Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Six More Opinions, Likely To Be Unpopular

Bitterness and politics after the jump. You have been warned.



It is now the 21st Century. People living in the developed world in this day and age who sincerely believe in Creationism and/or "Intelligent Design" (aka CREATIONISM) are not quaint, cute, old-fashioned, etc - they are mentally-unwell and/or mentally-deficient, and should be classified and regarded as such.

Politicians who pander to the type of people described above are contributing to the degradation of their nation's intelligence. I don't know that that's a crime, but it ought to be.

Persons and/or groups who spread provable untruths about abortion causing cancer, certain forms of birth control being dangerous, etc, should be ROTTING in jail for reckless endangerment. So should Jenny McCarthy and every other committed zealot of the vaccines-cause-autism insanity.

Serious question: Let's just pretend for a minute that ALL of the reputable science is wrong and Climate Change is simply a natural-cycle that man plays no part in. If we proceeded to implement ALL of the carbon-curbing, pollution-reducing regulations intended to put a dent in it ANYWAY... what of genuine long-term value would we LOSE? As in, even if completely overhauling the energy industry, cleaning up the air, reducing emissions, fast-tracking solar, wind, whatever power etc does NOTHING to impact Climate Change, wouldn't it still have been worth-doing?

If it came out tomorrow that Barack Obama (or ANY non-GOP president) was guilty of Nixon/Watergate-level shady dealings, I would STILL rather keep him where he is than elect a Republican; and I would make that decision EXCLUSIVELY in the interest of making sure that only pro-choice judges are nominated for the Supreme Court and federal judgships.

I do not consider it a problem that a small percentage - usually less than half - of Americans tend to vote in a given national election. I consider it a problem that too much of said small-percentage is made up of nincompoops with no business making decisions that will effect the course of a country. If I had the power I'd arrange it so that a major NASCAR event, a UFC title-bout, the opening of the next Michael Bay movie and the finale of "American Idol" ALL took place on the same day as the next presidential election. Let's give "Government By Consent Of The Not-Easily-Distracted" a try for a change.

73 comments:

Rkiver said...

Can't say I would disagree with ANY of that. Those of us outside the US looking in are shocked the Republicans get ANY where, but unfortunately for those with sense, too many idiots vote.

661e6642-9c40-11e0-a547-000bcdcb471e said...

Hey, Bob, do your farts smell as good as you think they do? Probability says they stink just like everyone else.

Matt said...

Yeah, cause 3 years of the current admin have made a Massive improvement to the Economic Situation or improved our severe immigration issues, Bob. Iraq and and Afhganistan are still going, Plus LIbyia ((Go rebels btw, looks like they finally got that quafdafi guy on the run)).

Yeah, while I honestly Agree with you on some of the stuff, LIke the whole creationism stuff, since I haven't been a part of any major religion for a decade and more, nor am I big on the current GOP group. ((I left texas so I don't want perry, Bachmann is entertaining but not what I want running a country, ETC)), I take issue with your Painting a whole section of the country with the same brush.

Im more or less right leaning in terms of finanical and economic views, middle of the road socially, and a more or less hard line Bill of rights/ constitution guy legally.

That you seem to get it in your head that All people right leaning are like Perry, Bachmann ET all, is insulting.

Should I make the argument that All on the Left are marixsts, or argue that they would like all free speech save there own shuttered, or want all freedoms removed in the name "Safety", "Health", so forth?


I could, actually, make that case rather well if I wished. But I don't, cause not ALL on the left follow those view points, only a small group ((Pelosi, Schumer, Boxer, ETC)), ie the more Extreme parts of the Party.

SO I would remind you not to be like the Becks, Hannitys, or Limbaughs of the world and simply mark anyone with a different view point as an "Enemy" or "Crazy".

Cause that makes you look like the Hateful, spiteful people you rail against.

Ask Democrat Maxine waters about that if you want to know more.
Telling millions of people to "Go to Hell" is NOT civility.

I will say one thing. As to global warming, I will refer you to this.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

Yeah, thats right, Nasa says it's overblown hogwash.

You do make 1 very good point.

If we wish to make our enegry and enviromental situation change, it can't be for the whole "Global warming" Bollocks, cause no one but the hard core belivers in it still follow that.

But, if you did it for more Practical reasons, Energy production, Job creation, Financial development, ETC, that would probably get A TON more support then it's getting with the whole "Global warming" stuff.

Just a thought on that.

TheAlmightyNarf said...

Ok, Bob, you have officially crossed into Poe's Law territory.

Timothy said...

Ok, careful with the generalisation in that first (second? the one about creationism people) paragraph!

My concern just being that you've labelled them as mentally unwell when it's more upbringing and beliefs (which people are perfectly entitled to so long as they don't do anything obstructive about it). Not that they Can't be mentally unwell, just the assumption I didn't like!

Paragraph 4 is hardly likely to be unpopular, I mean that line of argument is sensible (if not quite a fair argument of course, but I mean you only had a paragraph)

isolavalentine said...

Wow they kinda are unpopular....

I'm as what you would call liberal as they come but you got to respect peoples, including stupid peoples, opinions.

You have to educate people in a way that allows them to make their own opinions and not just follow what mum and dad or the TV tells them.

Your rant comes off as a bit like you think your opinion is worth more than others....

yamato-0 said...

oh god, my mom was always going on and on about how I had autism, and claimed that it was caused by a vaccination. Personally, I didn't see what was wrong with me, and I wonder if she even knew what the hell autism is.

And Bob, your first one probably needs a bit of rewording. It seems rather inconsistent with your previous opinion that not all organized religions are bad. Now, if you were talking about extremists who think that we shouldn't make any progress or that everyone should live like fucking Amish because technology's blasphemous, then I'd agree with you.

Danny said...

I agree with every one of these.

akkuma420 said...

meh.

MrImaginary said...

Creationism and intelligent design aren't necessarily the same thing... You can believe in the whole watchmaker theory without thinking the bible is completely literal.

Fett101 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fett101 said...

Creationism: Belief that something external created life on Earth. Lacks supporting evidence, is not testable and is not even close to being scientific.

Intelligent design: Belief that something external created life on Earth. Lacks supporting evidence, is non testable and is not even close to being a scientific theory.

Adam said...

Never took you for a single issue voter Bob. Who spit in your cornflakes this morning?

A Tribe Called Helloween said...

I agree with every single one of these, and I can't see how any rational person wouldn't.

You should have added a seventh opinion saying "if your values dissonate (proper word) with any one of these, you are an idiot."

Although Fett101's post was pretty funny.

Darren said...

I think I can agree with about half of that :/ Especially the part about never voting for a republican president :/

motyr said...

I'll go in order:

1. Creationism in itself is not a problem. Scientists don't seem to have any "issue" with people who have faith that a God created the universe. However, when these beliefs come in direct contradiction to scientific thought (theory or otherwise), there IS a problem. A big problem. I can accept the idea of an omnipotent God setting in motion the Big Bang and the process of evolution, for example, but I completely and whole-heartedly oppose those who believe those, to be frank, insane notions: God created the world in exactly 6 days, humans co-existed with dinosaurs, etc.

2. Agreed under the conditions laid out in number 1. To be clear, though, politicians who pander to any religion or religious people are indubitably EVIL and fail to recognize the basic separation of church and state.

