It's Sarah

[M Fnord]

I find it amusing that both sides of the election appear to be laughing in fiendish glee, each convinced the other party has tanked. That's not something you see every fourth year.

Personally I'm still having trouble comprehending that serious people are actually saying with a straight face that my home state will be Key, if not The Key to winning for either side. That's just fuckin' unnatural, man.
Mr. Fnord interdimensional man of mystery

FenWiki - Your One-Stop Shop for Fenspace Information

"I. Drink. Your. NERDRAGE!"

[Fidoohki]

M Fnord wrote:

---

I *am* calm. I'm beyond calm, I transcend it. If I wasn't calm, I wouldn't be hounding Darklighter like this. A true hounding can't be done
with the blood up; it requires dispassion and cold-hearted malice towards the target. Plus his hysterical triumphalism is frickin' hilarious.




Moo hoo ha ha.




Anyway, on to your major points.




I think you need to figure out that "maverick" doesn't automatically equal "good." I mean, Caligula was being a "maverick"
when he appointed his horse to the Senate. Didn't help his ass much in the long run. Hell, if Huckabee had more legs or Romney had... well, if Romney had
a personality, McCain's campaigning on the "maverick" act would've been a total failure.




As for Palin's typical Republican-hood, I'd honestly say that she's a pretty typical Republican. She's a creationist, rabidly anti-abortion,
connected to the oil industry, willing to spend millions on her pet projects while cutting taxes, demands absolute personal loyalty from her subordinates,
parochial, inflexible and incurious. Sounds like a Republican to *me*. Aside from the Copperhead issue, anyway.

Excuse me? There are Democrats that are pro-life and believe in creationism. Jsut like there are

Republicains that are pro-choice and don't. And conntected to the oil iondustry? That's like saying

someone is connected with terrorism because they once drove a cab with Osama Bin Ladin as a

passenger. You also need to be more specific on those 'special projects' cause all I am finding

on that is infrastructure spending. and I sure as hell want the loyalty of people working under me

not people that would slit my throat the moment my back was turned.

You really need to divest yourself from this 'Democrat good. Republicain bad.' mentality and look at

the people involved. It also helps to try to see the logic in both sides arguements and as of right now

McCain's arguements are more logical, not better mind you but they make more sense.

[Logan Darklighter]

It's when he made the Caligula comparison that he landed on my ignore list. That was just plain offensive. As well as such an incredible stretch that I
knew he'd gone around the bend. (Plus his decision to take it to a personal level. No need to encourage that. I may not post here often. But I don't
need that kind of crap.)

(though I won't see his post, I can predict that Fnord will be coming on to be an ass and say that my "lack of research" is offensive in 5...
4... 3.. )

[M Fnord]

Still digging there, Darklighter? It's cool, I can wait. I have all the time in the world.
Mr. Fnord interdimensional man of mystery

FenWiki - Your One-Stop Shop for Fenspace Information

"I. Drink. Your. NERDRAGE!"

[Wiregeek]

Thanks, Logan! I hadn't even thought to use that functionality.

Life's better now.
"No can brain today. Want cheezeburger."
From NGE: Nobody Dies, by Gregg Landsman
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5579457/1/NGE_Nobody_Dies

[Fidoohki]

If you ignore anyone you don't like or agree with then what is the point of

this at all?

*sigh* look. everyone is entitled to their own opinion whether others agree

with it or not. Just fight it with the facts as best you can and if they want

to take it personal? Ignore it and keep going.

We're all adults here. Let's act liek it for a little bit hmm?

[Logan Darklighter]

I'd like to point out that I didn't ignore Ayiekie. Ayiekie may be dead -wrong- in my opinion, but to the best of my recollection, she hasn't taken
it to extremes of hyperbole or made it personal. I don't think I agree with most of you on politics either. I wish I wasn't in the minority in this
sort of situation. But that's the sort of friends I tend to make, I guess. What the hell, it makes life more interesting, anyway.

