-
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in. -
Contact us
-
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- satatom on Palin stepping down
- WSClark on Open thread 7/4
- satatom on Open thread 7/4
- Pedant on Palin stepping down
- Regular on Open thread 7/4
- Nathaniel on Open thread 7/4
- Regular on Open thread 7/4
- JMWalker on Open thread 7/4
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 7/4
- Barnie on Palin stepping down
208 Comments
The REAL motivations of Warmists on vivid display
Warmist are worried about all the CO2 in the air — right? So any technology that removes lots of CO2 would be welcomed by them with open arms — Right? WRONG! That would take away their best excuse for destroying modern civilization — which is their REAL aim. They just hate modern life and seek to impose that on everybody else in any way they can. See below:
Scientists at Columbia University are developing a carbon dioxide (CO2) scrubber device that removes one ton of CO2 from the air every day. While some see the scrubber as an efficient and economical way to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide, many environmentalists are opposing the technology because it allows people to use fossil fuels and emit carbon in the first place.
Columbia University physicist Klaus Lackner, who is leading the research team, believes producing a large number of CO2 scrubbers can keep to a minimum any rise in atmospheric CO2 without the economically painful elimination of inexpensive energy sources. “I’d rather have a technology that allows us to use fossil fuels without destroying the planet, because people are going to use them anyway,” Lackner told the June 1 London Telegraph.
Environmental activist groups such as Greenpeace have consistently opposed similar technologies, such as carbon capture and sequestration, because they do not address what they see as the root of the problem. On May 5, for example, the activist groups Students Promoting Environmental Action and Save Our Cumberland Mountains demonstrated in Knoxville, Tennessee against carbon sequestration. Repeatedly citing a Greenpeace position paper, they argued eliminating the use of coal, not reducing atmospheric CO2, should be society’s primary goal. “Our position is we need to start phasing out coal as soon as possible,” said Cathie Bird of Save Our Cumberland Mountains. “Carbon capture and storage does not make coal clean,” read a banner hoisted by protesters.
Leading energy analysts agreed with the scientists, rather than the protesters. “If CO2 emission reduction is a goal, then investigating and investing in strategies for capitalizing on our existing infrastructure efficiently and effectively makes more sense than throwing away reasonable options simply because they don’t align with a political philosophy about our energy economy,” said Amy Kaleita, an environmental policy fellow at the Pacific Research Institute.
“This is just one more piece of evidence that environmentalists aren’t concerned about solving a problem,” said Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis. “Every problem, as they see it, is one way to restrict people’s lifestyles, and if you come up with a technological fix that can solve a problem but doesn’t require sacrifice and lets us go about our business the way we were before, they’re not happy about it, even if it solves the problem.
“Now, I don’t know about whether this technology will solve global warming,” said Burnett, “but let’s say it is cost-effective, and let’s assume for the sake of argument that global warming is a real, serious problem that needs to be solved. Then I would argue that this technology may be a good thing.”
“I think the question is, what is the objective?” asked Erin Baker, an assistant professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, in an interview for this article. “For me, the objective is reducing the harmful effects of climate change. It is going to be extremely challenging to reduce CO2 levels to the point where we can stabilize the stock of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at, say, 550 ppm (parts per million), and this is only a mild goal.
“Most environmentalists would like to see a much more stringent goal,” Baker added. “If we want to have a reasonable chance of achieving this goal, then we need to consider a portfolio of technologies in order to achieve this. This means keeping CCS (carbon capture and storage), nuclear, and biofuels, for instance, on the table.
“If we have some kind of major breakthrough in solar technologies and electricity storage technologies, then we won’t need to rely so heavily on these other technologies. But if we don’t have any breakthroughs and we refuse to use our full arsenal, we will most likely fail to combat climate change and cause economic hardships, especially for the most vulnerable.
“I am not necessarily advocating a full-scale implementation of any of these technologies, but rather that we continue to [research and develop] a wide range of technologies, and not flat-out reject any possibilities,” Baker said.
Although not a current article it goes back to chromosomes and addresses something creationists often whine about. But once again it is irrefutable evidence that no sane, rational, person can deny (hence the reason some on this forum can deny it).
Comparison of the Human and Great Ape Chromosomes as Evidence for Common Ancestry
When one looks at the chromosomes of humans and the living great apes (orangutan, gorilla, and chimpanzee), it is immediately apparent that there is a great deal of similarity between the number and overall appearance of the chromosomes across the four different species. Yes, there are differences (and I will be addressing these), but the overall similarity is striking. The four species have a similar number of chromosomes, with the apes all having 24 pairs, and humans having 23 pairs. References 1 and 2 each contain high resolution photomicrographs and diagrams showing the similarity of the chromosomes between the four species (ref. 1 only covers humans and chimpanzees, ref. 2 covers all 4 species). Furthermore, these diagrams show the similarity of the chromosomes in that every one of 1,000 nonheterochromatic G-bands has been accounted for in the four species. That means that each non-heterochromatic band has been located in each species. (I hope to add a scan of the full sets of chromosomes for all four species in the very near future. In the meantime I’ll have to make do with a couple of examples of the most rearranged chromosomes that Don Lindsay has posted.)
Creationists will be quick to point out that despite the similarities, there are differences in the chromosomal banding patterns and the number of chromosomes. Furthermore, they will claim that the similarities are due to a common designer rather than common ancestry. Let’s address the differences first, and then we will see if we can tease apart the conflicting scenarios of common ancestry vs. a common designer.
Oops, forgot to include the link:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
Global cooling gains momentum among scientists
Two weeks ago, after writing about the possibility that the Earth may actually be entering a cooling phase, I braced myself for a torrent of icy missives from the global warming crowd suggesting that the heat must have fried my noggin.
By the way, it is very difficult to discuss global cooling in the midst of a summer when temperatures are hovering around 100 degrees and crops are wilting. As one friend and colleague from the sweltering Southwest noted after reading the column, “Please send some of that cooling this way.”
However, one response opened my eyes to the growing community of global warming skeptics out there, most of them merited scientists. I thought it might be worth presenting their thoughts - a little equal time if you will. Marc Marono, a global warming skeptic who works for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works, sent me these excerpts from a U.S. Senate report.
Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev are so convinced that global temperatures will cool within the next decade they have placed a $10,000 wager with a United Kingdom scientist to prove their certainty. The criteria for the $10,000 bet will be to compare global temperatures between 1998 and 2003 with those between 2012 and 2017. The loser will pay up in 2018, according to an April 16, 2007, article in Live Science.
Australian engineer Peter Harris says that the Earth is nearing the end of the typical interglacial cycle and is due for a sudden cooling climate change. “Based on this analysis we can say that there is a 94 percent probability of imminent global cooling and the beginning of the coming ice age. “Climate is becoming unstable,” Harris went on to say. “Most of these major natural processes that we are witnessing now are interdependent and occur at the end of each interglacial period, ultimately causing sudden long-term cooling.”
Oleg Sorokhtin, merited scientist of Russia and fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences and staff researcher of the Oceanology Institute, says to “stock up on fur coats and felt boots! Earth is now at the peak of one of its passing warm spells. It started in the 17th century when there was no industrial influence on the climate to speak of and no such thing as the hothouse effect. “Carbon dioxide is not to blame for global climate change, Sorokhtin said. “Solar activity is many times more powerful than the energy produced by the whole of humankind. Man’s influence on nature is a drop in the ocean.”
Canadian climatologist Timothy Ball said, “If we are facing (a crisis) at all, I think it is that we are preparing for warming when it is looking like we are cooling. We are preparing for the wrong thing.”
On the impact of carbon dioxide on global temperature, United Kingdom astrophysicist Piers Corbyn said, “There is no evidence that carbon dioxide has ever driven or will ever drive world temperatures and climate change. Worrying about carbon dioxide is irrelevant.”
So there you have it folks - solid evidence from the other side of the global warming fence and critical thinking I’m sure you won’t hear much about outside this space. To be honest, I’m not sure which global weather consequence is more daunting - to be ice fishing in Florida or planting cotton in Maine. But politicians and the popular press should speak out for the resumption of genuine, open debate on climate change. Global warming is not necessarily a foregone conclusion.
A nut-job “blog” is Hank’s source:
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/
“This site is in favour of things that ARE good for the environment. Most Greenie causes are, however, at best red-herrings and are more motivated by a hatred of people than anything else.”
Real objective “science” there… Of course.
I noticed in Hank’s post that it mentions a guy working for an oil company’s PR firm as a climatologist. Yeah, that’s an unbiased source. Just goes to prove there isn’t much for scientific integrity in the Price household.
Maggott
Hows come you never want to talk about the biases of the Godfathers of Global warming? Their desire to curtail human activity led them to initially claim the threat of Global Cooling due to particulates released in the air. When they couldnt prove that they switched over to global cooling caused by C02 release by humans. (for which there is ZERO proof)
But they are unbiased right?
“Just goes to prove there isn’t much for scientific integrity in the Price household.”
Claims that this planet is 8,000 years old would suggest otherwise. :)
Oh yes Heckler, the mysterious “they”. Wear a tin foil hat as well?
“switched over to global cooling caused ”
SB global warming
HLP
Posted August 26, 2008 at 6:06 am | Permalink
The REAL motivations of Warmists on vivid display
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=23547
________________________________________________
HLP
Posted August 26, 2008 at 6:07 am | Permalink
Global cooling gains momentum among scientists
http://deltafarmpress.com/news/robinson-column-0825/
_________________________________________________
Good morning Steven!
I should have posted the links to my sources, my mistake.
It’s a lot easier for you to merely defame the source of the information rather than attempt any meaningful discussion on the merits of the arguments presented.
It’s going to get harder and harder for those tactics to work as the earth continues to cool and the environmental nuts like the Goracle and his minions continue to lose the political argument on the world stage.
HEHEHE
Maggot
“the mysterious “they”. ”
What are you talking about?
Yes Steven, when the Price household tries to inform us on scientific issues all we need to remember is they believe the Earth could have been created last week and a deity implanted false memories in all our heads. Funny how they take themselves so seriously when something as simple as the speed of light or radioactive decay disproves their nonsense.
