Comments on: Fairness Doctrine Watch: A preemptive strike http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/06/fairness-doctrine-watch-a-preemptive-strike/ news and commentary from a conservative perspective Tue, 14 Feb 2012 04:13:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: nicks site http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/06/fairness-doctrine-watch-a-preemptive-strike/comment-page-1/#comment-1135723 nicks site Sat, 09 Jul 2011 16:43:09 +0000 http://michellemalkin.com/?p=21042#comment-1135723 <strong>Superb website...</strong> [...]always a big fan of linking to bloggers that I love but don’t get a lot of link love from[...]…... Superb website…

[...]always a big fan of linking to bloggers that I love but don’t get a lot of link love from[...]……

]]> By: ArizonaNeanderthal http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/06/fairness-doctrine-watch-a-preemptive-strike/comment-page-1/#comment-613466 ArizonaNeanderthal Fri, 06 Feb 2009 07:34:25 +0000 http://michellemalkin.com/?p=21042#comment-613466 The <a href="http://www.acuratings.org/2007all.htm#SC" rel="nofollow">American Conservative Union</a> gives Senator DeMint a 98.22 rating voting Conservative. Senator Obama got a 7.67. Interesting that 7.67 number-rather close to a pistol bullet caliber 7.62 Nagant, the pistol the NKVD used to exterminate the Polish Officer Corp at Katyn. Stalin is being rehabilitated at the same time Obama is being worshiped and William Ayres is being accepted mainstream. --- That every man be armed-you too ladies The American Conservative Union gives Senator DeMint a 98.22 rating voting Conservative.

Senator Obama got a 7.67. Interesting that 7.67 number-rather close to a pistol bullet caliber 7.62 Nagant, the pistol the NKVD used to exterminate the Polish Officer Corp at Katyn. Stalin is being rehabilitated at the same time Obama is being worshiped and William Ayres is being accepted mainstream.

—
That every man be armed-you too ladies

]]> By: Durangodarlin http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/06/fairness-doctrine-watch-a-preemptive-strike/comment-page-1/#comment-613377 Durangodarlin Fri, 06 Feb 2009 03:37:48 +0000 http://michellemalkin.com/?p=21042#comment-613377 There was balance in the latest election--the MSM for Obama and talk radio for McCain. There was balance in the latest election–the MSM for Obama and talk radio for McCain.

]]> By: garydt http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/06/fairness-doctrine-watch-a-preemptive-strike/comment-page-1/#comment-613248 garydt Fri, 06 Feb 2009 01:15:37 +0000 http://michellemalkin.com/?p=21042#comment-613248 When they eliminiate conservative talk radio, then they probably will go after conservative blogs on the net. After that they will tell preachers in their churches on what they can preach or if they don't they will arrest them. I see the antichrist coming fast. When they eliminiate conservative talk radio, then they probably will go after conservative blogs on the net. After that they will tell preachers in their churches on what they can preach or if they don’t they will arrest them. I see the antichrist coming fast.

]]> By: 1/7/09 Wednesday Round Up « Jane Q. Republican http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/06/fairness-doctrine-watch-a-preemptive-strike/comment-page-1/#comment-585743 1/7/09 Wednesday Round Up « Jane Q. Republican Wed, 07 Jan 2009 23:01:03 +0000 http://michellemalkin.com/?p=21042#comment-585743 [...] Congressmen and Senators sponsor a bill to prevent the passage of the Fairness Doctrine.  From the bill’s text: The Broadcaster [...] [...] Congressmen and Senators sponsor a bill to prevent the passage of the Fairness Doctrine.  From the bill’s text: The Broadcaster [...]

