I can only hope some Republican candidate hires her to blog and us liberals get to dig through her archives for some juicy bigot-speech. I always love a good treasure hunt, although she would make it just to easy.

JaHerer22 on February 8, 2007 at 9:50 AM

Whats stopping you? Why does she have to be hired by a conservative in order for you to dig up dirt on her?

Most TV opinion shows have the decency to have at least one person from each side of the issue they’re discussing. When they don’t, it makes them look a little catty. Like this clip from Paula Zahn’s show that I……

I think they need to shut up.

Well said, ditto that and I support their right to say it.

Thanks, all.

4). Evolutionary biological scientific theory has been proved, tested, and falsified for over a century and is the basis of our modern medical system and has demonstrated its tremendous value to mankind through multiple real world applications that make our lives longer, healthier, and more qualitative. Creationist “science” has no such value or claim.

5). Creationism/Intelligent Design is NOT scientific and does not belong in the science classroom. Comparative religion class, philosophy class, anthropology class, a church, a family’s home etc., fine, no problem.

6). As mentioned earlier, science is an extremely efficient method in which to obtain knowledge, because it is a self-correcting, testable, falsifiable process and not dogmatic. Religion can make no such claim.

Roark on February 9, 2007 at 10:32 AM

For someone insisting their beliefs aren’t dogmatic, you sure lay out a lot of dogma. Not going to get in to all of it.. but number 4 is completely ridiculous. You’re arguing with no one on number 5… but we want science taught, not story telling. We want the actual science taught, not a prewritten story of origins that has to constantly be revised to fit evidence that contradicts it.

RW,

I’m absolutely certain that the two of us haven’t gone ’round and ’round regarding Evolution. Such debates are, in the end, futile.

I will leave you with this: an error in a part of a theory does not automatically negate that entire theory, nor does it suddenly validate some other theory.

For instance: Global Warming is a real phenomenon, it has happened before and will happen again. What is completely unknown is the impact of man. The evidence used to say that man is to blame is riddled with errors, but that does not mean we aren’t getting warmer.

Krydor on February 9, 2007 at 10:48 AM

I should have been more clear, the “we” I was talking about was the HotAir community. Honestly, I wasn’t talking about you specifically at all. And indeed it is futile, which is actually why I mentioned going “’round and ’round”.

That said, in repeating the evolutionist line “error in a part of a theory does not automatically negate that entire theory”, you’re completely ignoring the point, so I’ll repeat:

We’ve gone ’round and ’round on this, but if you’re a mainstream scientists you’re simply not allowed to go against the Church of Charlie. (See the “global warming” situation to see how this works. How bogus science is turned in to “consensus”, and in turn public opinion). The FACT is that the evidence consistently contradicts the prewritten evolution story, and whenever a study is done an “suprisingly” or “shockingly” reveals that some layer was laid down much faster, or some feature could not possibly have evolved the way they had previously thought and taught, the “science” community doesn’t just report the finding… their dogma requires that they make ridiculous statements along the lines of “must have evolved in some unknown and/or much faster way”, even though the ONLY thing they discovered was that something couldn’t have gone the way their evolutionary assumption needed it to. The evidence doesn’t actually show anything about how something evolved. But because the evolutionary assumpt isn’t allowed to be challenged, and all science must fit in to it, and no contradiction will ever be allowed to be viewed with an open mind, somehow they managed to stick the E word back in their writings. Again, this isn’t science. This is finding information that doesn’t fit their story. But honest writing about that isn’t allowed. They can’t help themselves, and feel the need to mention their story, and just say that it didn’t go exactly as they had thought. But again, no evidence said anything about their story. Just that it couldn’t have gone the way they had assumed and taught.

Next is where you say “when a more valid theory presents it self, evolution can be replaced”. The problem with both of these comments is that as long as evolution is assumed, and contradictory evidence doesn’t force “scientists” to drop assumptons, but instead gives them the opportunity to weave their stories around the new evidence, challenges to evolution will not be allowed. Imagine (because this is what is happening) one day, evolutionary assumptions are shot down by real study, the story is rewritten to allow for the new evidence to fit the story. The next day, another piece of evidence, and another, and another. When does it end? When do we actually consider evolution to be a fatally flawed idea? Never. Because as long as “evolution” can be changed to fit the evidence, no matter what it says, evolution will remain. I’m having trouble with putting that in to words (just got up), but do you get what I’m saying? There is simply no way to invalidate evolution, as evolutionists constantly find a way (non-scientific way mind you, and that’s not my opinion, I can give you examples of how it goes down if you need) to rewrite the story to fit evolution, because evolution is assumed. No matter how ridiculous their attempt to make the evidence fit is, we’re supposed to bow to these holy men and accept their word.

