Ben Stein "Science Leads to Killing People"

"Science doesn't kill people, people Chuck Norris kills people."

Well done, Iarn.

in his own words, "science leads to killing people."

"Science doesn't kill people, people kill people."

Besides, is he purporting that religion doesn't? See: The Crusades, Ben.

I prefer to use a simpler analogy:

Nervous as a Christian Scientist with a severed artery.

-J

yes! excellent rendition, I am filled with a noodly glow.

Thanks for that clarification, the way the two forms are merged for the purposes of propoganda and the simplicity and ease by which both are accepted as equivalent shows just how led by the nose people can be.

Winsomecowboy.... I have the site for the Flying Spaghetti Monster/Church of... do you want that or just the picture?

well gravity is suspiciously weak as a prime force, I've read it's diluted by the various dimensions it acts upon. I say we begin by optimistically tethering everything then hold a meeting.

I would have preferred that my science classes were held in a democratic manner, allowing us to vote on our grades and our course of study. But that infernal professor actually had the audacity to insist I learn the material.

Or will the advocates of ID themselves become the 'oppressors' when it comes their turn?

Of course! They don't want additional theories taught, they want their theory taught.

re: 11

Whatever the long-term goals of the supporters of creationism/ID hold, or if they have thought that far into the future; I doubt they have really considered the repercussions of success very clearly.

But the short-term goals are pretty clear. Which is to use whatever method(s), available, such as redefining, misusing or obscuring terminology, to introduce creationism into a 'supposedly' non-religious public educational system. In the attempt to accomplish that they might be willing to ally themselves temporarily with whoever might help their cause.....only to 'kick them to the curb' later.

Competition between the variety of theologies....has so often been a 'real' killer.

If anyone disagrees with a theory, they are free to explore and test for themselves.

In principle, yes, but in principle one is free to argue with Theology too. In practice, more than enough academic scientists are ruthlessly political and will go to great lengths to see that an opposing theory doesn't make it to publication. There are many examples of this, not to mention the propoganda scientists who work for Tobacco, Monsanto, etc. The point is that what is important is the freedom to disagree, that's where the line needs to be drawn, imo.

Of course! They don't want additional theories taught, they want their theory taught.

This is also true of many scientists, e.g., the global warming debates.

gladbutterfly 11.4-

With respect, you should have included more of the quote from 11.0 kaiji:

"The beauty of science is not in it's conclusions, although we have benefited from them, but that it is a process of examination. If anyone disagrees with a theory, they are free to explore and test for themselves."

"In principle, yes, but in principle one is free to argue with Theology too. 11.4 GB

There is absolutely no 'freedom' for theological discussion when dealing with a viewpoint that believes in a LITERAL interpretation of the bible, especially regarding the old testament.

"The beauty of science is not in it's conclusions....... but that it is a process of examination."

No one in their right mind would argue 'bought' or 'biased' science with predetermined results from research directed at bolstering profits or politics....is actually 'science'. The 'process' of 'science' defines what science IS.......not the politics or other corrupting influences that take place afterwards, (or beforehand).

There are so many competing and fractured religious beliefs, it makes it difficult to define anything about 'religion' and it's process for discovery or disagreement. You have to first specify WHICH particular religion before you can even talk further about ANYTHING.

Idealistically....religion SHOULD be a means for discovery too. Realistically....it usually isn't.

Idealistically....religion SHOULD be a means for discovery too. Realistically....it usually isn't.

I agree with you on that, it's just that I think it also applies to science, tho it may not be quite as visible right now since science controls meaning.

There is indeed freedom to criticize theology, perhaps not for what fundamentalists misname as 'theology', but in, for example, the RC tradition, there is ongoing critical debate on theology. The idea of 'God' evolves, in our likeness, so to speak, as we become more civilized.

I see you have a bias against religion, so I don't want to discuss that topic any further.

GB 11.6- I can understand you reading that I "have a bias against religion", into what I said. But my strong feelings are reserved for those who attempt to 'impose' their religious beliefs upon others, through manipulation of the laws; education; media; and social conventions. Closed mindedness affects both science and religion at times.....you are quite right about that.

By the way....I attend church, my 'bias' is against 'isms' ....like totalitarianism.

you, like many others fail to acknowledge that social darwinism and darwinism are separate disciplines with different applications and foundations.
To equate them is illogical and a shaky base from which to extrapolate.

The flawed premise that these two subjects are close enough for their not to be any applicable difference is what I gauge others opinions on. If you equate them, you've swallowed the bait.