]]> By: Dexter Alarius http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/06/fairness-doctrine-watch-a-preemptive-strike/comment-page-1/#comment-585566 Dexter Alarius Wed, 07 Jan 2009 20:39:05 +0000 http://michellemalkin.com/?p=21042#comment-585566 <em>Meyer, S. C. DNA and the origin of life: Information, specification and explanation, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003), Pp. 223-285. (PDF, 1.13MB) Meyer contends that intelligent design provides a better explanation than competing chemical evolutionary models for the origin of the information present in large bio-macromolecules such as DNA, RNA, and proteins. Meyer shows that the term information as applied to DNA connotes not only improbability or complexity but also specificity of function. He then argues that neither chance nor necessity, nor the combination of the two, can explain the origin of information starting from purely physical-chemical antecedents. Instead, he argues that our knowledge of the causal powers of both natural entities and intelligent agency suggests intelligent design as the best explanation for the origin of the information necessary to build a cell in the first place. Behe, M. J., Design in the details: The origin of biomolecular machines, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003), Pp. 287-302 Behe sets forth a central concept of the contemporary design argument, the notion of "irreducible complexity." Behe argues that the phenomena of his field include systems and mechanisms that display complex, interdependent, and coordinated functions. Such intricacy, Behe argues, defies the causal power of natural selection acting on random variation, the "no end in view" mechanism of neo-Darwinism. Yet he notes that irreducible complexity is a feature of systems that are known to be designed by intelligent agents. He thus concludes that intelligent design provides a better explanation for the presence of irreducible complexity in the molecular machines of the cell. Dembski, W.A., Reinstating design within science, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003), Pp. 403-418. Dembski argues that advances in the information sciences have provided a theoretical basis for detecting the prior action of an intelligent agent. Starting from the commonsense observation that we make design inferences all the time, Dembski shows that we do so on the basis of clear criteria. He then shows how those criteria, complexity and specification, reliably indicate intelligent causation. He gives a rational reconstruction of a method by which rational agents decide between competing types of explanation, those based on chance, physical-chemical necessity, or intelligent design. Since he asserts we can detect design by reference to objective criteria, Dembski also argues for the scientific legitimacy of inferences to intelligent design. Stephen Meyer, "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories" Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117 (2004): 213-239. Meyer argues that competing materialistic models (Neo-Darwinism, Self Organization Models, Punctuated Equilibrium and Structuralism) are not sufficient to account for origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms present in the Cambrian Explosion. He proposes intelligent design as an alternative explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa. Lönnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119. (PDF, 2.95MB; HTML) Biology exhibits numerous invariants -- aspects of the biological world that do not change over time. These include basic genetic processes that have persisted unchanged for more than three-and-a-half billion years and molecular mechanisms of animal ontogenesis that have been constant for more than one billion years. Such invariants, however, are difficult to square with dynamic genomes in light of conventional evolutionary theory. Indeed, Ernst Mayr regarded this as one of the great unsolved problems of biology. In this paper Dr.Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, Senior Scientist in the Department of Molecular Plant Genetics at the Max-Planck-Institute for Plant Breeding Research, employs the design-theoretic concepts of irreducible complexity (as developed by Michael Behe) and specified complexity (as developed by William Dembski) to elucidate these invariants, accounting for them in terms of an intelligent design (ID) hypothesis. Lönnig also describes a series of scientific questions that the theory of intelligent design could help elucidate, thus showing the fruitfulness of intelligent design as a guide to further scientific research. Jonathan Wells, "Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62. Most animal cells contain a pair of centrioles, tiny turbine-like organelles oriented at right angles to each other that replicate at every cell division. Yet the function and behavior of centrioles remain mysterious. Since all centrioles appear to be equally complex, there are no plausible evolutionary intermediates with which to construct phylogenies; and since centrioles contain no DNA, they have attracted relatively little attention from neo Darwinian biologists who think that DNA is the secret of life. From an intelligent design (ID) perspective, centrioles may have no evolutionary intermediates because they are irreducibly complex. And they may need no DNA because they carry another form of biological information that is independent of the genetic mutations relied upon by neo-Darwinists. In this paper, Wells assumes that centrioles are designed to function as the tiny turbines they appear to be, rather than being accidental by-products of Darwinian evolution. He then formulates a testable hypothesis about centriole function and behavior that, if corroborated by experiment, could have important implications for our understanding of cell division and cancer. Wells thus makes a case for ID by showing its strong heuristic value in biology. That is, he uses the theory of intelligent design to make new discoveries in biology. Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, "Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits," Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004). (PDF, 620KB) This article underwent conference peer review in order to be included in this peer-edited proceedings. Minnich and Meyer do three important things in this paper. First, they refute a popular objection to Michael Behe's argument for the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum. Second, they suggest that the Type III Secretory System present in some bacteria, rather than being an evolutionary intermediate to the bacterial flagellum, is probably represents a degenerate form of the bacterial flagellum. Finally, they argue explicitly that intelligent design is a better than the Neo-Darwinian mechanism for explaining the origin of the bacterial flagellum.</em> Nevermind. Abstractmind says it's not science. It must be so. Meyer, S. C. DNA and the origin of life: Information, specification and explanation, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003), Pp. 223-285. (PDF, 1.13MB)
Meyer contends that intelligent design provides a better explanation than competing chemical evolutionary models for the origin of the information present in large bio-macromolecules such as DNA, RNA, and proteins. Meyer shows that the term information as applied to DNA connotes not only improbability or complexity but also specificity of function. He then argues that neither chance nor necessity, nor the combination of the two, can explain the origin of information starting from purely physical-chemical antecedents. Instead, he argues that our knowledge of the causal powers of both natural entities and intelligent agency suggests intelligent design as the best explanation for the origin of the information necessary to build a cell in the first place.
Behe, M. J., Design in the details: The origin of biomolecular machines, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003), Pp. 287-302

