Marc said about 12 hours later

She needs to watch the video on waterboarding. Maybe even waterboard her...then we'll see how she feels about carbon dioxide.

---

GJ said 1 day later

Some other "mistakes" include the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere (it's 0.03%, not 3%), and she's an idiot for thinking that by being such a small part of the atmosphere content, it obviously has a very small impact on anything. Next time, she might want to talk to a high school science teacher--or even a high school science student, either of whom could probably correct most of what she got wrong. However, she got it wrong because she's trying to make a political point, so why not spout science-sounding words to get your point across regardless of their grounding in reality? :)

---

Steve said 5 days later

What kind of human activity affects CO2? Breathing, lady.....

Geoff said 1 day later

It's a giant cu-tip....look out!!!

---

Steve said 4 days later

Funny video!

I think Parsla and I are going to try to go down and see a shuttle launch this fall/winter. Did you realize there are only 10 more shuttle launches left? Then, sometime in the far off future, they are going to send people up in capsules (from what I hear), similar to how the space program started. I think the single rocket idea is a big cost savings one, which would be why they are doing it. So if you want to see a shuttle launch, start planning soon!

Congress is trying to approve 10 more launches, for a total of 20, but that's TBD, and not likely if the economy continues to plummet.

There are 3 shuttle launches planned this fall/winter, on in each of October, November, and December. So when's hurricane season again??? Uh, yea, we'll probably aim for the November or December one. October is a bit too close to Hurricane season, if not *in* hurricane season, for me. And yes, I know, we'll either be buying refundable tickets, or planning to stay for a while, in case of a delay in the launch. And yes, we know there is a chance that the delay may be for several days, and might mean we might not actually see the launch. Oh well, that's a chance we'll have to take.

---

GJ said 4 days later

Sounds cool, Steve!

Geoff said 1 day later

Lets hope nobody hears about it.

---

Marc said 1 day later

I'm not sure what they'll actually talk about in Expelled, but for one, I don't care to see a movie about people who got fired for talking about Intelligent Design in the classroom. It just doesn't interest me to pay $9 to see that. So he's probably not going to be too successful.

On another note, I don't see what the problem is with a school saying "Some people believe that some higher being aided in evolution." Maybe a couple more sentences on it, but leave it at that. While I believe in a higher being, I know there's not a lot of factual evidence to prove one exists. There's no reason to leave it from being mentioned, but there's also no reason for spending huge amounts of time on it, because we do need to be scientific about things. Evolution on the other hand, has a lot of evidence and interesting things related to it. But that's because evolution is a much simpler problem than the beginning of the universe.

The change that needs to happen is the intelligent design people need to stop whining and start putting together more facts. Once facts are tied together, maybe science will start respecting it for what they've come up with. Hands down, the science people are winning because you can't beat their argument and they've got good evidence.

---

Darcy said 1 day later

Marc--the problem I see with allowing such a statement being allowed in school is that it gives the ID-folks a leg up. They will see this as a win for their side and actively work towards getting more of their side into the classroom. Frankly most of their ideas do not belong in a public school system as they are clearly pushing a religious agenda. From my experience, most of their science is flawed, and they have a habit of practicing bad science--fitting data to their theory. Transitional fossils do not exist according to the ID people, and everytime another transitional form is found they immediately come out and say this can't possibly transitional.

Don't get me wrong, I think a religions of the world would be a good class to have in schools, to expose kids to other faiths in a non-proselytizing manner. Push most ID people about who is responsible for life on earth they will answer the Christian God. Why not any other God, why not one that predates the Bible? I, unlike my dear sweet husband, have no problem with people saying a higher power is responsible for the start of life on earth, it is when they start pushing a specific religious agenda that I object, and ultimately that is the case here.

---

Darcy said 1 day later

Oh and scuttlebutt about the movie from those that have seen it say the aim of the movie is to talk about people who claim that their careers were damaged because they spoke up about Intelligent Design in the workplace, ie, professors denied tenure. Most of the people denied tenure, were denied for reasons other than their adherence to ID. Also when they do talk to folks who are pure evolutionists, all they can do is ask them their views on religion. Many are atheists so of course you know what kind of answers you will get. These scientists were also interviewed under false pretenses--they were told it was a different topic for the documentary.

The one thing in the movie that really pisses me off is the equating of Darwinism(not my term) with Nazism. Yes, Charles Darwin is ultimately responsible for the theories of the Third Reich. Right...

