1. Biology prof expelled from screening of 'Expelled'

Comment #148895 by Lagomort on March 24, 2008 at 1:51 pm

I have read the accounts and it all seems very obvious..

Next,
"Show me evidence that Mathis let in Dawkins because he knew he could kick his butt, any will do."

Mathis said he knew Dawkins was there. Could he be lying? Of course he could be. Where is the evidence he is?

Did Mathis say he saw PZ? Yep...he did. How could he have not recognized Dawkins if this was the case?

How do we know Mathis saw him, or people in the know saw him? Easy. The guard did not ask, "Is there a PZ Myers here?" but went straight to PZ and told him to leave. There is little reason for the guard to recognize PZ. He would have been pointed out by someone that did know what PZ looked like. How many people know what PZ looks like, but has no clue what Dawkins looks like?

Now, why would he haave let Dawkins in and not PZ? Have you heard PZ debate creationists? It is effin' brutal, and we know Mathis is afraid of him based on his previous actions when dealing with PZ.

On the other hand, everyone that knows Dawkins knows he is not aggressive and brutal like PZ. Dawkins is as Darwin as PZ is to Huxley. It stretches the imagination to imagine that, by this time, that Mathis would not know the huge differences in the Nature of these two, and that it would be in no way beneficial to let PZ in.

On the other hand, creationist tactic number one is to set-up a sheep for the slaughter. Knowing Dawkins does not debate these issues, but only really debates the circular logic used to justify the existence of God, any half-ass creationists could trip him up in front of a creationist friendly crowd. Mathis knew he had all these traits to make Dawkins look silly, and we know he had the crowd laughing at Dawkins. He also talked about Dawkins just "Melting away" the next day. Isn't more logical that he was setting this up as a promo, but the expelling of PZ, due to fear, backfired on him?

Plainly put, if you do not realize that this was a set-up, you are too damn green to deal with these people and come out on top...

2. Biology prof expelled from screening of 'Expelled'

Comment #148880 by Lagomort on March 24, 2008 at 12:46 pm

"Further to the discussion on whether Mathis knew Dawkins was present, I think that for this to be true, Mathis is guilty of being extraordinarily discourteous and rude."

No shit, really?

Of course he was discourteous and rude, he damn well has already admitted that. How does the fact that he did not let in PZ show he did not realize Dawkins was there? The main "consequence" that Mathis has been dealing with, as you have seen, is not that Dawkins got in, but the fact he explelled someone in the movie from the movie despite the title claiming the reverse behavior. How does letting Dawkins in or not change this?

I will tell you how I believe he thought this would change things. I believe he thought most people think of Dawkins as the far bigger fish. This is agreed upon by most everyone. He could also see that PZ was a freakin brute and would fight tooth and nail, while Dawkins plays by the Queensbury rules most everytime. It is easy to kick the butt of someone who plays fair, and Mathis should know this if he has been paying attention to how Dawkins handles himself.

The next day all Mathis could do was say how Dawkins melted away in front of him, and from what people say that went there, it would have very much appeared this was true to most of the creationist crowd at the film. The idea that a lion got in and poor Mathis was a sheep is ludicris. Dawkins was the sheep in that crowd, and Mathis would have known that. This works in Mathis's favor quite a bit, but the fact he "Expelled" PZ is what is getting the press more than anything. Despite this we know Mathis did in fact expel PZ and no one is doubting it.

In short, you are being played by rather typical creationist tactics, and you are falling for them. It amazes me that so many do not get it. I however have been debating these bastards for over 20 years on and off, and everything I have seen so far is standard creationist tactics.

3. Biology prof expelled from screening of 'Expelled'

Comment #148872 by Lagomort on March 24, 2008 at 12:31 pm

""Lagomort, your post #148789 where you ask for an example of debating a creationist in a public manner beggars belief. I have already discussed this with you - Dawkins does not debate creationists and has publicly stated as much and further advises that other respected scientists avoid lending credibility to creationists by debating them. We won't find examples of Dawkins debating creationists whether it meets the standards that you feel are accomplished or not. Once again, I ask you as in my original post, what evidence do you have of Dawkins debating (as opposed to brief verbal interview/radio discussions) creationists whether good, bad or ugly? ""

In other words, there is no evidence of Dawkins knowing how to debate creationists at all, yet the crowd still feels Mathis accidently let in "Satan" after throwing out a minor demon (PZ). As you see from your own statements above, there is no damn evidence for Dawkins knowing how to debate these people. Claims by people that he knows how to do this leaves me asking, "How the hell do you know he knows how to debate them when there is no evidence of it whatsoever?"