Behe sets forth a central concept of the contemporary design argument, the notion of “irreducible complexity.” Behe argues that the phenomena of his field include systems and mechanisms that display complex, interdependent, and coordinated functions. Such intricacy, Behe argues, defies the causal power of natural selection acting on random variation, the “no end in view” mechanism of neo-Darwinism. Yet he notes that irreducible complexity is a feature of systems that are known to be designed by intelligent agents. He thus concludes that intelligent design provides a better explanation for the presence of irreducible complexity in the molecular machines of the cell.
Dembski, W.A., Reinstating design within science, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003), Pp. 403-418.

Dembski argues that advances in the information sciences have provided a theoretical basis for detecting the prior action of an intelligent agent. Starting from the commonsense observation that we make design inferences all the time, Dembski shows that we do so on the basis of clear criteria. He then shows how those criteria, complexity and specification, reliably indicate intelligent causation. He gives a rational reconstruction of a method by which rational agents decide between competing types of explanation, those based on chance, physical-chemical necessity, or intelligent design. Since he asserts we can detect design by reference to objective criteria, Dembski also argues for the scientific legitimacy of inferences to intelligent design.
Stephen Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117 (2004): 213-239.

Meyer argues that competing materialistic models (Neo-Darwinism, Self Organization Models, Punctuated Equilibrium and Structuralism) are not sufficient to account for origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms present in the Cambrian Explosion. He proposes intelligent design as an alternative explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.
Lönnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119. (PDF, 2.95MB; HTML)

Biology exhibits numerous invariants — aspects of the biological world that do not change over time. These include basic genetic processes that have persisted unchanged for more than three-and-a-half billion years and molecular mechanisms of animal ontogenesis that have been constant for more than one billion years. Such invariants, however, are difficult to square with dynamic genomes in light of conventional evolutionary theory. Indeed, Ernst Mayr regarded this as one of the great unsolved problems of biology. In this paper Dr.Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, Senior Scientist in the Department of Molecular Plant Genetics at the Max-Planck-Institute for Plant Breeding Research, employs the design-theoretic concepts of irreducible complexity (as developed by Michael Behe) and specified complexity (as developed by William Dembski) to elucidate these invariants, accounting for them in terms of an intelligent design (ID) hypothesis. Lönnig also describes a series of scientific questions that the theory of intelligent design could help elucidate, thus showing the fruitfulness of intelligent design as a guide to further scientific research.
Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?,” Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

