RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (121) < ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... >   
  Topic: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed., Sternberg, Gonzalez, Crocker - A film< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Cubist



Posts: 352
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2008,08:11   

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:46)
You're dodging the question, oldman. You know as well as I do that evolutionary theory is supposed to explain the origin AND diversity of life. How about attempting a serious answer?

By now, Kevin, you know that evolutionary theory doesn't care about the origin of life, because evolutionary theory would work just as well regardless of whether life originally arose via abiogenesis, or via some sort of intervention by an Intelligent Designer, or via a Divine 'poof', or what. So now that you're aware of your error, how about you take a shot at answering this one simple question:
What is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, and how can this theory be tested by means of the scientific method?

  
Cubist



Posts: 352
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2008,08:14   

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:48)
How has the theory of Panspermia proved its usefulness?

Beats the heck outta me, Kevin. How has the soi-disant 'theory' of ID proven its 'effectiveness'? I say ID has zero 'effectiveness', because it's not even a theory. But if you disagree, feel free to answer this one simple question:
What is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, and how can this theory be tested by means of the scientific method?

  
Cubist



Posts: 352
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2008,08:23   

Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:54)
Albatrossity: How is Panspermia consistent with the evidence? And exactly what evidence are you talking about? As for what the real question is, I'm accepting Mr. Christopher's invitation to ask questions today rather than answering them. As for your question, if you were really serious about finding an answer, a five-minute web search would give you more than enough information.

Oldman: You're dodging the question again. Is the question the IDers are asking scientific or not?

You got me, Kevin. Is the question the IDers are asking scientific? I can't say, because as far as I can tell, the IDists are not, in fact, asking any question at all; rather, the IDists are making an assertion, said assertion being "somehow, somewhere, somewhen, someway, evolution is wrong." If you think the IDists are, in fact, asking any kind of question, I'm sure you'll have no trouble at all answering this one simple question:
What is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, and how can this theory be tested by means of the scientific method?

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2008,08:27   

Quote (Cubist @ Feb. 28 2008,09:04)
Consider that the class of "Designed entities" covers everything from a ham sandwich to a performance of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony to a F-18 fighter jet; exactly what 'signature of Design' do all Designed entities share in common? Hell, what 'signature of Design' can all Designed entities share in common?

They all have an external purpose.

But for some reason the IDists don't seem to like that answer.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2008,08:33   

Cubist I agree that so far that claim is false.  I'll go further and say that even if it is true then there is still no merit for making the ontological leap that 'design = proof of designer' that is really the heart of their argument.

But that shouldn't matter.  This is really the only scientific claim that these magicians and charlatans are making, and it is worth keeping it at the forefront of criticism.  Everything is else is silly buggers piled on top of the whole book of logical fallacies, because at bottom it is a political-religious collusion for a power play.  Kevin, do you really believe this stuff you are spouting, or are you just along for the ride like Stein?

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
olegt



Posts: 1387
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2008,08:56   

From Ben Stein's op-ed Darwinism: The Imperialism of Biology?

Quote
Maybe we would have a new theory: We are just pitiful humans. Life is unimaginably complex. We are still trying to figure it out. We need every bit of input we can get. Let's be humble about what we know and what we don't know, and maybe in time, some answers will come.


Shorter Ben Stein: I no nuttin' and iz proud of it.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2008,09:17   

Quote (olegt @ Feb. 28 2008,09:56)
From Ben Stein's op-ed Darwinism: The Imperialism of Biology?

 
Quote
Maybe we would have a new theory: We are just pitiful humans. Life is unimaginably complex. We are still trying to figure it out. We need every bit of input we can get. Let's be humble about what we know and what we don't know, and maybe in time, some answers will come.


Shorter Ben Stein: I no nuttin' and iz proud of it.