I don’t know Heckler, you mentioned the mysterious “they”. I don’t know what you are talking about either. I would have figured you knew what you were talking about but I guess you have proven that you don’t.
Maggot
Stephen Schneider for one. You should read his book The Genesis Strategy. Real unbiased scientist there.
Maggot
…and what is it you say you’ve proven?
Don’t want to talk about the biases of Warming scientists do you?
Put on that tin foil hat Heckler.
Maggot
Typical response. You are critical of scientists who work for EVIL oil companies because their work is biased yet won’t discuss the biases of the Ministers of Warming….or is it Cooling…
Yep. evil ol’ ‘big oil’ spends 17 million dollars over 10 years to research AGW and it’s a global conspiracy!
The Goracle spends 300 million dollars in three years on a public relations campaign to convince us he is the ‘global warming savior’ and that is somehow OK?
What ever allows you to sleep at night!
“Just goes to prove there isn’t much for scientific integrity in the Price household.”
The words “scientific” and “integrity” are at direct odds with the ignorance agenda of said household.
cool military spending pie chart from a totally unbiased source
http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm
Chas
Posted August 26, 2008 at 1:02 am | Permalink
Whether its a puddle of goo, or dust from the ground, it seems that “Man” comes from the chemical make-up of the EARTH… Which I think is scientifically significant…
==========================================================================
So Chas “the preacher”, did God make Heaven & Earth?
Here’s one of the Republicans paid trolls in his own words. At least our board got this one who has proven hys incompetence, and how great ambassador for the Democratic Party he can be. He let’s everyone know you can’t expect better than what you’ve got from the Republicans.
Do the Eagle advertisers like knowing you can get paid to post here? Hey, advertisers you don’t need to pay the Eagle! You could advance your cause, your products and earn money for yourselves. The Eagle doesn’t care.
———–
Franklin
Posted August 25, 2008 at 10:59 pm | Permalink
JR/BJ
This is the minor leagues.
You guys save us lots of money.
I just post to see what works, and pass along the results and information.
What I do has a purpose.
You libs do much of our research for us.
Thanks for playing.
Say you Global Warming advocates, did you run your air conditioning this summer?
Just wondering if you are hypocrites who expect Someone Else to make personal sacrifices on your behalf or not.
“It’s a lot easier for you to merely defame the source of the information rather than attempt any meaningful discussion on the merits of the arguments presented.”
Good morning, Hank. The only problem is that I don’t think it is possible to have a meaningful discussion with you on this subject. Two years ago, I witnessed with my own eyes the unearthing of a shoulder blade bone of an extinct North American camel. This was near Kanorado, Kansas on the high plains. (This animal roamed Kansas about 20,000 years ago). So, for me the question becomes do I believe what Hank Price says - who openly acknowleges investments in the oil industry - or my own lying eyes and research.
Sorry, Hank. It is just not real difficult to decide. So, I will skip the “meaningful discussion.” I will also skip the opportunity to beat my head against the wall. Thanks.
Franklin
Posted August 25, 2008 at 11:21 pm | Permalink
BJ
Nobody expects me to change your mind.
They expect the smart libs to respond to my posts.
I then find out what the reaction to certain attacks might be.
There, I told you my “secret” lol.
This is Kansas.
Kansas will vote for McCain. I do not have to change any minds, I just have to get some free opposition research out of you guys.
You tell me how libs will respond.
Thanks.
There were times when I wondered if Franklin (AKA Econ 101) was insane. Now that he, in his own words, has given me understanding, I won’t have any worries about that! If his posts seem disjointed, out of touch with reality, wildly hinting of instability, I’ll know he is just doing his job. Puts everything in the perspective it belongs.
UNDERSTANDING. Puts everything in place.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm
interest payments on the debt
2007 $429,977,998,108.20
2006 $405,872,109,315.83
2005 $352,350,252,507.90
2004 $321,566,323,971.29
2003 $318,148,529,151.51
2002 $332,536,958,599.42
2001 $359,507,635,242.41
2000 $361,997,734,302.36
Hank posted August 26, 2008 at 7:00 am
“Yep. evil ol’ ‘big oil’ spends 17 million dollars over 10 years to research AGW and it’s a global conspiracy!”
———
Heartland and other anti-AGW think(sic) tanks don’t do “research”.
They spread misinformation and confusion, just like the tobacco industry did. And some groups started about two decades ago.
‘Prominent Skeptics Organizations’
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/skeptic-organizations.html
http://www.pickensplan.com/
so the libs can run their air conditioners with a clear conscience
http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=detail&episodeId=322750
wonderful family fun on the history channel
‘Arctic Ice melt media misinformation retracted‘
http://www.desmogblog.com/arctic-ice-melt-media-misinformation-retracted
“The Register reporter Steve Goddard is admitting today that his article last week on melting Arctic Sea Ice (Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered) is incorrect.
Too bad the damage has already been done.”
StevenEDavis
Posted August 26, 2008 at 6:33 am | Permalink
“Just goes to prove there isn’t much for scientific integrity in the Price household.”
Claims that this planet is 8,000 years old would suggest otherwise.
—————————
So, it’s not okay for people to have religious beliefs?
I don’t think Hank imposes his religion on anyone here on the blog.
What is it about Libs like you that want to attack a person’s beliefs?
I don’t agree with the literal interpretation of the Bible time line, but I am not going to bash someone over it either. There are long theological discussions why this is wrong and why it could be right.
Or, we could just start addressing each Lib with the new descriptor “Religious Bigot (insert name here).”
This post by MaxGrobnik is incorrect.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/08/open-thread-818-2/#comment-404111
See 8:38 am post above, ‘Arctic Ice melt media misinformation retracted‘.
Regular asks disingenuously, “So, it’s not okay for people to have religious beliefs?”
If my religion tells me that I should shoot disabled vets on sight, you would not criticise me for that.
Cool.
The fact of the matter is that a young earth theory is a political view. It has no Biblical basis. It is used to rape and pillage the environment without regard for future generations, in direct violation of the Biblical injunction of good stewardship.
You don’t get to make a political statement and then claim that no one can criticise it because it’s part of your religious belief system.
That’s crap. You know it. We know it.
We know you know it.
Go for it, Regular! At least each of those “libs” names you’ll put in the parenthesis are dealing with ALL of history when making their conclusions.
I don’t care what anyone’s choice of religion is. It should be very personal! And it sure isn’t science so doesn’t have a place in a scientific discussion.
Thanks, Cosmos.
I caught Hank knowingly reposting that wrong “ice not melting!” disinformation the other day too.
They can see the retraction in the original article, but facts don’t matter to them . . .
Capn and linda,
Sure, make your points, but don’t make the basis of argument on ad hominem.
CapnAmerica
Posted August 26, 2008 at 8:47 am | Permalink
Regular asks disingenuously, “So, it’s not okay for people to have religious beliefs?”
———————————
CapnAmerica writes:
Posted August 26, 2008 at 8:47 am
“If my religion tells me that I should shoot disabled vets on sight, you would not criticise me for that.”
————————-
First, let me correct your spelling. :D
It’s “criticize,” not “criticise.”
A very poor analogy Capn and I might add that, religions that encourage felonious assault with a firearm, won’t last long in the United States.
Surely, you can come up with something better, instead of your thinly veiled ad hominem attack on me. :)
Good link, AnnMoo.
This is the real deal. Social security and Medicare have nothing to do with income taxes and should not be included because there’re special taxes that cover them.
In the case of Social security, btw, it unlike every other gov’t program, actually BRINGS IN MORE MONEY THAN IT PAYS OUT.
The bogus pie chart that feds send out with your tax return counts Social security as an “expenditure” without looking at how much the Social security tax brings in.
We have no special taxes for the military. Everything we spend on it comes right out of the general fund–i.e., income taxes.
Does anyone else find it humorous when people can’t keep ’science’ ‘politics’ and ‘religion’ straight?
No? Actually, neither do I.
“Criticise” is British. I read a lot and get them confused.
Spelling is all he’s got, folks.
#
CapnAmerica
Posted August 26, 2008 at 9:02 am | Permalink
“Criticise” is British. I read a lot and get them confused.
Spelling is all he’s got, folks.
——————–
You’re not British, nor have you ever been British.
Spell ‘theater’ please. :D
My religious beliefs tell me that I should vote Democratic and anyone who votes Republican worships Satan.
Don’t criticise me or I’ll paint you as intolerant of my religion.
My religion tells me that “criticise” is the correct spelling.
You aren’t going to attack my religious beliefs again, are you?
Hey, Regular, you addressed your comment to me too and then left me out of your criticism! I know Capn does a much better job than me, but wondered what I had done to deserve being accused of basing anything on “ad hominem.”
I try hard to never find fault with a person’s faith and religious beliefs. Why would I want to insert my thoughts into something that brings a person comfort and hope, is personal, and absolutely not my business? Now, science, that’s a totally different topic! Shouldn’t be mixed or integrated or have anything to do with religions.
Linda–
You mispelled “criticism.” It’s actually criticizm.
My religion tells me this is so.
You don’t dare attack my religion.
You know . . . I could get used to this.
Anything I agree with is “my religion” and anything I disagree with is “condemned by my religion.”
And nobody can say anything about it without being branded as “intolerant of my religion.”
Capn, it’s not new but is all some have. It hasn’t ever seemed effective to me but I’ve sure seen it used often!
I’ll leave the panderers with their daily ‘arm flailings.
Off to do productive things. :D
All that porno isn’t going to download itself, is it, Regular . . .
Yup. He’s got nothing.
Except for spelling . . .
The earth is warming, that is fact, but the reality is that we will never make ourselves uncomfortable enough to reverse it. Simply recycling our plastic ain’t gonna do it.
I experienced the fact of global warming in Honduras…and the resulting damage done in just 5 years by a warmer ocean. It’s too late to reverse the damage in our lifetime.