Most animal cells contain a pair of centrioles, tiny turbine-like organelles oriented at right angles to each other that replicate at every cell division. Yet the function and behavior of centrioles remain mysterious. Since all centrioles appear to be equally complex, there are no plausible evolutionary intermediates with which to construct phylogenies; and since centrioles contain no DNA, they have attracted relatively little attention from neo Darwinian biologists who think that DNA is the secret of life. From an intelligent design (ID) perspective, centrioles may have no evolutionary intermediates because they are irreducibly complex. And they may need no DNA because they carry another form of biological information that is independent of the genetic mutations relied upon by neo-Darwinists. In this paper, Wells assumes that centrioles are designed to function as the tiny turbines they appear to be, rather than being accidental by-products of Darwinian evolution. He then formulates a testable hypothesis about centriole function and behavior that, if corroborated by experiment, could have important implications for our understanding of cell division and cancer. Wells thus makes a case for ID by showing its strong heuristic value in biology. That is, he uses the theory of intelligent design to make new discoveries in biology.
Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004). (PDF, 620KB)

This article underwent conference peer review in order to be included in this peer-edited proceedings. Minnich and Meyer do three important things in this paper. First, they refute a popular objection to Michael Behe’s argument for the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum. Second, they suggest that the Type III Secretory System present in some bacteria, rather than being an evolutionary intermediate to the bacterial flagellum, is probably represents a degenerate form of the bacterial flagellum. Finally, they argue explicitly that intelligent design is a better than the Neo-Darwinian mechanism for explaining the origin of the bacterial flagellum.

Nevermind. Abstractmind says it’s not science. It must be so.

]]> By: abstractmind http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/06/fairness-doctrine-watch-a-preemptive-strike/comment-page-1/#comment-585527 abstractmind Wed, 07 Jan 2009 20:25:10 +0000 http://michellemalkin.com/?p=21042#comment-585527 <blockquote>On January 7th, 2009 at 2:56 pm, Dexter Alarius said: </blockquote> But you're still trying to defend something that can't be defended. Take boiling water. You nailed it, and then cut yourself down in the process when you through in the "because" reason at the end. Not really a good example though. Love is an emotion. I'm not trying to pass it off as some scientific explanation to something you can't answer otherwise. That example doesn't fit the narrative of what you're asking me to accept. Whether I can personally quantify it or not, we experience them constantly. Humans have the ability to experience emotions, can communicate them (sometimes easier than others), and their effects (both internally, physiologically, and so on) CAN be measured. Increases in pupil dialation, heart rate, etc. But still, not the same comparison. You're asking me to accept something as science that in the end, is not in fact scientifically based. I'm not asking you to justify human emotions. Stay on point. And you provide me with the fodder for the last one. While you can't hold it in your hand, it can be identified, measured, and its effects seen. Wind is no different. But using your own mentality, i dont need to be a meteorologist to know the wind is or isnt blowing outside. That is to say, for both of those examples, that there are legitimate, physical ways to measure both gravity and wind. Molecules are "invisible" to the naked eye as well, no? (unless you're eyesight is THAT good), and yet...we have a way to prove they exist. Again, you're free to believe as you wish, but..trying to throw a "well, since you cant prove me wrong, I'll just use examples of other things that are difficult to prove or quantify"...doesnt really approach the problem of ID being unscientific. Not everything is science, nor should it be. But dont come to me with "ID is scientific" when its clear there's no way to prove it is, and any proof system we use AS part of science can't justify your claim. ID isnt science. Bottom line.

On January 7th, 2009 at 2:56 pm, Dexter Alarius said:

But you’re still trying to defend something that can’t be defended.