Too bad Ben has zero humility when it comes to his ignorance of evolution.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Kristine



Posts: 3046
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2008,10:02   

Quote
Let's make this short and sweet. It would be taken for granted by any serious historian that any ideology or worldview would partake of the culture in which it grew up and would also be largely influenced by the personality of the writer of the theory.

Let me be short and sour because a dose of reality always is. Some professional historians actually hold nonacademic, for-profit jobs that require them to know history from their own ass and to apply it every day. I have worked for them. Ben Stein is no historian, academic or otherwise.
 
Quote
No less a genius than the evil Karl Marx noted

What an ignorant statement! "Evil," stuff and nonsense. Marx was no Marxist any more than Christ was a Christian. I observe that Marx is good enough for Stein to refer to, whereas he rarely if ever quotes Darwin and certainly never accurately represents him.
         
Quote
In other words, major theories do not arise out of thin air.

Duh, and children don't come from the stork. You don’t get away with this fluff in sophomore composition class, honey, so you shouldn’t get away with it now.
   
Quote
Darwinism, the notion that the history of organisms was the story of the survival of the fittest and most hardy, and that organisms evolve because they are stronger and more dominant than others, is a perfect example of the age from which it came: the age of Imperialism.

Oh, come on. This is Lamarckism! Individuals don't evolve, and evolution is not a ladder toward perfection or Aryan qualities or any of that rot. Those species that have an advantage from a mutation that happens to be beneficial in their particular environment and circumstance will produce more offspring than those that do not. Those that do not still produce offspring and still largely succeed. Even the strongest, best “fit” animal can die from a freak accident before reproducing. Everything dies – death is not the mechanism, differential reproduction is. Ben Stein, this is not rocket science.
     
Quote
When Darwin wrote, it was received wisdom that the white, northern European man was destined to rule the world. This could have been rationalized as greed - i.e., Europeans simply taking the resources of nations and tribes less well organized than they were. It could have been worked out as a form of amusement of the upper classes and a place for them to realize their martial fantasies. (Was it Shaw who called Imperialism "...outdoor relief for the upper classes?")

Darwin loathed slavery and while on the HMS Beagle argued vehemently with Captain FitzRoy, a devout Christian, about it. FitzRoy was pro-slavery and racist.

It would be taken for granted by any serious historian that someone who purports to speak for the history of a theory should have at least a fucking clue about 1) that theory, and 2) its history. Stein does not.
     
Quote
But it fell to a true Imperialist, from a wealthy British family on both sides, married to a wealthy British woman, writing at the height of Imperialism in the UK, when a huge hunk of Africa and Asia was "owned" (literally, owned, by Great Britain) to create a scientific theory that rationalized Imperialism. By explaining that Imperialism worked from the level of the most modest organic life up to man, and that in every organic situation, the strong dominated the weak and eventually wiped them out.
Darwin offered the most compelling argument yet for Imperialism. It was neither good nor bad, neither Liberal nor Conservative, but simply a fact of nature. In dominating Africa and Asia, Britain was simply acting in accordance with the dictates of life itself. He was the ultimate pitchman for Imperialism.
Now, we know that Imperialism had a short life span. Imperialism was a system that took no account of the realities of the human condition. Human beings do not like to have their countries owned by people far away in ermine robes. They like to be in charge of themselves.
Imperialism had a short but hideous history - of repression and murder.
But its day is done.
Darwinism is still very much alive, utterly dominating biology. Despite the fact that no one has ever been able to prove the creation of a single distinct species by Darwinist means, Darwinism dominates the academy and the media. Darwinism also has not one meaningful word to say on the origins of organic life, a striking lacuna in a theory supposedly explaining life.
Alas, Darwinism has had a far bloodier life span than Imperialism. Darwinism, perhaps mixed with Imperialism, gave us Social Darwinism, a form of racism so vicious that it countenanced the Holocaust against the Jews and mass murder of many other groups in the name of speeding along the evolutionary process.
Now, a few scientists are questioning Darwinism on many fronts. I wonder how long Darwinism's life span will be. Marxism, another theory which, in true Victorian style, sought to explain everything, is dead everywhere but on university campuses and in the minds of psychotic dictators. Maybe Darwinism will be different. Maybe it will last. But it's difficult to believe it will. Theories that presume to explain everything without much evidence rarely do. Theories that outlive their era of conception and cannot be verified rarely last unless they are faith based. And Darwinism has been such a painful, bloody chapter in the history of ideologies, maybe we would be better off without it as a dominant force.
Maybe we would have a new theory: We are just pitiful humans. Life is unimaginably complex. We are still trying to figure it out. We need every bit of input we can get. Let's be humble about what we know and what we don't know, and maybe in time, some answers will come.