3. Beyond endangerment, this is a form of defamation. I know oftentimes charges of "slander," "libel," etc. cause controversy because they're seen to be in contradiction to free speech, but spreading outright lies should not be protected under that right.

4. Again, agreed. To give the opposite opinion, though, I once heard a clip of Rush Limbaugh saying he simply does not want to give up such luxuries as a massive SUV in the name of protecting the environment. - preferring comfort over practicality, efficiency, etc. Of course, these same people are so short-sighted as to not realize that clean energy sources could potentially afford them the same luxury without the added side-effect of killing the planet.

5. I'm not entirely versed on every Republican candidate's platform (non-American citizen here), but if people like Michele Bachmann are any representation whatsoever of the ideology of the Republican Party (they must be considering Bachmann's in the running to begin with), then I completely agree.

6. If any government were elected by a small portion of the people who were all well informed, knowledgable individuals, sound-of-mind and consenting, I have a strong feeling our world would be better for it. Call me an elitist.

Ralphael said...

Mentally unwell? Mentally deficient?

Well i'm really glad we're calling names, while we are at it, let my rebuttal be that you're a lonely fat depressed loser who hasn't got the slightest grip on reality when it comes to politics or relationships.

Bob, your "American Bob" shows will never take off, and if they do, you will be no doubt be considered more extreme than Glen Beck.

Take down that PROUD TO BE AMERICAN subtitle at the top of your blog because its obvious you aren't, with you telling people not to vote and all.

Oh, and fuck yourself, which i'm pretty sure you're an expert at by now.

Chris Evans said...

No one is against trying to curb pollution. The biggest problem with the whole "Green" movement is that it's terribly destructive to the economy and it's fads are destructive to the environment as well.

Also, when you engage in the hyperbole of SUV's killing the planet you've completely lost my interest.

Oh and #6. You mean like in 1790 when Only white male adult property-owners could vote?

Steven said...

"and I would make that decision EXCLUSIVELY in the interest of making sure that only pro-choice judges are nominated for the Supreme Court and federal judgships."

So your pro mass murder then?

If a woman doesn't want a child she can take the pill, morning after pill and have him wear a condom.

If she is too fucking lazy to do any of the above she should NOT be able to go and end a life through abortion.

Kholdstare said...

Agreed on all points.

Josh said...

The only thing assured by fighting fire with fire is that twice as many people die screaming as they're burned alive.

This honestly feels like the rhetoric of a mirror-universe Glenn Beck. Gross generalization, hyperbole, conjecture and hysteria. There's a tiny bit of truth in here, but it's not in any of his (admittedly) inflammatory statements.

Disappointing, but not wholly unexpected.

Oh, and to reiterate what was said before: belief in a divine presence and literal interpretation of every word in the Christian Bible or any other religious text (the Qu'ran, the Torah, A Brief History of Time, the user manual of Super Mario Bros 3) are two very different things.

Joe said...

If your religious beliefs contradict established physical evidence, your beliefs are wrong. You have ever right to hold your ignorant beliefs, but no one has a right to respect them. Any politician who supports teaching thoroughly unsupported beliefs like Young Earth Creationism or intelligent design in public classrooms has lost my vote automatically. There's enough scientific ignorance in the world without seeding it in higher offices.

I don't think creationism is a mark of mental illness, but it is disrespectful and ignorant. If you willfully ignore 150 years of accumulated evidence and expertise, you are clearly disrespect evidence and expertise. You deserve contempt and ridicule just as if you earnestly believed babies are delivered by the stork, or think an electrician is qualified to dispense medical advice.

Martijn said...

First off, I agree with the sentiments behind all of those, but not all the conclusions.

Most importantly, I want to commend you on the comment on the importance of pro-choice. Us men don't usually get involved in this, but it's important for everyone. Either we all live in a free society, or none of us do. This is not a gender issue.

James said...

Regarding point 5, what if the GOP candidate was pro-choice, like Gary Johnson? And would you really want Obama in office after he broke so many promises, renewed the Patriot Act and kept TSA screenings going?

antecedentless said...

So the likes of Dr. Charles Thaxton are mentally ill. That's nice to know.

Van the Man said...

I like number four, it's a very good point, I'll probably be repeating it to some of the people I see at work. Six made me chuckle, but it's just a "wouldn't it be great if" kind of fantasy, it isn't feasible in our world(not arguing about if it should be, I just don't think it is).

These religious views though? That people who believe a certain thing "must be crazy"? I'm offended.
Personal blog or not, it's still a public place, not a notepad file on your computer.
I agree with one of the comments above, that you sound like an alternate universe Glenn Beck in this post.

But, I know you're not Glenn Beck, you're a thinker. So I'd like to see you put your money where your mouth is on these radical religious views and make me a 5 minute American Bob video rapidly telling me many, many details about your bitterness toward religion! And I want an iced soymilk latte with it, and maybe I'll forgive you.

antecedentless said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
patrick.b.healy said...

Everyone defending what is NOT evolution as the origin of life on Earth as we now know it; is an idiot.
Don't tell me to be respectful of people with a different view. There is a difference of opinion, and then there is being wrong.

The Earth is not flat.
Women are not made of Ribs.
A boat can not be constructed that can accommodate an entire ecosystem.
Politicians may hear voices, but they don't belong to God.
Homosexuality will not bring an end to the entire human race or even The United States.

biomechanical923 said...

So does Bob have a problem with the existence of all things supernatural (ghosts, extra-dimensional entities, objects defying the laws of physics) or does he simply have a problem with religion?

biomechanical923 said...

P.S. The reason I ask, is because I can easily rattle off the big list of scientists and founding fathers who had religion, or at least some form of Deism

Joseph said...

@ Raphael

"“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." -Jesus Christ (Matthew 5:38-39)

I understand this is one nasty hate-fueled slap in the face (I felt it too). There is a righteous anger and then there's getting angry when your basically being called retarded for believing Intelligent Design or your a Christian. If you let every venomous insult make you mad then it's gonna eat at you (believe me, I know). Don't curse your enemies, bless your enemies.

@ Everyone

It's true you can't experiment with the theory of Intelligent Design in a lab (Can't recreate God in a lab??? C'mon scientists get crackin'!) Neither can one recreate Macro Evolution in a lab, but I'm not here to argue theories so don't bother.

@ Bob

Seems that you had another bad day. Congratulations on pushing away more viewers with different viewpoints than your own. Above me is a majority of "I agree with everything you said" comments and if that's what you wanted good for you. All you need is a chalkboard, because that's who you've become.

Don't misunderstand this comment as an angry, hateful, or sarcastic one. This is probably the most calm I've been from your blog in a while (and considering your flat out hatred here towards me and fellow Christians, that's saying a lot).

Still, I'll continue to pray for you Bob. Now why don't you try my my left cheek? God Bless you and I sincerely mean that without a shred of sarcasm. Peace.

Ryan said...

If Climate-Change deniers, creationists, intelligent-design-ers, and pro-lifers all hate you, that generally means you're right about most things. On a side note, if you're a Republican and you think that some Republicans are anti-gay, or racist, or in denial about science - in other words, if you're a Republican but not part of the Conservative Movement, then you're the kind of person who gets in bed with a racist, homophobic group of religious zealots in order to protect your income from government taxation. I'm not sure you should go broadcasting that.

Van the Man said...

