Evolution and What Is Science

[lockmat]

Other scientists say it's correct. One person performing one test doesn't make something a scientific fact. The ultimate triumph of science is its use of testing over and over again by many people, often across the entire planet, to come to any conclusions.

touche

Goelogists know! Geologists know exactly how that affected things! And NO, fossil creation isn't consistent with any sort of flood, let alone the preposterous idea of a biblical flood. You do realize there isn't even enough water on the planet to cover all the Earth's surface, not even if the polar ice caps melted? Geez, the process of fossilization often can take longer the age you've set on the Earth!

Genesis 7:11 - In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened.

Somehow, water came up from under the ground. And it rained for 40 days and nights, so I'm not sure where you're coming from saying that there's not enough water on earth to cover the planet.

Below is the description of it drying up.

Genesis 8 - ¹But God remembered Noah and all the beasts and all the cattle that were with him in the ark; and God caused a wind to pass over the earth, and the water subsided. ²Also the fountains of the deep and the floodgates of the sky were closed, and the rain from the sky was restrained; ³and the water receded steadily from the earth, and at the end of one hundred and fifty days the water decreased.

It could be different than mine, and it probably is. But, we don't exist outside of our species in a vacuum. We've developed laws as a way to ensure our mutual survival, and even though we haven't rooted out all the bad seeds, if religion's place on the pedestal is bumped for reason, we'd all be more concerned with the good of all people, not less. As it is, religion creates the idea of chosen people or wrong people or people who are going to suffer for eternity anyhow, so their place in this world is negligible.

I don't see why I have to abide by the laws just because they were "developed" over time. What if I am a stray part of the species and I want to obey my own ideas of good and bad? Nobody has any real authority to tell me that's wrong. We shouldn't even talk about what's right and wrong anyway. We should just talk about what's best for the species. So when we teach our kids what to do, we should tell them, do this or don't do that because it's beneficial to our species, not because it's right or wrong. And honestly, I am not sure what other species is threatening our existence. Apes? Lions? Aliens someday? I think we have a pretty darn good advantage over any other known species, it's not even close.

[lockmat]

Only if you continue to insist the only reason you're a good person is because you fear the consequences of being bad. If you could take a second and recognize all the other reasons not lying, not stealing and not murdering is beneficial to human groups (and in turn individual humans), this wouldn't be such an issue for you.

The reason to be a good person is not because of fear. It's for love.

In the name of what is good for the group as a whole. It doesn't do society much good to allow people to run around raping and murdering at their own whims. Therefore it's not legal. It's a pretty simple concept. Murder isn't illegal merely because your God says it's wrong. Murder is illegal because it disrupts the herd.

Interesting how laws were never setup in the name of evolution for our group or species though.

[AtticaFlinch]

Genesis 7:11 - In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened.

Somehow, water came up from under the ground. And it rained for 40 days and nights, so I'm not sure where you're coming from saying that there's not enough water on earth to cover the planet.

Below is the description of it drying up.

Genesis 8 - ¹But God remembered Noah and all the beasts and all the cattle that were with him in the ark; and God caused a wind to pass over the earth, and the water subsided. ²Also the fountains of the deep and the floodgates of the sky were closed, and the rain from the sky was restrained; ³and the water receded steadily from the earth, and at the end of one hundred and fifty days the water decreased.

Arrrgh! No, Lockmat, no! You cannot use the Bible to prove the Bible. That isn't the way logic works. Is Niche the messiah for Pastafarianism simply because he says he is? Good god, learn to recognize your fallacies before you make them.

I really don't give two flying flips what the Bibles says about where it got the water. The fact remains, there isn't enough water on the planet to cover the entire surface.

I don't see why I have to abide by the laws just because they were "developed" over time. What if I am a stray part of the species and I want to obey my own ideas of good and bad? Nobody has any real authority to tell me that's wrong.

