiomatically, everything. but that's not an excuse to assume something before this point -- it's necessarily the beginning of the creative act. and the water just pre-exists.
further, this fits nicely with sumerian and ugaritic cosmology, in which everything is created from the most primordial and chaotic of the four elements. water, here, represent the neutral state of all matter; when god tries to uncreate his creation, he does it by returning it all to water, with a great flood.
the thing is, people WANT to read the story another way, because they want it to be TRUE or mean something. if you read it just like you would any other mythology, this stuff is pretty plainly apparent. but due to our cultural context, that's a little trickier than it would be with, say, the enuma elish or the epic of gilgamesh.
Mike Haubrich, FCD: (#19)
Project much, dumpling? Ironically, a Christian theocracy is among the few things anyone in this bunch might truly fear. Any other brand of "crazy stuff" is just giggle fodder.
It's plausible that NatGeo may of had some nonsense like that. I did turn it on a while back and watched a special on psychic pets.