What I don’t get is why Christian fundamentalists are so set on denying the fact that global warming is happening. It just makes no sense to me. Doesn’t your bible instruct you to be good stewards of the earth?
I promised my good friend franklin we’d take a look see at this issue today
http://www.safehaven.com/article-5917.htm
September 18, 2006
The Greatest Scam of All Time
by Martin Weiss
Money and Markets
Washington’s Enron-style accounting is now so widespread and so deeply ingrained, the nation could be bankrupt and not even know it.
You go to work. You save and invest. You vote in the November election. And you assume that everything is business as usual. Then, one day, you wake up to the shocking discovery that it’s not.
Inflation is at least three percentage points worse than what they’re telling you. Unemployment and the budget deficit is over double. The national debt is at least five times bigger than official tallies.
Almost every number coming out of Washington has been thoroughly massaged and greatly distorted, almost always with a bias toward sweeping the dirt under the carpet and sugarcoating the truth.
This is not a conspiracy. It just happens naturally. But that doesn’t diminish the potential impact on your money. It’s easily the greatest scam of all time.
Every single administration — from John F. Kennedy to George W. Bush — has succumbed to the same temptation to “reform” the data collection process … “streamline” the reporting procedures … and continually implement minor, incremental changes — all to make things look a bit better.
Each new change has been grandfathered in by the next administration.
And the cumulative effect of all these small changes over time adds up to a gross distortion of reality that could directly threaten your financial future.
Look Back to Recent History,
And You’ll See What I Mean.
At Enron, 21,000 employees — and many more investors — assumed that the company’s books were real. Then, one day they discovered it was all a hoax.
And it was over.
We saw the same thing happen at Adelphia Business Solutions, Global Crossing, Kaiser Aluminum, Kmart, McLeodUSA, National Steel, WorldCom, and scores of other major, household-name companies. Every one had distorted its numbers. Every one went bankrupt. Each left a trail of ruined lives in its wake.
The distortions were so bad even many of Wall Street’s least biased analysts missed the boat. Indeed, in a special report I presented to the National Press Club, I demonstrated that …
Among 50 major Wall Street firms we reviewed, 94% continued to publish “buy” or “hold” ratings on these failing companies right up to the day the companies filed for bankruptcy.
Worse, America’s largest auditing firms looked the other way, or even directly assisted in the accounting distortions. In a report I submitted to Congress, I showed that …
Arthur Andersen, America’s most prestigious auditors, gave a clean bill of health to 11 companies involved in accounting irregularities. Deloitte & Touche and KPMG each gave a clean bill of health to five companies involved in accounting problems. And overall, the nation’s major auditing firms gave a clean bill of health to 42.1% of the public companies that filed for bankruptcy soon after their audits. Overall, the auditors failed to warn the public about companies that were worth a total of $225 billion at their peak. Investors lost nearly every dime
Doesn’t your bible instruct you to be good stewards of the earth?
——
No, but my neighbor’s bible does.
Doesn’t your bible instruct you to be good stewards of the earth?
——
No, but my neighbor’s bible does.
U.S. Economy is Still Growing but GDP Growth Rates Are Mostly Fraud
By Bill Bonner • August 4th, 2008 •
About the Author
Bill BonnerBest-selling investment author Bill Bonner is the founder and president of Agora Publishing, one of the world’s most successful consumer newsletter companies. Owner of both Fleet Street Publications and MoneyWeek magazine in the UK, he is also author of the free daily e-mail The Daily Reckoning.
Filed Under: The Americas
Tags: GDP growth
Yesterday’s news told us that the U.S. economy is still growing. But GDP growth rates are mostly a fraud. They measure economic activity - but do so clumsily; you don’t really know what is going on. When the feds give back “tax rebates,” for example, the money goes into the economy as people spend it. GDP rates go up. But how could there actually be more net spending? Since there are no savings in the U.S. economy, every penny is spent, no matter what. If it had not been given back to its rightful owners, the feds would have spent every penny of that money themselves.
There are only so many hours in the day…and only so many resources to work with. The real question is what is done with them. If they are used to produce things, to build factories, and to add to the nation’s capital, people become wealthier. If they are squandered - using up capital instead of adding to it - people become poorer. GDP figures don’t tell you want is really going on. But when an economy becomes too dependent on credit and consumer spending, GDP figures actually become perverse; they measure the rate at which the nation impoverishes itself.
Interesting, Steven,
Was it a bone or a fossil? My eyes are not so calibrated as yours are, they merely tell me something is ‘old’ not how old. Yours are evidently pretty good! (If I find it in the back of the fridge I can usually get it to within a year or two)
What method was used to date this ‘bone’? I ask, to determine what method that you had to have faith in to determine the age.
There is a great mis-conception concerning the Christian faith when it comes to science. Haveing faith in the Lord and believing in Creation, either young earh Creation or any number of other ways that Creation is accepted, does not keep one from understanding science. It doesn’t keep one from being a very credible scientist. Many very credible scientists believe in Creation.
Christianity over the ages has been a driving force for scientific discovery. The Catholic Church literally pulled civilizition out of the ‘dark ages’ by sponsoring and encouraging scientific discovery.
A Christian scientist is free from the world view that the earth is a certain age and that evolution is the reason for species diversity. He can look at scientific discoveries detached from a view that must necessarily ignore supernatural causes and design.
I understand the theory of evolution, maybe more than most. I’m always amazed at the inability of most of the posters here to carry on an intelligent discussion of evolution. I understand it, I don’t believe it.
I understand the ‘big bang’ theory, I understand its implications and its limitations. I don’t believe it.
So Steven, I’m sorry you don’t seem to have the confidence to discuss scientific topics with me. I have never used my faith to defend my scientific views. You can do a bonedig and try and find where I have ever brought my faith to this BLOG. Try to have an intelligent discussion with BlueJay or MaggotPunk on the age of the earth, good luck!
Got me daily email today from the Obama email-marketing. Today’s email is from Michelle herself!
My mom, the girls, and I left home in Chicago and got to Denver yesterday. What a beautiful city!
The convention started this morning, and everyone here is getting ready for the big week.
All the work you’ve done is at the heart of what’s happening here, and our team filmed a short video to give you a look behind the scenes at the convention center. We appreciate all you’ve done. If you could send us just $5 additional it would help us continue the work.
Tonight, Hillary Clinton will teach the party what you all missed - by throwing her to the wolves. Had we counted all states votes, we would be having 8 more years of prosperity under another experienced and politically savy Clinton.
Hillary with Bill at her side will remind you ALL of what we once had, and could have had again.
Instead of substance you went with style. Instead of experience in dealing with politicians, world leaders, and the American people, you went with a Chicago hoodlum.
Just listen to Hillary. She will try to heal the wound, but listen carefully to what could have been.
Still can if the delegates stand with her and we count fifty states - not forty-eight.
CapnAmerica and Linda,
The point is that what my father and I believe about the age of the Earth has nothing to do with this disucssion. 99% of the time CapnAmerica or someone else brings it up, it was never part of the discussion.
I don’t mind talking about it. Most of the time I do, that is when I am asked to stop.
Funny thing is about you liberals, is that you absolutely love to start these discussions until you have to start answering questions and are faced with real discussion.
Anything more than you getting to make your little soundbite snide comment about what my father and I believe and you run away and start crying about my pestering you.
So, it is not that you can’t say anything about my religion or that it is wrong, the point is that my religion had nothing to do with the discussion.
Pics from the freak show in Denver.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/live-from-dnc-its-zombietime-day-1/
I’ll be crushed if we don’t get any water cannon action.
….or the puke ray, that’d be cool, a bunch of gray haired hippies puking in the street in unison.
Mary,
Well, I feel that the Earth is getting colder now. At least that is my personal anecdotal experience.
And of course, we all know that personal anecdotal evidence is proof of AGW.
So now what do we do when your personal anecdotal experience conflicts with mine?
Oh, yes, I should be a good steward of the Earth.
I simply don’t see how buying into a complete load of BS (or what you call AGW) will make me one.
I think I heard a report that the majority of the delegates to the Democratic Convention are young. Guess you’re less likely to see the gray haired spectacle you wish for. But keep looking!
——–
With certification of all delegates for the 2008 Democratic National Convention now complete, the Democratic National Convention Committee (DNCC) announced today that 44.3 percent of the delegates elected to attend the Convention in Denver represent minority communities, 50.1 percent are women and 31.4 percent are either seniors or youth, making this the most diverse Convention in Party history.
Seniors, age 65 or older, make up 16.9 percent of the total delegation and delegates age 36 or younger comprise 14.5 percent.
http://www.demconvention.com/2008-democratic-national-convention-delegation-to-be-most-diverse-in-party-history/
CapnAmerica,
So when do you dismiss “science” to believe in God?
dionysus says — Had we counted all states votes, we would be having 8 more years of prosperity under another experienced and politically savy Clinton.
——
I am definitely looking forward to hearing Senator Clinton speak! And looking forward even more to the power she will wield over the next many years! I see great things possible and many choices that will put her in a position of power for much longer than a presidency would have lasted.
But, just one correction. The delegate count wouldn’t make her a primary winner even if Florida and Michigan were counted. It just didn’t happen for her. I think she has much greater in her future!
Check out the primary results here:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#val=D
CapnAmerica,
Young Earth Creationism is not a political view. It is simply a strict reading of the Bible.
You are the one who has to twist and ignore what the Bible actually says to come up with something different. Not I.
Do you believe anything the Bible says anyhow? Almost everything you do profess to believe here has nothing to do with what the Bible actually says.
Well, you did quote the Bible that one time, in deaing with the theif on the cross. Ok, so you believe one little section of the Bible.
And I might add, completely misconstrue that one section to fit your belief.
Well, since the left on the Blog seems to think discussing religion is fair game today…
Chas,
Will you answer my question now? How can you claim to be a Christian while refusing to answer a question on the most fundamental aspect to calling yourself one?
Why do you hide?
As conservative bloggers and mainstream media sources work overtime to try and force Barack Obama to explain, reexplain, and then again explain his relationship with former Weatherman Bill Ayers, John McCain still has questions to answer about his own relationship with a criminal.