Yes they do. The police have authority over you. The government has authority over you. They can and do tell you what's right and wrong. People who disagree and act accordingly are termed sociopaths. It's not sin, it's a disruption of what is right and best for the group. Right and wrong are relative terms, and each and every group has a set of rules to define them. If sin was determined by God, an understanding of right and wrong would be universal, but it's not. And since God is impotent to define sin for all humanity, the God you know doesn't exist. The debate could end with this, but I have a feeling you're going to quote the Bible to me again. (And the next Bible quote you use to prove something to me will be met with an opposing quote from the Book of Mormon or the Koran.)

We shouldn't even talk about what's right and wrong anyway. We should just talk about what's best for the species. So when we teach our kids what to do, we should tell them, do this or don't do that because it's beneficial to our species, not because it's right or wrong.

Why would what's best for our species not also be "right"? Taking God out of the equation doesn't matter at all to that end.

And honestly, I am not sure what other species is threatening our existence. Apes? Lions? Aliens someday? I think we have a pretty darn good advantage over any other known species, it's not even close.

You're going off of the rails on a crazy train. That's not even what I was talking about.

[AtticaFlinch]

The reason to be a good person is not because of fear. It's for love.

You can't love if you don't believe in God? Weird, because I love the crap out of my family but I don't believe in God.

Interesting how laws were never setup in the name of evolution for our group or species though.

What are you talking about? Our gigantic brains and our development of tools and culture is in itself an evolutionary advantage. The very fact we can create laws, morality and ethics is law set up by evolution.

[TheNiche]

This is not a challenge, although I know the wording might sound that way. But what would it take for the bible to be validated? I would think you're answer is that something else should validate it. But if that's the case, there is always something that needs to validate the thing prior. It's endless. God is eternal. Nobody created him so he is the one true validation.

Maybe that is not the answer you would give, so I am all ears.

The Bible cannot be fully validated. Neither can my own messianic claims. The color red cannot be fully validated. The number 74 cannot be fully validated. The existence of you or I cannot be fully validated.

We gather and process information about the world around us uniquely as individuals. Our own minds are informational bottlenecks and we can no sooner validate our own correctness than we can take the world of a person who would claim to know (or be) divinity.

[LTAWACS]

I just woke up.

[AtticaFlinch]

I just woke up.

Actually, you were dead. Jesus just reanimated your corpse. Unfortunately, rigor mortis has already set in, so you may find it difficult to move.

Locmat, apparently you were right, and LTAWACS, enjoy them brains!

[livincinco]

Actually, you were dead. Jesus just reanimated your corpse. Unfortunately, rigor mortis has already set in, so you may find it difficult to move.

Locmat, apparently you were right, and LTAWACS, enjoy them brains!

You guys have waaay too much free time on your hands.

[AtticaFlinch]

You guys have waaay too much free time on your hands.

Not really. It doesn't take me too long to respond to these. As a trained and studied archaeologist, and as having been raised a Southern Baptist, I've got the perfect storm of credentials to have been challenged on this debate literally hundreds of times in my life, from both sides. I'm pretty well prepared for every point or position made. This debate to me is as familiar as can be, and this thread covered no new ground.

[LTAWACS]

Not really. It doesn't take me too long to respond to these. As a trained and studied archaeologist, and as having been raised a Southern Baptist, I've got the perfect storm of credentials to have been challenged on this debate literally hundreds of times in my life, from both sides. I'm pretty well prepared for every point or position made. This debate to me is as familiar as can be, and this thread covered no new ground.

Interesting. You've mentioned that before. Do your views lean more towards creationism as do countless other of our government officials (with the codes to the nukes)?

[AtticaFlinch]

Interesting. You've mentioned that before. Do your views lean more towards creationism as do countless other of our government officials (with the codes to the nukes)?

I never wrote that I was a government official, as I'm not, so I fail to see how that's relevant.

Oh, if you'd be so kind, please stop referring to the slave trade as the slave trade and pretty please start calling it the "triangular Atlanticular trade". Thanks.