I'm more offended by the tone and simplicity of his statements than by the statements themselves.

The fact that some people outright reject plain old ordinary everyday physical reality so that they can not believe the evidence of evolution... you can't just say "Every single one of them is crazy/unintelligent".

The fact that physical reality is here today, in this moment, and has been for the length of our memories(which are just a perception existing in the present moment anyway), is conclusive that it always has been, and will be tomorrow, is sort of assuming a lot considering the limits of what we know, isn't it?
We've observed, tested, and proved some physical constants, for example, gravity, but to say that "because there is gravity today, and there was yesterday, there is a 100% chance there will be gravity tomorrow" is sort of like saying that we know "everything" isn't it? We won't really know if there will be gravity tomorrow, until tomorrow.

I really feel this is too complicated a thing to simply say "people who don't believe in what we know are sick in the head". I think people who believe in what we know exclusively, as if it were all there is to know, are sick in the head - and unscientific, too, because science is all about discoveries isn't it?

But, if your view is that I'm mentally unwell, then you shouldn't take what I'm saying too seriously.

I'd LOVE for you guys to elaborate more on how you can be so close minded to views like creationism though, you might put my heart at ease if you really have solid, practical reasons.

Is life any more or any less than a dream, from the standpoint of an observer? We are the universe perceiving itself, and all that hippies-on-drugs garbage. Take your heads out of your asses - and you too Bob. Negative emotions are bad for your health, I enjoy your commentaries for the most part(i.e. about 90%), so stay healthy, okay?

antecedentless said...

>complicated fluorescent bulbs
I better get some sleep, in the mean time:

I'll just leave moar redstate.com blogposts here.

Seriously though, have you seen the lattest sickening ads from the "green" lobby: "Your local coal-burning power plant has a new filter . . . Her name is Mia." (Mia being shown as a little kid. . . with a frowny face.) The exhaust from a coal fired steam-turbines is heavily processed. Mia would be at much greater risk of mercury exposure from compact fluorescent bulbs than from the nearby powerplant.

The King's Rook said...

like a lot of people above me, nothing to disagree with here

antecedentless said...

@Ryan
>Conservative Movement
>Racists

Mark Levin went on a long rant about this at the 45 minute mark of his show on June the 28th (which is available for download for free, jsyk). I'll take the opportunity to transcribe it another time, until then, I'll also leave this here.

In the mean time, let me reiterate: Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was big on "Social Darwinism." To this day, abortion is at a high rate amongst African Americans. I won't take the time tonight to find the exact statistics, but I think it might be 3 out of every 5 children of African descent in this country are killed before they are born. Even if abortion magically cured cancer, that is just wrong.

Joseph said...

@ Van the Man

The Man indeed, my friend.

@ Everyone

Imagine a piece of paper and I drew a circle then said inside that circle represents ALL knowledge of the universe. Then asked someone to show how much of the universe they knew by drawing in the circle. An honest person would draw a small dot. What about the collective knowledge of humanity? A slightly bigger dot. Humanity as a whole has a vast knowledge, but not enough to fill the circle. Why? Because we are human beings.

To say there is no God must mean that you are God because only God would know that for sure.

Human beings operate on human logic. Now, I've read comments saying that God can't make the Earth in 6 days. "It doesn't make sense," because your giving human limitations and logic to a metaphysical being. GOD is a supposed omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient entity why can't he create the Earth in a short amount of time? In fact, who are we and what authority do we have to say what a metaphysical being can or can't do?

If one truly wants to know the truth (not A truth because if there are truths then there are lies, not everything can be a truth. Someone has to be wrong). Look at the evidence on both sides, please.

The Universe exists as an irreducible complexity that one can't simplify, but we still try. It's a fallacy on our part to simplify such a vast mystery of the universe down to egregiously foolish statements like, "It is now the 21st Century. People living in the developed world in this day and age who sincerely believe in Creationism and/or "Intelligent Design" (aka CREATIONISM) are not quaint, cute, old-fashioned, etc - they are mentally-unwell and/or mentally-deficient, and should be classified and regarded as such."

Again, peace.

Steve said...

A creationist may be deluded in that aspect, but I wouldn't necessarily go calling that entire person's character mentally disabled. My mother is a creationist and is, in my humble opinion, quite an intelligent person, especially among her co-workers.

Honestly Bob, your opinion on this matter sort of frightens me. Are we to start treating creationists as lesser people, just for that fact alone?

It scares me Bob, that you would be talking to someone, maybe think them intelligent, and then as soon as they mention their belief in creationism, would automatically think them lesser than you because of a silly belief. Last time I heard of an example like that, it was defined as bigotry.

Adam said...

I'll just leave these here.

http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1288

http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1289

Written by an atheist by the way.

biomechanical923 said...

@adam
>using Questionable Content to support any kind of argument you're making.
I seriously hope you guys don't do this.

Christopher Delvo said...

Gotta say...for the most part I agree with all of this. It is a bit inflammatory, but for fuck's sake, why shouldn't it be inflammatory? I'm going to respond to the points he posted here, and to the rebuttals most people seem to be making.

Re: Creationism: Mentally Ill? I wouldn't say so. Well on their way to being "the last step in evolution" while the enlightened become the "next step"? Yeah, I can get behind that.

And for all you people getting offended over this? Deal with it. Fuck religious privilege. If you're allowed to claim that creationism is true, we're allowed to throw it back in your face.

Re: Abortion: Knowingly spreading lies about medical procedures should be a punishable felony. That is all.

And regarding you "it's a life" people...take a serious look at the alternatives. Children commit suicide in foster care, and adoption in this country is a joke.

Re: Climate Change: I actually won't speak on the cause of climate change, as I don't know enough about it. But he's absolutely right about cleaning up the planet being a good thing regardless.

Re: Dems vs. Republicans: I'm honestly close to feeling the same way. Barack Obama may not be what we all hoped he'd be, but a fuck-ton better than the alternatives.

Re: Voters: Ah...we can dream, can't we?

And to the nay-sayers...yeah, bringing back voting restrictions sounds like a bad thing...just not sure it would be. Expecting a modicum of intelligence in the voting booth isn't necessarily a bad thing, methinks.

And finally, to all of you who are attacking strawmen and claiming that Bob said things he clearly didn't: First, lighten up. Then ENlighten up and learn to read closely.

Matt said...

I used to post on an atheist forum (until I got banned... more on that in a second), and I've heard all this stuff before. I more or less agree with everything (although in many cases what Bob presents is a vast oversimplification of the actual situation), but I have serious reservations adopting the tactics Bob and my fellow atheists on the aforementioned forum take. (Before anyone says anything, I know Bob is not an atheist, but by the sounds of it, he would fit right in with the majority of people in that little club.)

The problem is not that these are the same tactics that religious folk use (you know most evangelicals and fundamentalists often say atheists have a mental disorder or at least describe something that fits a mental disorder, etc...), but rather that it does absolutely nothing to harbour discussion. I don't just mean the name calling and the put downs (note how I did not improperly use the term 'ad hominem' here... sorry but that's a huge pet peeve of mine), but the whole attitude that having an outspoken belief that happens to be wrong is something to be berated for. The bottom line is that people that are wrong are still people, and as with all people they need to feel like they are understood and being heard, and only then can their opinions be corrected. These people are heard in their communities, in their church groups, and by their politicians... but they aren't being challenged here so their beliefs only get emotionally fortified. However, public skeptics (such as Bob, those ridiculous popular atheists, anyone who talks about religion on the internet, etc...) are challenging them on abrasive terms, unwilling or unable to actually listen, learn, and as such the people who are wrong see us as angry and unworthy of respect.