There is, however, plenty of video of Dawkins debating and confronting fundamentalists and apologists who are also creationists. He never sways them or counters their debates in any way that would ever cause one of these people to even begin to question their own ideologies when it comes to creationism, despite the fact they often bring the subject up. He, at best, shows their arguments for a god, is circular in nature. This does not have any effect on the creationist debate whatsoever.

In other words, I am sick of people saying how great a swimmer Dawkins is while he walks around the pool dipping his feet in and shaking them off. If you guys want to claim he not only knows how to swim, but is great at it, then show me picks of him at least doing the freakin' backstroke. In short, Dawkins does not know how to confront these people, and anyone who has watched his videos knows that.

4. Biology prof expelled from screening of 'Expelled'

Comment #148789 by Lagomort on March 23, 2008 at 11:41 pm

Dr Benway said: "I used to like Ben Stein the few times I saw him on that game show. He seemed pretty smart. Now I'm suspecting the show was rigged."

The memorizing of facts is the lowest level of cognitive skill used in the sciences, but often appears to be the sign of brilliance to the uneducated. Stein knows raw facts but shows no signs of critical and objective thinking whatsoever. This level of education, no matter how in depth it gets, is simply parroting, and is not science at all.

Righton said: "Saying that Dawkins is not a good debater and cant think on his feet is wrong. This is a subject he has devoted his life to."

I am very open to being shown I am wrong here. Please give me an example of Dawkins debating a creationist publicly in a successful manner. Just one will do...

5. Biology prof expelled from screening of 'Expelled'

Comment #148397 by Lagomort on March 22, 2008 at 10:31 pm

"Still, these guys do seem a bit dim. So I can't rule out incompetence. "

There is no way for me to rule it out either, but, in the situation we are all in here, with the tactics they have already shown ready to use, we must consider these possibilities at all times if we are not to fall prey to their shenanigans.

6. Biology prof expelled from screening of 'Expelled'

Comment #148347 by Lagomort on March 22, 2008 at 5:24 pm

All people had to show ID at the door, and PZ was standing beside what we have all agreed to is one of the most recognizable figures in the debates.

They also did not yell out, "Is a PZ Myers here?" the guards went directly to him. This is because he was recognized by site, not computer, and again, Dawkins was standing right next to him.

Mathis has also used this issue to explain how Dawkins "melted" right in front of him. He used this to promote the idea that when confronted, these people just "melt" away. THIS WAS THE SPIN HE WAS ATTEMPTING TO GO FOR.

He simply knew that PZ would not use the Queensbury Rules and that Dawkins would. He knew it would be easy to take someone down that tried to follow polite rules. He knew he could predict Dawkins comments based on this and have a series of set responses. This would not work for PZ as he thinks too damn fast on his feet and is willing to kick one in the groin as well as the head if he sees fit to do so.

Please people, learn who you are dealing with. If you keep thinking they are not using these tactics, you are going to be tricked over, and over again.

7. Biology prof expelled from screening of 'Expelled'

Comment #148326 by Lagomort on March 22, 2008 at 4:27 pm

""They set Dawkin's up to look foolish in front of the crowd"

Can someone please tell me how Dawkins looked like a fool? I think I missed something. "

Dawkins was laughed at by the crowd as Mathis played to the prejudices of the crowd. This has been stated by reliable people discussing the events. They knew it was because the crowd were mostly uneducated backwards religious morons, but THAT DOES NOT CHANGE A THING. The fact was Mathis knew how to play to the crowd and Dawkins was not prepared to fight back in this manner, or refused to. PZ would have fought back and it is well established that Mathis knew this. This is why he would have removed PZ but would have allowed Dawkins in as a sacrificial lamb to make Mathis look good.

Please people...learn to know the freakin' enemy. We should not be so damn green, as we have been here before many times in different ways. Stop acting as if the tactics are different for this "movie"

8. Biology prof expelled from screening of 'Expelled'

Comment #148287 by Lagomort on March 22, 2008 at 2:49 pm

The screw-up would be the same for Mathis if he had thrown-out just PZ or PZ and Dawkins. The irony does not last long based on one not recognizing Dawkins. The true irony is expelling people from a movie based on claims these same people are expelling people based on their beliefs from academia. This irony remains the same for Mathis no matter what he does, and we know he did it. If he had not recognized Dawkins, there is no good evidence that worked against him that night, as he easily made Dawkins look the fool in front of the crowd he had. I am asking, do you really think he did not know he was going to be able to do this?

One then must ask why would he do such a thing? Well, we know PZ is a street fighter and we have seen evidence that Mathis is afraid of him. We have seen nothing of the kind when it comes to Dawkins.

Now, as so many in here have stated, Dawkins is far more recognizable a figure by everyone's standard. That is why it seem so ridiculous to everyone that Dawkins got in while PZ did not. The claim is that they "threw-out the demon only to let Satan in." In reality, they knew who was the lion here based on personal experience and observation, and planned accordingly. They set Dawkin's up to look foolish in front of the crowd, and the sooner everyone grasps their tactics the better off they will be.