What do government officials have to do with anything related to history or science? Typical LTAWACS off-the-wall post.

[TheNiche]

Interesting. You've mentioned that before. Do your views lean more towards creationism as do countless other of our government officials (with the codes to the nukes)?

Actually...in addition to being FSM-Jesus, I'm the only sworn government official that has been active on this thread, and I place absolute belief in neither creationism or evolution. And as someone whose job it is to count people, I'm also pretty sure that government officials are as quantifiable as any other category of person.

[livincinco]

Actually...in addition to being FSM-Jesus, I'm the only sworn government official that has been active on this thread, and I place absolute belief in neither creationism or evolution. And as someone whose job it is to count people, I'm also pretty sure that government officials are as quantifiable as any other category of person.

Happened to read this in USA Today this morning - thoughts/comments?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-05-24-column24_ST_N.htm

[AtticaFlinch]

Happened to read this in USA Today this morning - thoughts/comments?

http://www.usatoday....lumn24_ST_N.htm

I agree with the sentiment. Atheism is a bunch of intellectual snobbery. Likewise, many atheists are bullies and hypocrites. But, whining about how athiests are acting rude or whatever is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. Christianity has spent millenia squelching dissent, often at the end of a sword, and just now, for the last decade or two, Christians have been acting as weak victims to the overwhelming voice of reason. They've got a martyr complex, and they feel anyone who addresses their beliefs with logic is oppressing them. I say let the Christians squirm. That is, unless they stop voting their beliefs and start using their brains. Unfortunately, the whole makes-no-difference-what-you-do-as-long-as-it's-not-hurting-me thing doesn't work as long as we put mouth-breathing retards in office who think the Earth is 6,000 years old and they want their beliefs reflected in high school textbooks. I don't care if someone wants to believe something dumb, but when they try to make all of us believe the same dumb thing, I have a problem with that, and I won't play nice.

[LTAWACS]

I never wrote that I was a government official, as I'm not, so I fail to see how that's relevant.

Oh, if you'd be so kind, please stop referring to the slave trade as the slave trade and pretty please start calling it the "triangular Atlanticular trade". Thanks.

What do government officials have to do with anything related to history or science? Typical LTAWACS off-the-wall post.

I was referring to some government officials who happen to be creationist, who also happen to be in a decision making capacity (for the rest of us) who also happen to have the codes to the nukes. One might say that any trouble in the middle east might be the start of armageddon (or whatever they call it) or the second coming, and rush to nuke everyone. It's not off the wall. It's a very real threat/issue. And I say this because while locmat may not be one of those officials with the nuke codes, he is one of a growing number of creationists. While this may not be a bad thing in the context of morality and what is right and wrong, it is disturbing when our science education is faltering and other nations are gaining on us.

[TheNiche]

Happened to read this in USA Today this morning - thoughts/comments?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-05-24-column24_ST_N.htm

Atheism is self-defeating.

To absolutely reject the possibility of god(s) requires absolute faith in one's own perceived reality and intellect to such an extreme that is tantamount to them proclaiming themselves to have god-like powers. How can there not be a deity with such powers as are typically ascribed to a god if they are one? If they made such a claim as that they are god or that every man is a god--that'd be infinitely more plausible.

[LTAWACS]

Actually, you were dead. Jesus just reanimated your corpse. Unfortunately, rigor mortis has already set in, so you may find it difficult to move.

I know. We wouldn't be able to tell the difference if a god created everything 5 minutes ago. Everything. Complete with memories of a past that never happened.

[AtticaFlinch]

I was referring to some government officials who happen to be creationist, who also happen to be in a decision making capacity (for the rest of us) who also happen to have the codes to the nukes. One might say that any trouble in the middle east might be the start of armageddon (or whatever they call it) or the second coming, and rush to nuke everyone. It's not off the wall. It's a very real threat/issue. And I say this because while locmat may not be one of those officials with the nuke codes, he is one of a growing number of creationists. While this may not be a bad thing in the context of morality and what is right and wrong, it is disturbing when our science education is faltering and other nations are gaining on us.