Such nonsense. Simple-minded, fallacious arguments following a weak premise. Evolution was around long before Darwin - he came up with natural selection. Why is Imperialism being laid at his door? Why not lay imperialism on FitzRoy, whose voyage was itself partly a racist mission? And was this not also the Victorian age, the steam age, etc.? My God, let's ban all mention of steam engines in front of the children, they might run out and become "imperialist," perhaps by invading Iraq. Twice. (You remember Iraq, right Ben?)

Ben Stein is a fine person to speak of “imperialism,” being that he only got to where he is on his own family’s money and privilege. If he had had to work his way up by walking in my shoes while writing garbage like this, he would have flunked high school.

Must be nice to be a preppy blowhard and get paid for churning out this low-brow e-mail hoax (containing all the elements - the hook, the threat, and the promise - of those silly mental viruses) that are forwarded by terrorized church ladies. "Let's be humble," indeed. But then, I figured out long ago that there will always be fools ready to argue with you – and they win at being fools because they have much more experience.

Oh, and what does this have to do with the [in]validity of intelligent design? Is ID the only "alternative" offered by this great intellect?

Ironically, Ben Stein has changed my mind about him. He cannot be this stupid. He is writing lies about Darwin and he knows it. But I do think there is something sincere lurking behind this and it is, as I said before, fear.

Stein invokes Hitler but it is not Hitler that he fears. Fascism is not, as I said earlier, America’s bugabear – apocalyptic thinking is, and that is what he engages in here. And the gullible will believe him – they’ll believe anyone who does not have the guts to tell them that the future is unknown, that life offers one mostly uncertainty, and that while science doesn’t have many answers yet there are some questions for which science may never have an answer, which means we can never know these answers, and you have to learn to live with that.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2008,10:16   



--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
olegt



Posts: 1387
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2008,10:31   

And if Darwin is behind both Marxism and imperialism, it follows that he also gave us Denyse O'Leary.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
Kristine



Posts: 3046
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2008,11:35   

Quote (olegt @ Feb. 28 2008,09:31)
And if Darwin is behind both Marxism and imperialism, it follows that he also gave us Denyse O'Leary.

Well, wasn’t it the pro-intelligent design Kansas school board member Kathy Martin who asserted that “We need more imperialism in science”? :p

What do you make of that? Anyone? Anyone? Ben?

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
RBH



Posts: 49
Joined: Sep. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2008,11:52   

Quote (Cubist @ Feb. 28 2008,08:04)
   
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 27 2008,08:46)
     
Quote
The trouble is, nobody else in the ID movement seems to know, either!


Cubist, I'd say that they do know.  And I'd agree with them partway (separating for the moment the messengers).  If you take what some of these demonstrated liars say at face value, their claim is that sometimes we can analytically deduce some property of some features of some objects as being 'designed' by some agents.

That's the ID claim, yes. But that claim is false. Consider that the class of "Designed entities" covers everything from a ham sandwich to a performance of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony to a F-18 fighter jet; exactly what 'signature of Design' do all Designed entities share in common? Hell, what 'signature of Design' can all Designed entities share in common? Thus, looking for Design is a fool's game. So what real scientists do is, they note that every Designed object known to Man must necessarily have been manufactured, and therefore, real scientists look for signs of Manufacture. And if they find signs of Manufacture, that how they know whatever-it-was is a Designed entity.
ID, of course, is absolutely silent on the question of how the Designer implemented His/Her/Its/Their Design(s)...