I'm not picking a fight with you, you have obviously given this some thought and I appreciate the effort. I'm simply pointing out something you and many others and initially myself think/thought.

Political Dictionary: social Darwinism

A term not widely used in Europe and America until after 1880 and then almost invariably employed as a pejorative tag, to mean the belief, based on a (?mis-)reading of Darwin, that natural selection entails the elimination of weak societies, or people, by strong ones. Popular in the innocent 1890s, social Darwinism seemed wholly discredited after Nazism. Some have seen its recurrence in sociobiology, which has therefore been controversial; but the 'new social Darwinism', if that is what it is, is based on the new genetics, which shows that Darwinism entails none of the racist or eugenicist inferences that were widely made between the 1890s and the 1930s (that one part of the human race is genetically superior to another, or that it is feasible and desirable to breed exceptionally good offspring from exceptionally good parents).

Part of the difficulty in establishing sensible and consistent usage is that commitment to the biology of natural selection and to 'survival of the fittest' entailed nothing uniform either for sociological method or for political doctrine. A 'social Darwinist' could just as well be a defender of laissez-faire as a defender of state socialism, just as much an imperialist as a domestic eugenist. Many of the foremost thinkers conventionally labelled 'social Darwinist' established their arguments independently of the findings and methods of Darwinian biology. This is the case, for instance, with Spencer and W. G. Sumner, the former being an unrepentant Lamarckist and dedicated believer in the inheritance of acquired characteristics, the latter an enthusiastic disciple of Malthus. With all of this in mind, it may very well be that the term 'social Darwinism' has merely a narrow rhetorical and ideological usage and consequently is of only passing historiographical interest.

— John Halliday/Iain McLean

Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: social Darwinism

Theory that persons, groups, and "races" are subject to the same laws of natural selection as Charles Darwin had proposed for plants and animals in nature. Social Darwinists, such as Herbert Spencer and Walter Bagehot in England and William Graham Sumner in the U.S., held that the life of humans in society was a struggle for existence ruled by "survival of the fittest," in Spencer's words. Wealth was said to be a sign of natural superiority, its absence a sign of unfitness. The theory was used from the late 19th century to support laissez-faire capitalism and political conservatism. Social Darwinism declined as scientific knowledge expanded.

Darwin wasn't a sociologist, I would love to have you provide evidence of his inbreeding experiments.

Using an extreme example, Darwin and his wife and two close couples experimented with his theories firsthand producing two generations of deformations and retardation as a result of inbreeding.

Are you suggesting that Darwin married his cousin as an experiment?

We always measure in terms of what we want the answer and underlaying value structure to be!

So by this, do you mean that you don't accept a justification for something unless that's something you want to accept? Just trying to understand what that means exactly.

Reality must begin to be defined in terms of simultaneous and infinitely unfolding events rather than singular, linear, progressive categories of deceased information.

Also, by this do you mean that you can't define what happened in the past because it isn't currently happening?

Reality must begin to be defined in terms......

says who? I have to throw imperical logic out the window just because some cypher on the internets says so?

Try harder.

I was just asking John Gil what that meant. Trying to figure out what some of that would mean. Big words strung together on very little sleep makes a poor reader out of me.

On reading some of these comments, I am reminded of the legal process wherein the typical trial lawyer has three approaches:
1--If the facts are in your favor, argue the facts.
2--If the law is in your favor, argue the law.
3--If neither are in your favor, assassinate character.

Ben uses the character of 'Darwinism' to attempt to assassinate. By linking Darwin to Nazi (both separated by 100 years) the implication is that if Naziism was wrong, Darwinism must also be. Problem, as I stated above, is that Darwin merely started the Theory of Evolution. The present day Theory may have its historic link to Charles Darwin, but has come so much further than he could ever have imagined. IMHO Ben's only success is creating an anger over alleged (and shown to be false) injustices to scientists and linking that to injustices to IDers. And he only succeeds where those who are unfamiliar with either are willing to follow his lead and not find out for themselves.

By linking Darwin to Nazi (both separated by 100 years) the implication is that if Naziism was wrong, Darwinism must also be.

post hoc ergo propter hoc

-J

And he only succeeds where those who are unfamiliar with either are willing to follow his lead and not find out for themselves.

Unfornately, many who go to the movie that are already inclined to support it probably aren't going to do any independent research when they leave the theater. They are probably just going to fell justified in their righteous indignation that ID isn't taught as science.