Also, I'm not necessarily pissed off at Fnord. I'm doing this so that I don't GET pissed off at
him. I'll admit to being tempted toward obnoxiousness myself in situations like this. Consider it as much me putting him on ignore so that I don't get
tempted to respond in kind and piss YOU guys off as it is me ignoring him for temporarily acting like an ass. (And I figure I'll drop the ignore after a
while anyway. Say, maybe after the election?)

[M Fnord]

From the sideshow back to the main act...

There certainly are pro-life Democrats, and the laws of probability say there's at least a couple creationist Dems - haven't met one myself, but the
plural of "anecdote" is not "data." Thing is, both those stances are major planks of the Republican Party. And the way the base is set up -
has been set up for thirty years, really - you can only go so far in the Party at a national level before you *have* to toe the line and say "Yes,
abortion is wrong," or "Yes, evolution is just a theory and shouldn't be taught in our schools." You do this, because otherwise you
can't get elected. To win you need the base, and for better or worse the snake-handler vote has become the largest single bloc in the Republican base.

Look at John McCain. He's a solid, doctrinaire Republican of the Reagan school. But because he cultivated an image as an aisle-crosser and a relative
moderate he had troubles with his base right up through to the convention. McCain's self-advertisement as a "maverick" was media-friendly, swayed
independent voters and gave him enough of a personality to win the primary, but the GOP base was at best lukewarm to him. Selecting Palin, an aggressive,
right-wing Western governor, reconnected McCain to his base & gave the campaign the shot in the arm it needs to stay in the fight.
Mr. Fnord interdimensional man of mystery

FenWiki - Your One-Stop Shop for Fenspace Information

"I. Drink. Your. NERDRAGE!"

[Morganite]

"Yes, evolution is just a theory and shouldn't be taught in our schools."

...

I don't think I've ever heard *anyone* who was being taken seriously say *that*.

In fact, there was a guy on the radio yesterday who said he was all for evolution being taught in schools... because learning about evolution made people more receptive to creationism.

And while I've heard a number of people who would like creationism (or intelligent design, which technically I'd consider a superset of creationism) taught in schools, saying that evolution shouldn't be... I haven't seen it.

-Morgan, also has a hard time believing the toe-the-line phenomenon is restricted to republicans...

[Fidoohki]

There probably is a few that beleive that but they are too far out there

for my taste.

And tow-the- line mentality restricted to Republicans!?? Anyone remember

what happened to Lieberman in 2006 because he didn't 'tow the line' on iraq?

There is this huge unwillingness to compromise in congress now a days, mostly

due to a percieved Democratic hatred of Republicans and that is wrong on all

levels. Our system of goverment works due to compromise. I honestly think

McCain realizes this and that is his main focus. Obama hasn't shown he

understands that problem. Not to me anyway.

[Ayiekie]

You've never heard anyone being taken seriously say that "evolution is just a theory" and arguing creationism should be taught in schools?

Really?

REALLY?

It's not the majority, but about 1/3 of the American public is anti-evolution, which is tantamount to being anti-science.

I would suggest that you then have not paid much attention, honestly.

As for Sarah Palin, she's obviously unqualified for her role and has been hidden from the media as much as possible; she was blatantly only picked as a
grab at Hillary Clinton's supporters and it's rather depressing that so far it's worked out pretty well for them. She's not exactly got a
glowing track record for answering questions of substance. The lies about the "Bridge to Nowhere" are so blatant that it's sad virtually
nobody's taken her to task on it, and the crack about Obama's community organisation experience (in a Christian organisation, no less) were petty and
uncalled-for. So, I don't particularly like her.

[Morganite]

... Okay, I screwed up there.

What I *meant* was that I'd never heard a *politician* who was being taken seriously say that.

That being said, interesting poll. It's a bit strange that the percentage of people saying "God created man in present form" is so much lower
than the percent for "Bible is the actual word of God". Suggests that a significant number of people who believe the bible as a whole is open to
interpretation... are kind of stuck on this one particular part. One wonders why.

Saying that 1/3 of the American public is anti-evolution/anti-science I think is a bit of a stretch to get from that first poll though, given a strict
interpretation of the question they were asking. The second seems to muddy the waters even further.