I'll repeat what I've posted many times over the years.  The "theory" of ID is this:    
Quote
Sometime or other, something(s) or other designed something or other, and then somehow or other manufactured that thing in matter and energy, all this occurring while leaving no independent evidence of the design process or the manufacturing process, and while providing no independent evidence for the presence, or even the existence, of the designing and manufacturing agent(s).
Now a question for Kevin is whether he can fill in even one of the placeholders (some       ) in that statement.  My bet is no.

Edited by RBH on Feb. 28 2008,11:56

--------------
"There are only two ways we know of to make extremely complicated things, one is by engineering, and the other is evolution. And of the two, evolution will make the more complex." - Danny Hillis.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10312
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2008,11:56   

I think Kevin is gone.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4511
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2008,12:00   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 28 2008,11:56)
I think Kevin is gone.

That can be read in many ways.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
steve_h



Posts: 533
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2008,13:25   

Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 28 2008,16:02)
 
Quote
But it fell to a true Imperialist, from a wealthy British family on both sides, married to a wealthy British woman, writing at the height of Imperialism in the UK, when a huge hunk of Africa and Asia was "owned" (literally, owned, by Great Britain) to create a scientific theory that rationalized Imperialism. By explaining that Imperialism worked from the level of the most modest organic life up to man, and that in every organic situation, the strong dominated the weak and eventually wiped them out.
Darwin offered the most compelling argument yet for Imperialism. It was neither good nor bad, neither Liberal nor Conservative, but simply a fact of nature. In dominating Africa and Asia, Britain was simply acting in accordance with the dictates of life itself. He was the ultimate pitchman for Imperialism.
Now, we know that Imperialism had a short life span. Imperialism was a system that took no account of the realities of the human condition. Human beings do not like to have their countries owned by people far away in ermine robes. They like to be in charge of themselves.
Imperialism had a short but hideous history - of repression and murder.
But its day is done.
Darwinism is still very much alive, utterly dominating biology. Despite the fact that no one has ever been able to prove the creation of a single distinct species by Darwinist means, Darwinism dominates the academy and the media. Darwinism also has not one meaningful word to say on the origins of organic life, a striking lacuna in a theory supposedly explaining life.
Alas, Darwinism has had a far bloodier life span than Imperialism. Darwinism, perhaps mixed with Imperialism, gave us Social Darwinism, a form of racism so vicious that it countenanced the Holocaust against the Jews and mass murder of many other groups in the name of speeding along the evolutionary process.
Now, a few scientists are questioning Darwinism on many fronts. I wonder how long Darwinism's life span will be. Marxism, another theory which, in true Victorian style, sought to explain everything, is dead everywhere but on university campuses and in the minds of psychotic dictators. Maybe Darwinism will be different. Maybe it will last. But it's difficult to believe it will. Theories that presume to explain everything without much evidence rarely do. Theories that outlive their era of conception and cannot be verified rarely last unless they are faith based. And Darwinism has been such a painful, bloody chapter in the history of ideologies, maybe we would be better off without it as a dominant force.
Maybe we would have a new theory: We are just pitiful humans. Life is unimaginably complex. We are still trying to figure it out. We need every bit of input we can get. Let's be humble about what we know and what we don't know, and maybe in time, some answers will come.

Such nonsense. Simple-minded, fallacious arguments following a weak premise. Evolution was around long before Darwin - he came up with natural selection. Why is Imperialism being laid at his door?