As for global warming, when I say “global warming”, I’m talking about the whole “human cause” modern movement, which is the “consensus” view, though ridiculous. A slight increase in temperature, when there have been thousands of increases and decreases in the past, Greenland’s glacier have been naturally shrinking for 100 years (not to mention, why was it once called Greenland?), in the 1970s this same alarmist crowd shouted “global cooling” was the end of the world, etc. etc. etc. It’s not worth getting in to that whole argument here. The point is “consensus” views, especially ones that are media and UN generated isn’t “science”… the same way “the Earth is flat” consensus wasn’t “science”, or any of the other overturned consensuses from the past.

I’m absolutely certain that the two of us haven’t gone ’round and ’round regarding Evolution. Such debates are, in the end, futile.

I will leave you with this: an error in a part of a theory does not automatically negate that entire theory, nor does it suddenly validate some other theory.

For instance: Global Warming is a real phenomenon, it has happened before and will happen again. What is completely unknown is the impact of man. The evidence used to say that man is to blame is riddled with errors, but that does not mean we aren’t getting warmer.

1). Atheism does NOT equal socialism/communism or moral relativism. It merely means that someone believes in one less god than Christians, Muslims, etc. do. Christians are just as atheistic when it comes to Zeus, Poseidon, Athena, Ares, Apollo, Dionysus, Mithras, etc., which people centuries before us believed in just as fervently as most “religious” people today.

2). Morals do not derive from “God” or religion, even though the major religions of the world have tried to monopolize that concept for centuries. Morals derive out of reality/nature and whether or not a human individual or any living organism chooses; life/existence or death/non-existence. The belief that man is naturally evil is one of the quickest ways to invoke oppression and tyranny than almost any other.

3). Absolutely Islam is a greater threat to our enlightened society as it teaches hate/bigotry/sexism and one must morally be able to judge the obvious differences between Islam and Christianity. However, let’s not forget that the exact reason that Christianity is more peaceful and congruent with civilized society is because it DID go through reformation which incorporated more REASON and less MYSTICISM than what was accepted in its previous history. Islam has never recovered from their militant turn from reason in the 11th century and will continue to cause serious trouble for the West until it does reform.

4). Evolutionary biological scientific theory has been proved, tested, and falsified for over a century and is the basis of our modern medical system and has demonstrated its tremendous value to mankind through multiple real world applications that make our lives longer, healthier, and more qualitative. Creationist “science” has no such value or claim.

5). Creationism/Intelligent Design is NOT scientific and does not belong in the science classroom. Comparative religion class, philosophy class, anthropology class, a church, a family’s home etc., fine, no problem.

6). As mentioned earlier, science is an extremely efficient method in which to obtain knowledge, because it is a self-correcting, testable, falsifiable process and not dogmatic. Religion can make no such claim.

7). Finally. America was founded as a SECULAR country with the distinct intent to separate Church and State. Most of the founding fathers were Agnostic/Atheist or the believers in not a literal God, but of “Spinoza’s” God of Nature. They would be shocked at how religious of a country the U.S. has become over our short history. Jefferson fully thought that religion would be phased out of the American culture after the first 50 years, because of the tremendous impact the Enlightenment and the embrace of reason had on the foundation of our great country.

So I could go on… but at least a few things have been said in defense of all the mischaracterizations being so easily strewn about around here.

How about how freeing it must be, to be a true atheist who believes (”knows” in your minds) that there is no God, therefore you aren’t accountable for your actions in the long run? You could do drugs, drink, steal, kill, rape and then jump off a building and it doesn’t matter right? And we’re just animals right? So what is all this talk about “remorse”, etc.? Once you guys realize that there is no God, and that we’re just insigificant nothings in infinite time and space, it must be pretty freeing to know that these are all made up artificial feelings imposed on you by organized religion.