Still, that's perhaps getting a bit off topic. '.'

-Morgan's current opinion of Sarah Palin is "I find the media coverage of her highly amsuing."

[ECSNorway]

First of all, I don't think that saying "I don't think there's enough evidence to prove evolution" is the same as "I think evolution should not be taught in schools".

Nor have I -ever- heard a politician or school-board member, in my entire life, say that evolution should not be taught in schools.

Personally, I do believe that there's a place for creationism in schools -- in philosophy and religious studies classes, not in science classes.

I also believe that, as the best scientific explanation of the facts we have available to us so far, evolution does have a solid place in the science class.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[Rev Dark]

Okay, time for a little consciousness raising.

Anytime that 'they' say 'Teach the Controversy' in the evolution vrs creationism 'debate' replace evolution and creationism with
biological birth and storks.

That is the level of faith fuelled deliberate ignorance you are dealing with. Do you teach the controversy of flat earth verse spherical earth (okay slightly
oval earth)? Do you teach the controversy between the Theory of Gravity and fairies putting glue on your feet?

Any time a politician, school board member, or other agenda goit; vomits up 'Teaching the controvery' in regards to their mastubatory creationist
fantasies; they should be verbally slapped down so hard their eyeballs change places.

[ECSNorway]

Ahhh, thank you for that rant from the militant anti-theist crowd, Rev. We're always so glad to hear it.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[Rev Dark]

How about the reality crowd?

How often do you see public debate in teaching the controversy in Thermodynamics? Or stork theory (cabbage leaf creationism) at the public school level?

Intelligent Design is a creationist position. It is a deliberate theist - rather than deist - position, advocated and financed by theists. Do you paint them
as anti-realists for demanding that their bronze age scripture provides a better understanding for the workings of the universe? One on equal footing to the
mountains of evidence supporting evolution?

There is nothing militant about demanding actual science in a science classroom, or by pointing out the obvious inanity of the creationist/ID position. If
someone told you that you, svelte, beautiful, you were created by undetectable, unknowable, creatures called werfgibbles; and the only reason that they know
about them is the revelation of the werfgibbles, handed down to them by their ancestors; you would not take it seriously.

Call the werfgibbles god and suddenly it is anti-theist?

It is not anti-theist. Walking into a church and demanding equal time for the presentation of there-is-no-god theories during the sermon would be anti-theist.
Telling theists to stop trying to insert their god, for whom they have not a lick of evidence, into science classes is not anti-theist, any more than trying
to telling any random lunatic with no evidence (or even mechanism for the detection of that evidence) that they should not be inserting their codswollop into a
science class (Atlantean crystals, pyramid power, etc.)

It is not anti-theist.

It is anti-idiot.

[ECSNorway]

*shrug* As I've said, I believe that the proper place for academic discussion of Intelligent Design is in the philosophy class, not the science class.

Topically, I quote from the AP:

...after Alaska voters elected her, Palin, now Republican John McCain's presidential running mate, kept her campaign pledge to not push the idea in the schools.

McCain said during a debate last year that he believed in evolution when it came to the origin of life.

Palin's children attend public schools and Palin has made no push to have creationism taught in them.

--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[Rev Dark]

*shrug* As I've said, I believe that the proper place for academic discussion of Intelligent Design is in the philosophy class, not the science
class.

Great. Now the next step is to examine the 'Teach the Controversy" idea that creationists and their ilk use. Take it away from science and apply
it to geography. Some people were brought up to believe Australia is actually located three feet west of Newfoundland, Canada. Teach the controversy and have
open discussion on the merits of both positions. History. Some people were brought up to believe that America did not imprison citizens of Japanese descent
during the Second World War. Teach the controversy and have open discussion on the merits of both positions.

I bring this up as quoting the candidates is something anyone can do.

Palin on teaching the controversy

Earlier this year, she told the Anchorage Daily News that schools should not fear teaching creationism alongside evolution. "Teach both. You know,
don't be afraid of information.... Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know,
I say this too as a daughter of a science teacher."