I got what you meant. It just appears my tongue-in-cheek humor was more clumsy than usual.

[sevfiv]

Thanks - I hadn't heard the term New Atheists before - seems like a buzzword that will die down (was it even alive?).

While I agree that people are going to continue to be religious and believe what they're going to believe no matter what, I think it's great if more is spoken against creationism in particular. Although it does get kind of old seeing folks headbutt about how the Earth can and cannot be less than 10,000 years old

As far as atheism being self-defeating, I think it is just because of the semantics of god/God. Maybe a more earthly/pantheistic approach would be less unsettling than the anthropomorphic ones..

[TheNiche]

I was referring to some government officials who happen to be creationist, who also happen to be in a decision making capacity (for the rest of us) who also happen to have the codes to the nukes. One might say that any trouble in the middle east might be the start of armageddon (or whatever they call it) or the second coming, and rush to nuke everyone. It's not off the wall. It's a very real threat/issue. And I say this because while locmat may not be one of those officials with the nuke codes, he is one of a growing number of creationists.

So, basically you're advancing an alternate plot for the movie Dr. Strangelove Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb as a criticism over issues of high-ranking individuals gone mad in concert with poor technological fail-safes.

That scenario strikes me as implausible in the modern day. 1) Creationism is increasingly marginalized in our society; the only reason it gets press is because those people are generally perceived of as crazy, and media loves crazy. 2) There is no compelling political reason (i.e. survival, economic advantage) to instigate a nuclear conflict...anywhere. 3) Iran wants to optimize its diplomatic bargaining power, and nuclear weapons combined with the outward appearances of being irrational will provide them exactly that. 4) Let's say I'm wrong about my last point. Any conflict would be short-lived. Basically, Israel and a handful of other cities in the Middle East would be erased; no other country would be so ridiculously stupid as to interject themselves into such a conflict if it went from cold to hot.

While this may not be a bad thing in the context of morality and what is right and wrong, it is disturbing when our science education is faltering and other nations are gaining on us.

With or without creationists, our science education is faltering along with every other sort of education...mostly because significant elements of our culture do not appreciate education, while other elements place it on an undeserved pedestal, and the consequent system is flawed.

There is an argument to be made, however, that the breadth of our education allows our labor force some flexibility that is not afforded in a country like Germany, where kids are brought up from a young age as specialists that are unmarketable in professions other than that for which they are vocationally prepared for.

[AtticaFlinch]

As far as atheism being self-defeating, I think it is just because of the semantics of god/God. Maybe a more earthly/pantheistic approach would be less unsettling than the anthropomorphic ones..

I find them all unsettling, though strictly in terms of belief and the damge wrought by belief. Hell, even buddhists have blood on their hands. But, I don't wish believers to turn away from their beliefs, especially if, like Lockmat suggests for himself, they need their beliefs in order to be good and decent people. What I would like is for believers to be more rational about the limitations of their beliefs and recognize that other beliefs are similarly as valid as their own. And in recognizing that, I truly wish people of faith would STOP trying to force their beliefs on others.

So, basically you're advancing an alternate plot for the movie Dr. Strangelove Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb as a criticism over issues of high-ranking individuals gone mad in concert with poor technological fail-safes.

That scenario strikes me as implausible in the modern day. 1) Creationism is increasingly marginalized in our society; the only reason it gets press is because those people are generally perceived of as crazy, and media loves crazy. 2) There is no compelling political reason (i.e. survival, economic advantage) to instigate a nuclear conflict...anywhere. 3) Iran wants to optimize its diplomatic bargaining power, and nuclear weapons combined with the outward appearances of being irrational will provide them exactly that. 4) Let's say I'm wrong about my last point. Any conflict would be short-lived. Basically, Israel and a handful of other cities in the Middle East would be erased; no other country would be so ridiculously stupid as to interject themselves into such a conflict if it went from cold to hot.