Kevin Miller has a you tube video of Ben Stein in which he says    
Quote
Darwinism is a brilliant, brilliant, brilliant theory, beyond words, brilliant but it only takes you part of the way
Imperialism and genocide are, apparently, not quite enough. He also adds    
Quote
Believe me, none of us have anything but respect for Darwin, we just think that there are lot of questions that should be asked that aren't being asked


Admittedly I'm doing a bit of a "Slimey Sal" here, because Imperialism and Genocide didn't come up in that interview.  It just astounds me (it shouldn't, I know) that he can flip between "Darwin the brilliant" and "Darwin is teh evil" depending on who he is talking to.

  
rhmc



Posts: 340
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2008,16:34   

sigh.

ya'll done run off another one.

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2008,16:52   

Quote (rhmc @ Feb. 28 2008,16:34)
sigh.

ya'll done run off another one.

I wonder if it will count as another IDer being expelled?

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
Cubist



Posts: 352
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2008,16:57   

Quote (RBH @ Feb. 28 2008,11:52)
Quote (Cubist @ Feb. 28 2008,08:04)
     
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 27 2008,08:46)
       
Quote
The trouble is, nobody else in the ID movement seems to know, either!


Cubist, I'd say that they do know.  And I'd agree with them partway (separating for the moment the messengers).  If you take what some of these demonstrated liars say at face value, their claim is that sometimes we can analytically deduce some property of some features of some objects as being 'designed' by some agents.

That's the ID claim, yes. But that claim is false. Consider that the class of "Designed entities" covers everything from a ham sandwich to a performance of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony to a F-18 fighter jet; exactly what 'signature of Design' do all Designed entities share in common? Hell, what 'signature of Design' can all Designed entities share in common? Thus, looking for Design is a fool's game. So what real scientists do is, they note that every Designed object known to Man must necessarily have been manufactured, and therefore, real scientists look for signs of Manufacture. And if they find signs of Manufacture, that how they know whatever-it-was is a Designed entity.
ID, of course, is absolutely silent on the question of how the Designer implemented His/Her/Its/Their Design(s)...

I'll repeat what I've posted many times over the years.  The "theory" of ID is this:      
Quote
Sometime or other, something(s) or other designed something or other, and then somehow or other manufactured that thing in matter and energy, all this occurring while leaving no independent evidence of the design process or the manufacturing process, and while providing no independent evidence for the presence, or even the existence, of the designing and manufacturing agent(s).
Now a question for Kevin is whether he can fill in even one of the placeholders (some       ) in that statement.  My bet is no.

[nods] I came up with my own formulation of ID: "Somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something." Says pretty much the same thing as yours, but it's hopefully got more rhetorical punch for being pithier...

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 752
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2008,17:02   

Quote (Richard Simons @ Feb. 28 2008,16:52)
Quote (rhmc @ Feb. 28 2008,16:34)
sigh.

ya'll done run off another one.

I wonder if it will count as another IDer being expelled?

Since ID persecution emcompasses hurt feelings (see the Sternberg case), I'm afraid that it has to count among the countless Expelled victims.

Glen D

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Kristine



Posts: 3046
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2008,17:30   

You all want to know why this is so messed up?

In the town in which I grew up, among the kids with whom I attended class, which I think was pretty representative of "just folks" middle America, being expelled was an ambition.

They knew they could always talk their way back in so that they could play football.

I'm afraid that poor Ben, poor privileged, preppy Ben, doesn't understand his target audience at all. Sure, few people want to learn about science, evolution, and Darwin - he's got that right. But that doesn't mean they want to learn something else in its place. That means they want to be told that throwing a football does more for a kid than any book, that NASCAR teaches you everything you need to learn in life, that listening to Led Zeppelin in the warehouse for forty straight years after your wild youth makes you just as cultured as the snooty twits (like you and me, Ben Stein) who go to the symphony. ;)

Ben loves God, and that's nice, and these people do, too - but they don't like God very much! He's still your Old Man, right? :D

I think Ben's in for a big surprise. You have to use special effect to make things real for the ordinary viewer. Giving your audience Talking Head is just going to make them ask, "If this shit is true, how come Rush [the other Rush] didn't write a song about it?" :)