The criminal in question is McCain’s father-in-law, the late Jim Hensley. At the time of his death in 2000, Hensley was one of the richest men in Arizona and owner of one of the largest Anheuser-Bush Distributorships in the nation.
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/08/john-mccain-must-explain-his-ties-to.html
Hensley and daughter Cindy are well-established as the sponsors of McCain’s political career and McCain has called Hensley a “role model.” Ayers once contributed $200 to Obama, and the two have have worked together with a charity group and school reform group.
How else do Hensley and Ayers match up?
Jim Hensley vs. Bill Ayers
Felony Convictions: Hensley 1, Ayers 0.
Comment: In 1948, Hensley was given a six-month suspended sentence for falsifying liquor records to conceal illegal distribution of whiskey against post-war rationing regulations. Ayers has never been convicted of a felony.
Connections with Organized Crime: Hensley 2. Ayers 0.
Comment: Hensley and his brother were the owners of Ruidoso Downs racetrack, along with “silent partner” Clarence “Teak” Baldwin who had been banned from any ownership role due to illegal bookmaking activities. Long-time business associate Kemper Marley, Sr. was also connected with organized crime.
Illegally Acquired Liquor Licenses: Hensley 1, Ayers 0.
Comments: Hensley acquired a liquor license in Arizona despite the fact that he was not allowed to have one due to being a felon.
Killings Connected With: Hensley 21,000, Ayers 4.
Comment: While neither Hensley nor Ayers have personally murdered anyone, both were heavily involved with organizations that caused the deaths of others. For Ayers, that organization was the Weatherman. For Hensley that organization was Anheuser-Busch. In 2007, Arizona reported more than 700 alcohol-related deaths. Conservatively putting the average number of alcohol-related deaths in Arizona at 400, Hensley has been responsible for the deaths of more than 20,000 Arizonans. And while Budweiser cannot be blamed for each death, it is clearly a gateway drug to harder types of alcohol, thus culpability is Hensley’s.
Divorces: Hensley 1, Ayers 0.
Comments: Like his son-in-law, Hensley divorced his first wife after having an affair and remarrying. Ayers has been married to Bernardine Dohrn for nearly 40 years.
Abandoned Children: Hensley 1, Ayers -1
Comments: Hensley abandoned his first child, Kathleen Portalski. Ayers and Dohrn raised two of their own children and adopted a third.
As anyone can see from the plain facts, Jim Hensley was far more dangerous man than Ayers has ever been, and profited wildly from his illicit activities. It is time for John McCain to stand up and explain his ties with the felon Jim Hensley.
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/08/john-mccain-must-explain-his-ties-to.html
(that’s the source for the above post)
“Nathaniel” chases his tail –
“Chas,
“Will you answer my question now? How can you claim to be a Christian while refusing to answer a question on the most fundamental aspect to calling yourself one?
“Why do you hide?”
Hey, boy. Doesn’t look like “Chas” hiding from you. Looks like he’s not on-line this morning.
Maybe you should be out judging other peoples’ faith, since your are the boy prophet, sitteth on the right hand of God, where you (not God; you) judge the quick and the dead.
MonkeyHawk,
I see you are hiding behind the absurd again today.
Maggotpunk,
Ok. Apes and Humans are similar. So what does that prove?
“Chas” isn’t even on-line, “Nathaniel” –
He’s not “hiding” from you, boy.
You’ve slipped off into the realm of absurd megalomania, thinking your little twice-born third-grade question somehow makes you a better “christian” than all others.
Why don’t you do something worthwhile with your superior faith, like visit a cancer ward and heal them with your touch?
#
“Nathaniel” squirms –
“Apes and Humans are similar. So what does that prove?”
In your case, boy, it might threaten your job security.
MonkeyHawk,
I am not talking about him hiding from me today. I am talking about the fact that he hides from answering the question, period.
MonkeyHawk,
And now we see the true level of you argument ability.
Be absurd… Be rude… Use personal insults.
Wow! You got me.
Did we change from posting here what we choose and answering those questions we want to answer? Did someone institute new rules and regulations? For me, I have a philosophy of blogging that is very simple:
1. each opinion is as good and useless as the next;
2. recognize a pissing contest as quickly as possible and get out of it.
Life is good!
Nathaniel posted August 26, 2008 at 10:51 am
“And of course, we all know that personal anecdotal evidence is proof of AGW.”
——-
Actually, AGW is based on science and research. Such as by Joseph Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1859), Arrhenius (1896), and by many scientists since then.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm
But Nathaniel instead seems to prefer lies from the agricultural economist Dennis Avery, and similar ilk.
The lies of one Paul F. Rosell exposed:
“If you think you know John McCain, you should read on.
“Earlier this year, John McCain was interviewed on television, and he promised that he would work against these shadowy outside groups that spread lies and pollute our country with their smears. He was asked specifically about the “swiftboat” people from 2004 in that question.
“Then, when he’s behind in the polls, one of those new groups pops up, funded entirely by one billionaire who was part of those swiftboat people in 2004. And it’s again spreading lies.
“You may have heard about it. They dragged up some obscure 60s radical who happens to live in the same neighborhood as Barack Obama, and they try to say that they have this big connection. Months ago, the Chicago papers called this a “phony charge.” They have no connection (Obama attended one reception at the guy’s house once, and has condemned what the guy did way back in the 60s, when Obama was 9 years old).
“So these are obvious lies, just like John McCain said he’d condemn. But instead of condemning them, he actually suck [sic - but they may have a point :) ] even lower than George W. Bush did in 2004. He repeated the attacks in his own campaign statements!
“This is a shockingly dishonorable thing to do. And I’m just tired of it. Broken promises, lies, shadowy groups funded by billionaires, we need to get rid of all of it.
“The only way to do that is to pass this along, tell everyone you know what John McCain is doing. You won’t hear all this on the news, probably. So we need to tell everyone what’s going on.
“We need to have politicians that talk about us and how they can fix things, not talk about the latest lies and smears some shadowy group dredges up.”
http://www.truthfightsback.com/page/invite/ayers
So which isn’t, “Nathaniel” –
“Chas,
“Will you answer my question now?
or
“I am not talking about him hiding from me today”
“Now” is a concept pretty closely tied to the concept of “today,” boy.
Even an ape might know that.
Translation:
1. each opinion is as good and useless as the next;
Actually means:
I don’t defend my statements nor my opinions, but have no problem telling someone else that their opinion is wrong. Just don’t ask me to explain myself.
2. recognize a pissing contest as quickly as possible and get out of it.
Actually means:
I don’t mind starting something, I am just not going to stick around to finish it. If someone else has started something, I might add a bit to it, but once I am being asked questions, get out and don’t ever answer.
Basically:
I will give you my opinion, just don’t ever expect me to defend it or respond to any questions you have about it.
MonkeyHawk,
Back to the absurd and personal insults.
You are a one trick pony. You could surprise me by actually trying to have a discussion.
“Nathaniel” whines –
“Back to the absurd and personal insults.”
Yeah, I probably should have insulted that ape.
“You are a one trick pony. You could surprise me by actually trying to have a discussion.”
Ha!
Just how many times have you trotted out your small-minded attack/questions about “Chas’” faith, boy?
But to your credit, you might know more than one trick, boy. “HLP” is a renowned trainer of dumb animals.
“should” = “shouldn’t”
My apologies to the apes.
Nope. Guess not.
Hank posted August 26, 2008 at 6:06 am
“Our position is we need to start phasing out coal as soon as possible,” said Cathie Bird of Save Our Cumberland Mountains. “Carbon capture and storage does not make coal clean,” read a banner hoisted by protesters.
————
Hank, if you disagree with that, can you explain how CCS would make “coal clean”?
Would it stop mercury and other toxins from being emitted from the smoke stack?
Stop particulates, which are a health hazard?
Stop emissions from the diesel trains used to transport the coal long distances?
End mountain top removals?
Other points,
‘Activist groups protest new ‘clean-coal’ practice of carbon sequestration’
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/may/06/capturing-awareness/
Perhaps Hank would like to refute the following points?
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/usa/press-center/reports4/false-hope-why-carbon-capture/executive-summary-false-hope.pdf
* CCS cannot deliver in time
* CCS wastes energy
* Storing carbon underground is risky
* CCS is expensive and undermines funding for sustainable solutions
* CCS and liability: risky business
———
Or will Hank just call me a “nitwit”?
“Nathaniel” –
Now, maybe you’ll answer my question:
Why aren’t you out using your superior faith to heal the sick, boy?
Why are you hiding from me?
;^)
Nathan- If Chas has any good sense, he’s ignoring you. Most people do when you get into your daily broken record regimen. Can you spell BORE?
I think you need a hit of window pane and get your ashes hauled!
From Today’s LTTE–
“There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah or whatever one calls this supreme being…. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in A, B, C and D. Just who do they think they are?” –Sen. Barry Goldwater, R-Ariz
“I think you need a hit of window pane and get your ashes hauled!”
WOW
That takes me back…
Good one gster!
“I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in A, B, C and D. Just who do they think they are?”
Hey, Nathan.
Barry Goldwater was talking about YOU.
The purple chicken coop is proud to welcome annie moose to our flock of friends who chat back channel and occasionally get together to laugh at the cons and generally have fun without and in spite of them.
Welcome annie!
KFG- I’m not sure if this patient would be a “one hit wonder” or not. ??
Some more reading for Hank. . .
‘Fossil Fuels Basics
The Costs of Coal
Across the fuel cycle: from mine to smokestack’
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/fossil_fuels/costs_of_coal.html
MaxGrobnik posted August 18, 2008 at 11:56 am
“The Arctic melt season is nearly done for this year.”
—–
Ooops! The sea ice disagrees.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
“Monkeyhawk” posted August 26, 2008 at 12:22 pm –
“Nathaniel” –
Now, maybe you’ll answer my question:
Why aren’t you out using your superior faith to heal the sick, boy?
Why are you hiding from me?
;^)
The boy prophet “Nataniel!”