It's not as implausible as you think. We have the ability to actually destroy the world. All we need is a reactive election pushing fundamentalists to power and sufficient cause for those politicians to feel they're doing the Lord's work by bringing the end of days. We've already got the Middle Eastern powderkeg. If we threw someone like Huckabee into the mix, we'd have Armageddon within five years.

[TheNiche]

What I would like is for believers to be more rational about the limitations of their beliefs and recognize that other beliefs are similarly as valid as their own.

Validity is not the same as plausibility; a belief in one plausible religion frequently invalidates another.

It's not as implausible as you think. We have the ability to actually destroy the world. All we need is a reactive election pushing fundamentalists to power and sufficient cause for those politicians to feel they're doing the Lord's work by bringing the end of days. We've already got the Middle Eastern powderkeg. If we threw someone like Huckabee into the mix, we'd have Armageddon within five years.

There are four types of nuclear players: A) developed superpowers, developed non-superpowers, C) developing superpowers, and D) developing non-superpowers. And in the real world, there are three strategies: 1) rational actors, 2) rational actors that convincingly appear irrational and 3) genuinely irrational actors.

The Pareto optimal strategy for a developed nuclear superpower is definitely Strategy 2, and if a Type-A player advances that strategy effectively, then the payoff is that they will almost never get nuked and won't have to make very many diplomatic concessions to assure that outcome. This is what Reagan and Bush 2 each did, and (just as Mike Huckabee has done for you) they did a good enough job that they actually convinced many Americans that they were irrational in the process. But their strategies certainly got the message across to the USSR, Egypt, and Lybia, and probably influenced the proliferation decisions of other countries in positive ways, and spurred democratization in some unlikely places (and even if we didn't like some of the specific outcomes, democratization does diminish the likelihood of genuinely irrational actors achieving power).

The Pareto optimal strategy for a developed nuclear (or non-nuclear) non-superpower is Strategy 1, to be completely rational and cooperative in every way with your biggest trading partners because there's too much to lose (unless you're belligerent and Jewish, because they're protected from criticism on account of that the Holocaust happened).

The Pareto optimal strategy for a developing nuclear superpower like Russia or China is similar. Be generally cooperative and rational with an understanding that kicking off a renewed Cold War is not economically sustainable for them and is not in anybody's interests...but flex your muscle from time to time in order to remain diplomatically relevant.

And for developing nuclear non-superpowers like Iran and N. Korea (and de facto Israel)...we're back to Strategy 2. Walk the line between rational and irrational. Plant seeds of doubt (for instance, it's OK to abandon treaties, to infrequently commit undeclared acts of war against neighboring countries that won't get followed-up on, or to try to bully much larger countries), but provide no hard evidence of it...for example by committing flagrant acts of genocide against one's own citizenry. The risk of actually starting a war is low if there's even a seed of doubt as to whether the leadership is still acting in rationally.

At the end of the day, the Nash Equilibrium entails big developed nuclear superpowers and small developing nuclear non-superpowers selecting the same strategy. They must each come across as a legitimate threat to themselves and others. And developed nations end up paying diplomatic and/or economic tribute to the small developing nuclear non-superpowers...pretty much because they can afford to. But there is no hot war between nuclear powers.

[AtticaFlinch]

There are four types of nuclear players: A) developed superpowers, developed non-superpowers, C) developing superpowers, and D) developing non-superpowers. And in the real world, there are three strategies: 1) rational actors, 2) rational actors that convincingly appear irrational and 3) genuinely irrational actors.

Theocrats and fundamentalists of every stripe, most especially the ones who believe the world will come to a violent end, should not be trusted to act rationally. You have a lot more faith than me (<--see what I did there) that these religious nuts can be trusted not to try to jumpstart Armageddon.