The volatile issue of teaching creation science in public schools popped up in the Alaska governor's race this week when Republican Sarah Palin said
she thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the state's public classrooms. Palin was answering a question from the moderator when she
said, "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent
of teaching both."

In an interview, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms: "I don't think
there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum." She added that, if elected, she
would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum. "I won't have religion as
a litmus test, or anybody's personal opinion on evolution or creationism," Palin said.

McCain in an interview with the Arizona Star.

"I think that there has to be all points of view presented. But they've got to be thoroughly presented. So to say that you can only teach one
line of thinking … or one belief on how people and the world was created I think there's nothing wrong with teaching different schools of
thought."

No one doubts that science can sometimes be difficult for the layman to grasp, but to be unable to recognize that the 'controversy' in evolution
versus intelligence design is bunkum shows a very deliberately contrived ignorance. As I have demonstrated with my similar examples in the fields of History
and Geography.

Shayne

(Sorry for the lack of quotes, my browser seems to choke at trying to include them.)

[Fidoohki]

*Rolls eyes* Yeah yeah Rev. whatever.

Back on topic.

Palin has an interesting view on her beliefs. I enjoy

the fact that she didn't try to push them onto others.

Now whether that was because of her personal

belief or public etiquette is not known.

Also I revise my opinion on the "Troopergate' investigation

since the Democrats leading it are Obama supporters and their

spokesman promised a 'October Surprise' for her, I don't have

any faith that she willl be treated fairly in that witch hunt.

[ECSNorway]

Great. Now the next step is to examine the 'Teach the Controversy" idea that creationists and their ilk use. Take it away from science and apply it to geography. Some people were brought up to believe Australia is actually located three feet west of Newfoundland, Canada. Teach the controversy and have open discussion on the merits of both positions. History. Some people were brought up to believe that America did not imprison citizens of Japanese descent during the Second World War. Teach the controversy and have open discussion on the merits of both positions.

And Rev completely fails to get my point, once again.

Oh well.To explain for the close-minded atheist who claims a religious title (ironic, that):

Intelligent Design, Creationism, call it what you will; is an entirely appropriate subject for discussion in philosophy for the simple reason that it cannot be factually proven. All of the counter-examples you've given are eminently factually provable, and thus are totally invalid counter-examples.

If you want me to accept your argument, you're going to have to provide me with peer-reviewed, scientific, plausible, repeatable, experimental proof of the non-existence of deity.

Go for it.

I dare you.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[Logan Darklighter]

I'm ultimately on Rev's side in on this particular topic. It's one of those issues where I know my end of the political/social spectrum is in bed
with a group that is dead wrong and ignorant. But politics and strange bedfellows etc. But I think the more rational, secular end of the party will reign these
folks in.

It shouldn't pain me to say this, but because whenever this topic comes up, Rev seems to throw caution to the wind and seems to think that being an
utter ass about it will force people to come around to his side, it does pain me.

Rev? I agree with you on this, man. But you're not helping to advance the argument. Do you want to try and convince people that they should come around to
your point of view? Or do you want to just scream at them and call them fools? Pick one or the other. You're not going to achieve both.

[Rev Dark]

If you want me to accept your argument, you're going to have to provide me with peer-reviewed, scientific, plausible, repeatable, experimental proof
of the non-existence of deity.

Go for it.

I dare you.



I do get your point; I am afraid you missed mine. I acknowledged your personal position, and complimented it. What I was pointing out was that both
candidates quoted have gone on record as speaking to teaching the controversy; when there is no controversy within the scientific community. It demonstrates
that both have a very flawed understanding of the core tenets of science; which is disturbing.

Now as to your more recent request; concerning the non-existence of a diety and the closed-minded insult that accompanied it. I am thoroughly open minded,
just not so much that I let my brain slide out and slap against the floor like a jello pudding. I like my magic and fantasy in books and games.