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Chayanov



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2008,17:32   

It's really something, to watch the Religious Right transferring their fear of Communism over to "Darwinism." Didn't you know that both Hitler and Stalin were Darwinists? Did you know that it was a Darwinist who ran over your puppy when you were a child? That it's the Darwinists who are trying to take Christmas away from you? It's like the 1950s, but without the catchy slogans. "Do you now or have you ever accepted natural selection as a mechanism of evolutionary change?" Stein just can't resist bringing up Marx whenever he talks about Darwin, as if the two sat down together to figure out how to bring about the destruction of civilization. There weren't Communists hiding under our beds and there aren't Darwinists lurking in our closets.

--------------
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

  
Chayanov



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2008,17:38   

Quote
Ben loves God, and that's nice, and these people do, too - but they don't like God very much! He's still your Old Man, right?


That's probably why we're seeing the abandonment of Intelligent Design in favor of old-fashioned Creationism at the grassroots level. To the layperson, ID is still academic eggheads talking down to them, only now they're talking down about both religion and science. This public doesn't understand or care about the science, and they don't need or appreciate Dembski, Behe, or Wells telling them about religion.

--------------
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5379
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2008,18:05   

Quote (Chayanov @ Feb. 28 2008,18:32)
There weren't Communists hiding under our beds and there aren't Darwinists lurking in our closets.

Are you sure?  Have you checked your closet?  You really should wear these argyle socks more often, but this shirt here really needs to go.  It's so not your color.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Chayanov



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2008,18:19   

You know, I was going to add a joke about who might be hiding in our closets, but left it up to someone else to make the comment. Thanks! :)

--------------
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10312
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2008,18:24   

I see Kevin!

Quote
>Richardthughes >theloneliestmonk >rhmc >Paul Flocken >kevinmillerxi >Reed >ppb >Louis >creeky belly >Annyday >Lou FCD >Thought Provoker >angst >Venus Mousetrap >C.J.O'Brien >Dr.GH >dochocson


*waves*

Hi Kevin. Please don't be researching for your new film, "Meanies - nasty science types"

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5379
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2008,18:25   

Quote (Chayanov @ Feb. 28 2008,19:19)
You know, I was going to add a joke about who might be hiding in our closets, but left it up to someone else to make the comment. Thanks! :)

No, the real joke is these plaid bell-bottoms.  You really need to go shopping.

:p

HTH

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Chayanov



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2008,18:32   

Considering what's in my closet that you could have commented on, I should consider myself lucky...

--------------
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2008,18:37   

Quote
Please don't be researching for your new film, "Meanies - nasty science types"


I bet Kevin would tell you it was called something else, with a catchier name.  Like I dunno off the top of my head "Crossroads" or maybe something to catch the skeptic/FtK demographic "Opinions:  Are they all equal, or are some more or less equal".  I could also imagine "God:  Dinin't He or Unh UNh No He Dininin't"

What do you think Kevin?  I done copyrighted this shit you little bitch.  Don't be interviewin' my homeboys and be frontin' all up on my tip you lil' ho.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10312
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2008,19:27   

In the expelled trailer (15 seconds in) Ben walks to the podium, being vacated by TED HAGGARD. Why did god teh designer design TEH GAYNESS?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
khan



Posts: 1484
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2008,19:29   

Quote (olegt @ Feb. 28 2008,09:56)
From Ben Stein's op-ed Darwinism: The Imperialism of Biology?

 
Quote
Maybe we would have a new theory: We are just pitiful humans. Life is unimaginably complex. We are still trying to figure it out. We need every bit of input we can get. Let's be humble about what we know and what we don't know, and maybe in time, some answers will come.


Shorter Ben Stein: I no nuttin' and iz proud of it.

"I know plenty o' nuthin
And nuthin's plenty for me"

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

  
  3604 replies since Aug. 12 2007,07:23 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (121) < ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]