Bryan

... if you expunge Darwin's Larmarckian streak from the equation, anyway. Hitler wrote specifically of the cultural superiority of the German Volk, one of the aspects of race that Darwin believed was heritable. In like manner, the Jewish culture could be expected to dilute German culture through interbreeding. Weren't you the one who pointed out that Darwin did not understand genetics in the first place? As for "master race," it is implied in the struggle for survival. Darwinism predicted struggle and extinction for weaker races. Hitler envisioned his people as the survivors of the struggle. That would make them the master race by implication. And now we're probably supposed to believe that it was a coincidence that Darwin didn't understand genetics either. Right?

No difference between the man and the ideas, I suppose. Sounds like you're going on subjective impression if you're relying on Stein going face to face with Darwin's bust. What claims do you feel I haven't supported? Quote me. There's no reason for you to wait. Darwin proposed a mechanism for evolution and retained Lamarckism to a substantial degree. There isn't much difference until you get to much later versions of Darwinism. I pointed out (and you presently ignore) that Darwin believed in Lamarckism in important respects. Which chapter would you say is the chapter on utopian communism? http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...nist-manifesto/

Pretty much every review says that the film implicitly claims that Darwinism leads to events such as the Holocaust? How did we move so easily from Darwin to Darwinism? Your gift of equivocation, perhaps? http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=85416

I'm not familiar with any such quotation. Maybe Ask.com can find a well-attested one for you to share with us. McCain also considers Ted Kennedy a friend, IIRC. Regardless of such relatively minor misjudgments he's way better than the Democrats on policy. Hopefully Ask.com is not responsible for making you so ill-informed. The issue with Wright is his persistent teaching over the years, as is evident from Obama's first book. http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N...mE3OWY5YjYxMjQ= "White folks' greed runs a world in need"--part of the Wright sermon that Obama says drew him to the church in the first place. Instead of being distressed by Obama's evasion regarding Wright, you join him in trying to downplay it. I don't think that Parsley has endorsed McCain. I've already pointed out to you that Hagee endorsed him in the context of his presidency of a political group (Christians United For Israel). Sure you do. I pointed out a colossal error you made in an earlier thread and I've reminded you of it a number of times since, but you avoid addressing the issue completely and repeatedly. How is your avoidance of acknowledging your obvious error (mistaking a decrease in growth for negative growth) supposed to pass for you helping me to think from both sides of my brain? It looks much more like an instance of you simply refusing to acknowledge a past error, in my opinion. Then show how they twist the story instead of making use of the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. As with your avoidance of your past error, your disdain for certain sources based on their supposed bias could easily pass for yet another avoidance technique on your part.

PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup Poll Daily tracking shows that Hillary Clinton now receives 46% of the support of Democrats nationally, compared to 45% for Barack Obama, marking the first time Obama has not led in Gallup's daily tracking since March 18-20. http://www.gallup.com/poll/106606/Gallup-D...6-Obama-45.aspx It's a tribute to Obama, of course, that he can have such a horrible month but still have supposedly objective journalists and sycophants like Mancrush telling us how he's on a roll. Great article at Politico: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9718.html

I look forward to the support of your claim. An accusation from "Guest" that I made that argument is about me. Or do you think otherwise?

Why was it a misapplication? Science offers no prescriptions, so any such judgment comes apart from science. I guess if you can't deal with the actual argument I'm making that straw man could come in handy. It undermines the argument of those who try to remove the influence of Darwinism from some of the most notable atrocities of the past 100 years by saying that Lamarckianism was actually responsible. And if Lamarckianism had been correct you'd still be saying that Stalin misapplied it (not because his science was wrong but based on the fact that non-prescriptive science did not tell Stalin how to act). It's a pattern of evasion and obfuscation that your type has exhibited over and over again, LaGuest.

Too bad you have no example to back up your claim. Darwin is not responsible for the actions of the Nazis and I have never claimed otherwise. So who is supposedly guilty by association according to me? It's no worse than the fallacy you're committing, nameless one. Likewise the principles of evolution as found in the breeding of domestic animals. So what point are you trying to make? Thus correcting which statement of mine? Or are we simply witnessing the evolution of your red herrings? Meh. Yet another coward (or is the the same one?) who won't own up regarding Darwin's Lamarckian streak. The Nazis were using evolutionary principles as they understood them at the time, and their understanding of the principles differed very little from Darwin's even if Darwin himself would have been thoroughly appalled at their actions. One might consider the Crusades as a parallel ... and I'm sure that "Guest" is just as eager to exonerate Christianity from the more appalling actions of the Crusades as he is to exonerate Darwinism from its role in Nazi atrocities.