I just think it's high time to shine the flashlight of skepticism on our own tactics, and then maybe we'll see that calling ignorant people 'mentally deficient" is about as successful at winning people over to the side of truth as door to door Watchtower salesmen is at selling their religion to people eating supper.

That is, of course, assuming our goal is to educate, and not to set up more barriers in society and humanity between people of differing beliefs. If the latter is the case, keep on keepin' on, "skeptics", enjoy feeling superior because you're a waste of flesh with no concern for your fellow man who just happens to be right.

Ryan said...

@Antecendentless: The fact that Thomas Jefferson was anti-slavery (as long as they weren't his girlfriend or his children by her or any of the many slaves he personally owned and didn't set free), is well known. But that doesn't mean the the founding fathers weren't supportive of slavery, which they wrote into the constitution multiple times. Just because some of them objected doesn't mean all of them did. And Liberals have a problem with Bachmann on this because she a) got her history wrong and b) said that the black family was better off under slavery [or rather, signed a document that said so], which is both factually incorrect and morally reprehensible. Bachmann says a lot of stuff with conviction that isn't true, is based specifically on flaky, Jesus-world readings of American history, and that also is well-documented (see the recent New Yorker article tracking her beliefs for details) I don't know if she's mentally deficient, but she doesn't know enough about reality to hold elective office.

And...Margaret Sanger? Really? You are about the one millionth Republican to point this out to me, so let me explain to you why this point is irrelevant: First,I would be pro-choice, on principle, whether or not I had ever heard of her. Second, there have been lots of do-gooders who were racist. Nobody in the Democratic party that I've ever heard of talks about abortion as a solution to poor people and minorities, because that's sick.

On the right, however, there is near-constant race-baiting (Shirley Sherrod, ACORN, on and on), a constant whine about victimization in the form of anti-affirmative-action arguments, tons of talk about illegal immigration that always stops short of doing anything about it because the purpose of talking crap about illegal immigrants is to assert American (read: white) superiority while continuing to use them as a cheap labor supply, and a belief that Barack Obama is from Kenya that persists despite him having published his birth certificate. There's also the prevalence among the right-wing radio crowd for not-so-subtly advocating the mass murder of Muslims (Michelle Malkin once said "these are bad people who need to go away", etc.).

I don't think all Democrats are good and all Republicans are bad. I think some Democrats are good and all Republicans are either bad or compromised by the degree to which their party leaves crazy in the middle of the debate. And if you're defending Bachmann, honestly, you're in the first camp.

Oh, and one other thing, to the silly "we can't know if there's a God or not" argument. That argument is pure rhetoric. We can't know if there's a floating purple dinosaur that's invisible, either, because it's impossible to prove a negative. That doesn't constitute evidence. Believe or don't, but please don't assert the existence of things based on the fact that I can't prove the reverse. It's bad logic.

antecedentless said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
antecedentless said...

Ok, you read the document (good for you) but did not listen to the radio show podcast, and yet again someone on the left demonstrates their ignorance of history by trying to complain about a Republican's (who ever so happens to be a woman) supposed ignorance of history.

Around the 50 minute mark:
“…now in that first draft he (Jefferson) included the following language but removed it because Georgia and South Carolina rejected it, and they needed a United States [] to take on the British, or there would have been no America –and by the way Steffy, had there been no [united] America there would have been a country of Confederate States” that is, if the British didn’t destroy the divided colonies… “where slavery would save been the rule, and it would have been much harder to abolish it because there wouldn’t have been a civil war now would there? There would be a Country of Free States and a Country of Slave States” (again, if they somehow survived the onslaught of Britian) “but this is too complicated for the left, anyway, here is what Jefferson wrote…” “…thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another”…

This is something the Left continues to this day: “paying off crimes.” They make ridiculous laws and try to use them to claim that the Right is somehow against clean air/water, equality for women, or equality for immigrants and decedents of immigrants when it is they who have a long history of doing those very things. Their strategy has been very successful, as the likes of you and Bob Chipman have fallen head over heels for these arguments. Personally I have nothing against preferential selection and funding for "minorities", (Soon we will all be minorities in this country, and that will be an awesome day), especially given history and the continued poverty amongst other races (caused by said history and exacerbated by liberal policies outside of Affirmative Action). To me it is no different than giving a scholarship to someone who is left handed, but no one tries to claim that left handed people are somehow mentally crippled as of their left handedness, and give them lower entrance test requirements in addition to financial aid. But somehow that is perfectly acceptable to do for non-whites.

By the way, had the media paid as much attention to the gaffes of Vice President Joe “Bite Me” as Mrs. Bachmann or Mrs. Palin, you probably would had not fallen for those arguments as well. That’s too bad.

More transcripts coming...

antecedentless said...

I was half hoping to avoid making a bunch of consecutive wall-of-poorly-proofread-text posts, but here goes:

Around the 53 minute mark: “…unalienable rights. No nation that would adopt that document could forever live with slavery… Virginia’s George Mason, author of the Virginian Declaration of Rights, which served as the basis for the United States Bill of Rights drafted by James Madison, but mostly copied from Mason’s Virginia Declaration of Rights; Mason owned slaves too,” (and treated them well, and he preferred to refer to the as “house servants” instead of slaves) “but he felt that the institution needed to be destroyed, and so he said he could not support the Constitution because it did not flat out eliminate it, and yet most of the Northern delegates did [] for several reasons…” You may have noticed a brief mention of the 3/5ths apportionment in his Facebook blogpost. Mark Levin further elaborated in the show around the 55 minute mark “…They felt that they had somewhat diminished the south's power in the House of Representatives by the counting of slaves as 3/5ths persons, for the purpose of apportionment, not for the purpose of recognizing them as human beings. In other words, the point being weaken, lessen the representation of slave states in the federal House of Representatives. They also put a date certain in the constitution (many people overlook this) that would completely end the importation of slavery. That was the best they could do, because there where a couple of states, particularly South Carolina and Georgia, that where dug in," (no thanks to the British Crown flooding the farm labor market with Africans and west Indians) "but even the abolitionists at the time, and there where many, supported the constitution, because they knew what I told you in the prior segment: that if these states had gone off on their own, God knows how long slavery would have lasted, and looking back on it, which we can with hindsight, their obviously would have not been a civil war ending it. So George Mason wouldn't even support the constitution- now for other reasons too, but that [being slavery] was a primary reason. I want you to keep these things in mind because these are things that the ignorant flakes in the media do not comprehend. They have no idea what took place in American history so they are busy repeating myths..." He continues, mentioning many biographers and their records of Hamilton’s efforts to combat slavery in New York and Jefferson's bill for the "gradual abolition of slavery..." and that is just the founding of this country

More transcripts about much more recent history coming...

Also
@Ryan
>Jefferson is totally a debauched slut and only said what he said for show.