Stop being fooled by these people. I mean really now, haven't you people ever dealt with creationists before? Setting up the playing field in you favor is rule number one for creationists. Learn that, and learn it fast!

9. Biology prof expelled from screening of 'Expelled'

Comment #148268 by Lagomort on March 22, 2008 at 1:48 pm

Of course they recognized him. I have seen the pics from the event and he would have stood out to anyone that knew him. Of course the producers knew it was him as they have him in the damn film. Mathis had probably already realized long before this event that Dawkins was easy to handle based on his demeanor but PZ was not. He probably also knew he could play the situation to his advantage with the crowd, and did so, but only after removing PZ.

And yes, I have heard tonnes of interviews with Dawkins, and the way he handles phone calls from creationists is simply to go tell them to read a book, or go to a library. Yah know how "not well" that works here in the states? It simply makes Dawkins look elitist and in the US, the elitist label is about equal to the "liberal" label.

Another example is when he talks to people like Ted Haggard. Ted would would have been easy to shoot down simply by turning and asking him details about the science and why they do not point towards evolution, instead Dawkins response to Haggard's statements were, Want to make a bet?" and other such non-helpful remarks.

Again, as I said above, Dawkins never uses the debate techniques required to show creationists for what they are. He simply takes a position of authority, which may work for him in some venues, but does not work in the US whatsoever.

10. Biology prof expelled from screening of 'Expelled'

Comment #148238 by Lagomort on March 22, 2008 at 12:36 pm

"I trust you are not referring in your original post to the widely viewed creationist interview where Dawkins is made to look unable in answering a creationist question regarding information increase in phenotypes. "

No, I am not referring to such. The fact is Dawkins is not prepared for such debates while people like PZ Myers are prepared. PZ knows the type of crap used and is willing to fight the BS spewed by these people.

In other words, of course they knew Dawkins was in the crowd and they planned for that if it happened. They knew Dawkins would be polite and follow a civil style debate. It is as if they were street fighters and they stepped into the ring with a guy who uses the Queensbury Rules. Dawkins put up his dukes and they kicked him in the balls, but they made sure to get the ultimate street fighter out of the ring first.

Try thinking of it this way. In Darwin's day, Darwin was not one for public debate. Did he have great ideas? Did he write them out well? Of course he did or we would not be here discussing things in the same manner in which we are. Huxley, on the other hand, saw that public debate was an animal separate from simple science writing. He knew that techniques were required that are separate from simple expression of ideas. He knew debates were fights.

Simply put, Dawkins is not prepared for such debates with creationists, and, unless he decides to get prepared for such debates, he should avoid them at all cost.

11. Biology prof expelled from screening of 'Expelled'

Comment #148065 by Lagomort on March 22, 2008 at 12:17 am

"I disagree with Lagomort (#147879, above); I think that Professor Dawkins usually thinks very well "on his feet." Of course, he sometimes makes missteps, I suppose - like the rest of us, he's not perfect - but in the radio interviews and debates I've heard, he is usually polite AND funny AND intelligent AND in-your-face, all at the same time. "

Fine to disagree. Now back what you said by giving me a link to one of those debates he had with a creationists in-which he acts in the manner you suggest. I mean a real creationist, not just someone defending the existence of God or not.

12. Biology prof expelled from screening of 'Expelled'

Comment #147979 by Lagomort on March 21, 2008 at 5:41 pm

My belief is that they knew they were letting in Richard Dawkins, and had no doubt he would stand-up and question what they did to Myers. I believe it was a set-up and they had some set attacks against Dawkins ready.

The problem is, Dawkins does not, no matter how many seem to adore him, think quickly on his feet. He simply sucks at debating creationists. Does he write well? Yes, he certainly does, but debating and writing are far from one and the same.

They did not allow PZ in simply because PZ has shown himself to be able to be well prepared and think extremely fast on his feet. I believe they knew PZ could talk circles around them based on a recent interview/debate on a certain Christian talk show, and they knew they could not respond to him well-enough to keep the crowd on their side. Again, in the recent debates, PZ has shown the ability to win over the other side which frightened the producers.

In the end, I believe PZ and Dawkins are still thinking this is a fair debate waiting to happen, and it is not, and has never been so. Dawkins is polite and easy to deal with when you are a complete snake, but the fact is, PZ is a mongoose.

Rikki Tikki Tavi lives...

13. The Lava Lizard's Tale

Comment #131263 by Lagomort on February 22, 2008 at 6:33 am

Actually, dinosaur mummies are mostly replacement re-crystallization when deal with the organic tissue parts (not so much the bone)..