[TheNiche]

Theocrats and fundamentalists of every stripe, most especially the ones who believe the world will come to a violent end, should not be trusted to act rationally. You have a lot more faith than me (<--see what I did there) that these religious nuts can be trusted not to try to jumpstart Armageddon.

The unresolved question relates to whom is genuinely a fundamentalist theocrat. I'm not convinced that anybody at a sufficiently high level in the U.S. government to precipitate a nuclear conflict would qualify as one. It's not for lack of concern, mind you. But I'm far more concerned with Israel's lack of military restraint than with the remainder of the "Axis of Evil".

[AtticaFlinch]

The unresolved question relates to whom is genuinely a fundamentalist theocrat. I'm not convinced that anybody at a sufficiently high level in the U.S. government to precipitate a nuclear conflict would qualify as one. It's not for lack of concern, mind you. But I'm far more concerned with Israel's lack of military restraint than with the remainder of the "Axis of Evil".

Israel's lack on restraint is well-known and well-documented but never without provocation. If those religious zealots in the desert would tone down their religiousity and come to terms with the fact the Jews aren't leaving, then the Israel powderkeg would be diffused. But, because those nutty Muslim fundamentalists hold some insane belief that some utterly useless piece of salty, briny, sand-covered real estate is somehow sacred, and the Jews themselves believe the same thing, and a number of our elected politicians believe it too, because of this Israel has no choice but to be a demonstratively reactive nation. I'm telling you, all it'll take is a nut like Mike Huckabee in office to OK Israel pushing the button, which would ignite a series of other nuclear launches.

People may have been frightened by Ronnie and W, thinking they'd do the same thing, but their handlers were capitalists and pragmatists. They would not have allowed those two to actually pull the trigger on the end of the world. There's no money in total annihilation. On the other hand, Huckabee surrounds himself with Jerry Falwells, Pat Robertsons and Chuck Norrises. These people are concerned with meeting God and ushering in the end times (and according to the internetz in the case of Chuck Norris, their main concern is roundhouse kicking things). Have you watched something on TBN lately? That crap is crazy scary, especially when they start trying to fit modern news events into the book of Revelations. Most of those nuts already believe we're on the precipice of the second coming or whatever other stupid myth they believe in.

[ricco67]

The unresolved question relates to whom is genuinely a fundamentalist theocrat. I'm not convinced that anybody at a sufficiently high level in the U.S. government to precipitate a nuclear conflict would qualify as one. It's not for lack of concern, mind you. But I'm far more concerned with Israel's lack of military restraint than with the remainder of the "Axis of Evil".

I think Israel has a collective paranoia about being wiped off the face of the map which is justified as far as I'm concerned. They have fought in several wars, basically alone against several countries and are basically under siege by several groups.

Not to say everything Israel does is totally innocent, but it does come out of their constant threat by by Iran, of which the other arab countries simply look upon as something that's entertaining.

[TheNiche]

Israel's lack on restraint is well-known and well-documented but never without provocation. If those religious zealots in the desert would tone down their religiousity and come to terms with the fact the Jews aren't leaving, then the Israel powderkeg would be diffused. But, because those nutty Muslim fundamentalists hold some insane belief that some utterly useless piece of salty, briny, sand-covered real estate is somehow sacred, and the Jews themselves believe the same thing, and a number of our elected politicians believe it too, because of this Israel has no choice but to be a demonstratively reactive nation. I'm telling you, all it'll take is a nut like Mike Huckabee in office to OK Israel pushing the button, which would ignite a series of other nuclear launches.

People may have been frightened by Ronnie and W, thinking they'd do the same thing, but their handlers were capitalists and pragmatists. They would not have allowed those two to actually pull the trigger on the end of the world. There's no money in total annihilation. On the other hand, Huckabee surrounds himself with Jerry Falwells, Pat Robertsons and Chuck Norrises. These people are concerned with meeting God and ushering in the end times (and according to the internetz in the case of Chuck Norris, their main concern is roundhouse kicking things). Have you watched something on TBN lately? That crap is crazy scary, especially when they start trying to fit modern news events into the book of Revelations. Most of those nuts already believe we're on the precipice of the second coming or whatever other stupid myth they believe in.

