Tehachapi News

ID is not science -

A brief recap of ID ......God created man from the earth and woman from man's rib ..... and then all went south when the talking snake convinced the evil woman to eat an apple.  I have trouble just calling this form of "beginnings" as intelligent - much less a design. 

Who believes this is reality?  And the dear, sweet brothers, offspring of Adam and Eve  - Abel & Cain ..... one murderer the other murdered.  The remaining son off into the world and ......... reproduces.  WOW - with who, may I ask?  Genius says he goes to the land of the giants.  Again,  WOW.  Who created the giants?  Where are the giants actually residing?  Did sonny boy walk a long, long time ---- or was it just a short overnighter?

Are you ID believers actually reading the Bible?  I think you should.  Word for translated, interpreted, word. 

Hey girl, got over that headache yet?

;-)

I just found this website:

http://controversy.wearscience.com/

For those folks who support the "teach the controversy" concept regarding evolution, check out these t-shirts! Hysterically funny!!!

Whew.....this all gave me a headache.  There are some really smart freaking people here.  I need to read more books. Very interesting topic of discussion.

Following the facts where they lead and enjoying wide-ranging discussion isn't your bag...I get it.  After all, why discuss when you can hector?  Turn the car around, indeed....

PD, please stick to the issue here. If you'd like to discuss the evils of eugenics, start your own blog. It's such a miniscule part of this film. Now, I've asked you nicely to do this twice. Don't make me turn this car around, young man!

;-)

On a different note, I see that Yoko will have these folks tied up in court for quite a while. And since the judge has issued an injunction against any more copies of this film being printed & distributed until the matter is settled, I guess the producers won't be able to make any DVD sales to try to break even on this turkey.

YAY Yoko! You go girl!

No comment on the here and now advocacy of using hair color to determine natal survival?  Guess that's A-OK!!  Eugenics is cool....

Looks like this film isn't going to make back the $ investment in the theaters, so the producers are going to have to make their money in DVD sales.

From what I understand, the initial investment was about $4 million, with another $4 million going into promotion. My guess is the box office total doesn't take into account the amount of money rebated back to church groups & the like bringing their faithful to see this piece of trash, (can you imagine having to bribe people to see your movie?) so the tickets sales will be considerably lower than listed at this site:

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2008/EXPEL.php

It's also been dropped by about 1/3 of the movie theaters showing it, so it doesn't seem to be the "blockbuster" that folks like Michael Medved hoped it would be.

Good news, all the way 'round.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1550785/Clinic-to-weed-out-embryos-with-a-squint.html

And its a good thing all those nasty eugenics people are in the long-distant past - scorned by all scientists and governments.

Oh - except here - where with the approval of the suitably Orwellian-named British Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority  embryos will be produced, screened, and discarded if they show a propensity to squint.  When asked if he would do the same to select for a child's hair color this as-yet-unscorned Dr. Mengele replied, "(Hair color) can be a cause of bullying which can lead to suicide...I would do it."

This is a public place.  If you want to have a private conversation, do it privately.

What am I "telling you"?  It is obvious - you claim to know the difference between right and wrong, so you must be a religious kook.  At least that what religious people who claim to know the difference are called - probably by you at various times.

Here's another simple question - is cannibalism right or wrong?  How do you know?

PD there you go sticking words in my mouth........in fact I wasn't responding to you........my comment was towards moonshadow and you know that.............Are you telling me that if you are a Christian and believe in God then you know right from wrong better then an atheist?????????who in the hell do you think you are calling me a kook.......lol

Sorry since i don't believe in god i can't answer your lame question........

gube, while YOU may say skinning illegal aliens alive may be WRONG, I say it is RIGHT!  

Are you saying YOU know the  "differance between rigjht and wrong" better than me?? 