Reality must begin to be defined in terms of simultaneous and infinitely unfolding events rather than singular, linear, progressive categories of deceased information.

I like the idea of unfolding events mutually influencing each other instead of the linear as well. That's how the universe appears to me.

Next I would like to prove that the theory of relativity not only wrong - it is just a theory, you know - but also a culprit in the increase of divorce in the West:

It's true. Once I found out about the curvature of space time I just gave up on relationships.

This article is the most delightful thing I have read for a long time on Newsvine. I actually found myself laughing almost hysterically for a minute or so, struck by the scope and the absurdity of Stein's convictions... hours after reading it.

I would, however, like to add something relatively (there it is again) serious about the matter:

If a student wrote anything nearly as ill-informed as this in a science paper, you would have to flunk him or her. I think "teachers" like Stein are doing people a great disservice. Incompetence and a complete inability to understand the requirements of the social and professional context they are involved in are probably the main reasons why people who go on and on about creationism or Intelligent Design are fired. It is not berufsverbot as such - unless you think it is unfair that stupidity mixed with attitude problems mixed with quotations from preachers in silk suits and Italian shoes is punishable with unemployment.

If a student wrote anything nearly as ill-informed as this in a science paper, you would have to flunk him or her.

Ah, but this is why they're writing laws to protect the numskull students who will repeat this drivel. In about 5 states the Discovery Institute is pushing "academic freedom" laws making it a crime to flunk a student for doing poor science or to fire a teacher for teaching poor science.

From the comments to above article offered by badkungfu for my enlightenment:

"Freedom of speech" should protect math teachers who teach that 2+2=5?

I see what you are saying. I am almost sorry I laughed. Of course I have heard about the issue, but I can see that you guys are in a bad way. As a European I don't really get how important this is in the USA, I guess. But let me say this: If you open up this avenue, you are going straight back to the ramblings of Mideval clerics. Next up: Book burnings. It will turn on you like Islamism in the Middle East, and all progress will be lost. USA will become a case of universal ridicule for having squandered a tremendous lead in the fields of science and technological innovation.

I know it sounds like a doomsday prophesy, but there are no two ways about it. Protect your education facilities. I'm not saying that religion is superstition, even if it may very well be (being polite here), but in the context of science it should be treated as such.

Why can't they teach creationism in religion classes? Don't you guys have classes in religion, or society, or whatever?

Why can't they teach creationism in religion classes? Don't you guys have classes in religion, or society, or whatever?

It's been considered or tried in a few places but it runs into a few problems. The textbooks either lack any semblance of objectivity (what?! The King James Version isn't objective?)

If the text is too objective then parents get upset because they don't want to see the pros and cons of Judaism or Christianity discussed alongside the pros and cons of other religions. Everyone knows there are no "cons" in Christianity...and only one in Judaism.

Claus Jacobsen 14.4-

The argument of where and when religious topics can be taught revolves around the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights:

Bill of Rights Amendment I
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

That has been traditionally been interpreted to imply a 'Separation of Church and State', and that interpretation has prohibited the teaching of religion in 'public' schools.

Of course, parents are free to send their child to a private religious affiliated school or to 'Home-School', and they have most of the hours of the week at home to teach religious subjects, and of course Sundays for Sunday-school. Most, if not all colleges, public or private also offer elective classes in the history and philosophy of religion as well.

Many religious believers want religion classes offered in the lower public schools, and the debate is even more heated among the Fundamentalist or Conservative believers, who want their 'beliefs' taught alongside science.

There is a great deal more to the issue, I'm barely skimming the surface....and even that much is giving me a headache.

Why can't they teach creationism in religion classes? Don't you guys have classes in religion, or society, or whatever?

They are threatened by the perceived implications of evolutionary theory (e.g. godlessness), and see creationism as a way to both spread the gospel and to upend science. Just putting their particular creation myth in the context of a comparative religion class would not be good enough for them because they want students to replace science with religion. This strategy was outlined in the Discovery Institute's 'Wedge Document'.

Tracie Ivy 14.7-

I agree with you....but I think you need to define who 'They' are. I don't have any way of knowing how much about the issue a western european (which CJ stated he was), is familiar with.

I agree with you....but I think you need to define who 'They' are. I don't have any way of knowing how much about the issue a western european (which CJ stated he was), is familiar with.

Good point, Dubbya. 'They' in my response are the advocates of teaching creationism in public schools.