RightWinged on February 8, 2007 at 11:08 PM

Google the word empathy…

Man instinctively knows that his moral sense is derived from being God’s image bearer. He may not acknowledge this, as atheists do not, but it’s true nonetheless. Morals and logic are creations from a creator God and we can follow them only because we are allowed to do so by God.

Lord, what fools these mortals be.

2) With almost all religions, God is seen as all knowing as to all events (past, present, and future). This invariably leads to the debate of free will versus predestination. Yes, I know that some will argue that man was given free will. But, if the free will leads to an action that God has not foreseen then does this not make God fallible and therefore imperfect?

Krydor on February 8, 2007 at 9:26 PM

We’ve gone ’round and ’round on this, but if you’re a mainstream scientists you’re simply not allowed to go against the Church of Charlie. (See the “global warming” situation to see how this works. How bogus science is turned in to “consensus”, and in turn public opinion). The FACT is that the evidence consistently contradicts the prewritten evolution story, and whenever a study is done an “suprisingly” or “shockingly” reveals that some layer was laid down much faster, or some feature could not possibly have evolved the way they had previously thought and taught, the “science” community doesn’t just report the finding… their dogma requires that they make ridiculous statements along the lines of “must have evolved in some unknown and/or much faster way”, even though the ONLY thing they discovered was that something couldn’t have gone the way their evolutionary assumption needed it to. The evidence doesn’t actually show anything about how something evolved. But because the evolutionary assumpt isn’t allowed to be challenged, and all science must fit in to it, and no contradiction will ever be allowed to be viewed with an open mind, somehow they managed to stick the E word back in their writings. Again, this isn’t science. This is finding information that doesn’t fit their story. But honest writing about that isn’t allowed. They can’t help themselves, and feel the need to mention their story, and just say that it didn’t go exactly as they had thought. But again, no evidence said anything about their story. Just that it couldn’t have gone the way they had assumed and taught.

As for atheism

There is no God to go to when you have problems, you are on your own. That requires a strong person, and a strong mind.

Realizing that you are in fact on your own, and only you can help yourself, is for those who are strong.

Seixon on February 8, 2007 at 8:15 PM

To which Allah said:

Well said.

Allahpundit on February 8, 2007 at 9:28 PM

How about how freeing it must be, to be a true atheist who believes (“knows” in your minds) that there is no God, therefore you aren’t accountable for your actions in the long run? You could do drugs, drink, steal, kill, rape and then jump off a building and it doesn’t matter right? And we’re just animals right? So what is all this talk about “remorse”, etc.? Once you guys realize that there is no God, and that we’re just insigificant nothings in infinite time and space, it must be pretty freeing to know that these are all made up artificial feelings imposed on you by organized religion.

Not mocking you guys honestly, but please tell me what I’m missing about the atheist mindset. (Obviously I don’t think you guys commit crimes with impunity, I guess I’m just wondering if you are opposed to it, and why?)

VinceP1974 on February 8, 2007 at 9:48 PM

So does genocide, what’s your point ?

We’ve been percolating for over 6 million years and only in the last l/2 blink of the eye has “modern” man come on the scene. So, we do not “know” exactly when these concepts began only that they have taken tens of thousands of years to get to the point where the Western world is in serious danger of losing its identity.

Realizing that you are in fact on your own, and only you can help yourself, is for those who are strong.

Well said.

For some reason the does not seem to apply to evolution. In schools, it often can’t be questioned. Real scientific to squash debate.

I sense we’re heading for some touchy ground. Of course Evolution can be questioned within the realm of science. All scientific theories, all of them, are up for debate, changes, revisions and possibly retractions. The thing is, as Piltdown Man, Pluto and Brontosaurus will attest to, it takes years for the changes to happen.

When someone says the theory is wrong or partially incorrect they kind of have to, you know, prove it. This is why the process is so drawn out.

If that were the case with Evolution, then specific ideas would not have changed since Darwin published the “Origin of Species”. It has, most recently with the growing acceptance of proto human speciation (on more than one occasion, with the Neanderthals being in that group).

Science is not holy writ, and scientists aren’t the high priests of knowledge. The catch is that whatever one wishes to take the place of Evolution had better be a superior theory.