It sounds to me like you're an intolerant kook!  Only a delusional fanatic would say that their opinion is better than another's.  Who died and made YOU God, anyway?

huh...awsmom?  While I'm not a big fan of Roger Mahoney, you've put him in a sentence with murders, ex-cons, and Jim Jones.  Got a reason for that?

And like oohchild, I like to get questions answered.  You say that "most wars are caused by religious leaders".  What religious leader has caused a war currrently being fought or that has been fought within the last 100 years?  You say "most" with such certainty, I'd like to see your supporting calculation.

moonshadows1949, I deleted one of your comments since you posted the same rant twice. I got it the first time, hon.

;-)

Fanatics like you seem to always equate the ACLU with the most nefarious of goals, but I don't see what that has to do with this film's message. I also would recommend you read some history books yourself, and not the ones printed up by your church. There were so many errors in your brief paragraph that it would be futile to try & correct your flights of fancy.

Why are Christians like you so offended that atheists like me don't accept your concept of God? Why do you often think that we are somehow afraid or angry with your God? We don't see any reason to believe in any God(s), not just yours. Why is it so offensive that we reject your particular God? And why would you believe we are angry or afraid, when we don't believe at all? We are rational people, moonshadows, so we are able to discern the difference between unbelief & denial.

Finally, I don't believe in sin. Don't misunderstand me when I write that - I do believe there's plenty of evil & corruption in the world. Bad people do bad things every day. I just don't accept the concept of "sin" as outlined in the Bible. I can't see where eating certain foods or thinking certain thoughts can always be wrong or bad or evil. This extends to personal relationships & responsibility to our community. "Sin" is used to control the populace & shame them into compliance, which is in total opposition to a democratic republic.

Thanks for stopping by. I hope you aren't a "drive-by" poster like some others who've visited here, cause I'd really love to read your answer to my questions!

rm6, gube, awsmom8, Joty & madkow & vader, thanks for your input (did I forget anyone?) You guys rock!

all right, I haven't said anything in a while, but I have to say this: moonshadows you're off your rocker, the thought of your GOD doesn't scare me nor does it fool me, it disgusts me...the correlation between the nazis and evolution is nonexistant, it's a false analogy, evolution was created by Darwin over 60 years before the nazis...your faith DOES NOT give you the right to judge what is right or wrong for everyone...yea you have your faith, because without it, you'd crumble in the face of reality

"Without GOD, there is no right or wrong...isn't that why children today think that killing someone is not a crime.  Lives are not worth living without GOD."

Thats BS....................I don't believe in a christain god and I know the differance between rigjht and wrong...........what about all these preist molesting little boys?????Those priest belived in god and they still did wrong............OH and the bible is not gods word it's a book of stories written about god by man..............................

Maybe the thought of GOD scares you...then you would have to face yourself and your sins.......Well aint that why where called god fearing people??????????????

"Without GOD, there is no right or wrong...isn't that why children today think that killing someone is not a crime.  Lives are not worth living without GOD."

Are you saying all the murderers are atheists? Ahhh, if you did your research, you would find the majority of them list themselves as Christians. And they "find God" again in church, yet most of them re-offend when released.

What about Roger Mahoney...he believes in God...Jim Jones believed in God....I could go on forever but my finger would grow weary. 

Most wars are caused by religious leaders...all in the name of God. And whose God is the right God?

Organized religion can be a crutch to lean on, as are many addictions like alcohol.  Some people just feel a need for their lives to be organized and be dictated to by another person--kind of like when Germany allowed Hitler to make all their decisions.  

My life is worth living without God to lean on.  I don't need someone to dictate to me what is right or wrong.  I set high standards for myself and my family and don't need someone to tell me how to live my life. Honor, Respect, Forgiveness and Honesty are the pillars of my family's life.  Not some organization who feels that dinosaurs didn't exist

 " You may friend, have it backwards. "

And NO! I am not a member of the ACLU.