This does not mean tissue is not preserved as well. Here is a recent development in the past few years:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html

They are now realizing that this is probably not an isolated case, and that it was only assumed that there would be nothing, so no one looked.

14. The Lava Lizard's Tale

Comment #131237 by Lagomort on February 22, 2008 at 5:17 am

It is not true because many fossils, if not the majority of them, are not replaced at all by other minerals. Fossil Bone may have minerals that have flowed into them that may then crystalize, but most of the original bone is often still there. Can bone be replaced? Yes. Is this a universal truth? No, and we have known this not to be true for decades now.

Same with fossil sea shells. When you look at a pile of fossil Brachiopods, you are not looking at casts or replicas. You are looking at the original shells even if it saturated with other minerals. Think of it like having a dirty towel. The towel may be stiff and hard and off color, but it is not because the towel has been replaced...

Can shells be replaced with other minerals? Yes. Does this mean whenever you see a fossil shell re-crystallization has occurred and the original elements from the dead organism are gone? Not at all.

15. The Lava Lizard's Tale

Comment #131230 by Lagomort on February 22, 2008 at 4:59 am

"The molecules of a fossil are not the original molecules of the animal that died."

When the hell has this been any type of universal truth? Nice video and all that, but I would think Richard would know better than that..

16. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107702 by Lagomort on January 5, 2008 at 2:43 am

OH, and the crap about creativity without religion? The guy then asked how this would effect such arts that he names, and then adds at the end, as a seeming joke, "The Simpsons"...which invokes laughter from the audience...

How religiously orientated is the show, "The Simpsons?"

Ain't the guys that write the show mostly atheists?

17. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107698 by Lagomort on January 5, 2008 at 2:32 am

I am so freakin' sick of the argument that ignores the fact that we, as humans, are not "random."

We are selections on selection of selections to a high magnitude that nothing we have produced as humans can even be the slightest bit compared.

To treat this process as a random jumble of chemicals with no selective direction shows an ignorance so profound as to make Homo erectus, screaming with fear at an erupting volcano, sound lucid.

The fact that religious people, such as this twit wad, still do not grasp how powerful a mechanism evolution is, and treat it as a singular coin flip with no selective pressure, makes me want to STRANGLE people...

18. A War On Science

Comment #105377 by Lagomort on December 31, 2007 at 11:20 am

Some of that video is sorta bull-crap. For example, they seem to imply, that after the Scopes trial, creationism won out in America and ran amuck. In reality, the anti-evolution laws were broken so Scopes was found guilty, BUT most of America got, for the first time, to hear, due to this trial, how ridiculous the creationists sounded, and Biblical Creationism from the time took a huge hit. Creationism became a backwards ideology to most educated people at that time. The law Scopes was tried on was sorta swept under the carpet as an embarrassment for decades and was finally put to rest completely in about 1967.

The new movement came from the Russians, when, as the Russians pulled ahead in the space race, evolution started to get taught more heavily due to a desire of American educators to better compete with the world around us. This new teaching of evolution in a more direct way was seen as an invasion by the fundamentalist in the US, and it was at that time the new movement started to grow through the 70s, and into the 80s to the famous Supreme Court case on the issue. It was at that time creationism was deemed religion and not science, and at that time creationism changed its name to "Intelligent Design."

19. The Pagan Christ

Comment #102913 by Lagomort on December 23, 2007 at 11:20 pm

I do not know if anyone has done this yet, but changing it over to Santa Claus might help. We all know where Santa comes from right? It is right there in his name, correct? It is Ol' Saint Nic an early bishop.

But is it? Or, did he get replaced with a Catholic version of things over what was already there? There are numerous stories of Odin setting out and flying threw the air on his Mid-Winter hunt where he gave out nuts and candy to kids who left out their boots and stocking filled with food for his horse. These stories are strikingly like the Santa Claus stories.

Well, how do we tell if this is the case or not. Was Santa Saint Nick, or the Pagan God Odin? Well, is he was Saint Nick, he should not show up before he lived, and should not be seen around by any other name that might indicate he was actually Odin.

Enter into things "Ded Moroz." This figure looks so much like Santa that they are almost impossible to tell apart. He hands out gifts and candy like Odin did, has no reference to the Catholic church, and predates back into Pagan times. He is of Russian-Slav origins. He was imported from around Russia from other Folklore to replace the Newer Saint Nick. Since he was older, he accepted. The name also means roughly, "Father winter," or "Frost." The name would be quite reflective of Odin during his great winter hunt.

This is the same with the donkey riding, wine drinking son of a god who gets put to death by a Tyrant,, goes into hell for 3 day, only to rise again and say, "I am the way to salvation." These last traits belong equally to Dionysus as they do to Jesus, and these traits predate Christ for a long, LONG time...

20. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100302 by Lagomort on December 18, 2007 at 1:31 pm

I do not know if anyone covered this but:

"Couldn't altruism towards strangers be seen as a pre-adaptation?"

No, it cannot, as a pre-adaption is only such after the adaptation it was "pre" for, as in the term is relative to the event that must come after it. If not, you are implying a thought process to selective events, and are actually stating "Intelligent design" which, as we all know, there is zero evidence for in nature..

21. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100173 by Lagomort on December 18, 2007 at 10:45 am

For one, this "Lust to do good" is going to become Dawkin's version of Darwin's "Swimming bears."

Next, I think many theist know quite well religion was attacked by Stalin due to the competition it held with Stalin's dogma, and Stalin was in no way motivated to better mankind, or to show life is better without religion or a belief in god.

Hitler mentioned "The Creator" in Mein Kampf numerous times, and used the creator to explain the shortcomings of the jews. We could easily claim, due to this, that the Holocaust was motivated by religion. I don't argue this because religion was only a tool Hitler used, and it was not what motivated hi at all, just as it was not atheism that motivated Stalin.

More on the lust to do good:
Yes, Dawkin's lust idea has its merits, but so do some other ideas mentioned above me by other (The safe place for children aspect discussed above) as well as a general selective pressure for those to protect the population they are in as it increase the likelihood of their genes being passed on due to a more stable population as a whole, as well as getting your genes to the next generation, even if they do not come directly from you (as in the hive analogy, naked mole rats etc...)

In short, it is not a "Misfiring" but an event that was selected for. Simply put, it is not a mistake...

22. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92822 by Lagomort on December 1, 2007 at 2:20 pm

eXcomm...

This isn't, "Oh, look how good little Johnny did playing baseball. He almost hit that ball that pitcher guy threw to him!!!"

This was a debate, and Dennet had no freakin' clue what he was doing. I could not wait for this debate because I thought it was going to be slaughter with that little weasel's blood all over the walls. Instead it showed a classic example of not knowing how to play on someone else's field and Dennet missed chance after chance to kill the guy.

90% of the people that post in here show greater skills at debate than Dennet did.

23. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92798 by Lagomort on December 1, 2007 at 1:40 pm

OK, Dennet sucked.

I am sick of people that think they do not need to take the time to consider the arguments before time and work out quick responses for the debate. Dennet's "ums" and, "That is just that ol' argument" type of responses just made him look like an ass...

24. Ayaan Hirsi Ali: abandoned to fanatics

Comment #77453 by Lagomort on October 9, 2007 at 11:01 am

Maybe it is time we start to chip in somehow as well?

25. CNN Debate on Koran in Toilet

Comment #60568 by Lagomort on August 2, 2007 at 9:15 am

Oh my Lord, I just found out I am in agreement with Dennis Prager on something!

Going to take my own life now...

26. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59115 by Lagomort on July 27, 2007 at 12:02 pm

1st, as many in here noticed, there is no way that guy read the damn book before this interview...

2nd, how many times can Dawkin's answer to the same damn questions without getting a high powered rifle and just going to town on these guys?

3, Mr Dawkin's, I am a big fan, but remember, you represent us... Please represent us with a spine? (Remember that the whole, "You are a angry person," bit, is said just to make to try and act sweet to your interviewer so, if you do not, he can claim he was right about your attitude and dismiss you.)

4. Do not be afraid to show-up the guy, as, despite being a rather articulate fellow, he was as dumb as nails..

27. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57308 by Lagomort on July 18, 2007 at 8:57 pm

Ungodly writes:

"Legomart"

Oh my god, what a brilliant dig! I almost feel as if I am Live at the Apollo as we speak. You are the shizzle, my shnizzle!

28. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57260 by Lagomort on July 18, 2007 at 5:18 pm

I just remembered, I used to have a friends named PeterK that was a musician.

Pete...you ain't Greek are you?

29. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57257 by Lagomort on July 18, 2007 at 5:11 pm

OK guys, you have pulled out Hegel for Pete's sake. Hegel!!!

I would rather live in an Islamic fundamentalist nation as a jew than deal with debating freaking Hegel.

30. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57198 by Lagomort on July 18, 2007 at 2:15 pm

Her Horseshit?

What equine feces could you be talking about?

The fact that questioning a religious point-of-veiw that craps on women and believes in death to non-believers is not the same as what we see in anti-semetic thinking?

People come to America alll the time to find their dream. It certainly can be done, and is being done everyday.

Anti-gay in the US general goes by the BS that gays are trying to over exert their position, which I, of course, do not buy. In Islamic countries, how are gays treated again?

Where was she wrong on how women are treated in Islamic countries relative to the US?

31. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57109 by Lagomort on July 18, 2007 at 9:48 am

Wow, and it seems we have our own little war going on here...

OK, I wrote how people are basically delusional to compare the US to an Islamic theocracy, and I got one of those, "You obviously have not been reading the thread" responses. You know who you are. For this I would like to say, um, yes, I read all of the responses up to my posting, and I think you might of actually lost much of what the debate was about in the video, as well as in the responses in this thread...

There was an active effort for the interviewer to put the US on the same standing as much of the Islamic fundamentalists, and comparisons were made. There was also a claims of "Islamophobia," that was compared to anti-semitism, which she, and many in here, pointed out as crap.

Now we have moved onto what is the best way to deal with these situations, as in was the war a good idea, and/or are wars the right way of dealing with these type of conflicts. On this issue, I am totally ambidextrous. I believe that attacking Iraq was silly, and extremely anti-productive, and had the opposite effect that it was intended. This view only puts me into the majority of most people in the world. However, what about what happens next?

What is next?
The facts are, if the Islamic fundies get a bomb (dirty or otherwise), and find a way to get it into the US, or England, or wherever, they will use it. If a Nuke goes off in the US, or England, the US will go insane. You will have pot smoking tree-huggin hippies with crew-cuts signing up for the Marines in no time, and that is when the US will bring out the big guns. This is what the world should fear, and the world should do everything to stop this, because most of the Middle-East will be bombed flat if they even sneeze wrong after such an event, and the US will have a West Coast, an East Coast, and a Middle-East Coast...

32. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57027 by Lagomort on July 18, 2007 at 7:23 am

I have a hard time understanding people who still seem to think it is reasonable to compare the US and Islamic nations. You've rationalized the situation to a point where you are near blind. Face it, most US conservatives are flaming liberals compared to Islamic conservatives.

Over here we have people fighting over whether or not Gays can use the word "Marriage" to define their status as a legal couple. Even though I find the debate silly, you simply are not going to get that type of argument in most Islamic countries. I mean really, the daughter of our Vice President is openly gay. Show me that in the average Islamic country...

Oh, and even imagine a man over here in the US trying to tell a jury that his wife deserved a beating because she did not follow Christian law? The guy would be fried.

If a woman is raped in an Islamic country, how is she viewed? We know they are often considered the ones that brought about the rape, and may even be killed by their own family to get rid of the shame. In the US, we send rapists to jail, and our inmates tend to treat them reeeeally swell :)

This all reminds me of when a drug-addict I knew said I was no better than she was (as in I was as much a drug-addict as her) because I took my asthma medicine everyday (as prescribed). I told her she was right, as I was quite addicted to breathing.

33. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #56834 by Lagomort on July 17, 2007 at 12:39 pm

Let's do a test.

Let us take Avi, and have him run down 10 randomly picked streets in the US, and 10 randomly picked streets in an Islamic country of his choice, and have him run down the streets yelling either, "Jesus was gay, or Muhammad had sex with a Goat" based in coordination with that countries religion.

We'll see how well he does in each...and then discuss his views with him after that...

34. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #56826 by Lagomort on July 17, 2007 at 12:21 pm

I fight the American Right wing Christians as much as I can everyday, but comparing them to Islamic Fundamentalists, especially in their power over the US, is silly at best. Our great fear is they could begin, one day, to start to have as much influence as Islam does in the most liberal of Islamic states...

35. The Present Threat of the Religious Right to Our Modern Freedoms

Comment #51839 by Lagomort on June 25, 2007 at 9:12 am

""p.s where i live in arkansas gay marrige is banned, beer is banned(only works because you can drive 15 min out of town and get it) abortions are banned, and everyone goes to chruch, even me. I have to. I am only 17. Its not as bad as it sounds. NO one bugs me. You can live your life as you please as long as you don't go "preachin agiant da lord" If you are a quite atheist, you should be fine. Can't wait to get the *$#* out of here! ""

Thank you so very much. For some reason this last passage made me laugh out-loud, and made my day feel that much more grand...

36. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51124 by Lagomort on June 21, 2007 at 2:56 pm

Yeah, the guy is onto us. No one here is about using empirical evidence as a means of figuring out how the world works instead of dogma. We all think we do know, and it is just our ideas against their ideas.

Thank God I can finally admit that...

37. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50632 by Lagomort on June 19, 2007 at 6:41 am

I really thought I liked Hedges before this. I thought he was good guy, but all of his strawmen racism comments and such, that had nothing to do with what Sam Harris was saying at all, pissed me the hell off.

And, as asked above, was the guy in the middle really the Moderator? He seemed to be sent there as a left-wing promo guy thats has the singular job of blaming all things, bad and worse, on Western intervention.