---

Geoff said 1 day later

Not to pick on Marc here, but I would say a good majority of people would say something similar Marc has presented here...that this is an idea that should be at least mentioned to our children. There some other preposterous ideas out there too like "the moon landing was fake" and that "the holocaust never happened". Clearly, these ideas are false and shouldnt even be considered because there is no clear evidence to support it, and there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that contradicts it. Same goes for evolution vs ID. There is NO, none, zero, zilch evidence in support of ID (not even a smidgen), contrary to Evolution which is well supported by evidence and the scientific community.

This doesnt mean that it is absolute truth (nothing is), however there is no alternative that proves to be a better explanation that can be tested or replicated in a test environment. For this reason, ID has no place in a public setting, where everyone is free of and from religion and make believe.

Peoples problem is that they need an explanation for everything. They fear the unknown. Because science does not solve all of the universes deepest secrets, doesnt mean we can just start making stuff up and teaching our kids it.

Bill Maher said it best, keep your imaginary friend to yourself.

---

Marc said 1 day later

Yea, I didn't mean to include what most of these idiots are saying. When people like Huckabee state the Earth is 6,000 years old, and it's scientifically well known that couldn't be more false, we simply ignore those idiots. I think a religions of the world class would be great, and probably the best place to put things related to ID until they come up with something...anything...solid.

---

Geoff said 1 day later

Oh, and if anyone submits the "Banana theory" by the two morons Ray Comfort/Kirk Cameron as scientific evidence, I'll smack you. :)

---

GJ said 1 day later

Like this?

---

Steve said 2 days later

Dear Lord,

Please stop my brothers from posting the same boring religion vs science crap every other week. Let them realize that some believe, some don't, and that's not going to change. Please let them realize that each side has their extremists, and 99% of each side don't support those extremists arguing in their favor. Thank You.

Amen

---

GJ said 2 days later

You won't catch me doing the anti-religious thingy--I have a minister-type person that I'm having a lot of fun doing the metaphysical discussion thingy with. However, I will post about frauds here a lot, and religious fraud will get it just as much as non-religious fraud. Trouble is, religion is fraught with fraud. I don't mean that in a bad way...it's just that it's freaking fertile ground. Oh, and sorry about the alliteration.

Hard to see what one of my favorite pastimes happens to be--fraud analysis! :)

Geoff said about 9 hours later

Well I could have told you that. We did tests at Wegmans years back. You get even better distance if you place it under your chin and open your mouth.

---

GJ said about 10 hours later

You guys DID tell me that--but had no explanation for how it worked. This was a bit more illuminative.

---

Geoff said 1 day later

bah..they just had pretty charts and diagrams...you know that scientific mumbo jumbo.

---

GJ said 1 day later

Sure...they should have used Flash, right? :)

---

Geoff said 1 day later

Of course!

GJ said 15 minutes later

There is a slight problem with this nightmare scenario for atheists. See, culinary bananas (which is what he is describing above) don't have seeds. Non-culinary bananas are not very similar to this easy to eat variety, and lack most of the "design features" quoted in the video.

Why don't they have seeds, you ask? Very good question. Culinary bananas don't have seeds because they are genetic manipulated breed, much like donkeys. Culinary bananas were invented...by man. They propagate only with man's help. Sorry, James. God didn't design the banana. Man did. You couldn't have picked a dumber proof of God's existence.

He's going on this TV show to debate two atheists. They're going to rip him to shreds, especially if he uses the banana proof. There is no way to prove the existence of God, period. It's a faith thing, through and through.

So...this isn't a dig on belief in God. It's a dig on two fundamentally stupid fundamentalists. Need I remind you that our elected president is one as well.

---

GJ said 22 minutes later

Mistakenly referred to Ray Comfort as James in the above comment. Comment editing doesn't work yet.

---

Darcy said about 1 hour later

And it is Kirk Cameron you doofus!

Comfort's arguments made my brain hurt.

---

Marc said about 2 hours later

Atheist or not, this guy's argument reminds me of anything having to do with Mega Churches, and all of them are nuts. I was actually waiting for Comfort to put his hand on Cameron's head and heal him, then Cameron would fall to the floor. At least then it could have been tagged "funny."

---

Geoff said about 3 hours later

I would have loved to have seen that!

Ray's banana proof would have been better served if he tried to disprove Darwin's theory of evolution to help prove God: If Darwin's "Survival of the fittest" was true, then the banana wouldn't lend itself to be so easily eaten by humans and apes. Thus, Darwin is full of crap and God creates to serve man (oh and apes too!).

I think that would have been a better approach. His intelligence rating would have gone up to say...the critters under a rock, rather than the rock itself. Oh well, at least we got to see Kirky give us his warm, dumb smile. I think I might go have a human harvested Dole banana, I hear those God branded ones don't shape up.