He makes the blind to walk again!
He makes the lame to see!
Oh yes, here comes gster, just like clockwork.
Practically everyday CapnAmerica and others question my father and I on Creationism when it is not even part of the subject.
Yet, as usual, the second I bring up anything about someone elses faith the little liberals circle their wagons and go after me.
Gster,
Does it bore you when CapnAmerica, Chas, Steven, Apophis, MonkeyHawk, etc… keep bringing up the fact that my father and I belive in a Young Earth?
Why don’t you tell them how boring they are?
CapnAmerica,
You seem to be just as incapable of understanding and applying what Goldwater says as you do the Bible.
No surprise there.
CapnAmerica,
When do you reject Science to believe in God?
Thank you JR and fellow purple chickens it’s an honor to be associated with such an eclectic independent free thinking bunch.
If you, Nathan, were open to really discussing that question, I would investigate it with you.
You aren’t, so I won’t.
Near by is an interesting ruin - the meager remains of an ancient heathen temple - [where the Hawaiians prayed]; long, long before the missionaries braved a thousand privations to come and make them permanently miserable by telling them how beautiful and how blissful a place heaven is, and how nearly impossible it is to get there; and showed the poor native how dreary a place perdition is and what unnecessarily liberal facilities there are for going to it; showed him what rapture it is to work all day long for fifty cents to buy food for next day with, as compared with fishing for pastime and lolling in the shade through eternal Summer, and eating of the bounty that nobody labored to provide but Nature. How sad it is to think of the multitudes who have gone to their graves in this beautiful island and never knew there was a hell!
MARK TWAIN
“Nathaniel” whines –
“Practically everyday [sic] CapnAmerica and others question my father and I [sic]on Creationism when it is not even part of the subject.”
Compartmentalism, boy.
You and your
trainerdad don’t seem to understand that your screwball Young Earth theory defies common sense.And it skews issues such as petroleum policy (indeed, all energy policy), international relations, politics, and especially, all your posts relating to any scientific (indeed, rational) discussion of reality.
It’s like explaining physics to an ape: the monkey can swing from branch to branch, but will never understand the concept of gravity.
“…the second I bring up anything about someone elses [sic] faith the little liberals circle their wagons and go after me.”
And it huwts yo’ wittle feewings doesn’t, it boy?
“Does it bore you when CapnAmerica, Chas, Steven, Apophis, MonkeyHawk, etc… keep bringing up the fact that my father and I belive [sic] in a Young Earth?”
Quite the opposite, I’d guess.
Every time you and your
trainerfather mention the Young Earth theory you provide all sorts of laughs.“Why don’t you tell them how boring they are?”
‘Cuz we’re not, boy.
And we have fun rubbing your nose in the messes you deposit. (Sort of like how you were potty-trained, I’d guess.)
CapnAmerica,
You can quote Mark Twain, I will quote the Bible.
And you probably wonder why someone questions you calling yourself a Christian?
Tell me one thing about Christianity that you believe is true.
Is there anything?
MonkeyHawk,
Everytime my father and I mention Young Earth Creationism?
I can’t even remember the last time I brougt it up.
As I pointed out, that is what the liberals here do, not I.
Once again, it is not “whining” to point out the obvious Hypocrisy by the left here.
It is those of you on the left who “whine” when I start talking about faith. Yet it is you on the left who almost daily try to insult my father and I about ours.
You are hyopcrites. Pointing that out is not “whining”
We all knew this was coming, didn’t we?
From the LA Times:
Plot unfolds to assassinate Obama on national TV, a 4th arrest, more details
More details emerging from Denver as we write this in the predawn hours on the now-suspected plot to assassinate Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama with a high-powered rifle on national television during his outdoor acceptance speech at Invesco Field on Thursday night.
Authorities have reported a fourth arrest in the unfolding plot that The Ticket first wrote about here a few hours ago at the end of Monday night’s Democratic National Convention events at the Pepsi Center.
We knew then that authorities in suburban Aurora had stopped a pickup truck for swerving between lanes early Sunday morning in what they thought was a routine drunk driving incident.
But in the rented vehicle of Tharin Gartrell, a 28-year-old convicted felon (see photo), they found two high-powered scoped rifles, ammunition, sighting scopes, radios, a cellphone, a bulletproof vest, wigs, drugs and fake IDs.
According to Brian Maass of Denver’s KCNC Channel 4, under questioning Gartrell implicated two other men — Nathan Johnson, who is 32, and Shawn Adolph, who is 33 — and Johnson’s girlfriend, Natasha Gromack. Johnson also reportedly confirmed the plot to FBI and Secret Service interrogators. (See video below.)
One of the men, Adolph, reportedly wore a ring with the Nazi swastika. He was injured when he jumped out of a hotel window fleeing Secret Service agents. All are now in custody on drug and weapons charges.
U.S. Atty. Troy Eid declined to elaborate on Monday but said there is no credible threat to the party’s convention or to the freshman Illinois senator, who was campaigning in Kansas City on Monday and traveling to Montana today.
But the television station reports that under questioning the men admitted there was indeed a plot to kill Obama during his speech before some 70,000 supporters and a nationwide television audience.
More details are expected to emerge later today when Eid holds a news conference at 4 p.m. Denver time.
BlueJay,
Making up for those times that you were left out and picked on in Grade School I see.
Unfortunately we did, MrC.
It is hopeless Nathan.
You want to know why?
It’s because certain Libs on this blog, use the “no rules” concept of discussion.
They can violate common decency, ignore facts/opinions and generally create chaos in discussions.
They have no respect for another person’s view and will use any point in a person’s life that is mentioned to brand them as a non-credible person.
Don’t feed the antagonists.
This Lib crew here on the WE Blog is the worst of the worst. They wouldn’t do the same face to face, because they would get knocked the **** out. Pardon my Lib speak. :D
This is analogous to talking about faith in a bar with a bunch of drunks. The Libs here on the blog are as just as incoherent and intolerant as an inebriated person.
My suggestion is to avoid the open thread, only the Lib apes, chimps and cheese eating surrender monkeys live here.
“Nathaniel” asked “CapnAmerica,” but I’ll chip in –
“When do you reject Science to believe in God?”
Amazingly, never.
I suspect there might be an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent power (for whom “a day can be a thousand years,” and all that) who had the time and ingenuity to “create” life through the process of evolution.
Do you really think such a God isn’t capable of that?
(Like you believe God can’t judge a person’s “christianity” without your help?)
That’s a pretty lame God you worship, boy. He needs magic tricks and slight-of-hand because He is incapable of creating a universe that operates by rules and order.
Religion offers human opinions of why God does stuff. That’s its job. Science explores the how.
You’ve mistaken the beautiful biblical poetry of Genesis for science. Hell, even to get up to your imagined 6,000-year-old Earth, you have to buy into the concept that Noah lived 900 years and Methuselah lived a couple of thousand years.
You might take your own advice, that “…a literal interpretation of the Bible doesn’t mean you take every word literally.”
Oh…
And, Now, maybe you’ll answer my question:
Why aren’t you out using your superior faith to heal the sick, boy?
Why are you hiding from me?
;^)
The boy prophet “Nataniel!”
He makes the blind to walk again!
He makes the lame to see!
Multi-nic’d Regular posted August 26, 2008 at 1:58 pm
“They can violate common decency, ignore facts/opinions and generally create chaos in discussions.”
———
That’s exactly what multi-nic’d Regular did when he lied multiple times about the Sierra Club re the New Orleans levees.
“Regular” advises the boy prophet –
“…My suggestion is to avoid the open thread…”You misspelled:
Run away!
Run away!
DENVER (AP) - Three men who authorities initially feared were plotting to assassinate Barack Obama at the Democratic National Convention are facing only gun charges—signaling they never posed a real threat.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D92Q37AG1&show_article=1
Nathan asks disingenuously, “Tell me one thing about Christianity that you believe is true. Is there anything?”
I’ve answered this question twice the same way, but here goes again, hoping it’ll stick this time:
I believe in God, the Father Almighty
Maker of Heaven and Earth
And in Jesus Christ, His Only Son, Our Lord
Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, He was crucified, died and buried.
He descended into Hell.
The third day He arose again from the dead and ascended into Heaven to sitth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, from whence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting.
Next question.
Next question.
——
Does your rich wife have a sister?
I do have a sincere question for the God Squad though–how can you vote for a self-proclaimed Christian who refuses to be baptised?
‘Clean Coal swag at Democratic Convention eliciting cynical repsonse’
http://www.desmogblog.com/clean-coal-swag-at-democratic-convention-eleciting-cynical-repsonse
Also see link at above page,
http://www.coal-is-dirty.com/coal-effects-on-family-health
I do have a sincere question for the God Squad though–how can you vote for a self-proclaimed Christian who refuses to be baptised?
—–
With a ballot.
I do have a sincere question for the God Squad though–how can you vote for a self-proclaimed Christian who refuses to be baptised?
———–
I think we push a button in our ward, ANTI.
HURRICANE WARNING!!! Yo, MAYOR NAGIN!!! LOOKOUT!!! HURICANE GUSTAV TRACKING TOWARD NEW ORLEANS!!!
The National Hurricane Center has forecast Gustav to be a Cat 3 storm with 120 mph winds by this Sunday as it enters the Gulf of Mexico. There are many Hurricane models, but one of the most reliable ones (GFDL) is projecting a track toward New Orleans.
New Orleans would be hit sometime on Tuesday next week, that’s 9/2/08. (Right after Labor Day!)
TODAY IS TUESDAY 8/26/08. That’s a warning timeframe of 1 Week Nagin. No excuses this time. The World can see this projection! Wake up Nagin, get your people ready to evacuate if needed. Fire up those buses, and find some drivers now, while you still can!
http://www.intellicast.com/Storm/Hurricane/Active.aspx?storm=2&type=track
http://www.wunderground.com/tropical/tracking/at200807_model.html?MR=1
I think we push a button in our ward, ANTI.