I think Moviebob, Mr. Obama, and even Palin have said plenty about personal relationships and politics. From what little reading I have done, your accusation seems to be based largley on circumstatial evidence and regurgitated political mudslinging from the time. We do know for a fact that Jefferson's father-in-law had a family with a slave. The fact that John Wayles thought Betty Hemings was "human" enough to have a relationship with her after his third marraige is something to be celebrated. Jefferson died deep in debt, and sadly couldn't free all of his slaves.

So far as I know, all of the "evil hypocritical slave owners" amongst the founders treated their slaves as people, not property.

MovieBob said...

@antecendentless

Margaret Sanger's racism was vile and repellant. It was also, however, not unusual for the era in which she lived. People must be judged in the context of their time. In any case, while the presence of a racial component in the beliefs of Sanger and other "Eugenicists" of the time is a black mark on ALL of their work; I'd hold that they were rather correct about ONE thing: Unsustainable breeding levels are not good for a society or a species - particularly among those economic stratas of a society that lack the practical ability to sustain even 'replacement-level' birthrates. That said lower economic stratas of America are disproportionately comprised of minorities is a tragic failure of American society - NOT evidence of some kind of racist master-plot by Planned Parenthood.

We are ROCKETING toward a problem that has never been faced in the history of our species. In every previous era, a growing civilization and a growing population went hand-in-hand because more people = more society = more infrastructure = more tasks to be performed = more jobs/"places" for people. That is, increasingly, no longer the case. Mechanization is not going to stop. Every day that goes by, more and more human professions become obsolete because of replacement by machines and automation. You don't have to "like" it, but there it is.

Problem is, we're still breeding at rates that reflect a society that needs/expects both a massive standing-army and a massive physical labor force - and both of those things are going to get DRAMATICALLY smaller within the next few decades whether we like it or not. Which means you're going to have a whooooooole lot of people around who, for no fault of their own, lack place and purpose. Not even a New Deal Times A Billion public-works initiative could create enough make-work projects to sustain that. Heading that off - or, at this point, lessening it's innevitable impact - is the great "uncomfortable" challenge of our future; and a lot of things need to happen to make it work. Changing attitudes about family and child-rearing (supersized-broods no longer being seen as a status symbol, people waiting until later in life to start families in general, lessening the stigma or childless or single-child marriages) are part of it, as is improving the adoption/foster system and the wider acceptance of alternative lifestyle marriages/partnerships. And YES, so is wide and easy access to birth control and/or abortion. This is not easy to "deal with" - it must be CAREFULLY and diligently monitored to ensure that arcane and false beliefs about the superiority of one race or one gender over another are not being injected into the process. But it needs to happen, or we are SCREWED.

@Steve,

Not "lesser beings," no. But if someone were to be, for example, running for office today and claim that they believed that the Earth was flat, that babies are delivered by storks or some other provable-absurdity they would be (at most) laughed off the stage or (at least) stand no chance of being elected to ANYTHING - I merely wish this logic to be applied fairly across all strata. I am sick to death of this idiotic double-standard whereby behavior and/or "belief" that would otherwise be classified as insipidly-foolish magically attains this veneer of seriousness because you attach the world "Biblical" or "Jesus" to it. I take no issue with people who choose to believe foolish things - I have foolish beliefs of my own. But just as I'M not demanding that Sasquatch be declared an endangered species, I'd rather creationists, pro-lifers etc. not try to inject THEIR foolishness into law.

Mister Linton said...

Yep, you are totally center Bob. Not a liberal at all.

Steve said...

That's fair Bob, but you probably should've said that instead of categorizing an entire group of people as mentally deficient.

I agree that religion should have NO PART in law, politics, etc. It has no place there. All I was concerned with was you telling me I should think people in Sunday Church as dumber all around, when they are in reality just ignorant in one aspect. I'm glad you have clarified your true statements.

Thank you for clearing this up.

Ryan said...

@antecedentless

I've been advised repeatedly that I should avoid getting involved in debates with people like you, because you seem too dug in to listen, but look:

I get your point about the 3/5ths clause and the rest of the proslavery compromises. They were compromises. But believe it or not, that isn't news to me. From my perspective, the compromises the founders made with slavery amount to tacit approval, no matter what they said. Remember that the 3/5ths clause was a wildly good deal for the South. South Carolina, in particular, had more slaves than free men in 1787, so the disproportionate political power that deal conferred is usually thought to be a cause of the Civil War. William Lloyd Garrison, famously, agreed with me and then some, calling the Constitution a pact with the devil and setting fire to it at one point (I find that kind of extreme).

As for Jefferson...I'm sorry, but "he treated them as human beings" is a tough sell for me. My evidence that he didn't is that he bought them, had them work for him, and didn't pay them. In order to prevent laziness, disobedience, or escape, there would have had to be the underlying threat of violence. I'm not saying Jefferson was a terrible man by the standards of his time. I'm saying that his opposition to slavery wasn't the same as, say, my opposition to slavery.

What I notice in this conversation, though, is that most of what you're saying isn't really the point. Does Biden say stupid things? Sure he does. Are they as stupid as Bachmann's comments about John Quincy Adams as a Founding Abolitionist? Not really...but even THAT isn't the point, which is that there's a pattern with her of saying things that are factually untrue but play to the biases of ignorant Right-Wing Christians and, in your case, people who are intellectually curious enough to know better.

Ryan said...

Look, you seem like a person who really cares about history and politics, so I think you should probably read something not created by people like Levin, whose mission in life is to distort those things to meet up with their right-wing agenda. Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh also do not count as sources.

I don't really know how you deal with the kind of cognitive dissonance it would take to accuse me of being sexist (because I said something critical of a woman you like) and your opposition to the Ledbetter Act, which is pretty clearly a real case of discrimination; Ledbetter lost in the Supreme Court because they ruled that the discrimination happened too long ago for her to have standing, not that it didn't exist, so the ability to look at comparative pay levels is a protection against that kind of discrimination. It's the kind of rule that encourages meritocracy rather than cronyism - why would you oppose that unless you a) like cronyism or b) dislike Democrats so much you can't think straight.

I think the problem is b). I think so because you tend to respond to succinct argument by ignoring what you can't respond to and throwing a lot of distracting nothing at everything else. I also think you have a deeply distorted understanding of what slavery was, a fairly narcissistic outlook on your own truth-claims ("I haven't read anything about this, but it's, obvious you're just brainwashed..."), and a significant problem with confirmation bias.

The facts are not hard to find: the Conservative Movement is, by nature, homophobic, nationalist, authoritarian, and, on occasion, flatly racist.

When the Conservative Movement opposed the ERA, for example, it did so by claiming that the ERA would lead to lesbianism. When the Conservative Movement campaigns against Gay Marriage, they claim that homosexuality is a disease called 'sexual dysfunction', and that it will lead to bestiality. When guys like Rick Perry (falsely) claim that Creationism is taught in public school, they are deliberately trying to attract the vote of ignorant people by claiming to push bad science on children. When the Movement wants to talk about its ideological opponents, it calls the "domestic enemies of the constitution" and brings up "second amendment solutions". Dinesh D'Souza writes about the utility of "rational racism". Republicans sponsor bills backed by the prison industry designed to arrest increasing numbers of illegal immigrants by legally obligating police officers to use racial profiling. And when the Conservative Movement campaigns against the EPA, the Department of Education, etc. they do so knowing perfectly well that reducing Federal oversight and funding for those areas will make it harder to protect schools and the environment by shifting the burden of cost to the states and, in the case of the EPA, creating a "race to the bottom" by putting state policy in conflict with states' need to increase their tax base by attracting business - nobody likes regulation, after all.

