‘It’s Sickening to Me’: Juan Williams Blasts Liberal Attacks on Black Conservatives
- Posted on February 18, 2011 at 3:28am by
Meredith Jessup
- Print »
- Email »
Attacking black conservatives is “encouraged” and “a mindset” on the left, Fox News contributor Juan Williams told host Sean Hannity Thursday night.
The most recent such attack came from a liberal blogger who described tea party favorite Herman Cain as a “black garbage pail kid” and a “monkey” propped up to reaffirm white “superiority.”
On Thursday, the liberal Alternet blogger who hurled the racial insults at Cain defended the statements.
“Whenever Herman Cain and others have a moment where they can engage in “real talk” among their ideological compatriots or make a public, critical intervention against the obvious racial hostility which drives contemporary American conservatism, they either stand mute or enable it,” he charged.
Earlier this week, the very same blogger also remarked that if Sarah Palin weren’t white, she’d be “tarred and feathered as an ‘affirmative action baby.’”
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 700 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 531 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 359 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 356 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 347 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 347 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 359 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 272 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 148 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 347 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (158)
oldsoldier10
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 7:19amThank You Juan Williams, i do not always agree with your thought processes; however, i appreciate the manner you present your views, and the humanity you represent. Please keep fighting
Report Post »HonorNTruth
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 7:10amI have never heard any conservative that I’ve known wish harm upon another, but I hear it all the time from liberals that I know.
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 7:09amHerman Cain is a good, conservative man. I don’t care what color he is. Liberals have a real problem when everyone doesn’t follow the preprepared script. Democrats decided how the black community should think long ago, don’t leave the plantation or you will be flogged.
Report Post »Average_JoeMN
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 6:50amAre we surprised when liberals show their true colors as racists? Everything they’ve done over the years demonstrates their hatred for blacks – from creating the welfare state (to keep blacks down) to promoting abortions (to keep black numbers low). Liberals are the most racist people on the planet.
Report Post »Docroxall
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 6:47amamericanWoman…by “attacked” what the Soros-basement-dwelling-troll means, is that we post “facts” about liberal behavior and strategy so that folks don’t fall into their manipulative and illogical, assumptive explanation for everything conservatives do. We are not racist, and have values that some conservatives, who happen to have black skin, agree with. Again, if we, on this site, agree with something Beck or some other conservative points out, or, in many cases quotes, or even has video of a radical saying, or doing, we are “haters” and “attackers”. These mental midgets don’t understand that in debate you attack your opponents ideas…not them…but their behavior is too immature to understand…so, watch and learn, these trolls are yet another arm of the modern Rules for Radicals strategy…quite fascinating to analyze really!
Report Post »jose wasabi
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 6:42amStop giving these liberal bloggers air-time or ink on this site. Honestly, has anyone ever heard of these fools? I know I haven;t.
Report Post »reckless
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 6:33amLiberals can’t tollerate the truth, it conflicts with their world view.
Tell a liberal the truth every chance you get, they will hate you for it.
Report Post »Live for the hate!
dizzyinthedark
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 6:28amTime to drop the titles “Black Conservative”, “Black” anything for that matter. The faster we let go of using “color” the faster we come together. By “using” I mean speaking the “word” and literally using people of color for their votes or making them out to be “victims” of society. Enough is enough!
JZS, stop whining. Most here have educated themselves from other sources, even the ones you frequent (lib sights) as to current events and to islam–it’s not a religion rather a political ideology. I prefer the truth as I see you do to based your posts here!
Report Post »Tiberius
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 6:02amI don’t hate a lot of things, but I hate racism. I hate it. It is the highest level of ignorance and evil. I am a as conservative as you can get and I seriously do not get it. I do not understand what is the deal about the amount of melanin in a human’s body. That is all skin color is. I used to get a spanking from my mother just for calling another person names, but I promise I would not be alive if I had ever said stuff like this.
Report Post »SND97
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 5:54amJuan Williams I hope someday comes to the conclusion that the Democratic Party he is loves is long gone. The Democratic party died along time ago and nor are simply a radical mouthpiece for Socialist.
Report Post »chattycathy
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 5:44amOne of the biggest goals of the Democrat Party is to keep all African Americans ‘under control’ and this is what they believe they have done via the welfare system. The Democrat Party has destroyed the black family and kept many of them in permanent poverty by encouraging an entitlement mentality. The Dems treat black conservatives like dirt because these black Americans ‘dared’ to ‘get out of line’ with the Dems expectations. WHEN ARE ALL AFRICAN AMERICANS GOING TO WAKE UP AND REALIZE WHAT THE DEMS HAVE PURPOSELY DONE TO THEM?
Report Post »DonaldH
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 5:24amOne needs very little more proof than this that the political, societal, culture, intellectual and honesty fissions in our country can grow any more deeper or real than this… The left simply has no tolerance for open-mindedness — it’s their way or no way!! I’m not even sure they believe that their “vision of America” are in step with what is best for ALL Americans… I simply can’t decipher their goals anymore. Obviously racial harmony as well has tolerance between religious sects or “Non-Believers”, liberals and conservatives, union and non-union is not on their agenda but instead intolerance and disharmony between as many groups as possible seems to be the driving goal behind their agenda….