Mike Huckabee is a political sideshow.

And the End of Days stuff is also prominent on channels such as Discovery and the History Channel. The same stuff gets repackaged with fresh graphics every year and reaches a broad audience of believers and non-believers, alike. And that's because it's entertainment. People like disaster flicks.

[TheNiche]

I think Israel has a collective paranoia about being wiped off the face of the map which is justified as far as I'm concerned. They have fought in several wars, basically alone against several countries and are basically under siege by several groups.

Not to say everything Israel does is totally innocent, but it does come out of their constant threat by by Iran, of which the other arab countries simply look upon as something that's entertaining.

It isn't paranoia if they're justified. The problem is, though, that it is paranoia...and the consequent effect of their insane lack of military restraint only creates a kind of paranoia-heightening feedback loop of violence.

[AtticaFlinch]

Mike Huckabee is a political sideshow.

He's a political sideshow who happened to get elected as governor of Arkansas. (And I'm sure none of us can think of anybody who jumped from that job to the office of the President of the United States.) Perhaps Huckabee is a joke. Perhaps he'll never be more than a pundit on Fox News. What he represents though is the problem, and if Huckabee isn't the one who leads us all on the march to Armageddon, then surely he's paving the way for someone who will. Look at the popularity of Sarah Palin for proof. These two represent an encroaching anti-intellectualism in the political arena, but not the faux-anti-intellectualism of the past. This is the real deal. These people are idiots and proud of it. And worse yet, they have a following. They may currently still be a fringe group of wingnuts, but I could easily imagine several scenarios where they could rise to power. It's not as if the American people are discerning voters.

And the End of Days stuff is also prominent on channels such as Discovery and the History Channel. The same stuff gets repackaged with fresh graphics every year and reaches a broad audience of believers and non-believers, alike. And that's because it's entertainment. People like disaster flicks.

I am going to be so happy on December 22, 2012. At least one insipid end-times "prophecy" (term used very loosely) will be over with.

It isn't paranoia if they're justified. The problem is, though, that it is paranoia...and the consequent effect of their insane lack of military restraint only creates a kind of paranoia-heightening feedback loop of violence.

The fight over Israel is the dumbest fight in world history. The land is barely arable and it sits on virtually no natural resources. But, Mohammad went to heaven there, and Jesus walked around there doin' miracles and stuff and God promised the land to the Jews (another God-is-a-bastard moment - he could have promised them a less butt-ugly hole than that speck of land considering they are the "chosen people"). If religion were to be removed from that conflict, the Jews and the Arabs would take a look around them and say, "WTF is wrong with us? This place is garbage. Let's combine forces and invade Austria."

[TheNiche]

Perhaps Huckabee is a joke. Perhaps he'll never be more than a pundit on Fox News. What he represents though is the problem, and if Huckabee isn't the one who leads us all on the march to Armageddon, then surely he's paving the way for someone who will. Look at the popularity of Sarah Palin for proof. These two represent an encroaching anti-intellectualism in the political arena, but not the faux-anti-intellectualism of the past.

I'm not about to say that it would be impossible for them to come to power. What I am willing to say is that if they didn't kowtow to their RNC puppetmasters during and after the election, their actual power would be weak and not long-lived.

The fight over Israel is the dumbest fight in world history. The land is barely arable and it sits on virtually no natural resources. But, Mohammad went to heaven there, and Jesus walked around there doin' miracles and stuff and God promised the land to the Jews (another God-is-a-bastard moment - he could have promised them a less butt-ugly hole than that speck of land considering they are the "chosen people").

What do you think that they were "chosen" for?