What gets me, is I am very liberal and proud of it, and I thought their liberal stances was silly and shallow. I simply cannot believe Sam's ability not to lose it and just start slapping those people...

38. TB and the Question of Evolution

Comment #47196 by Lagomort on June 3, 2007 at 12:29 pm

"Natural selection is a general, self-evident, explanation for phenotypic changes observed over time. The distinction between big changes and little changes is arbitrary and indefensible. Many little changes will eventually add up to big changes. How can things be otherwise?"

Actually, most organisms are relatively stable over time. The changes we see as representing differences of "Kind", like early ungulate to whale transitions or theropod to volant theropod, happen rather quickly geologically speaking, and are not really the accumulation of tiny changes. This is why Gould and Eldridge proposed the idea of Punk Eek.

What a creationist desires is to be shown a novel trait being developed that could be used to separate a group based on "Kind" when the above article only shows selections on already existing traits.

In other words, they do not care about seeing hair becoming short, or hair becoming curly and red, but, however, desire to see the development of something like hair itself where there was none before...

39. TB and the Question of Evolution

Comment #47194 by Lagomort on June 3, 2007 at 12:19 pm

"Damg, can't the taxonomists leave a great name alone? Is it still Pachygenelius broomi? "

Yes, I do believe it is. The changes usually occur for two reasons.

1. The genus name was already being used somewhere else and they were unaware when they named the fossil...

2. They realize the newly named species was already found before time and had a different name. This is usually the case when different parts of the animal are first found, then more is found that shows a link indicating they were actually one species, not two...

40. TB and the Question of Evolution

Comment #47183 by Lagomort on June 3, 2007 at 11:06 am

Diarthrognathus is actually known as Pachygenelius now, and yes, it is a great example of an obvious transitional. So are the Morganucodontids that are usually placed under Mammaliformes for reasons that still confuse me. Thrinaxodon is one of my favorites for a form that is obviously basal to both if we are going by implied trend, but, though there are almost endless such examples, there are a few problems...

First, these have nothing to do with the above example given which would be considered within "Kind".

Next, creationist deny these as transitional due to simple variation of extinct organisms where we make claims by forcing anything we see into a transitional series...

How do we show that this is false?

Well, most creationists will avoid defining what a transitional is, and hold up croco-duck pictures. You need to hold your ground and ask them, since we are dealing with fossils which are usually skeletal in nature, "What should the osteology of a transitional look-like bone-wise?"

To do this, we must ask them to explain the osteology (basically the bone morphology and how it relates to the traits of the animal) of "C", the derived form, as well as "A", the basal group from which C is said derived, and then by way of this, we need them to tell us what they think "B" (the transitional) should look like.

At this point we usually find the creationist knows little to nothing about these issues, but they may try and avoid the issue in numerous ways, including stating misunderstandings of evolutionary terms like "mosaic" (usually by misquoting Gould). At this point you need to as them to back-up their misconception claims about what evolutionary biology says by asking them for references to their said claims. When they give you mined quotes, you need to then ask for the original statement in context.

Once this is done, you can go over, not just one detail, like post-dentary development into middle ear auditory functions, but dental developments of incisors, canines, molars, cusps, occlusion, secondary palate development, loss of particular cranial elements, the development of the enclosed mammalian braincase, atlas axis development, lumbar development, digit reduction, etc...

In the end, you make them answer to you, and do not let them run around in circles. No one can know everything, as is obvious, so a creationist will simply run to another topic when they see you might answer a question given. They will do this until they find a subject you do not know about, and then claim victory by your particular ignorance of this new subject...

41. TB and the Question of Evolution

Comment #47169 by Lagomort on June 3, 2007 at 9:40 am

Dr. Benway,
What you are referring to is geographical variations within a cline. What creationists want is to see the development of novel characteristics that would have one separate one aspect of the population from the other into a separate "Kind". Though this term is tricky as well as relative, the above does not fit into this definition well at all...

See, as you know, bacteria can be transformed by picking-up bits of DNA and adding it to their own. They can pick-up whole plasmids with antibiotic resistance that they did not have before from other strains not even that closely related to them. What is key here is that the plasmid, in most cases observed, already contained the genes for the resistance, and they were not developed in a novel manner.

Now, to a creationist, proving to them that a novel set of antibiotic resistant genes evolved purely by modification of other genes, or better yet, unrelated DNA sequences (Or the modification of RNA reverse transcriptase viral input by mutation alone,...tautomeric shifts,... Holiday junctions mismatches...point mutations ...etc...etc...) is extremely difficult to do. While we may say these are new situations, so abilities are therefore new and novel (as in the ability of some bacteria to breakdown modern synthetics) a creationist will just claim the strain has just picked-up the required tools from several other prokaryotic sources (which we know bacteria continue to try and do) and added them to their own DNA over time while we placed selection events upon them giving us this particular end result...