—–
You are right. After the “finger painting incident,” they took away all of the crayons and pencils… :(
Alert to President Bush and the Feds: You should now be preparing dynamite charges to blow up the levies again.
Oh, and get the helicopters, boats, and trucks ready so the Feds can evacuate the idiots who refuse to leave New Orleans BEFORE the storm.
Nagin, prepare your speeches about how Bush neglected your chocolate city again. Oh and Nagin, get your own tail to high ground and leave your city folk behind, just like you did last time.
New Gov in LA this time, make sure you invite the Feds to help in your State early. The Feds can’t send troops unless you invite them!
Congress, please approve another $100 Billion to rebuild New Orleans again.
Hank:
I was at an Archeological dig. My son and I were volunteering - he was doing that for a Boy Scout merit badge. This dig was sponsored by the Kansas State Historical Society and a Museum out of Denver.
I am not sure if the bone was fossilized or not - I would assume so. The KU Archeologist who was at our site was the one who said what animal the scapula bone came from. I trusted his judgement - He had been a field archeologist all of his professional life - I assumed he knew what he was talking about.
I have faith in scientists. Creationists, while I am sure are nice people, not so much - especially on subjects they’re not trained in.
60 Children Among Afghan Dead, U.N. Finds
KABUL, Afghanistan — A United Nations human rights team has found “convincing evidence” that some 90 civilians — among them 60 children — were killed in air strikes on a village in western Afghanistan on Thursday night, a statement issued by the United Nations mission in Kabul said, making it almost certainly the deadliest case of civilian casualties caused by any United States military operation in Afghanistan since 2001.
The United Nations the team visited the scene and interviewed survivors and local officials and elders, getting a name, age and gender of each person reported killed. The team reported that 15 people had been injured in the air strikes, which occurred in the middle of the night.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/world/asia/27herat.html?ref=world
Hey, Max–
In case you hadn’t noticed, it looks like it was God’s people in Florida who got flooded out this time.
Yup, I saw that too, Linda.
Your tax dollars at work.
“It’s hard to convince people that you’re making their lives better while you’re killing them.” Molly Ivins
As if we didn’t know:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/whoops_top_republican_admits_t.php
Whoops! Top Republican Admits That GOP Is Running “Ministry Of Truth” Against Obama
By Eric Kleefeld - August 26, 2008, 11:39AM
A leading Republican appears to have just inadvertently admitted that the GOP’s spin machine set up to counter Barack Obama during the convention is a propaganda machine spewing nothing but lies.
The GOPer in question is Colorado GOP chairman Dick Wadhams, who accidentally made the admission when describing the GOP’s war room in Denver set up to hammer Obama during convention week.
Wadhams described the GOP’s outfit thusly to the Denver Post: “Just consider this the Ministry of Truth.”
As anybody who has ever read George Orwell knows, the Ministry of Truth exists to disseminate false propaganda about how great the ruling regime is, continuously rewriting both history and the present-day facts in order to maintain total control over the population.
“The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation,” Orwell wrote. “These contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from ordinary hypocrisy; they are deliberate exercises in doublethink.”
MonkeyHawk,
I didn’t think science stopped at Evolution though. What happened before that?
Lets see… we have the creation of life. Do you think God did that or was it just some puddle of goo?
Then we have the the Planent. Did it just form from some random chance in this solar system or was that God?
Then we have the Galaxy and Universe. Do you believe in the big bang or God?
The question is a valid one. Because at no time does “science” ever allow for God.
So, when do you believe in God and reject science?
CapnAmerica,
So what is the point in posting a quote from Mark Twain mocking the idea of hell while professing to believe that Jesus rose from hell after 3 days?
More evidence that BushCONs knowingly lied while trumping up the “IRAQ IS GOING TO KILL US” story–
First, Suskind’s book:
The Iraq Intelligence Chief, Tahir Jalil Habbush — a man still carrying a $1 million reward for capture, the Jack of Diamonds in Bush’s famous deck of wanted men — has been America’s secret source on Iraq. Starting in January of 2003, with Blair and Bush watching, his secret reports began to flow to officials on both sides of the Atlantic, saying that there were no WMD and that Hussein was acting so odd because of fear that the Iranians would find out he was a toothless tiger. The U.S. deep-sixed the intelligence report in February, “resettled” Habbush to a safe house in Jordan during the invasion and then paid him $5 million in what could only be considered hush money.
In the fall of 2003, after the world learned there were no WMD — as Habbush had foretold — the White House ordered the CIA to carry out a deception. The mission: create a handwritten letter, dated July, 2001, from Habbush to Saddam saying that Atta trained in Iraq before the attacks and the Saddam was buying yellow cake for Niger with help from a “small team from the al Qaeda organization.”
The mission was carried out, the letter was created, popped up in Baghdad, and roiled the global newcycles in December, 2003 (conning even venerable journalists like Tom Brokaw). The mission is a statutory violation of the charter of the CIA, and amendments added in 1991, prohibiting the CIA from conducting disinformation campaigns on U.S. soil.
*****
Now from Scoop News in New Zealand:
“It had appeared that the White House rewrote the Oct. 1, 2002 National Intelligence Estimate and then issued that doctored report to Congress on Oct. 4, 2002. Prados reveals convincing evidence that the Oct. 4 White Paper had already been written by July 2002. He shows that it was only slightly altered after the final NIE arrived. This White Paper served as the basis for the war.
The unavoidable conclusion is that the Bush-Cheney White paper “justifying” the invasion was developed a full three months in advance of the intelligence data and analysis that should have served as the basis for that justification…”
“What is the point in posting a quote from Mark Twain mocking the idea of hell while professing to believe that Jesus rose from hell after 3 days?”
Twain wasn’t mocking the “idea of hell.” He was mocking the missionaries’ idea of hell.
Oh… I see.
So what is hell then CapnAmerica?
The Biblical descriptions are not happy images.
So please tell me what hell is then?
CapnAmerica,
You also said you believed that Jesus would judge the quick and the dead.
What is this “judgement” and what are the standards?
You also said that Jesus was “Our” Lord. Who is this “our” you speak of?
CapnAmerica,
You never answered the question:
When do you reject science to believe in God?
Heckler whines,
“Typical response. You are critical of scientists who work for EVIL oil companies because their work is biased yet won’t discuss the biases of the Ministers of Warming….or is it Cooling…”
What other response did you expect when responding to blanket statements that you’ve made without even making a case? If you had something intelligent to say I could have responded but claiming there is just some huge conspiracy by a bunch of unnamed individuals and your best argument is to tell me to read an entire book (published way back in 1976) then post a response is just unintelligent.
“Lets see… we have the creation of life. Do you think God did that or was it just some puddle of goo?” — Nathaniel.
I’ve learned the futility of fighting this fight. However, religionists always miss the Big Point. You suppose that God pre-existed the universe and created it. Just how did God get there?
Your answer always is: Well, God just is. When you think deeply about things you realize that it makes no sense for the university to exist, and makes no sense for it to not exist.
We’ll simply have to be content not knowing. Just forget about it and vote Democratic.
Steven,
My father might not be “trained” in archeology, but his questions demonstrated that he knows enough to hold an intelligent conversation on the subject.
Especially when you present anecdotal evidence of a bone being evidence of a camel roaming here 20,000 years ago.
Really? You can tell all that by just looking at the bone?
Right……
beber,
The point is that Science doesn’t allow for God to be part of the explanation. Ever.
So at some point, you HAVE TO believe that God did something or was involved. That is not Scientific.
Yet we have CapnAmerica here who routinely mocks others for “rejecting” science for believing in a Young Earth.
So, it is rather simple. For him to profess faith in God, he must also “reject” science the same way he accuses and mocks others for.
Nathan states:
“Especially when you present anecdotal evidence of a bone being evidence of a camel roaming here 20,000 years ago.
Really? You can tell all that by just looking at the bone?”
Well yeah, you do some simple radiocarbon dating and look at the layer of geological strata the fossil is in. Unless, of course, you discount chemistry, physics and geology.
For him to profess faith in God, he must also “reject” science the same way he accuses and mocks others for.
*****
Nathan keeps making this statement and it isn’t any more true than the first time he made it.
Science has definitively proven that the earth is older than 6-10 thousand years. Using many independent tests, researchers agree that the age of the earth is in the neighborhood of 4.5 BILLION years old.
There is no contradiction between the scientific age of the earth and the Biblical view, since the Bible expresses no opinion on the age of the earth, either expressly or implied.
I render unto science the things that are science’s and render unto God the things that are God’s.
There’s no inherent contradiction until one conflates the two, as Nathan does.
Nathan, here’s a simple way to disprove your silly notion of a young universe. Simply get the speed on light and find out the distance stars in our galaxy (you don’t even need to go out of the galaxy to prove you wrong).
In case you are wondering the distance is 75,000 light years, 65,000 years more distant that what you believe the age of the universe is.
That’s why Hank can’t have this sort of discussion with me, the facts are too simple to understand that he’d just look more foolish trying to deny the speed of light.
CapnAmerica,
I am not narrowing the subject to a simple acceptance or rejection for Evolution or the age of the Earth.
I have very clearly explained this to you.
“Science” doesn’t allow for God to EVER be part of the explanation.
All the way from natural selection to the big bang. “Science” is NEVER saying God did anything or was any part of it.
For you to profess faith in God at some point, you must also reject science. As I have asked you before and you coninually dodge, what point is that for you?
At what point did the God you believe in do anything?
If you believe as “science” does, there is no God. Matter simply expanded from the Big Bang.
So where does the God you believe in fit into the equation?
It just dawned on me what Nathan’s error in thinking is–he confuses “non-scientific” with “anti-scientific.”
Believing in God is “non-scientific” because it requires a faith that supersedes (sp?) scientific evidence. However, since science cannot prove nor disprove God’s existence, it is not “anti-scientific.”
“Anti-science” is using a religious test to attempt to disprove what science has clearly proven.
Like the age of the earth, and less obviously because it is more complex, evolution.
