iNow

I feel sorry for those poor folks who have to deal with your kind. Wait a minute, we're dealing with you, too!

I don't have to be able to tell you where every single raindrop is going to fall in order to accurately tell you that my entire driveway is going to get wet during the next storm. You've proven that you're not even willing to look at the data and reconsider your position, as your mind is already made up and you've been digging your heels in. That's unfortunate, but is your perogative.

The only thing you mentioned in reference to darwin was in the last sentence where you assert, "In Darwin's thought it is the changed member that leads the way to survival." First, I'd like you to point out for everyone how exactly you came to the conclusion that this is an accurate representation of "darwins thought." Second, I'd like to point out TO you that this is not an accurate representation of darwins idea. His idea was that certain mutations prove beneficial in certain environments, and those most successful out reproduce those who are less successful when viewed across long expanses of time. Third, change in the sense that you mean it (once bad, now good, once evil, now a hero) is personality/character change, and has nothing to do with "change" in allele frequencies through geologic time. I'm not attacking you, Dennis. Know that. I'm attacking your assertions, as they are really close to the truth, but just wrong enough to be misrepresenting it.

It's telling that so many people are trying to distract us about Palins performance by trying to stir up muck about Gibson and get us to focus on that instead. Whatever.

See, I don't read it that way. Let me give an example. For illustration, let's say there is a book called, "How to create the worlds 3 deadliest biological weapons using items found in a grocery store." Should we allow that book at the checkout counter of your local grocer? No, that would be silly. As anyone can see, the best place to put it would be at the entrance to the store. Kidding aside, nobody was talking about such books anyway, nor that authors shouldn't be allowed to write them, since this book would never be found at a public library anyway. Why is it always religious people trying to ban and block books from the public? Could it have something to do with the inverse relationship between education and religiosity? </rhetorical off-topic question> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jewel_of_Medina

Post #467 was the third time I responded to this assertion of yours, and as any reasonable person can see, my posts had nothing to do with "belief." What I shared was quantitative data which clearly evidenced the vastness of climate model accuracy. You are really getting quite tiresome repeating points which have already been repeatedly rebutted, skepticlance.

It's no wonder this was closed the last time it was brought up.

You are welcome to your own speculations, but you cannot assert them as fact and expect to be taken seriously. Your point is wrong, and will remain so until you can support it with logic and accurate premises. Also, wtf is a "christian framework?" Does that mean you have to molest alter boys before publishing?

I was about to make this very same point, but I'm glad you did first. You hit the nail on the head. However, per those listed in the OP, I don't think that 'Go Ask Alice' or 'Pastor, I am Gay' could reasonably fit within that caveat/exception. My phrasing was very intentional. There will be no mid-stream changes, thank you very much.

Yeah. Charlie is not running for higher office, though.

I, too, think that idea has merit. I argued briefly a similar point over here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=422261#post422261

I just came across this and was very impressed: http://scienceblogs.com/transcript/2008/09/pubget_the_next_step_in_the_ev.php Pubget - The next step in the evolution of academic search engines This website is order of magnitude better then Pubmed. I am totally converted! http://pubget.com/ And a YouTube video of same:

Well, thanks for clarifying. I would never have guessed that based on your previous response.

You're correct. She did not play that up in the interview, but did reference it. When that reference is coupled with the talking points from the McCain campaign and accompanying news organizations since the day she was announced as McCains pick for VP, however, she still fails badly on the international knowledge/experience issue since she can't seem to offer up anything other than that Alaska is near Russia response. If nothing else, if this were a 2nd grade quiz on maps, she'd get a gold star!

When do we start what, exactly? Solving the energy problems of our nation and planet with that tiny sliver, do you mean?