Are you a memeber of the ACLU?  Sounds  like it...maybe you need to read GOD's word, which has NOTHING to do with religion.  It is called faith.  I'd rather believe in a supreme being then doubt there is one.  Without GOD, there is no right or wrong...isn't that why children today think that killing somone is not a crime.  Lives are not worth living without GOD.  You may friend, have it backwards.  Evolution was created by the Nazi Germans.  Read your history text books, oh, that's right, they don't teach about the Holocoust anymore.  Hitler was an evolutionist because he thought he was above GOD.  He wanted a perfect race and that is why evolution was created.  The only perfect race that exists is the one GOD created, which you are a member of...and I would like to keep it that way.  We were created by design, not by the big bang theory!  And I for one, look forward to seeing a movig without violence and sex. 

Maybe the thought of GOD scares you...you would then have to face yourself and your sins.  GOD Bless, Moonshadows1949

LOL!

Thanks PD, I needed a little boost right now....

From my original post, in order to bring this blog back to it's primary point:

"There's a documentary opening in Bakersfield tomorrow called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed that happens to address a particular interest of mine; the conflict some folks think exists between teaching evolutionary biology & their own personal faith."

I've referenced this goal several more times through out this blog. Gotta go & fix dinner now, but again - thanks for playing!!!

:-)

[spam code: BWAFA - pretty much the sound of my laughter right now!]

Misdirection?  Just trying to keep up with your ever-changing playing field.  You see, I'm willing to discuss any aspect of this you want.  But regardless of whether you choose eugenics, copyright, gravity, or now - salvation belief (and where did that come from?)  - you have nothing to say when engaged.  Why bother to post in the first place, I wonder?

But, although I've enjoyed brushing up on my evolutionary theory and history, I'll give you what you want this time.

YOU GO GIRL!! 

Oh - and another pretty picture for you - this from the 1921 Eugenics Conference - brought to you by those fringe organizations, the Ford and  Rockefeller Foundations.  I love the slogan - "Eugenics is the Self-Direction of Human Evolution"... don't you?

Again with the misdirection, PD. Pretty pictures! Ooh! Maybe she'll be distracted by this one!

Nope, not gonna work on me, sweetie.

I keep telling you that I don't care whether someone believes in God or not. It has no bearing on biological evolution, one way or the other. I do not find God & evolution incompatible. God could very well create through evolution. For me, the possibility is slight. But this has nothing to do whatsoever with salvation, as so many Christians fear. If that's not your bag, then go talk to those Christians & straighten them out. They're the ones who need help, & they are certainly not going to listen to me, a God forsaken atheist. As far as listening to you lecture about the science of evolution, I think I'll get my information elsewhere, gracias.

;-)

Got it now? Good.

Thanks for  playing.

You say I believe "that evolution simply means the absence of God"?  

No I don't think that, and I have never stated that.  I did say that Stein may have been using the phrase "Darwinian notion" that way - but you could not have missed that.

I have clearly stated that I find evolution and God compatible.  It is you who do not, and absent the ability to respond with facts and reason, just keep beating your strawman.

As for gravity and biology having nothing to say to one another, that is such a limited, wrong-headed, and parachocial view that you clearly need to broaden your horizons.  What do you think keeps our atmosphere attached to the planet, anyway?  You claim to believe in evolution and you think that matters as basic as "weight" don't influence the formation of living things?  Whatever your scientific background is, there are scientists (here's one published in the Review of Paleobotany and  Palynology) who do think it matters, and spend time discussing it in peer-reviewed journals.  http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/els/00346667/1998/00000102/00000001/art00011

Here's  http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/workshops/1998/beyondplanet/ a NASA-symposium from a few years ago that even makes this (perhaps to you shocking) claim about gravity:

"A fundamental understanding of its role in living systems is required to understand the basic physiological mechanisms that underlie the evolution, development, and function of microbes, plants, animals and humans on Earth".