Thanks for linking to the Wedge Document, Tracie.

In Europe we have a secularized teaching on religion in public schools with some preference for the basics of Christianity, but also demanding that other religions are explained. Most people stick to some kind of watered down version of Christianity that does not have much of an impact on their lives, except it sets some basic guidelines about moral behaviour, such as "do unto others".

Of course, we have a religious right wing too. They think what is served up in religion classes is too shallow, but most respect the democratic discourse, and children are allowed to question religious doctrine. If teachers step out of line and start praying in classes, or indoctrinate, there are disciplinary cases.

For some reason it is not such a divisive issue. Even theologians are required to have some sort of objectivity, and there are those who say that taking (such) a theology study is the safest way to lose faith. They have to check sources, the historical origin of different doctrines - such as creationism - and research the development of theology on the mechanical level.

Still, a lot of the students that graduate and become priests, are believers. It seems to work pretty well. I think the whole principle of applying critical reasoning to every topic is more efficient than leaving families to work these things out on their own, in home schools or in Sunday-schools, or whatever religious communities offer up as teaching. Critical thinking. Method. Nothing beats that stuff. It will take you far in life, protect your integrity and even save your soul from falling into the hands of religious demagogues.

Oh, and it's giving me a headache too now, Dubbya. It was much easier, when I could just laugh it off.

We had a German postdoc in our lab a few years ago (who was also named Klaus), and he had the same reaction as you, Claus. He wanted to laugh because the idea of teaching Biblical creation in science class is obviously so ridiculous, but when he realized how serious the threat was, he became as frustrated and angry as we were.

It's a sad state of affairs indeed. The only bright spot is that so far, the courts have unequivocally ruled that creationism, in all its forms, is unacceptable as science in public schools.

*great song, by the way. that one's on my iPod.*

Claus Jacobsen-

I know next to nothing about even the British school system, let alone any other European countries. But you are fortunate it is not a divisive issue. Most of the push for creationism to be introduced into the schools, is being done by Fundamentalist Christians....who become hostile when I have asked the obvious question of.....

.........' WHO gets to choose WHICH religion gets taught?'.

Tracie,

I still enjoy bright memories of Nick Cave performing this song, when I saw The Bad Seeds live. There'd be a red spotlight on his hand, when he raised his hand and chanted the chorus. It was great.

The only bright spot is that so far, the courts have unequivocally ruled that creationism, in all its forms, is unacceptable as science in public schools.

Which is required. It's good that the courts back the constitution - or particular interpretation of the constitution - and I guess that highlights the importance of how the supreme court judges are apponted.

I visited India right after the election of the far right Hindu nationalist party, and it was interesting how there was an immediate surge in religious reminders. In the Nehru planetarium I saw a scientific movie about the solar system and the stars, which opened with a dramatic statement that in the beginning Brahman, Atman and Shiva got together and decided to form the universe. That was mind-boggling.

Dubbya,

I am thinking like crazy trying to figure out what the main difference is. We have regular inflows of charismatic revivalist movements in Europe, imported from USA, but they never really get seated. We have all the same issues, but on a miniature scale. The only ones who seriously act like they are called to rewind the system back to theocracy is a fringe faction of radical Islamists - even Islamists can be moderate, you know, believing that Islamic rule would be better than secular, but being too lazy to really push for it.

Aside from the obvious socio-economic interpretation that Obama tried to use, but got in trouble with, I can't seem to think of one deciding factor that makes the religious right in USA so much pushier than over here. I read up on creationism, and I can understand your frustration - the arguments are so blatantly absurd that you almost want to give up. But I noticed one thing: Creationism is not such a big deal for Catholics, and the Wikipedia states it is due to less emphasis on layman's interpretation - it is left to the clerics to do theology, and as such avoid simplistic interpretations like the "young earth creationism". In other words: It's a Protestant thing.

This still does not explain the geographical/cultural discrepancy, but it hightlights another thing that may offer a ray of hope: It is the open discussion about religion that brings about this conflict, and in a sense the desperate overreaching from the US religious right is a symptom that their world view is failing to the point where they may make their faith obsolete by constantly pounding on the issues, where science and religion are at odds. It seems like a losing game, while Christianity could possibly survive as a moral doctrine, if it placed less emphasis on metaphysical speculation.