While they pull this crap, the Conservative sends out people like Mark Levin to talk about "The Death of the West" and "The Attack on Traditional Values" and "The Left's War on Boys" an on and on...a litany of false victimization designed to justify and insulate a large scale defense of income and privilege. I've never met a conservative who will admit that white privilege, male privilege, or heteronormativity even exist...but if I threaten one of them (for example, by suggesting that a black Spider-Man would be cool), they all know I'm out to get them.

I guess what I'm saying is...post all the transcripts of all the right-wing propagandized reinterpretation of history you want. The truth remains pretty straightforward to anyone bothering to look for it.

antecedentless said...

>post all the transcripts of all the right-wing propagandized reinterpretation of history you want.

OK. Will do. In fact, "propagandized reinterpretation of history" leads nicely into the next wall-o-text.

Around the 43 minutes mark: "Now, George Stephanopoulos -The idea that a guy like this can be a so-called journalist tells you everything you need to know about the old media, everything. This guy was a hatchet man for Bill Clinton,"(who signed the only balanced budget in my lifetime, after the body actually responsible for taxes and spending under our constitution created it under the leadership of a certain "willing shill for religious nuts and corporate douche bags"*) "[George Stephanopolous is] a vicious in-fighter. Left-wing hatchet man: doing opposition research, leaking it to his favorite media people, and now he is a prominent journalist -a prominent personality with ABC. So all the clothes are off, we see it there and it is very ugly... I want you to listen how stupid George Stephanopoulos is -how illiterate he is when it comes to American history, just like so many of the rest of the journalists, and liberal politicians as a matter of fact. They want you to believe, they want you to believe that the founding fathers to a man where committed to slavery. They want you to believe that this is an awful society; that the constitution is an awful document. This is why it must be destroyed, this is why the country must be transformed: because the founding was so defective; the founders where so awful. How dare we stand on their shoulders, and these TEA party neanderthals, as the argument goes, are out there waving the constitution -a document written by slave owners! Right?

And of course, they are members of a party that fought to the bitter end to defend slavery, I might add. (Am I allowed to do that? ;-) It was under the flag of their party that we had these racists segregationist governors like Orval Faubus and George Wallace and others; and their sheriffs, and their judges. I don't believe [] those where republicans.

That's their party.

That's their party that supported the Dredd-Scott decision.

That's their party that supported the Plessy decision.

That's their president: FDR, that rounded up Japanese-Americans, one-hundred and ten thousand of them, and put them in camps.

And the Korematsu decision: That's the decision of the FDR court!

That's their history, it's not mine, and it's not yours!
How come George Stephanopoulos doesn't want to talk about that?"

antecedentless said...

And as you sorta-said:
"History is a funny thing. They can try to re-write it all they want, but we won't permit that, won't we?
Now here is George Stephanopoulos on Good Morning America today... You should listen to the whole thing, as infuriating as it will be..."

>Cognitive Dissonance
The likes of MSNBC and ABC have been piling on the likes of Palin or Bachmann; it is not your sexism I am talking about. It's your overexposure to cable television news.

Oh, and John Quincy Adams was far more literate at age eight than you or I at age eight.

john said...

It is now the 21st Century. People living in the developed world in this day and age who sincerely believe in Creationism and/or "Intelligent Design" (aka CREATIONISM) are not quaint, cute, old-fashioned, etc - they are mentally-unwell and/or mentally-deficient, and should be classified and regarded as such.

It is now the 21st century. Which was directly preceded by the 20th century, which was largely defined by the actions of the self-describedly "rational," "scientific," and "intellectual" (note ironic quotes) to control, denigrate, and oppress those they considered "deficient" by reason of philosophical difference just as readily as by reason of imagined genetic deficiencies.

These actions are widely agreed to be the worst atrocities yet perpetrated by the human race, and yet many people still feel that if it were only their principles guiding the systematic dehumanization of dissenters, it would be totally okay. They have either failed to learn the key lesson of the 20th century, or have their heads stuck too far up their own assholes to realize what the hell they're saying.

(Additional irony may be found in the fact that some of them consider themselves "Libertarian" or "Libertine" or anything else to do with liberty and yet consider anyone who differs significantly enough from their own beliefs to be subhuman, retarded trash.)

Ryan said...

Dude.

MB isn't doubling down on her JQA gaffe. Don't do it for her. It makes you look even sillier than she is.

Ok. I hadn't totally understood your problem. This one-hour rant by a conservative ideologue is the only history lesson you've ever heard, isn't it? So you think you've discovered the mother lode. Next you'll bring up the fact that - OH MY GOD! Abraham LINCOLN was a REPUBLICAN!!! And he was obviously way into freedom and civil rights! So obviously, by your/Levin's nonsensical political-history-by-association game, ALL Republicans are like Lincoln...except they're not, and the guys calling themselves Democrats and Know-Nothings back then were the guys calling themselves Republicans now. Anyone with even a tiny amount of American political history knowledge understands the ideological shift that went on during the 1960s, when the Democratic party coalition fell apart because of Civil Rights, and the Republican party picked up the South for a really long time, because - big shock - suddenly all the racists wanted to vote for them.

Levin's argument, as I understand it, is that Liberals like George Stephanopolous have infiltrated the media in order to convince liberals that the Constitution is evil so that it can be destroyed so that we can institute Godless Communism and lord over all whilst wearing Darth Vader masks. And his evidence for this is that, in the past, the Democratic party contained racist leaders who did stupid shit.

His conclusion is at odds with reality [liberals don't want Godless Communism or to jettison the Constitution - there's a difference between "evil" and "flawed"] and his historical points are a non-sequitur, since the people he's talking about all did what they did before the split in the Democratic party and the rise of the Conservative Movement in the wake of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan and...you know what? I'm not going through all of this for you. Crack a book.

For Christ's sake...Fox News employs Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, and lots of other Conservative Movement Celebrities to say all kinds of ridiculous nonsense. Levin himself worked for Reagan. Why is Stephanopolous a problem?

The Levin argument is such obvious red-meat bullcrap. Liberals don't want to destroy the Constitution or remake it or whatever. Republicans are the party, of late, that has members talking about repealing the 14th Amendment and the Commerce Clause.

You must just like making people sad. I am sad when I read your arguments. They are not related to what I am saying, but there are words in them that sound like you think you're refuting my points or pointing out flaws in my thinking. I'm not overexposed to cable news, my friend. You are underexposed to common sense, reputable sources, and reality. We're done here.

nadesico33 said...

I think the issue Bob is getting at on ID/Creationism is a combination of things.
1) It is scientifically unprovable at our current level of understanding (and saying that that's part of the point is hypocritical).
2) That people genuinely believe it in spite of gathered evidence.
3) These same people want to get these ideas into public school lesson plans, while having the scientifically provable methods removed.
4) While publically denied, it is openly known that ID/Creationism is NOT poly-religious, BUT specifically Christian creation myth, minus the word God.
5) The US allows freedom of religion, but government requires both separation of Church and State. This means that anything even remotely religious in government back institutions has to be non-denominational (as much as it may be disliked), and ID/Creationism is not non-denominational.