Here's a couple of notions of an alternative life forms that may have evolved on planets not resembling our own.  The first is a gaseous-based organism (shortage of water, you know), that Carl Sagan liked, the second is a silicone-based creature.  I prefer carbon, myself.

But hey, its all science fiction of course...keep the chuckles coming - and don't let a fact bite you on the arse....

*chuckles*

I doubt you'd know the scientific method if it came up & bit you on the arse, PD. After all, you think that evolution simply means the absence of God. Clearly, science has escaped you.

But that's okay - even if you don't understand that gravity & evolution have nothing to say about one another, you'll still fall flat on your face if you try to insert religion into the biological sciences...

;-)

What is telling is your unwillingness or inability to address any of the issues you yourself have raised, or engage in any exploration beyond the depth of your initial posting. 

After all, I didn't bring up copyright law, you did.  My post is a straightforward discussion of the subject, and was a challenge to your assumptions about what represents theft in this context.  While your inability to answer is noted, the challenge of assumptions is hardly an attempt to "derail" anything - it is an attempt to engage in discussion.  

Of course, the challenge and defense of assumptions is the heart of the scientific method itself, a method you clearly provide only lip service.

PD, despite your effort to derail this blog into a discussion about copyright laws, I decided to just bring the discussion back to the issue: the blatant attempts of some "Christians" to bring religion into an arena it doesn't belong. Stein is a tool & using a particularly bad straw man in the process. Darwin had nothing to say about gravity. Biological scientists don't have to explain gravity; they have enough to study with the addition of genetics (something completely unheard of in Darwin's day) or the discovery of new & unstudied fossils, just to provide a couple of examples.

The term "Darwinian" has been warped & twisted by the very group that wants to deny it's validity. It's a useless descriptive except for the negative connotation it brings to the minds of Creationists.

I don't begrudge anyone the right to believe in God as the first cause, or who accept evolution as the way God created the diversity of life we see on Earth. Science simply has nothing to say in the matter, one way or the other. It's only when Creationists try to insert their belief into the class room or the laboratory that I speak out.

Stealing & lying to advance a theocratic agenda is so wrong on so many levels, and yet you twist & feint to avoid the issue. You make weak excuses trying justify this piece of propaganda and the lies it presents. You cling to intellectually weak ideas presented in such works as The Privileged Planet instead of understanding the really amazing & wonderful discoveries made every day by scientists.

Telling. Very telling.

Gosh, you ask me to clarify my opinion on copyright, I spend an hour explaining it, and this is the response I get? Now you're off to gravity?? 

This is a "Jim-level" of interaction - maybe all you can manage?

Stein was attempting to point out that not only must the development of life be explained without recourse to God (using the term "Darwinian means", as shorthand for "without God), so must the existence and precise properties of gravity.

Happily, we have just the right amount of gravity - if the gravitational constant was off by even the smallest amount, scientists tell us, the post-big bang expansion would have either of collapsed back on itself, or expanded with insufficient gathering force to produce the suns, planets, and solar systems we enjoy today.

I've got a funny story about gravity though -

In 1927, Bertand Russell discounted the First Cause argument of God this way:

"If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject."

Stephen Hawking has changed the wording of this story a little, to make the punch line "Its just turtles, all the way down".

So what is your explaination of what gravity is, oohchild?  I suspect that you are willing to accept and use the term "force", as if it explains something. 

It actually explains no more than calling this unknown mechanism "turtles".  And less, I assert, than "angels".

Ben Stein is continuing to claim that evolution should have an explanation for gravity. Gravity!?!? Folks, this is ludicrous. I thought someone would have clued him in by now, but I guess the stupid is hard to let go:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ben_Stein

"You can only say Darwinian causes -- random mutation, natural selection -- even gravity is supposed to be done by that! And I would say to these people, well, how did life begin? We don't know, but it had to be by Darwinian means. Well, how did gravity begin? We don't know, but it had to be by Darwinian means."

"...who thought that possibly random selection and mutations didn't account for the universe, didn't account for gravity..."