That is, unless they "win" and actually manage to introduce the religious paradigm as the dominant one. Then we'd all be forced to watch every episode of Left Behind *shudder*

Claus-

"Then we'd all be forced to watch every episode of Left Behind *shudder* "

Speaking only for myself....I'd much rather be 'left behind' than spend eternity with a bunch of narrow-minded hate-fiilled idiots.

Dante's First Circle would be much more interesting for such a long stay....well assuming they'd let me in.

The history of our country is a bit of a mixed bag sometimes. The bible was normally taught as a regular part of public school commonly. In 1925 the state of Tennessee passed a law forbidding the teaching of any material that denied the creation story of the bible, as a direct reaction to the growing interest, and teaching of, Darwin's research
Subsequently a public school teacher named John Scopes was charged under that new law, for teaching evolutionary theory.

I'm frankly too new at posting to know how to provide links, but you can look up the 'Scopes Trial', or 'Scopes Monkey Trial' of 1925. This was a landmark case that basically began the war between science and religious instruction in the public classroom.

I do wonder where we would stand at this point, if the conservative Christians of that time hadn't made a fuss over the teaching of evolutionary theory........but they did, and perhaps eventually lost more than they gained.

"desperate overreaching from the US religious right is a symptom that their world view is failing to the point where they may make their faith obsolete by constantly pounding on the issues, where science and religion are at odds. It seems like a losing game,"

In the long term that may prove to be the case....but right now the 'Religious Right' still has a good deal of political muscle, (faded and fading but still a force). As long as politicians are afraid to stand up to them; and as long as the public is too easily duped by their marketing strategies, (like Intelligent Design)......then there will be a tug of war over control of the public classroom.

Most, I think, of our citizens believe that freedom of religion also should mean freedom FROM religion....or at least the imposition of it.

By the way.....in spite of all the words that are used claiming our country was settled FOR religious freedom....the first colonists (Jamestown), came here on business.

Dubbya, thanks for the references.

I'm frankly too new at posting to know how to provide links,

You highlight the word or phrase you want to use as a link, and then you click the Link button above the comment text field. Copy-paste (CTRL+C/CTRL+V) the link from the browser navigation field into the text field in the pop-up. Click OK, and you are done.

It's a similar procedure when doing Bold, Italic or Quote. If you want to get into the fancy tricks, like crossing out words or posting them in different colours, just highlight the text when other people do it and right click, then choose "view source" and copy-paste. I got a text document with codes on my desk top to make it easier.

Claus-

Thank you. Video and stills are my first language.....words are a second language at best.

Your point/question regarding Protestantisms role in all of this is worth considering.

But personally I think Europe's more relaxed about it....because of all that good wine. Who wants to argue when there is a good bottle of Merlot handy and waiting?

............Waiting For Merlot'............ought to be a book.

Dubbya,

Regarding your comment about the First Circle: I can't think of anything worse than being forced to watch Left Behind. Perhaps only being forced to watch Battlefield Earth. Send me anywhere that doesn't show movies like that.

Why is it that the quality of a movie is reverse proportional to the level of religiosity behind it? One of life's many mysteries.

Claus-

One last thing, because I have to abandon this electronic window for a few days........

I hate describing all this as a 'battle'....but it is, and the 'battleground keeps shifting. With ID/Creationism losing in the courts (so far), it has shifted to the battleground of 'Public Opinion'. Which is the danger of Ben Stein's pesudo-reason/logic. When public opinion is pitted against science, science too often loses. You have every right to laugh at us while sipping your "effete and decadent coffee"....it's a really stupid situation we have.

Claus-

Re: "I can't think of anything worse than being forced to watch Left Behind."

Haven't seen it, don't care to. Any religion that treats itself as a 'special' club or fraternity, with a heaven reserved for exclusive membership...is no club I want to join.

'Are you a good human being'....is a much better criteria.

I'm officially calling bull@!$%#. There are a lot of bogus stories about Darwin, and this sounds like one of them. I have heard that he worried about his children having problems because he married his cousin (that's true), but I haven't found any sources to indicate that he purposefully married his cousin in order to test his theory (which really has little to do with interbreeding) or that he got his theory from the results of marrying his cousin.

John, you are completely wrong. First, it was very common for people at the time to marry first cousins. So, Darwin wasn't doing anything off the wall when he married his cousin, Emma Wedgewood. Second, inbreeding at that level does not tend to cause the gross genetic disorders that you suggest (see the same article). Third, Darwin was not the sort of person to do experimentation on humans. Biographies suggest that he was an open-minded person for that time and believed in social justice and equality. He also loved his children very much. I suggest to everyone the book, Darwin, His Daughter, and Human Evolution.