Take boiling water. You nailed it, and then cut yourself down in the process when you through in the “because” reason at the end. Not really a good example though.

Love is an emotion. I’m not trying to pass it off as some scientific explanation to something you can’t answer otherwise. That example doesn’t fit the narrative of what you’re asking me to accept. Whether I can personally quantify it or not, we experience them constantly. Humans have the ability to experience emotions, can communicate them (sometimes easier than others), and their effects (both internally, physiologically, and so on) CAN be measured. Increases in pupil dialation, heart rate, etc. But still, not the same comparison. You’re asking me to accept something as science that in the end, is not in fact scientifically based. I’m not asking you to justify human emotions. Stay on point.

And you provide me with the fodder for the last one. While you can’t hold it in your hand, it can be identified, measured, and its effects seen. Wind is no different. But using your own mentality, i dont need to be a meteorologist to know the wind is or isnt blowing outside.

That is to say, for both of those examples, that there are legitimate, physical ways to measure both gravity and wind. Molecules are “invisible” to the naked eye as well, no? (unless you’re eyesight is THAT good), and yet…we have a way to prove they exist.

Again, you’re free to believe as you wish, but..trying to throw a “well, since you cant prove me wrong, I’ll just use examples of other things that are difficult to prove or quantify”…doesnt really approach the problem of ID being unscientific.

Not everything is science, nor should it be. But dont come to me with “ID is scientific” when its clear there’s no way to prove it is, and any proof system we use AS part of science can’t justify your claim.

ID isnt science. Bottom line.

]]> By: Dexter Alarius http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/06/fairness-doctrine-watch-a-preemptive-strike/comment-page-1/#comment-585471 Dexter Alarius Wed, 07 Jan 2009 19:56:27 +0000 http://michellemalkin.com/?p=21042#comment-585471 Why does water boil? It seems there are some here who only think about the transfer of heat, movement of molecules, and expansion of gasses-- when an equally valid answer is "to make a cup of tea". Quantify and scientifically prove the existence of Love. If you love your wife 5 cupids, how many do you love your neighbor? 3 cupids? 2? How about your kids? Also 5 cupids, or 4.5? Gravitational attraction, while quantifiable, can only be proven by its effects. You can't put some in my hand. It can't have an address or phone number. I think there are questions science can't answer, and to try to do so is meaningless. Why does water boil?

It seems there are some here who only think about the transfer of heat, movement of molecules, and expansion of gasses– when an equally valid answer is “to make a cup of tea”.

Quantify and scientifically prove the existence of Love. If you love your wife 5 cupids, how many do you love your neighbor? 3 cupids? 2? How about your kids? Also 5 cupids, or 4.5?

Gravitational attraction, while quantifiable, can only be proven by its effects. You can’t put some in my hand. It can’t have an address or phone number.

I think there are questions science can’t answer, and to try to do so is meaningless.

]]> By: Coulter vs. Lauer: What did she actually have to say? http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/06/fairness-doctrine-watch-a-preemptive-strike/comment-page-1/#comment-585461 Coulter vs. Lauer: What did she actually have to say? Wed, 07 Jan 2009 19:51:38 +0000 http://michellemalkin.com/?p=21042#comment-585461 [...] a chance to sound off against policies or ideas with which they disagree (hopefully they will still have the freedom to do so). Ann may toe the line of what is extreme, but what good and fun are tempered [...] [...] a chance to sound off against policies or ideas with which they disagree (hopefully they will still have the freedom to do so). Ann may toe the line of what is extreme, but what good and fun are tempered [...]

]]> By: rightwingrocker http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/06/fairness-doctrine-watch-a-preemptive-strike/comment-page-1/#comment-585347 rightwingrocker Wed, 07 Jan 2009 18:47:46 +0000 http://michellemalkin.com/?p=21042#comment-585347 Fairness Schmairness. My blog will continue as is with or without the "Fairness Doctrine". Anyone who wants to silence me can come meet me personally. RWR www.rightwingrocker.com Fairness Schmairness.