Wow. Just...wow.

How can anyone take this stuff seriously?

Sorry you're left wondering, oohchild.  I had hoped the cartoon would spark your curiosity.  

It was drawn in the late 70's by an underground cartoonist who was famously sued by Disney for putting characters that resembled Mickey and Minnie into situations that among other things were not  ... ahem... traditionally associated with Disney. He claimed a "fair use" of the copyrighted material, which protects the use of that material in the creation of new artistic efforts, in his case, satire.  For another example of Fair Use, Campbell Soup could not sue Andy Warhol for his famous pop-art piece using repeated images of the Campbell Soup label, and Coca Cola is often (not always) rebuffed when t-shirt makers use variations of the famous Coke scroll for other messages. 

Obviously in the cartoonist's case, for his satire to work, the viewer must recognize who the target of the humor is - SNL's campaign humor would be ineffective if a man were to portray Hillary Clinton, or a white woman were cast as Barack Obama, for example.   So how closely was he entitled to make his characters resemble  Mickey and Minnie?  That question is the point of the rats tail he gave Minnie, and the large hand he drew on Mickey.  He lost his case, probably due to a combination of late 70's backlash against the counter-culture and an extremely large group of highly paid lawyers retained by Disney.  Since that case, copyright law has become less and less hospitable to fair use and the length of copyrights has been repeatedly extended.

Copyright was originally designed to protect the rights of authors - hence its limited protection period, geared to a person's earning years, and to promote ideas by allowing the introducers of them to profit, but in the hands of corporations with unlimited life-spans, it has become an impediment to public discussion and is now devoted only to maximizing their profits for the longest possible time (95 years now, and almost certain to be extended again when necessary.)

This over-long protection period impoverishes us by  reducing our ability to draw from our common cultural language when addressing cultural issues.  And Imagine, nearly 40 years after its writing has certainly become part of our cultural language, through decades of use at candle-lit processions,  anti-war rallies, and similar venues.  This history has given it a context and meanings beyond what it had when it was written, and which the producers of this movie no doubt felt important to their own, separate message.

So, if Yoko insists on a trial, then the producers will defend their use of 25 seconds of this song as "fair use", and I hope they win.  Their chances are improved, I think considering that anyone can listen to 30 seconds of the song at Amazon at no cost at all.

Finally, consider this - if copy right owners had been as in charge of writing copyright laws in 1863 as they are now, the local Mall would be getting sued for dressing people to be a too-close facsimile of this guy, every December... and that wouldn't make us a better place to live.

Hope this clears up my position!  And remember to never ask for a "Kleenex", or a "Brillo Pad"....

Lawsuits are about as common in the movie business as air kisses. We'll see how the court case, if any, comes out. I don't expect a papal bull to be issued either way.

Thanks for coming back, Scottso - one barely-intelligible screed screaming about what a terrible person I am wasn't enough.  

Scottso, check out the discussion developing about the article you linked to, about the lizards:

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=826&m=1

See post #6 - just as I predicted, the response is priceless...

;-)

scottso, nice to hear you dont buy into Moores spin on everything, and your not extreme left, I dont understand why anyone would be extreme left or right,

PD, it's rather obvious you were refering to folks outside the blog. Your response to Oochild doesn't carry any weight if you weren't.   It was fun to see if you would back down on scope or attempt to sidestep the whole thing if I called you on it.  And you did not disappoint! ;)

Why should anyone have to reiterate anything Oochild posted in her blog?  No one addressed the copyright issue because despite your sarcastic remark, its rather obviously still illegal, immoral and just as wrong now as it was when you made your silly comment.  What they have done is illegal and stealing and against the law.  I'm pretty sure "the Intelligent Designer" told them not to steal somewhere along the line.  I'm pretty sure "the Intelligent Designer" had some rules regarding fraud.  Ironic that "the atheists" are the ones to see the immorality isn't it? :)

And to compare it to Napster -- well that was a good example because Napster was sued into oblivion for having no business model beyond making it easy for people to steal music. So apparently the law is silly and not worth following in your opinion. Based on your first post.   If you want to argue about copyright law, go start a blog about it.  This blog was about how rediculous and false the majority of claims in this movie are and the copyright issue was just more evidence of their lack of hesitation to lie, steal and misrepresent whatever suits them in order to make a point.