Our cells are made up of 99.9% pure space though we still maintain that we are physical beings! That's illogical!

How so?

Darwinism versus Social Darwinism...whatever

seems to be your point, you bury it in the middle of your comment.

i've studied atomic and sub atomic physics recreationally, just as I've studied philosophy, socialogy and a bunch of other stuff.
When it comes to studying the basis of reality as she is percieved by humans then as far as I know, no substitute for empirical logic has ever superseded it.

I'm difficult to confuse and one thing I believe is that it's hard to bull@!$%# a bull@!$%#ter.
I am most definitely a well worn veteran of bull@!$%#ters.

You can offer interesting perspectives regarding the constitution of matter and forward that because there is little to them atomically then perhaps the very foundations of our perceptions are misplaced, but really, this is parlor conversation, the sort of tricksterism engaged in by second year philosophy students towards doe eyed freshwoman in lubricated snugs on campus.

I aint one of them and 'whatever' however prefaced, does not a coherant argument make.

That is fine but that would mean there is no Darwin in the statement Ben gave in his film on relating to science and killing (eugenics) others. It should be Spencer, agreed?

Similarities between social darwinism and darwinism? No. Social darwinism relied on a complete misunderstanding of darwinism. It is more "survival of the fittingest" than "survival of the fittest". Nature does not reward the strongest, or smartest, etc. only the ones who reproduce the most. Properly understood then darwinism is completely opposite of social darwinism.

#22 JG-

You were asked by me for a clarification in # 20 about a statement you made in your #19....you responded with apparent hostility, but no clarification.

In 15.1 Adam Kemp, You were asked to verify an assertion you made in your #15. In your #23 you failed to do more than suggest the answer wasn't important.

"Focus on my concerns and avoid trying to convert my message if you wish to converse with me. Fair is fair. I was quite clear."

It's not really my intent to start an argument, but if you WERE clear, you would not have been asked to provide either a clarification OR verification.

I don't think that anyone asking for clarity and accuracy is at all unfair.

Brian,

Please, there is no darwinism but what what the writers made up for Ben to use.

The phase "survival of the fittest" was coined by Spencer not by Darwin. So what I am referring to are the lies and half truths Ben gave in his film just with this one concept!There is no telling how many other lies he told in the film and that makes all the difference.

how is it that the result 'appears' to be physical?

Um... because one clump of solid matter won't pass through another such clump.

Brian pretty much summed it up. Just because there is space between the subatomic particles does not mean that matter can't act like a solid. You can't ignore the forces the exist between those particles. Those forces are what cause that matter to behave as if that space isn't there. Just like two magnets can repel each other so that it is hard to push them together despite the fact that there is nothing between them. It's just air, right? Well, it's air and a force. The forces between subatomic particles are much stronger than that.

You therefore must know something that I do not know with undeniable evidence.

When you post something that is ridiculous and refuse to back it up then I'm calling it bull@!$%#. Support it with evidence or don't bother posting it. You can whine about my demand for evidence all you want, but you can't just make @!$%# up (or repeat something someone else made up) and expect us to just accept it. There is a lot of completely made-up bull@!$%# out there about Charles Darwin. Creationists just love to make up false claims about him in order to attack his character because they're no good at attacking his actual theory. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the little piece of BS you spouted above is one of those made-up stories from some creationist moron.

The more threads I read with you involved Iarnuocon the more I like what you have to say. It's always entertaining.

"The more threads I read with you involved Iarnuocon the more I like what you have to say. It's always entertaining."-finalcut 23.4

Ditto.....these threads are what I'm NOT getting from the morning newspaper.

iarnuocon- If you are being published, I'd like the info.....(unless you want to retain anonymity).

If you tain't....ya orta be.

I secnd what iarnuocon said. John, you use a lot of words, but none of it makes any sense.

iarnuocon,

I'm jealous. I want easy game like this to appear in my column as well. Why do you get all the good ones? It's not fair.

John Gil re: 26-

" They clearly are not permitted to use insight to validate their pathetic presence on this Earth."

Personally speaking: my intellect; powers of discourse; or educational attainment in specialized areas.... may be open to polite debate.

But at least I didn't attain MY 'insight'(s) devouring hallucinogenics.

Probably because I'm 'pathetic'.....although, after reading your post.....I do notice my eyes are rolling a bit.

Dubbya, are you blind? My apologies if I offended you with that analogy...