Nathan, if something can be observed then it can be studied scientifically. Your pappy said God created lizards, therefore made a statement based upon someone’s observation. Anyone who states that this god of yours did something must have observed it throughout some point in history so where is the basis of the claim? If you have no basis either you are mentally unstable and hallucinated it, or you are lying.
Maggotpunk,
So, did you ever find that observation of how life began?
I believe that God created the heavens and the earth.
It’s a non-scientific belief. Not an anti-scientific one.
I can believe in science and also believe that science has limitations with respect to understanding the ineffable Diety.
Yes Nathan, I posted it a couple weeks ago. Sorry you weren’t paying attention. Is this your attempt to divert from the fact that your young universe was easily debunked and how I schooled you on camel fossils? Never mind, you aren’t honest enough to give an honest answer.
The Democrat Party on Monday approved Obamanation’s newly dictated platform. This is calling for unlimited taxpayer-funded abortions, effectively condemning another 50 million Americans babies, deemed too inconvenient and therefore worthless and inhuman, to an even more profitable and heinous slaughter. As Obamanation and Pelosi have admitted, since they don’t really know whether they are human babies worthy of birth and continued life, they must be – property. This is calling for an end to the institution of marriage, redefining marriage instead as – whatever the homosexual agenda and the other perverts want. This is calling for a beginning to full-scale socialized medicine, to include unlimited taxpayer-funded abortion and useless, unethical embryonic stem cell “research.” With enough human clones and chimeras being intentionally infected and dissected, we might cure anything, eventually. What difference the human cost to a leftist platform?
- - -
“Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception … Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.”
. . . Washington Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl, citing the Catechism of the Catholic Church in denouncing the lies spouted by House Speaker Pelosi on Sunday’s “Meet the Press” regarding the Church’s teaching on the beginning of human life and the evil of abortion
[Pelosi is maintaining that, as far as her Bishop in Californicatia is concerned about abortion – who cares?]
[A new Zogby poll among likely voters shows 59% believe that human life begins at conception, and another 17% said at viability, or about 22 weeks gestation. 55% would oppose a President who doesn’t know the definition of human life or marriage.]
- - -
“In the absence of modern medical knowledge, some of the Early Fathers held that abortion was homicide; others that it was tantamount to homicide; and various scholars theorized about when and how the unborn child might be animated or ‘ensouled.’ But none diminished the unique evil of abortion as an attack on life itself, and the early Church closely associated abortion with infanticide. In short, from the beginning, the believing Christian community held that abortion was always, gravely wrong. . . . Abortion kills an unborn, developing human life. It is always gravely evil, and so are the evasions employed to justify it. Catholics who make excuses for it – whether they’re famous or not – fool only themselves and abuse the fidelity of those Catholics who do sincerely seek to follow the Gospel and live their Catholic faith.”
. . . regarding a statement eloquently titled “On the Separation of Sense and State,” the Archbishop of Denver, Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., and his Auxiliary Bishop James D. Conley harshly criticizing Speaker Pelosi, for giving a confusing view of the Catholic Church’s teaching on abortion, during a Sunday interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
Well, folks, I’m off to in my own small way destroy the RepubliCONs and their party of greed and selfishness.
Catch ya later.
If you’re lucky . . .
Nathan says >>>>
““Science” doesn’t allow for God to EVER be part of the explanation.”
Nathan READ this….
http://www.theclergyletterproject.org/
“Nathaniel” blathers –
“I didn’t think science stopped at Evolution though. What happened before that?”
I think I might speak for most of us here, boy, when I say, “Huh?”
What in the hell are you trying to say?
“…we have the creation of life. Do you think God did that or was it just some puddle of goo?”
I believe there’s an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent power capable of “creating” life over billions of eons out of a puddle of goo.
For more than fifty years, some basic researched have discovered that some building blocks of life (proteins, amino acids, etc.) are produced from “goo” (that’s the technical term, I assume?) subjected to billions of years of heat and radiation and atmosphere of a volcanic planet.
No life produced in the lab yet. But it’s only been fifty years or so. God had more time on his hands.
You believe a guy in your image piled some dust together and blew life into it. I suppose an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent power might be capable of doing that, but it seems like a parlor trick to me compared to the elegance of chromosomes and genes and evolution. Just a guess here, boy, but I suspect maybe what you call “God” is smarter than either of us.
“Then we have the the Planent[sic]. Did it just form from some random chance in this solar system or was that God?”
A physicist could try to explain to you the forces of nature that explain how planets are formed. But you’d probably be banging your brain with your paw like a dog with an ice-cream-headache. No, it’s not random if you understand concepts such as energy and mass and gravity and string theory and a lot of stuff that, boy, is above your pay grade.
“Then we have the Galaxy and Universe. Do you believe in the big bang or God?”
Why does there have to be a difference?
“The question is a valid one. Because at no time does “science” ever allow for God.”
And at no time does “baseball” allow for a field goal.
Science is a discipline that specifically does not allow for anything that cannot be observed or postulated — directly or indirectly — on the basis of natural phenomena. Super-natural explanations simply aren’t part of the equation.
We humans are basically lazy. When a question becomes too complex to dedicated years or careers or centuries of study, observation, experimentation, critical review, et cetera, the lazy brain decides it’s a “miracle” and stops bothering to ask. So, among some people, throwing a virgin into the volcano will assure a good corn crop or the bread-and-wine turns into Jesus halfway down your throat.
I read a paper recently that (sorry, it was science) proposed the concept that humans are hard-wired to be pre-disposed toward believing the supernatural, toward religion, toward fundamentalism. I can’t do his thesis justice, but what I got from it is that we human beings are generally pretty bright critters.
Someone figured out the wheel. Someone discovered fire. Someone did the calculations required to land a man on the Moon… We want to know why and how.
Religions — such as that one which cropped up after 40 years in the desert — tend to emphasize the “why.” Science limits itself to trying to figure out the “how.”
“So, when do you believe in God and reject science?”
God is science.
And vice versa.
An omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Force could probably pull that off, don’cha think?
Just remember, boy:
In the words of the Prophet “Nathaniel” –
“Taking the Bible literally doesn’t mean taking every word literally.”
So Chas, do you believe God created the Earth?
Or do you answer every question by copying a link?
Say Chas, here’s one for ya:
http://stfu.com/
(Oh where’s GMC when ya need him!)
The web site linked above is pretty much self explanatory…. no need for further comments…
” pretty much self explanatory…. no need for further comments…’
Now how can that be Chas? Isn’t there some question as to the true meaning of STFU?
I recall you had some religious context you applied to what to 99.9% of us IS self-explanatory.
Only you lied your way out of it. HE-HE
Stand The Floor Up.
Don’t you remember what Chas said about that!
Chas.
C h a s s s s s….
Shall we repost your own words or do you want to confess that you made an error, or even told a lie, about what STFU means?
Say HD Chaplain,
Did Chas report Nathan yet to you?
OR
Did Chas LIE about that too?
Yup linda you were right.
The he he is a dead giveaway.
Say Chaplain,
You were right.
JR is a fag.
“Did Chas LIE about that too?”
Of course he lied. Everyone on this blog knows that. But his buddies on the blog don’t talk about the behavior of their fellow libs.
It’s an etiquette thing.
But we all know Chas lied.
Reverend my arse.
Again, despite the futility, I must insist that the very concept of God makes the whole point moot. If you believe God just is than anything can just be. If you beleive in God, then the need for a creator is gone. All you need is the verb “to be” because God just is.
So you like the way the economy is going, vote McCain and you will get a continuation of what we’ve got.
————-
U.S. Bank Profits Fall By 86 Percent
U.S. banking industry profits plunged by 86 percent in the second quarter and the number of troubled banks jumped to the highest level in about five years, as slumps in the housing and credit markets continued.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. data released Tuesday show federally-insured banks and savings institutions earned $5 billion in the April-June period, down from $36.8 billion a year earlier.
The roughly 8,500 banks and thrifts also set aside a record $50.2 billion to cover losses from soured mortgages and other loans in the second quarter.
The FDIC said 117 banks and thrifts were considered to be in trouble in the second quarter, up from 90 in the prior quarter and the biggest tally since mid-2003.
“By any yardstick, it was another rough quarter for bank earnings,” FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair said in a statement.
http://www.npr.org/newsinbrief/index.html#MT93999618
“So please tell me what hell is then?”
Sigh.
I’ve posted this so many times.
Heaven is Austin, Texas.
Hell is everywhere else…
THIS WEB SITE, you illiterate boobs!!
http://www.theclergyletterproject.org/
“Well, I feel that the Earth is getting colder now. At least that is my personal anecdotal experience.”
I don’t believe what I observed is “anecdotal experience”…how else can you explain what is happening in the oceans?
The FACT is, Nathan, that the earth is warming, and any credible scientist will tell you that.
So…who pissed in your Post Toasties today? You are so hateful and negative, even more so than usual, one would think you are really angry or depressed about something.
And as far as you being able to have an informed or intelligent discussion regarding evolution, natural selection, global warming, the age of the earth, etc, etc, now THAT’S laughable.
Go read your bible and try to find some wisdom you can apply to your OWN life.
Gosh Linda, I thought you HATED the evil CORPORATIONS of America.
Banks losing profits should be a GOOD thing for you!
Post another link Chas,
since you can’t post any thoughts.
And who pissed in your cereal, Max?
Eagle offers voluntary buyouts to all employees
BY DAN VOORHIS
The Wichita Eagle
The Wichita Eagle is offering voluntary buyouts to all of its full-time employees, its top executive announced today.
There is no target number for staff reductions, president and publisher Pam Siddall said. The company may not approve buyouts for all who seek them, she said.
The move is an attempt to cut costs in the face of difficult business conditions for the newspaper industry, Siddall said.
The Eagle last week instituted a one-year wage freeze, as did all 30 newspapers in the McClatchy Company, which owns The Eagle. In the past year, McClatchy has initiated limited layoffs, as well as a number of other cost-cutting and revenue growth efforts
And who pissed in your cereal, Max?