In any case as usual you do not seem to be able to debate about the topic directly.  You like to mince words over tangents and try to drag it in completely irrelevant directions.  Which reminds me as to why I wasn't going to post.  But sometimes its just TOO irresistible. :)  And by the way, your usage was technically correct, but I took it upon myself to predict you would say it meant something different than what it reads.  And you did. So [sic] applies. ;)

And no, I have not yet seen the movie (and I will as soon as I can rent it for a laugh -- Ben Stein is a really funny guy!) but its not very hard to find out its contents from people who HAVE seen it (on both sides of this debate) on the 'net.

And by the way Starbucks1,  I am not a Michael Moore fan at all.  While some of what he says is interesting I don't buy his spin on a lot of what he presents.  So don't try to suck me into your Michael Moore silliness please. ;)  I'm also not very far left leaning at all.  Believe it or not, you can be an atheist and still be conservative!!  Isn't that amazing?!  What a profound thought that religion can be separated from politics.

And I truly am done responding here now.  Its bordering on too much effort to be fun anymore and this debate (if you can call it that) is going nowhere.  Besides, the film is really just a symptom of the war on mindshare that the fundies are losing and desperate to regain.  Now THAT would be a fun blog to write just to see the outrageous responses in the comments. :)

Hmmmm yes, PD, I noted the sarcasm in your first post:

"Oh my!  Someone used "Imagine" without paying the appropriate royalties?  I refuse to associate with ANYONE who ever used Napster, as well.  Someone has to stand up for whatever corporation owns the Lennon songbook now, I suppose!"

I'm left still wondering....

Thanks for the link, Starbucks1.

Box Office records for last week,  Like I said, this movie will bomb, no one cares, it opened at #9, and will be off the chart next week, who cares?, like I said, what if the media really embraced this movie, like Moore and Gores lies,  scottso and oohchild would be on suicide watch,

http://movies.com/boxoffice

By the way, have either of you seen the movie?   It is often considered good form to read a book, or watch a movie, before passing judgement on it.  

Or you may prefer to rely on its placement on Oohchild's List of Banned Movies.

That's OK Scottso - people who say they're going to stop posting never do, so welcome back! 

Did you really think I was referring to people outside of the participants of this blog?  Oh, man....if that is your idea of a "gotcha", you have got to expand your horizons!  My reference to my own first post might have given you a clue.

You had me going though.  I went through all the posts twice, thinking "did I miss out on Scottso's vigorous defense of copyright law?":  and "beyond posting some lyrics,  did Vader post his political support of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act?", before I realized what you were attempting to say.

Hilarious, man.  Yeah, I do suppose that oohchild got her information from somewhere.  And I'm sure that the truth or falsity of this accusation will be tested in places other than the blog zone of the Tehachapi News.  I didn't need to use Google for that.

Must protest against the "sic", however.  I think my usage is correct there.

I know I said I wasn't going to comment on this blog anymore, but give credit to PD.  His more and more outlandish claims have created an amusing urge to respond.

PD, are you TRULY going to say, "Perhaps you should wonder why no atheists have seen fit to condemn these horrid alleged crimes." [sic] or are you going to edit your post once I, and everyone else who contradicts your outlandish claims, posts proof to the contrary? Indulge me and reiterate your claim.  Feel free to expand on that statement as well.  I anxiously await your pretension.  Because if you really think there has been no response to "these horrid alleged crimes" as you put it, by any significant group of people, even beyond your "atheists" you are obviously not paying attention to the issue at all. At least for me, I'm curious how much your position changes now that you've been given enough of a "heads up" to google  what you've said to find some fringe evidence to "support" your postion.  Its truly very entertaining. ;)

You wonder?  Really?  I commented on your accusations myself, in the first post I made.  I think I made my reaction pretty clear, frankly.