As most of you have probably heard by now, there is some broohaha about Governor Palin, presently the VP pick on the McCain presidential ticket, wanting to ban books. A good summary of the issue and how it's come about is available via the Boston Globe at the following: http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?&articleid=1117009&format=&page=1&listingType=2008pres#articleFull Accroding to this recent CBS News piece, there is an interesting new angle to the story: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/11/politics/animal/main4439414.shtml Ross emphasized an angle I previously hadn't heard much about. Palin was elected mayor thanks in large part to the strong backing of her church, the Wasilla Assembly of God, which, right around the time Palin took office, "began to focus on certain books available in local stores and in the town library, including one called 'Go Ask Alice,' and another one written by a local pastor, Howard Bess, called 'Pastor, I am Gay.'" Watch the video of that story below, share your thoughts and comments, and vote above.

Oh, stop nitpicking Edtharan.

Was that your way of saying that you are going to blatently ignore every single counter point which has already crushed your argument and that you are going to continue repeating the same inaccuracies anyway? Fascinating. Which part of religion is moral, again? Is it the part where you organize public stonings? What about killing a woman who is not a virgin, or raping a virgin first so it's no longer a sin for you to kill her? Was it the part where homosexuals were hunted and murdered? What about killing people who decide to leave your particular brand of voodoo and who have evolved mentally past the childishness? What about slaves? Not only is it okay to keep slaves, but it's okay to beat them as bloody as possible, so long as you don't hurt their eyes of course. I dunno. While those commandments sure sound nifty, at least 3 or 4 of them talk about what will happen to you if you worship other gods (geesh, how petty), and at least one talks about no murder. They're nothing if not internally inconsistent, so OF COURSE our morality is based on them. They are so very clear and logical.

There should be additional Nightline clips available soon, and also after tomorrow morning when an additional segment airs on Good Morning America. Now, you could tell she got hung up when the question strayed into things which she'd obviously not practiced. I wonder how well she would do in the white house when she has not been previously prepped by experts and media consultants for a full week before something happens on the planet requiring immediate action. EDIT: Here's the Nightline segment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2phSE7BGH8

I was reminded about how strongly I disagree with this selective medicine nonsense earlier this morning. A great post over at Respectful Insolence that's worth the read: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/09/when_religion_interferes_with_medical_ed.php When religion interferes with medical education

I can find common ground with you there, too. I didn't like that a bit, as any reasonably intelligent human being knows that McCain's bigger point was that we would stay as long as it takes. The true issue is the difference between the candidates on their definitions of "what it takes" and what we can reasonably accomplish and how. To the "100 Years" comment, though, that's one. When considered as an issue of scale, you must admit that it truly pales in comparison when viewed in context (such as at the video to which I've linked below).

She also totally backpeddled about the Iraq being a mission from god comments from her summer speech. Trying to move the goal posts and pretend she said something else, all the while saying the name Abraham Lincoln as many times as possible in the short span of time. Btw, bascule (two parts):

I think it was, "Can we please focus on the issues that Americans are facing right now instead of these ridiculous and vacuous distractions?"

<sigh> The point is that the theory itself is not rhetoric, but is instead a well formulated, well tested, and accurate description of reality, regardless of whatever dipstick religious or political movements have tried using it for their own ends. http://www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/evosphere.html?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3af12fd84e-253f-46cf-9408-ee579f9a3a0bPost%3af03a66ad-509f-4ba6-9bd6-2e73397573dc Exactly 150 years ago today, three papers appeared in the Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London that would start a revolution in the biological sciences. The papers had been read the previous month by the distinguished scientists Charles Lyell and Joseph Hooker (a geologist and a botanist, respectively) and contained "the results of the investigations of two indefatigable naturalists". Earlier that year (June, 1858), their friend Charles Darwin had received a startling letter from a young naturalist called Alfred Russel Wallace, with whom he had been corresponding during the previous year. The letter, posted in February from the remote Moluccan Islands (now in eastern Indonesia), contained an essay titled "On the Tendency of Varieties to depart indefinitely from the Original Type". In it Wallace began by ... <more at link>