Remember, this entire debate is why we have the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster after all, and if I'm gonna be forced to learn a faith-based version of the creation myth, why learn about wrathful, fire and brimstone God, when I can learn about beer-pirate-hooker Spaghetti Monster?

counterpoint said...

oy bob, oy.

i mean, obviously the substance i agree with, but man, the WAY YOU SAY IT....

the problem is, when you act like a dick, it makes all this logical stuff get outright rejected by the people you should be trying to educate.

I know, I know. Don't be a pussy, like the Democrats and so many others like them. But jesus man, you aren't converting anybody when you say it like that, right? I mean, half these posts that are against you say nothing of the issues, but just badmouth you and your... badmouthing.

john said...

@nadesico33: Well, that's certainly not what Bob was saying in the post, so either he's implying that people who choose to believe something not supported by the majority of the available evidence are mentally retarded, or he somehow managed to say that while not intending to.

JDude said...

I agree with every damn thing being said here.

1: Intelligent Design IS Creationism, or at least all it does is serve the purpose of creationists.

Let's throw the bone that an intelligent species did in fact seed everything on this planet.

Okay...so where did THAT come from?

All I.D. is, is a smokescreen that wants REAL scientists to give up on evolution in favor of not asking any questions beyond, "but just WHO could this 'creator' be, I wonder? Oh, you'll NEVER guess..."

2: As to global warming, I've long stopped caring one way or another. Regardless, we DO need to pollute less and run our planet more efficiently. It's in EVERYONE'S best interest. Whether or not we're killing the planet by not doing it is a non-issue. We need to do it for the sake of having clean water, air, and enough power and resources to provide for our massive populations.

3: On Republicans, I could never vote for one. I don't care what they have to say on taxes or the debt, or health care. If they run their campaign or their office like prayer rally, they can say goodbye to my vote. America is NOT a Christian nation, nor should it ever be. I vote for secularism, because when you can't justify your actions with the abject will of some ethically defunct sky-man, your decisions have to stand on their own merits. And for that to happen, they need to make be logical, reasonable, and informed.

biomechanical923 said...

I think we can all agree that people with Borderline/Avoidant/Schizoid personalities, or with ADD, ADHD, Asperger's, or Autism are all "mentally-unwell and/or mentally-deficient, and should be classified and regarded as such."

...Which nullifies the opinions of about half the comments in here.

antecedentless said...

@Ryan
>This one-hour rant by a conservative ideologue is the only history lesson you've ever heard, isn't it?

Actually, after I was thoroughly brainwashed by Alpha Omega's homeschool curriculum ;-p , I took a couple semesters of history at Clayton State University... one of the professors was very liberal, but very interesting. In all honesty I didn't do to well. I am more of a math/tech kind of guy.

Nice of you to discover Mark Levin actually worked in the Ronald Reagan's administration. Maybe you also learned that he held actuall cabniet positions, not PR positions like Mr. Steff Infection, and he graduated with honors.

The likes of Mike Huckabee, Rachel Maddow, Mark Levin, etc... run commentary shows. They do not pretend to be journalists. Last I checked Mrs. Palin does not have a show on "faux nooes."

I'll agree with you on one thing: Mr. Savage is an idiot.

Anyway, it's been fun. I appoligize to everyone for not redirecting this massive off-topic tangent to another blog. Hopefully I can take the time to address some of your other arguments sometime in the future.

>Moviebob

In the U.S., and in many developed countries for that matter, are already either near or below replacement rate. Just about all the population growth in the U.S. comes from immigration.

Our economy has already survived the birthpains of the industrial revolution and the exporting of some economic freedom (thank God) along with lots of manufacturing jobs to China. As I have mentioned before, the U.S. economy already leans more towards "knowledge workers" than agriculture or manufacturing, like many other developed nations.

ANImaniac said...

I just realized what your becoming Bob, Your like Brain from Family Guy.
You started out really intelligent and humorous (about geek culture) and that's why people liked you.
But you saw that people liked your stuff and decided to use your little soap box to push your agenda, I get that and am largely fine with it (to a point).
But look Bob you really need to cool it on your extremely Nazi-like hate speeches or else you run the risk of alienating the same fans that helped you get those nice gigs at The Escapist and Screw Attack.

TheAlmightyNarf said...

@ criticisms of intelligent design

Ok, I didn't want to respond Bob's obvious trolling, but I've got to comment on this. The pseudo-intellectual Christian's bane is that many beliefs I hold are often extremely poorly argued in the popular discussion, so I'm going to give you all the benefit of the doubt that you've never heard intelligent design properly argued and not simply reciting straw-man arguments you've heard from other atheists.

Yes, the concept that many aspects of our universe are better explained by the existence of an intelligent creator is neither a provable or falsifiable idea and is really more of a broad philosophy than it is scientific. In much that same way that the concept that our universe is a product of natural processes and is wholly understandable and quantifiable is neither a provable or falsifiable idea and is really more of a broad philosophy than it is scientific.

To argue intelligent design scientifically one has to apply it to something specific. While there are a few good examples out there, my personal favorite punching bag is, of course, abiogenesis.

Right now every shred of evidence we have suggest that naturally occurring abiogenesis is impossible. Scientists have been struggling with this issue for a century and a half (unless you count spontaneous generation, in which case it's been several centuries, but I don't) and have yet to come up with any theory that can pass experimentation. I'm not going to argue odds or probability like other skeptics. Until science shows other wise, it is entirely reasonable to assume that it can not happen naturally. Yes, we may discover how it can happen eventually, but "we'll find the evidence some day!" is hardly evidence in and of itself. (and if anyone even thinks the phrase "but you can't prove abiogenesis didn't happen", I will throw the giant flying spaghetti monster at you SO hard)

With this being as important question as it is to answer, I think scientists should at least entertain the possibility that the origin of life on Earth may have been an unnatural occurrence (and I'm not going to even begin to postulate what that may have been). Right now they're only experimenting with models that could have plausibly occurred on Earth... with the success rate so far, I don't think they should be limiting themselves like that. I'm not calling for scientists to "give-up". I'm calling for them to widen their possible solutions. They should be trying harder, because this is easily one of the most important question man kind has yet to answer, but they are unnecessarily handicapping themselves. I don't think the ramifications of understanding how life first came about could possibly be over emphasized, whether natural or unnatural.

As for issues of evidence... If scientists find that the origin of life must have been under unnatural circumstances, than it's reasonable proof in favor of intelligent design. If scientists find that the origin of life could have happened under entirely natural circumstances, than it's a reasonable proof against (Occam's Razor suggestion that if something could have occurred naturally, it probably did). There's your provability and falsifiability.

I would also point out that the abiogenesis issue is really only one life as we know it on Earth has. It's entirely plausible that other forms of life else where in the universe could have entirely come about through natural abiogenesis.

Daystar Eld said...

I think a lot of people who take umbrage with his first point are thinking of creationism differently than he is: that is, I'm assuming that Bob means "God created the world in 6 days less than 7000 years ago, literally" when he says "Creationism."

And in that, I agree. The only people who continue to believe that in today's age are either very ignorant (as in, uneducated), or frighteningly illogical, to the point where I would not want them anywhere near a ballot box.

I don't care how smart they are in other respects: the cognitive double standard of that level of blind belief in direct opposition to overwhelming evidence is scary.