I did hahaha
I must admit reading all the personal attacks on this blog today has got me down and depressed…it’s no wonder the world is in such a mess when people delight in tearing each other down all the time. It doesn’t give one much hope that mankind will ever evolve beyond the “us” against “them” sort of thinking.
Goodnight and goodbye.
MaxGrobnik posted August 18, 2008 at 11:56 am
“The Arctic melt season is nearly done for this year.”
—–
Ooops! The Arctic sea ice disagrees.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
Yes, the world is in a mess because of all the personal attacks on blogs.
Now that Hillary is done, I’m so depressed. I hope by watching TV Wednesday night, I’ll see Obama and be so filled of Hope and I’ll be happy again.
CONGRATULATIONS TO HILLARY CLINTON!!!
CONGRATULATIONS TO THE DEMOCRAT CONVENTION!!!
Good night; Good luck; God bless —-
Whatever you conceive God to be!!
Blessings ALL!!!
So mote it be!!
P. S. — Just for Max….
http://www.kansas.com
MaxGrobnik
Posted August 26, 2008 at 7:16 pm | Permalink
Shall we repost your own words or do you want to confess that you made an error, or even told a lie, about what STFU means?
===========================================
Answers:
NO, and, NO
Congratulations for what?
Blowing hot air?
Mary,
What have I posted here today that was mean and hateful?
Have you read half the crap that MonkeyHawk, CapnAmerica, and others post to me?
Then you have the gall to tell me that I am being mean and hateful?
You liberals are nothing but hypocrites.
Dear Hank,
Hey son! Aren’t you going to answer my questions?
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/08/open-thread-826-2/#comment-409674
It seems that Hank just vomits his copy/pastes from right-wing think(sic) tanks on the WE Blog. . . and then Hank runs away.
MonkeyHawk,
So your “scientific” answer is that God is science?
So you think that is what we should teach in school? Is that what “science” teaches us?
No, you missed the point completely. As usual. Either on purpose or out of willful ignorance. It doesn’t really matter.
You will find no “scientific” material that says God is science.
The point is that for the same reasons CapnAmerica says I amrejecting “science” he and you must as well to say that you believe in a God.
At some point, you must say that God was involved. When you do, that is not “science”
You want to believe that God and the Big Bang were the same thing? Fine. That is not science. You will find no credible “scientific” evidence to back that up.
The theory of the Big Bang makes no mention of God being behind it.
So, why do you reject “science?”
Chas,
The only problem is that your little project is a one way street.
Sure, we can claim that religion and science can work together. Well, at least until we say anything is explained by something supernatural.
Science doesn’t budge an inch for religion or God.
No matter how much you want to look cool and blend in with society, at some point, you still have to reject science to say God.
“What have I posted here today that was mean and hateful?”
Um? here?
“BlueJay,
Making up for those times that you were left out and picked on in Grade School I see.”
You would be wrong about that. I have to wonder where it even comes from. I have not assailed you here today.
LOL
Mean and hateful? ok…
A shot out of the blue at a poster who has not even addressed you is pretty mean and hateful there boy.
Hi Nathaniel!
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/08/open-thread-826-2/#comment-409649
BlueJay,
The mere fact that I addressed you was mean and hateful?
Yeah right…
You constantly post about how much fun you are having in spite of the conservatives in your little liberal blog get togethers. You keep posting about your little exclusive club here.
Why? What is the point? Once or twice, ok, but you are doing it almost daily now.
My comment was in response to that. You might not have addressed me by name, but you did conservatives in general.
Hi Cosmos!
Hi Nathaniel!
Actually Nathaniel, AGW is based on science and research. Such as by Joseph Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1859), Arrhenius (1896), and by many scientists since then.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm
But Nathaniel instead seems to prefer lies from the agricultural economist Dennis Avery, and similar ilk.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dennis_Avery
I went looking.
All I can see Nathan is that you took me welcoming a new friend to a circle of friends as a shot on you?
Hey I don’t make my every post with you in mind trust me.
Ya know Nathan, if you were not such a fox, we might invite you into the chicken coop. But I fear you would chase the old hens and young roosters around until they died of exhaustion or you bit their heads off, gutted them, and then drank their blood.
And, well, ya know, that’s no way to run a chicken coop…. By INVITING the fox in the door. They seem to get in often enough without an invititation.
Well, I guess there arent many night owls on the Blog. Looks like they get all worn out posting seemingly endless ad hominems at each other! :-)
BlueJay,
You mean this comment that was just merely welcoming someone?
“occasionally get together to laugh at the cons and generally have fun without and in spite of them.”
KFG,
I wouldn’t pay much attention to your chicken coop at all if it were not for that obnoxious taunting BlueJay inside jumping up and down waving his arms trying his hardest to make sure that I do see you in your chicken coop.
#
Nathaniel
Posted August 26, 2008 at 11:16 pm | Permalink
Chas,
The only problem is that your little project is a one way street.
Sure, we can claim that religion and science can work together. Well, at least until we say anything is explained by something supernatural.
Science doesn’t budge an inch for religion or God.
No matter how much you want to look cool and blend in with society, at some point, you still have to reject science to say God.
====================================================
That is the biggest load of crap I’ve read here. You are in essence saying all scientists are atheists.
You have a very narrow view of God and His word. You limit the ability of God and all His magnificence by your strict interpretation of the bible. A book assembled by humans, using references of the day to include, or no include material based on preconceived notions.
Why do you think God made the universe the way it is, so man can think it was made in seven days? You don’t think one of God’s days may have been a billion years? You know God so well that you believe His day is 24 hours?
No, Nathan, scientists have been both discovering all the things God left for us, and praising his name. It is you that limits God’s abilities with your nonsense.
Well gosh Nathan,
If you are going to be so thin skinned, I’m going to wound you most every time I post.
Nice guy that I am? I don’t intend to accomodate or really even consider your rather fragile feelings.
Get your big boy pants on while I tell you that I just really do not care for cons or fundos like you. You are just not fun or interesting people and I’ve no real desire to know you better. Just as you go about and do what you do and live how you live with no regard for me, I’ll afford you the same.
It is telling of you and yours though. As mean and nasty and dishonest and over all not nice as you cons are and you get your feelings hurt ’cause we like to have fun without you?
“that obnoxious taunting BlueJay ”
That’s me!
“jumping up and down waving his arms trying his hardest to make sure that I do see you in your chicken coop.”
You really overestimate how much you and people like you enter my thoughts there Nathan.
My advice is? Get used to it.
JM Walker,
I am saying no such thing. I made no claim that all scientists are athiests. Actually, almost every time my father and I are told that we are ignorant for believing in a Young Earth, both he and I will mention that there are plenty of scientists who believe in a young Earth.
The only crap about my argument is the strawman you are building and knocking down.
Try sticking to what I have actually said, instead of what you are inferring in your own imagination.
My point is that regardless of how many scientists actually believe in God, do you think any of them have published any papers or done any studies which mention God as any part of it? (at least anything that was not laughed out or not accepted)
Of course not.
“Science” as it stands now, doesn’t allow for God.
Try reading my argument again.
The point was rather clear.
BlueJay,
You were the one who brought up my “mean and hateful” comment and KFG was the one who brought up the coop analogy.
I merely responded to that.
The day you hurt my feelings I will stop posting here.
Nathan says:
“I am saying no such thing. I made no claim that all scientists are athiests. Actually, almost every time my father and I are told that we are ignorant for believing in a Young Earth, both he and I will mention that there are plenty of scientists who believe in a young Earth.”
It’s not big deal mentioning there are plenty of “scientists” who believe in a young earth, contrary to the scientific evidence. It’s a completely different matter on mentioning who those scientists are and whether or not they have degrees in a related field that would guide one to conclude there is a young earth.
The vast majority of scientists in fields such as physics, astronomy, chemistry, and other hard sciences are Atheists. It has a lot to do with the negative correlation with knowledge and religiosity. Knowledge is the enemy of fundamentalism, that’s why fundies oppose scientific inquiry.
Maggotpunk,
You are talking to the wrong guy here.
Tell that to Chas, with his clergy letter project.
Tell that to JM Walker.
Nathan, you say there are scientists who are YEC, but you won’t provide any names? How typical. You make claims but refuse to support them. Such are the tactics of the dishonest (i.e. creationists).
MaggotPunk,
The people I know are friends, people I have met in church, people I have met in churches across the country.
Many I don’t remember the names of and the ones I do I have no intention of sharing on the internet with someone who calls himself maggotpunk.
I suppose I could do some random google search to find some names for you.
Are you claiming that not one scientists believes in a Young Earth?
Typical, you make a claim and you can’t support it. That’s for proving once again you are nothing more than hot air.
Maggotpunk,
Are you saying that not even one scientist is a Young Earth Creationist?
What proof are you looking for?
You make demands for something and I don’t even know what you expect.
Wake me up when you actually become honest and support what you claim Nathan. You are a dishonest fraud, and your continued whining and dodges prove that. When you say something as simple as you have names of scientists who support YEC the simple proof would be to name them and their credentials, not weasel out asking what sort of proof I would require. You have just proven you are a liar, but that’s nothing new, that comes with the territory of being a fundy.
Nathan, these are YOUR words: “Science doesn’t budge an inch for religion or God.”
Plain and simple. That is not cheery picking, but pulling out a statement written by you. As such, I stick by my post.
“Mary,
What have I posted here today that was mean and hateful?
Have you read half the crap that MonkeyHawk, CapnAmerica, and others post to me?
Then you have the gall to tell me that I am being mean and hateful?
You liberals are nothing but hypocrites.”
So are Christians who enjoy bashing and insulting others…why do you stoop to the same behavior?
I thought Christians were supposed to be above the ways of heathens and liberals.
Hi guys, as all of you know (probably there are some of you that don’t) the launch of the evil machine known as large hadron collider is near. There are some thories that predict total destruction of the Earth. However, there also some brighter theories saying that important things are yet to be discovered by using the LHC. My personal opinion is that everything gonna be ok, what’s yours?
[url=http://recipeforcabbagesoupdiet.150m.com/the-rice-diet-program.html]the rice diet program[/url]