My blog will continue as is with or without the “Fairness Doctrine”.

Anyone who wants to silence me can come meet me personally.

RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com

]]> By: abstractmind http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/06/fairness-doctrine-watch-a-preemptive-strike/comment-page-1/#comment-585335 abstractmind Wed, 07 Jan 2009 18:32:08 +0000 http://michellemalkin.com/?p=21042#comment-585335 and twofoot... i hear ya. i'm on year 17. i can completely relate. Its all about the search, all about what it is you find the truth to be, for you. And in that respect, i'm good with whatever people believe (as long as its not harmful to others, ala RoP) As far as the fingers part, it doesnt prove there's a god. It proves i have a hand, and nothing more really. Again, to each their own..and i hope you find some resolution to your crisis, like i hope i do for my own one day. Peace :) and twofoot…

i hear ya. i’m on year 17. i can completely relate. Its all about the search, all about what it is you find the truth to be, for you. And in that respect, i’m good with whatever people believe (as long as its not harmful to others, ala RoP)

As far as the fingers part, it doesnt prove there’s a god. It proves i have a hand, and nothing more really.

Again, to each their own..and i hope you find some resolution to your crisis, like i hope i do for my own one day.

Peace :)

]]> By: abstractmind http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/06/fairness-doctrine-watch-a-preemptive-strike/comment-page-1/#comment-585332 abstractmind Wed, 07 Jan 2009 18:28:55 +0000 http://michellemalkin.com/?p=21042#comment-585332 yeah, i figured this was going to happen. <blockquote>On January 7th, 2009 at 11:44 am, Dexter Alarius said: </blockquote> Perhaps you dont need to prove the point about the watchmaker, but i can also look them up in the phonebook. In fact, to illustrate...in the Washington DC area, if you do a yellowpages.com search on "Watch Repair", I received over 658 listings. That would be 658 more listings that God's phone number. A weak, tired, and useless analogy. I expect more from you guys. Please tell me the last time you picked up the phone and called god. Or got a letter in the mail? How about a visit at the front door, or had coffee with him (and calling prayer talking to god is not exactly what I mean, so, skip that too..) Didnt think so. Dismissed on that. <blockquote> On January 7th, 2009 at 11:56 am, On-my-soap-box said: </blockquote> I didnt say evolution shouldnt be challenged either. In fact, i'm sure i said i didnt have the answer. And i'm not convinced anyone else does either. Dont take my dismissal of one aspect of the conversation for absolute agreement with another. Do i think anything brought into a science class, or a discussion for that matter, should be tested, challenged, retested...you know, the scientific method...as a matter of fact. Absolutely. Intelligent Design doesnt, at the end of the day, fall into line with anything scientific. "Something intelligent created everything." Well, that sounds nice. Until you even attempt to place the scientific method to it, and suddenly find yourself scratching your head, because there's nowhere to begin. I mean, lets take Id and apply it, so there's no question about it later. The steps of the scientific method are to: Ask a Question: <em>Did God create the Earth?</em> Do Background Research: <em>The bible...yeah, not a credible scientic journal...so where now? There's no place for me to obtain said research...</em> Construct a Hypothesis: <em>"I believe God Created the Earth."</em> Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment: <em>OOPS. Now what? I dont have anything i can apply the test to...but i'll just accept it because my religion tells me to...</em> Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion Communicate Your Results: <em>CRAP. I couldnt get past anything that required me to apply fact, and thus....well, thats a bust.</em> Evolution, even as a theory, is distasteful to me, if you want to know the truth. The conclusions seem to be haphazard or presented in a way as to seem to fit the facts and theories out there, but...no, i think things like that need to be properly vetted as well. So please dont shove an argument into my mouth i clearly wasn't making to begin with. <blockquote>Um, can I mention the Goreacle’s movie?</blockquote> You can. I think Gore is a hypocrit, playing on the fears and ignorance of others for his own personal gain. I've discussed gullible warming here before, and I'm pretty sure we're all in accord that people who swear its humans trashing everything have no clue about natural warming and cooling cycles, how the environment works on a basic level, and so on. My point, directly...is that ID isn't science. I dont know how to make it any more plain than that. If you believe god made the earth and heavens, then fine. You're entitled. But dont try to teach something as science that isnt. And we can deal with the other things people push as science, that arent, as we go as well. I'm not picky about getting rid of things that aren't true. I don't want to be confrontational, but...sometimes, just as you believe something...i feel the need to not be silent because I don't believe it. Everyone is welcome to their thought on the matter, but, science and religion are things that can sometimes mix perhaps..but ID isnt one of them. I'll stop jacking the thread, because the bottom line is at the end of the day, regardless of anything i say...if i dont agree with religion, then its clear i'm wrong. /sarc off. yeah, i figured this was going to happen.