---

GJ said about 22 hours later

Darwin's theory isn't "survival of the fittest." You've been listening to the creationists too much. ;) Part of the the strategy of those who oppose evolution is to paint it as something it's not. See this great PDF, it's a great introduction into all thing evolution. I promise, it won't make your brain hurt nearly so much as that Ray Comfort video.

---

GJ said about 22 hours later

Btw, disproving evolution is not going to prove God. If we find a new mechanism to describe how humans came about, and we truly do find that it replaced what we though of a evolution, I can guarantee it won't be any more palatable to those to hate evolution so. If anything, they'll hate it more--as it will further reduce the mystery of God.

---

Geoff said 1 day later

Your right, disproving evolution doesn't prove God, however I think it is a better tactic than saying, "a banana fits in my hand, therefor God exists." Remember, I was trying to think on Ray's brain frequency. It is difficult, I know, but perhaps you need to eat a few more bananas and then you shall see the light. I mean, what was this Darwin guy thinking?!?

...I funny....don't hurt me.

---

Abby said 1 day later

*laughs*

Funny. xD

Just because bananas are quite convenient doesn't prove anything.

(and I finished another book after buying it in the same day)

---

GJ said 2 days later

Oh, one more thing. Most religious folks, even fundamentalists, are not as dumb as these two. However, they are going onto national television debating those folks behind The Blasphemy Challenge, some fairly smart atheists who go by the handle "The Rational Responders." In a live, open debate, they'd eat Ray for breakfast. However, he may have worked a deal with the network to get editing rights on the debate, so what shows up on TV might not reflect what really was debated. We'll see, as the Rational Responders will likely post the whole thing on their site after the broadcast. It'll be interesting to compare and see what the network filtered. They do have a financial incentive to not alienate their religious viewers.

---

Geoff said 2 days later

I'm glad you brought up "The Blasphemy Challenge." I've been looking for this scripture, Mark 3:29, which talks about the unforgivable sin. The wacky priest at Bishop Ludden told us about this once (didn't mention it was in the bible though)...and I just assumed he was a moron, but it is actually written in the bible. How funny is that!

So I guess the all powerful one will forgive us for everything....oh, except if I spit on the Holy Spirit. I can crucify Jesus, deny God the father and still repent, but you better not mess with old Holy one, or else you get the boot!

Do Christians even know about this? I'm surprised it wasn't eradicated from the bible as it pretty much contradicts the foundation of Christianity.

---

GJ said 2 days later

The Blasphemy Challenge was funny, but totally immature, too. It did serve to reveal the idiocy of that particular part of faith, and what was more interesting was the panicked responses of some well-meaning folks who were sure these challenge participants had just damned themselves to hell.

Oh, another update on Ray--here's his new proof:

When you see a painting, you know there was a painter.
When you see a building, you know there was a builder.
So then creation is proof of a creator.

Duh. The logic is simply mind-blowing.

---

Geoff said 3 days later

wow....I'm a believer.

GJ said 3 days later

No comments? Please tell me you guys looked at this link. It's a great handbook for detecting crappy products sold by technobabble.

---

Geoff said 3 days later

I read through it, so all is not lost my scientific friend!

Kristen said about 9 hours later

The secret is “The Law of Attraction” that asserts what you think creates what you feel, and these feelings flow from your body as magnetic energy waves over vast distances, which then cause the universe around you to vibrate at the same energy level as your feelings. If your feelings are negative, negative experiences will inevitably flow right back, positive feelings elicit positive experiences."

Humm...I agree that the way you process things around you (thought patterns) will shape your emotions. Everyone has a different perception, and each person's perception is their reality. What the heck does this have to do with magnetic energy?! That's just some pseudo-science they tried to stick in there to make it sound more, well, scientific.

I think it's safe to argue that some of their ideas ring true: if you think negative thoughts more than positive ones, you will probably tend to display socially negative behaviors (withdrawal, picking fights, sullenness, pessimism). People will not want to be your friend.

On the other hand, if you see the world with rosy glasses, you probably feel more confident, treat people nicer, say nice agreeable things, and do things like conform to rules and norms. People will like you (ie be "attracted" to you).

It's pretty much that simple.

They make the arguement that people who think of illness tend to be sick more often. Hypercondriacs--I buy that. But I don't think people think themselves into getting cancer.

You can create your perception of your reality: but your negative energy does not send out vibes that attract poverty, crime, and natural disasters. How could all those mardi gras revelers attract Katrina?!

---

GJ said about 18 hours later

Exactly. This "theory" takes a worthwhile concept--that your positive outlook on the world does tend to make you a more agreeable person, and you tend to look for opportunity rather than failure, making it seem like you are lucky. However, there is nothing magical about this, and no way does your mind truly affect the material world around you. As soon as you start hearing things about energy, you can pretty much guarantee what you're reading is total bunk.