As for the whole "God created everything, then it all evolved on its own from that point," meh. People of faith will re-interpret their scriptures to fit anything they previously contradicted; it's just the nature of the beast. It's happened multiple times over the ages, in everything from a geo-centric to a helio-centric universe to "miracles" of modern science. Hell it'll probably happen again if humans are contacted by intelligent alien life. *shrugs* Whatchagonnado.

JDude said...

@TheAlmightyNarf:

Nothing in science will ever tell you there WAS no creator. The possibility does exist.

However, the problem is, who created the creators? Either way you have SOME form of infinite regress in play, and logically, I find it best to assume there WAS no creator, and try to understand how abiogenesis could have occurred.

For me, it's simply a matter of time and repetition. The odds are astronomical against in any given scenario, but given the vastness of the Universe and the doubtless number of places were the conditions are right, it only seems inevitable that the odds were beaten SOMEWHERE.

Point is, either the creators formed as they were, naturally, or they started out as something impossibly primitive and slowly increased in sophistication via natural selection over a longstretch of time. One of these is undoubtedly more likely than the other.

TheAlmightyNarf said...

@ JDude

"However, the problem is, who created the creators? Either way you have SOME form of infinite regress in play, and logically, I find it best to assume there WAS no creator, and try to understand how abiogenesis could have occurred."

Well, like I said, the abiogenesis issue only applies to the sort of life we have on Earth. We have no clear transition from inorganic to proto-life to living organisms here... in fact, just about all the proto-life that exists on Earth now is generally considered to have come about after life did. However, there is no reason to assume that such a transition doesn't exists elsewhere for other forms of life.

Some form of abiogenesis must have happened at some point. We just shouldn't assume that it happened here or for us.

"For me, it's simply a matter of time and repetition. The odds are astronomical against in any given scenario, but given the vastness of the Universe and the doubtless number of places were the conditions are right, it only seems inevitable that the odds were beaten SOMEWHERE."

Until science can show other-wise, I don't concede that there are any odds at all. For all we know there are inherent issues with the chemistry that make it completely imposable under natural circumstances.

JDude said...

@Narf:

And yet, here we are.

Personally, while I don't consider it impossible, I certainly don't consider 2nd degree life-seeding as the most likely origin of life on Earth. We don't understand how abiogenesis occurred, but nor should we be expected to have understood, let alone recreated this astonishingly rare phenomenon so early in our cosmic self-education.

Forgive me for not having read previously what you may or may not be arguing for, but I'll say that I have no issue with schools providing children with all the viable theories and hypothesis', including extra-planar seeding of planets, so long as they understand that in any case, anything intelligent enough to do so would HAVE to have come about through a gradual process, be it evolution or something else we cannot as of yet imagine. Sky-hooks are not good science.

TheAlmightyNarf said...

@JDude

"Personally, while I don't consider it impossible, I certainly don't consider 2nd degree life-seeding as the most likely origin of life on Earth."

To quote Arthur Conan Doyle... "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth".

"We don't understand how abiogenesis occurred, but nor should we be expected to have understood, let alone recreated this astonishingly rare phenomenon so early in our cosmic self-education."

That is the worst fucking cop-out I have ever seen. We can't expect science to have figured it out yet? Seriously?! That's what you're going with?

No, that's bullshit.

Science makes theories based off of evidence. That's how it works. We have plenty of evidence to make reasonable theories regarding the origins of life and the means of testing them... And those tests have consistently pointed in one direction. That life on Earth can not be the product of natural abiogenesis.

"Forgive me for not having read previously what you may or may not be arguing for"

I only made those last 2 posts... and a post way early on calling Bob out on being a troll.

"but I'll say that I have no issue with schools providing children with all the viable theories and hypothesis', including extra-planar seeding of planets, so long as they understand that in any case, anything intelligent enough to do so would HAVE to have come about through a gradual process, be it evolution or something else we cannot as of yet imagine."

I take the stance that with us having absolutely no real viable theories about the origin of life, we really don't have anything to teach in schools. Our education system should be teaching science, not conjecture.

JDude said...

@Narf:

Cop-out? Hardly.

For as much as we currently know, we've only been at this a few hundred years, and only one that has been anywhere close to utilizing pure secular reasoning with no religious desires muddying the issues.

We are talking about an entire planet's worth of churning seas of water and chemicals stirring, frothing, boiling and mixing over the course of millions of years, until one, perhaps ONLY one, proper combination of chemicals triggered the existence of the functioning DNA (or RNA) molecule.

In all that, the factors only needed to come together once.

The problem I have with your reasoning is that you say the evidence suggests heavily that it was impossible for it to have occurred here, but I argue that we can only know so much, at present, about primordial earth. We know a great deal, certainly, but absolute knowledge, we have not.

Yes, at present, it doesn't make sense to us. But I see no reason to assume that will always be the case. A failure to replicate a phenomenon in which the variables include several unknowns does not fault the capacity for the phenomenon to occur, only our understanding of the phenomenon.

Anyway, I don't see how any of it is pressing, so long as we, like you said, teach science (and not fairy tails, if I might add).

But I confess myself confused when you ask not to teach conjecture. It is perfectly honest to admit ignorance to something. Flatly saying, "I don't know" is entirely defensible. But I also think it is fine to discuss the possibilities, whether certainty exists or not. It seems entirely intellectually beneficial, where I sit. When I was in school, we were taught the different theories for the origin of the Moon, and I find myself enriched for it. Science being what it is, it seems like a serious handicap to not engage the possible as well as the certain.

TheAlmightyNarf said...

@ JDude

See, the problem is that "we might discovery how it happened someday!" is absolutely a corollary of "you can't prove it didn't happen" in that I can just as easily respond with "some day science may discover the flying spaghetti monster created life on Earth too".

We can't make theories based on evidence we might some day discover. We have to look at the evidence we have today.

On that note, this discussion has actually piqued my interest on the subject again, so I've been doing some research to see if any new science has come about since the last time I've argued this... turns out there has. There have actually been a few successful experiments in creating proto-life like self-replicating molecules. The experiments of Professor Ghadiri and Julius Rebek being particularly interesting. The one thing that all these experiments had in common was that the self-replicating molecules had to be created in an incredibly unnatural environment. Now, they are pretty far off from creating anything we may call life, so I don't consider this as having met the "provability" condition I established. But, I do think it's interesting that that is the direction science is going in right now.

Sam Robards, Occasional Gamer said...

Bitterness and politics, indeed.

This is my last post/visit to any of MovieBob's sites/movies.

It was good while it lasted, but upon learning that Bob is a psychotic bigot, I just can't support his various internet ventures anymore.

Bob's certainly entitled to his opinions, but I just don't want to listen to it anymore. So I'm out.

All the best,
Sam Robards, disappointed former fan

David said...

Bob, you tell me, at what stage of development do we go from being blobs of flesh to humans?

That's the worst thing about the entire pro-choice belief world. The arbitrary lines that are drawn.

You know I could go on trying to argue about this shit, but everyone who's reading; let's think about something.
Why did Bob write and post this article NOW? Really, did he just feel like making such huge statements one morning? I'm guessing he met some old family member of his.

I don't know if the day will ever come that--like the guy above me--I finally have enough of Bob's inconsistent, hate-filled bullshit, drop out and never return, but I feel like he's pulling me closer to the edge every week.

tablet pc 10 pulgadas said...

I completely agree with the post.