Baloney. If only you had an argument good enough that it didn't need to run on insult. Bush is simply paraphrasing Congress' own wording on the Iraq AUMF. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#Contents Here's the same language in a different document (also by the president). Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations; And here's the source you're using (though your version of the quotation is somewhat inaccurate): On March 18, 2003, I made available to you, consistent with section 3( of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), my determination that further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, nor lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. I have reluctantly concluded, along with other coalition leaders, that only the use of armed force will accomplish these objectives and restore international peace and security in the area. I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organiza-tions, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. United States objectives also support a transition to democracy in Iraq, as contemplated by the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338). http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030321-5.html It's clear in the context of both documents that Bush is not pinning the 9-11 attacks on Hussein or Iraq, and that is reinforced abundantly by the presidents other speeches and statements. Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20021007-8.html So, was that the best of the 900 or are you just fiddling around?

Are you hoping that I would do so such that no overlap would occur? I just explained to you that there is an overlap. Right, because we'd be papering over Darwin's actual beliefs and writings in favor of the latter-day interpretation and bringing the conversation back to square one. You're performing the message board equivalent of plugging your ears and chanting "Na na na na I'm-not-listening."

Meh. Rigged game, that. Young LaClair already had a certain degree of celebrity along with a de facto PR department (Daddy and CFI). You think that CFI just whipped up their report on the textbook the same day that Matthew spoke up? Agreed. Both have made plenty enough mistake(s) that personal attacks need not enter into the discussion. The elder's advocacy of that ludicrous targeted oil boycott was just one example. As for Matthew, the exaggerations in his letter to the school administrators serves as a handy example ("There are a number of terrible things he has said and done in this high school").

Thus do cowardly anonymous guests such as yourself attempt to dodge and downplay the fact that Charles Darwin maintained important aspects of Lamarkianism, the type of evolution that Stalin and some other despots used to justify various horrendous acts.

It is widely agreed that Bush did not make a connection between Hussein and 9/11, but if you can produce a well-attested quotation I'd be delighted to examine whatever evidence you can provide. Hussein was "associated" with al Qaeda in terms of having contacts and negotiations with that terrorist group (among others), albeit short of functional cooperation. So you'll have to be more specific about that supposed instance in order to spin it into an example of a lie. Your best examples, eh? You have chosen poorly, unless none of the 900 are legit.

They're working on it. The means exist, it just takes money, technology, manpower and an unwary opponent. The conflict is already escalated, and there are many options far less complicated than obtaining a nuclear weapon (such as dirty bombs) that could have similar or even greater impact (such as bioweapons). ... and that appears to have stopped Iran from aiding the Shiite militias the government of Iraq is currently opposing. What concessions has Iran made in those talks? And most of us learn that if talking doesn't work then talking doesn't work. European nations have been negotiating diplomatically with Iran for years over this issue, and Iran has refused to compromise. Barack Obama has not learned the lesson. Neither have you, apparently. Yes, the U.S. in intransigent on the issue of Iran having nuclear weapon capability. If you think that's a problem then you've already lost the game with them. There's no reason to talk about it. You might as well start selling them the technology they'll need (because if you don't China and Russia will be delighted to accept their business).

Right, but obviously the point is that saying that diabolical leader X was Lamarckian therefore not Darwinian is a non sequitur. I think you'd find that knowledge of Darwin's beliefs varies widely among evolutionary scientists. Some probably have an excellent grasp of the history of the theory (including Darrwin's beliefs). A few probably have appallingly poor knowledge. Most fall somewhere in the middle, and many probably do not know that Darwin held onto some Lamarkian tendencies. You're equivocating, though I have no doubt that you did so accidentally. Marxism is not particularly akin to shared property utopianism. The key to Marxism was its dialectic approach to history, consisting of a deterministic expectation that society would develop ("evolve," if you like) in a particular deterministic manner. And that's not even counting its antipathy toward religion. Marxism was very much a product of its time, which sought to understand society in terms of evolutionary changes. Marx believed that society constantly changes as a result of class conflicts within the society. He viewed this development as a result of exploitation, inequality of wealth and power, and class struggle. The central idea in Marx’s evolutionary theory is materialism. He believed that the system of producing material goods determines other aspects of society, such as social custom, political system, spirituality, and ideology. In other words, Marx gave priority to material conditions over human thinking regarding the evolution of society. http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/cultural/anthropology/Marx.html Karl Marx, along with Friedrich Engels, defined communism. In the Communist Manifesto, which they wrote and published themselves in London in 1848, Marx and Engels portrayed the natural evolution of a communist utopia from capitalism. This revolutionary theory added fuel to the social struggles that characterized Europe during the latter half of the 19th century. http://virtualschool.edu/mon/Economics/Marx.html Marx adopted Hegel’s notions of evolution through history, and the idea of the dialectic. Marx saw himself as furthering these notions, by separating them from Hegel’s idealism. In an effort to be more empirically based, Marx replaced Absolute spirit with human material desire, and reinterpreted Hegel’s dialectic. "The way things are" became a given thesis, "the conflict," became it’s antithesis, and "resolution," became a synthesis of both. The epochs which Hegel supposed to be stages of consciousness in Absolute mind become for Marx economically based stages of evolution in human society. http://filer.case.edu/ngb2/Pages/Impor_Phil_Notes.html