Now onto your challenge. I cannot prove god doesn't exist. No more so than I can prove that Russel's Celestial Teapot does not exist, or magical
fairies and the base of the garden, or Bert the Magic Penguin in his Sardine Scented Chariot or Sagan's Garage Dragon. What I can do is assign a
mathematical probability; based on observable, repeatable evidence. There is no evidence for the existence of god. No mechanism by which he/she/it can be
detected. No means of determining which force he/she/it uses to move the universe around. It is a technical agnostism; I am willing to examine the evidence,
but there has to be some first. Now this is a theist interpretation of god, a god that actively messes with the universe.

I should also note that it is not just your god. Anyone's god. And Leprauchans. And Leper-chauns (Like Leprauchauns only losing it a piece at a
time.) Magical Pink Unicorns. For some reason, not believing in magical pink unicorns does not make you a militant a-unicornist.

Intelligent Design, Creationism, call it what you will; is an entirely appropriate subject for discussion in philosophy for the simple reason that it
cannot be factually proven. All of the counter-examples you've given are eminently factually provable, and thus are totally invalid
counter-examples.

But you are quite wrong here. Creationism and Intelligent design can be refuted, but offering evidence that they are not a required mechanism. Intelligent
design has been thoroughly refuted using the very examples that its adherents clung too like so many direputable barnacles. The eye. The bacterial flaggelum.
The immune system. All of which can be explained eloquently through evolution by natural selection. This also goes for creationism. First you choose your
particular creationist story; whether from Genesis, the Enuma Elish and vet it historically/scientifically; using the same method you would use to refute the
claims I made above.

What does the Global Flood of Noah or the Garden of Eden in Genesis say about biology? Quite a bit if they happened. they did not. The evidence does not
support them. Is the flood just a parable. That's great. Adam and Eve just a parable? Great. We can approximate the age of the universe at about 14
billion years; but god only god around to creating the earth some 4.5 billion years ago. Therapsids about 285 Millions years ago. The first primates 65
million years.

Shayne

[Ayiekie]

Fidoohki wrote:

---

Also I revise my opinion on the "Troopergate' investigation


since the Democrats leading it are Obama supporters and their


spokesman promised a 'October Surprise' for her, I don't have


any faith that she willl be treated fairly in that witch hunt.

That's a ridiculous and misleading talking point, since that investigation was ongoing before she was nominated for VP and at that point
nobody who didn't live in Alaska gave a flying rat's arse about Sarah Palin.

Besides, why would any Democrats not be Obama supporters? He is their candidate for President; if they aren't his
supporters, there's something seriously wrong.

[Fidoohki]

Is it? They did accelerate the investigation once she was picked. Also

the three democrats that are chairing this have met obama personally

months before the DNC Nomination party. With pictures to prove it. It

was a energy conference they attended btw.

Then one of them says 'We have an 'October surprise' for her"

Now I may have spoken hastily I admit that but there is enough

impropriety in this to make anything this investigation committee says

agaisnt her suspect.

This should have either been pushed back til after the elections or these

democrats should have excused themselves and been replaced.

Maybe I'm too old fashioned in my belief that investigations should

be fair and honest but if I am then so be it.

[Rev Dark]

Fidhooki, you are quoting out of context. Deliberately.

Late October was already the target of the investigation. Monegan - appointed by the committee (ten republicans, four democrats) actually stated. (Get
that through your head. There is no bias here. A council with more than a two to one majority of Republicans felt that the investigation was necessary.
)

Here is the actual quote; and the article to go with it.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blo...ory?id=5702697&page=2

French says the McCain campaign failed to contact any of the Senators involved in the investigation during the vetting process of Gov. Palin.

"If they had done their job they never would have picked her," said French. "Now they may have to deal with an October surprise," he said,
referring to the scheduled release Oct. 31 of the committee's final report."

Once again you engage your keyboard before your mind.

You state

"They did accelerate the investigation once she was picked. "

No. The schedule was already set.

Then you go try this route.

"Also

the three democrats that are chairing this have met obama personally

months before the DNC Nomination party. With pictures to prove it. It

was a energy conference they attended btw. "

Yes they were doing a cabalistic meeting on this subject before the investigation was on the radar, and before Palin was even considered a candidate? Are
you trying to engage in satire?

You don't do it very well.