Perhaps you should wonder why no atheists have seen fit to condemn these horrid alleged crimes.

Do you think that Christians have some special understanding of the rhyme, reason, or justice of the ever-changing copyright laws in this country, or that they would recognize them as such sterling examples of jurisprudence to conclude that they were obviously God-given and deserving of such special respect that defending them against even the accusation of violation would be more important to them than what they have chosen to discuss? 

But since you are apparently willing to defend Disney Inc.'s. writing, and re-writing of the copyright laws to suit the most powerful corporations in the country, here's a little fair-use commentary on the idiocy of the whole business.  From a Christian point of view!

I wonder why no Christian reading about the lies & thievery of the producers of Expelled has seen fit to condemn these actions, supposedly in the name of Judeo-Christianity?

Yoko Ono has filed suit for stealing Lennon's music, and the creators of the animation which was copied for this movie have also filed against the producers of Expelled.

Where's the concern for the law? If Obama is expected to condemn the words of his preacher, shouldn't someone condemn the theft & lies of Expelled?

"Infiltration of our goverment by theocratic radicals", hmm, is that what you call the new Democratic Congress with the lowest approval rating of all time?, and the likelyhood of a democratic President?, dont worry oohchild, it all goes in cycles, the dems wont live up to the hopes of the liberals and republicans will take control again within 10 years,

If only Darwin had thought of your solution to his problem with intermediate fossils, he too, could have defined it out of existence! Kind of like they do at Lake Woebegone where all the children are above-average.

"Infiltration of our country by theocratic radicals" is a good one, though....are they coming through the border gube is so worried about?  Do they have names?  Perhaps we should instutute Religious Tests for immigration, citizenship, and public office.

Nah thanks, PD, I'll leave any cursing to you. Intermediate fossils abound (in fact, all fossils are transitional), so I suggest you take that up with working archaelogists & paleontologists if you disagree.

As to the link between eugenics & Darwin, no one's arguing that point but you. It's not something being pushed as a valid theory in our culture today, like ID is.

If you'd like to discuss eugenics, may I suggest you start your own topic on the subject? My concern, as I've stated before, is the infiltration of our government by theocratic radicals, as well as the misunderstanding many have in this country about evolution.

Thanks for playing...

;-)

As for Saltation, you'll have to argue with Woess.  As for your objection to my use of the phrase "lack of transitional fossils", you can curse Darwin for citing their non-discovery as potential proof of the falsity of his theory, and Gould, among others, for using the exact phrase.  Argue with them, not me.  I agree that discussion of the subject by laymen like ourselves is likely to be fruitless.

And as you admit, that isn't the reason you started this blog anyway.  Your concern is the advancement of a certain cultural order, not the advancement of scientific discovery or understanding in the decidly non-peer reviewed Tehachapi News.

The desirability of different cultural orders is something that as layman, we are qualfied to discuss.  That is why I entered the conversation not to talk about the truth or falsity of evolution, but the truth of the personal and intellectual connection between eugenics and Darwin.

PD, I asked the question because there's a significant population in this country who mistakenly believe their "salvation" depends on the literal truth of the Bible. They have taken this belief to the extreme; if man was not a special creation of God who brought death (& sin) into this world as written in the Book (cue angelic music), then all the "truth" of the Bible comes into question.

This concerns me because these folks want to weave into the fabric of our government their particular "literal" belief.

