I assert that Evolution is a non-falisifiable theory with very little evidence to support it.

To the first part: Precambrian rabbits, or, barring that, mankind bearing witness to God beaming down a new, specially created species. Falsifiability.

I would not take a single dose of a medicine founded on an equally statistically small sampling of data. Continued exploration is necessary, but the fossil record is not able to produce conclusive, primary evidence as you assert and as orthodoxy demands that we believe.

Right, because the fossil record is the only evidence for evolution. Never mind genetics, never mind vestiges, never mind atavisms, never mind the endogenous retroviruses that we share with other primates. And to say that the fossil record is statistically insignificant, well, it beggars the imagination. What kind of sample size are you looking for? What would having thousands of examples of one transitional form tell you that a handful doesn't? We're not testing bloody Vioxx here!

While I hold even less credulity for creationism under any name, the current theories are not, as you claim, fact. Better to be silent than to attack others for their beliefs when our own are based on such a tiny, tiny amount of evidence.

Even setting aside the fact that you only perceive the evidence to be tiny because your knowledge of the subject is clearly lacking, having a a tiny amount of evidence is still better than claiming, sans any evidence at all, that an undefined yet curiously deific Designer is behind the creation of life.

Who are you to name their motives? Why would you assume that they are insincere? It is a religious belief. You use similar logic to argue for your point of view as creationism uses for its own.

Please do not compare the theory of evolution to a transparent ruse attempting to sneak Genesis into biology classrooms. They are sincere in their motives, I'm sure, but their means are incredibly disingenuous. If you believe that ID was proposed in scientific good faith, then you'll believe anything.

21st century texts will one day be as old as bronze age scrolls. Science in Orthodoxy will not admit its ignorance.

I suppose I shall have to look for the Principia Mathematica and On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies among them, seeing as they too are also rather old and therefore destined to be laughed at by our descendants centuries hence. I'm sure you see where I'm going.

Forget spanking. If I ever become a parent, I'm going to do my best to discipline my children in the most absurd ways possible.

Kid breaks something valuable? Now he gets perform Julius Caesar with Dad using only Aldis lamps. And then maybe he'll have to suffer through a course on how to defend oneself against thugs with bananas (you eat the banana!). Either he'll grow up to be a fine, upstanding citizen, or he'll go into sketch comedy.

And since I should probably say something relevant and/or serious: Yes, spanking's bad. Don't spank your kids.

Hijabs don't kill women, fanatically religious men fixated on female modesty kill women, eh? No, we can't ban head scarves or mandate how people dress, but it's still troubling that we're pretty much pretending that a religiously prescribed mode of dress aimed at ostensibly shielding women from men (patronizing, I'd think) is just another fashion choice with only the potential for oppression.

Sure, we can fight the Western patriarchy, but God forbid we trample on someone else's.

The lesson is that people in general are assholes, really.

I rather doubt it. Just because something aligns with the necon's talking points doesn't necessarily mean that it's just a poor translation. As a state, Iran, like most functioning states, seems like a generally rational actor; however, that doesn't exclude their clerics from being fundamentalist nut-jobs.

Mr. Hassani is probably being hyperbolic, but I don't doubt his sincerity. This is, after all, a man who demanded that the judiciary arrest dog owners (dogs being unclean animals in Islam).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2326357.stm

So clearly he's a very dogmatic sort.

I wonder whether M. Strausbaugh's doubts about global warming are the result of studying the contrary 'data' himself, or merely being told that such data exist. Questions to ponder.

His professed admiration for Ann Coulter is revealing, though. His is not the tearing down of the great façade of political correctness and bad faith; it is provocation, plain and simple, and it is not conducive to anything other than obnoxious hyperbole. Strausbaugh likes 'balls-out' opinions? I'd invite him to join us here on the internet, where he can watch daily as a bunch of anonymous howler monkeys fling their rhetorical shit at each other in the most balls-out fashion he could want. It may be honest, but at the end of the day, he and his brethren—whether they be braying across the web, over the airwaves, or from a book—are,despite hanging their bugling, cantaloupe-sized gonads out their flies, still just a bunch of poo-covered simians who have achieved nothing more than a powerful personal stench.

Perhaps I'm being unfair; I'm certainly being hypocritical. I've been focusing on one of Strausbaugh's examples of un-sissified behavior when his definition of a 'sissy' is anything but so clearly defined. Prevarication, black and white thinking, obsessing over trivialities, not reading long books: it would seem that sissification is an extremely broad category into which he has dumped everything that he finds objectionable about society and people with little regard for how or if any of his gripes actually relate to one another.

But hell, who needs thematic coherence? Bring on the outrage! Fire the presses! We've got fucking product to move here, people!