I don’t believe I have said that we cannot look into the belief systems of others. And I believe I said that there are many bad people in all religions or atheism, and although I do definitely believe that Islamism is bad,
and we need to hold the Muslim population to account, I look at the appeasers, the apologists, the weasels who either will not or cannot see or hear the truth if it slapped them with a 2×4 against their heads. These are also the people we need to work against and that includes the politicians of all stripes.

Let me be very clear: I have my own belief system and it
does not depend on something or someone outside of me to do
the right thing and live a decent life. Just because I am
an atheist does not give anyone the right to label me with any of their difinitions!!

Those two people are enemies of America, and many of those who think like them are of equally weak mind. If you don’t believe in anything, you’ll easily fall for virtual nothings. That’s why Europe is so quickly turning Islamist–because atheism dominates and Christianity is rapidly dying there. Over there, the number one cause for which atheists are suddenly finding “god” is Islam.

What utter nonsense. Atheism has nothing to do with the assimilation going on in Europe. An atheist that “finds God” is not and was never an atheist. I especially resent the sentiment that atheists will fall for anything because they don’t believe in anything. That’s the worst kind of projection because that’s what many religious people do, fall for “virtual nothings”, although in their view it isn’t.

Being an atheist requires a strong mind because you have to reject the conventional wisdom that dominates the majority of those around you, and you have to live in a “cold” world where you don’t have an easy answer for everything around you. There is no God to go to when you have problems, you are on your own. That requires a strong person, and a strong mind.

Realizing that you are in fact on your own, and only you can help yourself, is for those who are strong.

Romeo:

I am not equating anything to anything. You sound like a deeply committed Christian and I am happy for you. I see the difference between Islam and other religions. In fact, it is a subject I have studied in my small way for several years and posted about on many sites. My first introduction was in Newsweek magazine over 20 years ago when they outlined Buddism, Christianity and Islam. History later taught me that of these three, Islam is the only one founded by a military man to achieve money, land and power by conquest. And, that is the basic difference: Christianity is based on Jesus’ love for humanity, Islam is based on complete subservience. My very best to you Romeo.

sharinlite on February 8, 2007 at 5:45 PM

Wow… Interesting… seeing as how I’m at BEST Agnostic, and hope to die with a Sword in my Hand and go to Valhalla (really pisses my girlfreind off, all the dang swords around the house… but at least I’ve taught my kids to fence).

My point is about moral relativism. Your spot on about the WEST’s belief in personal responsibility, problem is that we are dealing with belief systems that have no personal responsibility…

Peoples belifs do NOT spring up out of a vacuum. They are taught by the family and society around you. There is no inherent “goodness” in people… its learned behaviour.

Create a society where ALL belief systems are “equal” no matter how repugnant, and you have the problems we have now.

As I posted above… if the law does not bring you to justice… and you don’t believe in divine consequence either through being forgiven (Christianity) or dieing in Jihad (Islam)… or just plain not believing in a higher power… then there is no reason NOT to behave badly.

And, please don’t make the assumption (thereby proving yourself and myself an ass) that just because I have a different belief system from yours that I am the enemy. There are people from every belief system that are the enemy and that is what we all need to focus on.

sharinlite on February 8, 2007 at 11:39 AM

Lets see… just because I believe differently from you and believe that I can prostelyze by the sword, and believe you are less than I because you still don’t worry about whether you are crapping towards Mecca or not… it does not make me your enemy??? and we should not look at the belief systems of the people we are talking about???

Thats my problem with your whole arguement.

I am not equating anything to anything. You sound like a deeply committed Christian and I am happy for you. I see the difference between Islam and other religions. In fact, it is a subject I have studied in my small way for several years and posted about on many sites. My first introduction was in Newsweek magazine over 20 years ago when they outlined Buddism, Christianity and Islam. History later taught me that of these three, Islam is the only one founded by a military man to achieve money, land and power by conquest. And, that is the basic difference: Christianity is based on Jesus’ love for humanity, Islam is based on complete subservience. My very best to you Romeo.

The great thing about science is that nothing is carved in stone. All theories are open to revision and outright dismissal.

For some reason the does not seem to apply to evolution. In schools, it often can’t be questioned. Real scientific to squash debate.

The great thing about science is that nothing is carved in stone. All theories are open to revision and outright dismissal. It sure will be fascinating to see what supplants it or what revisions take place.

Not sure where the trickery was involved. The idea that evolution is more of a shrub than a tree has been around for quite some time.

Hah! Indeed :)