Indeed, since the whole point of science is to learn then we would be remiss if theories, themselves, did not evolve based on the experiments devised to explore them. That is the "fallacy" that the flat-earthers base their argument on. And because they are creatures of unnassailable faith, nothing we can say will put a dent in that.

Well, I'm off to a New Year's Day party to see if my theory that Illinois can prevail in the Rose Bowl has any merit. ;->

Well, I told you months ago that Pat Lang thought her FoPo manifesto was the best he'd seen and he is the epitome of pragmatic non-interventionism. Obama is a neocon and clearly more of a Republican than Bloomberg.

Nutbar!!!!

Recently, Margulis has leant her support to 9/11 conspiracy theories, calling the September 11, 2001 attacks a "false-flag" operation of the United States government itself.

In addition to his anti-crime work, Bloomberg is an avid supporter of gun control stating, "I don't know why people carry guns. Guns kill people." As mayor he increased the mandatory minimum sentence for illegal possession of a loaded handgun. In regard to the change, Bloomberg commented, "Illegal guns don't belong on our streets and we're sending that message loud and clear, we're determined to see that gun dealers who break the law are held accountable, and that criminals who carry illegal loaded guns serve serious time behind bars." [25] Bloomberg formed Mayors Against Illegal Guns in May 2007, an organization made up of 210 mayors who are supportive of gun control.

Bwahahahaha! One NRA attack ad and he's toast!

But then again, I'm arguing with someone who called WT a warmonger.

-- Paul Dirks

David Boren is an epicene war-monger, a flaccid CIA afficianado, and a bulbous piece of shit. Plus, he's an asshole like his friend, Joe Lieberman. Putting them together with Michael Bloomberg would only raise the pyramid of assholery. Trust me, no matter how much money these guys bring to the table, they will be exposed for the assholes that they all are.

If I hadn't spent so many years seeing the direct, and sometimes catastrophic, result of these nasty bugs then I don't suppose I would be so exasperated with people who like to throw out the "theory" of evolution yet rush to take advantage of every damn thing that's resulted from the advancement of science since that "theory" came about.

We now have young, healthy people dying of community acquired MRSA, something that hasn't happened with staph infections since the discovery of penicillin fer Gawd's sake, and we're supposed to waste time on the educational smoke-screen these people throw up so that we can go back to that time faster?

It's a huge waste of time and lives and they are too narrow-minded to even realize how destructive their ill-founded putsch is.

I could say that I hate to tell you I told you so - but I don't.

I told you so.

:-)

The "divinely inspired" constitution? And he's the most equivocating, pandering, dog whistle politician I've seen in years but if your ear isn't attuned to the freakwency he blows his whistles at - extremist wingnuts - most just don't hear it. It looks like Dave Neiwert was right all along.

Yes, L.W.M., you did. Her recent statements, on the other hand, were about developing situations -- where neither all the facts, nor the outcome of events were guaranteed to confirm her opinions. Policy papers can always be disavowed, or qualified. Speaking ex tempore on the basis of those policy papers is quite another kettle of fish, especially in the midst of a campaign. I give her credit for that, and wonder if it's because she now believes that her nomination is assured.

But then again, I'm arguing with someone who called WT a warmonger.

-- Paul Dirks

I spend most of my time chiding William for being too much of a pacifist and absolute non-interventionist bordering on isolationism.

You've misunderstood me. Truly. I'm neither a pacifist nor a non-interventionist, but when I think of intervention, I don't generally think of pointing guns at people, or moving aircraft carriers around, not immediately, anyway. I hate shortcuts, especially those which tend to get people killed for no apparent reason other than to demonstrate that we can kill them.

and wonder if it's because she now believes that her nomination is assured.

-- William Timberman

I'm not sure that it is but I have always factored in the tendency for her to "exaggerate the swaggeration" because she is the only female in the field. If the worst thing that happens to this nation for the next four (or 8) years is a Hillary Clinton presidency, we should be so lucky.

Sorry for the in& out.

Dirigo/Ondo: Read the McClatchey news acccount about the info Bhutto was handing over to Kennnedy & Specter.found another article in Australhttp://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22996636-25837,00.html

ian News. Heres' link

Says she had info that US was funding the ISI election-rigging and that she had proof. Not sure M. mentioned that.

sorry to rush out-D. loved the Eli Kazan poem.

I wonder how the Democratic candidates would answer the same question?

They all feel it necessary to talk about their "faith", it wouldn't surprise me at all to hear at least one or two waffle about evolution.

I beleive that the Universe operates in a "lawful" manner and that the tools of science are valid ways of discovering the nature of those laws. While their may be wiggle room in various scenario's concerning the rates of change (steady on a genetic level vs rapidily on a speciation level), the basic premise of evolution is as thoroughly based in fact as is the basic premise of gravity or entropy.

That is utter bullshit. We do not even have a decent theory of abiogenesis. You do not still buy that 'little warm pond' codswallop do you? We do not have a decent explanation of animals we see today other than a Panglossian one.

You are also hand waving; we both agree that things were in a non-life state, then in a simple state, and then in a complex one as we see today. Things have changed a lot since the big bang. (remember how Darwinists used to call the big-bang theory 'religion in disguise'?) But the 'theory of evolution' is a theory that tells us how thing change, not that they do. Darwin's theory is dead in the halls of real science; why do we fight to give the kids the Darwinist pablum today?

Hell, even Catholic schools teach that things evolve.

The real answer is that Fred Hoyle may just be correct; but we are damn sure not going to tell kids in government school what he thought, or what Margulis thinks.

As such, "belief in evolution" is a pretty good one-up indicator of a belief in rationality. ...

But then again, I'm arguing with someone who called WT a warmonger.

-- Paul Dirks

But everyone believes in change over time. Everyone believes in evolution as defined. It is when you hand-wave and claim you know how it happened that you claim to know a lot.

Give this a read:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed80.html

and tell me where Fred is wrong --- and he was a journalist for a long time. An atheist also, if I am not mistaken. He wrote, " The intelligent and independent-minded wrote thoughtfully. Of the Knights Templar of Evolution, none – not one – answered the foregoing yes-or-no questions. They ducked. They dodged. They waxed wroth. They called names. ..." and that is the way reality really is.

PS: We can do WT is a god damn warmonger some other time; you tossed that in to evade.