On January 7th, 2009 at 11:44 am, Dexter Alarius said:

Perhaps you dont need to prove the point about the watchmaker, but i can also look them up in the phonebook. In fact, to illustrate…in the Washington DC area, if you do a yellowpages.com search on “Watch Repair”, I received over 658 listings. That would be 658 more listings that God’s phone number.
A weak, tired, and useless analogy. I expect more from you guys. Please tell me the last time you picked up the phone and called god. Or got a letter in the mail? How about a visit at the front door, or had coffee with him (and calling prayer talking to god is not exactly what I mean, so, skip that too..)

Didnt think so. Dismissed on that.

On January 7th, 2009 at 11:56 am, On-my-soap-box said:

I didnt say evolution shouldnt be challenged either. In fact, i’m sure i said i didnt have the answer. And i’m not convinced anyone else does either. Dont take my dismissal of one aspect of the conversation for absolute agreement with another. Do i think anything brought into a science class, or a discussion for that matter, should be tested, challenged, retested…you know, the scientific method…as a matter of fact. Absolutely. Intelligent Design doesnt, at the end of the day, fall into line with anything scientific. “Something intelligent created everything.” Well, that sounds nice. Until you even attempt to place the scientific method to it, and suddenly find yourself scratching your head, because there’s nowhere to begin. I mean, lets take Id and apply it, so there’s no question about it later.

The steps of the scientific method are to:
Ask a Question: Did God create the Earth?

Do Background Research: The bible…yeah, not a credible scientic journal…so where now? There’s no place for me to obtain said research…

Construct a Hypothesis: “I believe God Created the Earth.”

Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment: OOPS. Now what? I dont have anything i can apply the test to…but i’ll just accept it because my religion tells me to…

Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results: CRAP. I couldnt get past anything that required me to apply fact, and thus….well, thats a bust.

Evolution, even as a theory, is distasteful to me, if you want to know the truth. The conclusions seem to be haphazard or presented in a way as to seem to fit the facts and theories out there, but…no, i think things like that need to be properly vetted as well.

So please dont shove an argument into my mouth i clearly wasn’t making to begin with.

Um, can I mention the Goreacle’s movie?

You can. I think Gore is a hypocrit, playing on the fears and ignorance of others for his own personal gain. I’ve discussed gullible warming here before, and I’m pretty sure we’re all in accord that people who swear its humans trashing everything have no clue about natural warming and cooling cycles, how the environment works on a basic level, and so on.

My point, directly…is that ID isn’t science. I dont know how to make it any more plain than that. If you believe god made the earth and heavens, then fine. You’re entitled. But dont try to teach something as science that isnt.

And we can deal with the other things people push as science, that arent, as we go as well. I’m not picky about getting rid of things that aren’t true. I don’t want to be confrontational, but…sometimes, just as you believe something…i feel the need to not be silent because I don’t believe it. Everyone is welcome to their thought on the matter, but, science and religion are things that can sometimes mix perhaps..but ID isnt one of them. I’ll stop jacking the thread, because the bottom line is at the end of the day, regardless of anything i say…if i dont agree with religion, then its clear i’m wrong. /sarc off.