Name one. Let's see the tip of the tip of the iceberg. Pick your strongest case from the 900. Indeed, for rocket scientists have always been noted for their agricultural acumen. http://theastronautfarmermovie.warnerbros.com/

Because I didn't assume that you were stupid. http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/proceedings.cfm Right. Which page of the report you cited talks about us approaching dangerous levels? And which part established the scientific consensus?

http://hnn.us/articles/48941.html

It took me about 17 seconds to find the report using the link I posted. http://www.heartland.org/pdf/2086111.pdf I like the way you attacked the source of the information instead of the information (fallacy of argumentum ad hominem). You're worthy of the name "Guest."

I like the way he brilliantly talked out of both sides of his mouth on trade. NAFTA bad. Poor religious gun nuts in Pennsylvania bitter about free trade. And at the same time they're saying that obviously he didn't mean it like that. It's hilarious to watch. Not only did he not mean it like that, he was exactly right (see Cafferty especially on that one). Makes sense when the Democrats at the same time are using guns and religion to shed their own constituency. Roman Catholics voted Democrat overwhelmingly until Democrats made Roe v. Wade their baby--err--fetus. It was years before Republicans reached out to those alienated Catholics. Okay, so what how is the poor Pennsylvania religious gun-nut supposed to vote if he's irrationally fearful of free trade and Obama is running around criticizing NAFTA? Is he supposed to take heart from the Obama campaign's admissions to Canadian officials that their anti-NAFTA rhetoric is insincere (apparently done just to pander to voters)? Welcome to a new form of politics.* The baggage is building up for Obama. The rookie is straining under the weight. Ideologues like Paul can't bear the thought that Obama isn't the guy they've made him in their dreams, so they come up with these hilarious rationalizations. *maybe Obama contradicts himself on free trade intentionally so that people will begin talking about it and then he can come out and tell us all what to think about it for real?

Fallacy of begging the question. Paul doesn't know it. Biological structures are thought to have a beginning in time whether from an evolutionary standpoint or otherwise. Drawing the analogy to an eternal and infinite being (infinities tend to be mathematically simple, not complex) doesn't follow, for it is a leap into conjecture, not a fair appropriation of the original premise. ... for some reason intelligent guidance of the evolution of the eye was apparently ruled out at some point. What was the rationale?

Darwin himself had a Lamarckian streak, as he believed that acquired culture (for example) was heritable. Interestingly, Darwin believed in the "inherited effects of the increased use of parts"—a very "Larmarckian" view. Lamarck argued for the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Darwin felt that this was key to explain giraffe evolution; otherwise there is no guarantee that longer features in one generation will have an effect on subsequent ones. But this view of the inheritance of acquired characteristics is rejected by mainstream Darwinists today. http://www.natureinstitute.org/pub/ic/ic10/giraffe.htm Darwin has received a form of scientific sainthood--he is often reinterpreted in terms of modern neo-Darwinism rather than in terms of his own beliefs and writings. Evolution was all the rage prior to Darwin publishing "Origin." But it's fair to say that Marx was not specifically influenced by Darwinism as such prior to Darwin publishing. Good post, though. More good than bad on balance.

A charitable reader probably concludes that "millenia" was intended. Behe's description of irreducible complexity is distinct from the design inference suggested by (among others) Bill Dembski. LaClair appears to conflate the two. Further, LaClair appears to equivocate in the above, for irreducible complexity is not incompatible with evolution unless evolution is insisted upon as a comprehensive explanation for all phenomena observed and unobserved relating to biological diversity and development--which isn't science (and as such is not the "evolution" that LaClair elsewhere says is established by science). Only Paul is allowed to do that. Shame on the other guy.

Billydee4, stop looking for black helicopters where there are none. The information in the reporting (in the form of quotations from young LaClair) indicate the exaggeration. It was not given as the observation or opinion of the reporter. You can shut off the radar system and go to sleep without worrying.

And if science worked via majority vote that might be the end of the story. Here's a countering view: http://windfarms.wordpress.com/2008/02/25/...nters-ipcc-ar4/