I do believe, if one looks at the literature involved, and the experiments done, we can see novel gene development in prokaryotes, however, even if ones proves that case, it does not go against their claim that all evolution is micro, and within "Kinds". Since they are not disputing that, the above gives little evidence for anything against their argument.

42. TB and the Question of Evolution

Comment #47038 by Lagomort on June 2, 2007 at 10:37 pm

Some of you still don't seem to get it (others obviously do).

To a creationist, such changes as mentioned above only mean variation within a "Kind", and are accepted. Bacteria to modified bacteria is variation of a kind. There is nothing that they do not really accept here (well one thing, but that is a different aspect of their debate).

You have to show something they consider one "Kind" breaking away and becoming another "Kind". If you do not show them that, then everything you say is just, "Blah, Blah Blah, Ginger!" to them...

43. TB and the Question of Evolution

Comment #46844 by Lagomort on June 1, 2007 at 11:57 pm

None of this is going to change the mind of a creationist. They believe this is still well within "Kind" microevolution. If one wants to try and show evolution to a fundamentalist, you need a lot more than the above...

44. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41326 by Lagomort on May 15, 2007 at 10:57 pm

I can't believe you people! For Pete's sake, a man has died. Albeit, and extremely Fat man, but a man all the same. So he expressed his political views? So what?

I bet you didn't know he was actually quite a liberal thinker for his time. He was actually sympathetic to the socialist movement. For example, he held many of the same basic beliefs of the National Socialist German Workers Party.

Many things had been said about him, and many of these things were quite false. One article on him once made claim he lost his virginity to his mother in an out-house. That, we all know, was a scandalous lie. It was the goat quarters in the near of the barn, not the out-house.

It was not his fault so many were drawn to him. Being that fat, one tends to gather a rather formidable gravitational force. What was a man to do?

45. Facing Off on Evolution

Comment #40577 by Lagomort on May 14, 2007 at 2:19 pm

""you're asbsolutely right Lagomort.
I will go to the back of the class and watch the brainiacs slug it out.
Yo dude.
(When I said the debate, I meant their debate- does god exist, not this one)""

Um, I know, but your comments to me had nothing to do with what I said. I was making comments on the topic of the thread, while your comments to me had nothing to do with anything I had said, hence my response...

46. Facing Off on Evolution

Comment #40537 by Lagomort on May 14, 2007 at 12:34 pm

Yo, Teapot, the name of the thread is "Facing Off on Evolution". What part of that did you not grasp?

47. Facing Off on Evolution

Comment #40505 by Lagomort on May 14, 2007 at 11:26 am

I just hate the fact that we have some smart people that believe, just because they are clever, that they do not need to do the leg work on evolutionary biology. If someone says there are no transitionals, and holds up a silly picture of a bird-crocodile to attempt to belittle you, then you should be able to discuss the fossil record with command, and destroy them...

48. Facing Off on Evolution

Comment #40475 by Lagomort on May 14, 2007 at 10:28 am

Well, I do not know why we have these people defending evolution for us as many do not know the fine details of the science. No one discusses Mueller's ratchet, or Punk Eek with any authority, and their knowledge of therapsid osteology is totally lacking...Lack.. Laa

Boobs!!! I see boobs!!! Nice Boobs too!! Boobs!!! Hey buddy, did you see the melons on her huh??? Boobs!!

What were we discussing again?

49. Travolta spearheads Scientologists' attack on BBC

Comment #40397 by Lagomort on May 14, 2007 at 8:26 am

OH, I should add, that I had friends that went out to the West Coast, and ended up being put up a few days by the scientologists. They called me actually frightened, as people followed them around everywhere spying on them, and asking them all sorts of questions. People were constantly trying to manipulate them. These friends of mine (Kurt and Joe) fled first chance they could, and were frightened after the fact, that, at any moment, the scientologists would just show up and grab them...

In short, these guys stayed with numerous fundamentalist Christian groups, and found them fun and even entertaining, but it was actually the scientologists that frightened the crap out of them..

50. Travolta spearheads Scientologists' attack on BBC

Comment #40383 by Lagomort on May 14, 2007 at 8:14 am

This is what happened on South Park.

SP attacked numerous religious points-of-views, and the guy who played "Chef," who is a scientologist, was fine with it. When they went after Scientology, Isaac Hayes (Chef) was fine at first, but the scientologists in charge got in touch with him and next thing you know Chef quit, and his letter that described the reasons why he quit sound almost identical to numerous other letters of protest by scientologists against the show. Most of the letters sounded like the same guy wrote them, and only the signatures were changed.

These guys are a classic cult, and this should be pointed out whenever possible...