]]> By: LOUNGE DADDY » Pre-emptive strike on the Fairness Doctrine! Can the loss of liberty be curbed, or is it too late? http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/06/fairness-doctrine-watch-a-preemptive-strike/comment-page-1/#comment-585306 LOUNGE DADDY » Pre-emptive strike on the Fairness Doctrine! Can the loss of liberty be curbed, or is it too late? Wed, 07 Jan 2009 18:10:15 +0000 http://michellemalkin.com/?p=21042#comment-585306 [...] That release went out late last night. This is something to watch. [...] [...] That release went out late last night. This is something to watch. [...]

]]> By: twofoot http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/06/fairness-doctrine-watch-a-preemptive-strike/comment-page-1/#comment-585256 twofoot Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:26:38 +0000 http://michellemalkin.com/?p=21042#comment-585256 ID? God? Crawled out of the primordial ooze at the beginning of time? Look, I'm in the middle of a 15 year crisis of faith. Still have my bible, still open my bible. Make certain my kids are in church. But do I necessarily beleive the bible? Nope. Now, that said, I most certainly believe in God. Or, for the sake of argument, and intelligent designer. And the only proof of that I need is to look at my hand. Look at your hand. Look at the palm of your hand, fingers outstretched. Make a fist and turn your hand over so you are looking at the back of your hand. Stretch out your fingers again. Move them. Independently of one another. The human hand-for form, simplicity and function-is the most amazing piece of mechanical engineering ever devised. The chances of it being an accident are, I would guess, around the same as me winning the powerball in every single state that I run my truck through*. Every time that I pass through. That there is a God, I don't doubt. And that he or she is one h#ll of an engineer is painfully obvious to anyone who looks at themselves and the world around them. *My chances would greatly improve of winning those power balls if I ever actually bought a ticket I suppose. But hey, when it comes to gambling, I am a confirmed loser. So why waste money I could spend on my wife and kids? ID? God? Crawled out of the primordial ooze at the beginning of time?

Look, I’m in the middle of a 15 year crisis of faith. Still have my bible, still open my bible. Make certain my kids are in church. But do I necessarily beleive the bible? Nope.

Now, that said, I most certainly believe in God. Or, for the sake of argument, and intelligent designer. And the only proof of that I need is to look at my hand.

Look at your hand. Look at the palm of your hand, fingers outstretched. Make a fist and turn your hand over so you are looking at the back of your hand. Stretch out your fingers again. Move them. Independently of one another.

The human hand-for form, simplicity and function-is the most amazing piece of mechanical engineering ever devised. The chances of it being an accident are, I would guess, around the same as me winning the powerball in every single state that I run my truck through*. Every time that I pass through.

That there is a God, I don’t doubt. And that he or she is one h#ll of an engineer is painfully obvious to anyone who looks at themselves and the world around them.

*My chances would greatly improve of winning those power balls if I ever actually bought a ticket I suppose. But hey, when it comes to gambling, I am a confirmed loser. So why waste money I could spend on my wife and kids?

]]> By: Dexter Alarius http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/06/fairness-doctrine-watch-a-preemptive-strike/comment-page-1/#comment-585242 Dexter Alarius Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:15:13 +0000 http://michellemalkin.com/?p=21042#comment-585242 <blockquote>On January 7th, 2009 at 11:39 am, abstractmind said: I don’t pretend to know all the facts. But what i do know is injecting anything but science into a classroom lowers the standards by which we teach said classes.</blockquote> Um, can I mention the Goreacle's movie?

On January 7th, 2009 at 11:39 am, abstractmind said:

I don’t pretend to know all the facts. But what i do know is injecting anything but science into a classroom lowers the standards by which we teach said classes.

Um, can I mention the Goreacle’s movie?

]]>