I accepted the evolutionary theory for the explanation of life on Earth even when I was a practicing Christian, so no I don't believe that "Evolution", under such circumstances means only the absence of God." Scientists who study biological evolution have nothing to say about the supernatural aspects which are of such concern to some like the Discovery Institute. They don't know how life got started, and they have no problem humbly admitting it. It's folks like you who claim to know the "explanation" (a playful & inventive God) but offer no evidence save for a feeling or comforting notion who show hubris, not humility.

I'd love to get into your claim that we have not discovered "intermediate species", depending on your interpretation of that phrase. Plenty of intermediate fossils have been discovered & cataloged; scientists have used the theory of evolution to predict the location of new fossils; genetic research has confirmed the links among the various branches of life on this planet; the list goes on & on. I fear your understanding of the terms "intermediate" & "species" may be way off the scientific uses of these words, so the conversation will probably be fruitless. Your "saltation" reference is telling; no biologist believes a species can arise in a single generation. Speciation happens to populations, not individuals.

I've pointed out many times the Wedge Strategy, which outlines the intent of some to bring a theocracy to the US. This film is one of the primary objectives listed in this document. My concern is our separation of church & state.

Thanks for playing, Starbucks1. I think a few folks learned quit a bit from our exchange...

;-)

I hope you got your nap oohchild, and I think I have enough of Michael Moore talk, if you want some more info on his movies, type in the truth about Micheal Moore in google sometime, there are dozens of web pages devoted to exposing his movies for what they are, embrace the truth oohchild, you'll sleep better,:)

The "Theory of Evolution" as you are using it covers a wide range of contradictory theories.  Natural selection has been thought inadequate to move the form of species by scientists since Darwin.  While powerful enough to select for the length and shape of bird beaks, for example, it has been seen as inadequate to move an animal from sea to land. 

Various solutions to this problem have been the posited, one, Saltation, most directly contradicts Darwin's theory of long of gradual changes. posits that new species may arise in a single generation. (The lack of intermediate fossils was cited as a problem by Darwin, but one he was confident would be cured by increased excavation - alas, 140 years of looking lives the intermediate species still undiscovered),   The force necessary to move that, I can only imagine.  

I doubt if you really care, as long as the theories are united in one thing, the non-existence of God.  As long as scientists, no matter how much they disagrees with each other in general or particular, claim that life came into being without a Creator, you are willing to call them both evolutionists.  "Evolution", under such circumstances means only the absence of God.  Of course, the absence of God is your a priori, and its defense is the point of the counter-propaganda blitz you have launched here.

I find a playful and inventive God a much better explanation for the variety of life we find in the world, than the drab theory of Darwin or the fanciful notions of Hopeful Monstors or Gaia.  Exactly how He did it in history, or does it now,  is a matter of legitimate academic interest, but which I, and I suspect you, are not equipped to properly address. 

Why was this question so important to you?

For the third time, PD: Do you accept evolution as the best explanation we have for the diversity of life on this planet?

I'm beginning to think you're avoiding the question....

Starbucks1, I think someone needs a nap....

;-)

Answer your question?  I thought I did.  Did you mean this question?

PD, if you don't intend to negate evolution by linking Darwin to Hitler & eugenics, then what is your point here?

Here's my answer from the last post, edited slightly:

My point was not to attack Darwin, negate evolution, but point out that those who call the links between Darwin, Scientific Eugenics, and the Nazi's "mistaken" are wrong. 

I don't doubt that the movie is propagandistic, in my last post I went on to speculate that it is.  That doesn't make its statements untrue.

what is the difference between, distorting facts, twisting facts, clever film editing to view a scene a certain way, that is not reflective of the facts, like interviewing a solider then playing it off another way?,if you were deceitfull to your spouse is that lying, or is that ok?, thats lying to me,and thats what Moore does, in my view,

Answer my question first, PD. Then I'll tell you why I think this is important.

The truth or falsity of ID is not the subject of this film. No clear definition is offered, and no evidence is presented to either support or falsify ID. No peer reviewed study is ever described. Propaganda is the goal, not education.