Maybe it’s time for us to come to terms with reality and cut our losses –split the country in two–let the liberals have their area to govern how they want and those that still believe in the American dream can govern themselves in their own country..
Report Post »Emil
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 5:06amThe leftist/liberals are frightened by conservative black Americans. Especially so if the conservative black American achieves some sort of prominence. They are frightened that other black Americans may think there is more to being conservative than they have been led to believe. They may start to think critically about what being liberal means. They are afraid more blacks may leave the reservation. That is why they attack black conservatives and try to marginalize them.
Report Post »Real True American
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 5:36amI agree so much with your comment. Just imagine they might be afraid that they will start thinking for themselves.
Report Post »Christian Kalgaard
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 5:05amLiberals are racialists
Report Post »notsodumblond
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 5:03amWhy bother arguing with the Liberals? Common sense is not an attribute to Liberalism. They are not living in the real world, they live in a world created in their minds.
Report Post »nzkiwi
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 5:16amBecause liberals, in many cases, come to the realisation that they have been backing the wrong horse. There are some of those people (ex liberals) are commenting on this site. I pay a lot of attention to what they say because they have been on both sides of the arguement.
Report Post »phil1765
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 4:40amMan it amazes me that the very people who work so hard to keep minorities down by perpetuating the collosal nanny state would have the nerve to call ANYONE a racist. What the hell does being a financial conservative have to do with race? Guess that I will never know because everytime you ask a liberal what makes a conservative a racist they say they just are.
Report Post »beartooth_bee
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 4:28amLord love a duck! It’s common sense to ask questions . But it’s racy to like a man of color for speaking his mind. America wake the heck up.
Report Post »decendentof56
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 4:36amBeartooth…you know, we just can‘t be hav’in no black man, you know, be talk’in white ******* trash
Report Post »Rights of Man
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 4:27amI will defend any freedom-loving, big-government-loathing American, of any “color”.
How ironic is it that only this long after slavery black Americans vote in lockstep FOR THOSE WHOSE FUNDAMENTAL BELIEFS ADVOCATE SLAVERY?!
Newsflash: Socialism/communism was invented by white men to enslave EVERYBODY, EQUALLY!
Instead of working for free for a white man, blacks and everybody else will be working for free for a tyrannical, albeit diverse government under socialism/communism.
Furthermore, they are voting for a group of people who are eugenicists. How many black babies has the left murdered in recent decades?!
About half of the WOULD-BE BLACK population has been murdered by “Planned Parenthood” and their ilk.
Blacks are 12% of the population, but 35% of abortions.
Did you know that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a devout racist who created the ***** Project designed to sterilize unknowing black women and others she deemed as undesirables of society?
The founder of Planned Parenthood said, “Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated.” How is her vision being fulfilled today?
I cringe when I see black people supporting the left–it’s slow-motion suicide.
Report Post »American Pride
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 4:48amWell said.
Report Post »decendentof56
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 4:26amcritical intervention against the obvious racial hostility which drives contemporary American conservatism……….(S Palin) she’d be “tarred and feathered as an ‘affirmative action baby.’”
First… you notice the ‘obvious’ fact that their is ‘obviously’ no chance that there could be any way of rebutting the ‘obvious’ fact of racial hostility.
Report Post »Second…there is ‘obviously’ no hostility in saying ‘tarred and feathered’ in referring to S Palin
Nope…there is no arguing those two ‘obvious’ points
FLDeb
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 4:18amThe difference between the right and the left is as simple as having the government take care of everything for you and wanting to be independent and take care of yourself. The left has to play the race card all the time because they need to convince people that the only way they can get anywhere in life is through their help. If people are independent and taking care of themselves they do not need the government to do it for them.
With everyone sitting around with their hands out for their government money they will not question what the people in power are doing. I’d say they are pretty close to reaching their goals. What percent of our population is on the government dole (?spelling) ? You either work for the government or are on one of the government entitlement programs. And the government get‘s it’s money from where? Getting to be not enough workers to support this Utopian way of living.
Report Post »decendentof56
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 4:41amFLDEB…..
“And the government get‘s it’s money from where?”
Oh, silly FLDEB. The money comes from Obama’s stash.
Report Post »American Pride
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 4:41amAsking for help once or twice is ok. Continual aid? I would be humiliated. I would NOT be able to live with myself. I would go work 3 cruddy jobs if I had to. How can someone live in this humiliated fashion for their entire lives? No wonder they stay pissed off. I would be too if I had to eat that level of humility every minute of every day.
(Don’t get me wrong, I am aware this situation has infected people of all colors.)
Report Post »FLDeb
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 5:40amDecendentof56 that made me laugh, I remember that clip.
American Pride, I agree. I see all makes and models. Years ago I used to think the people that came up with all the handouts were just stupid, pie in the sky type people. “See what a great person ”I” am, I want to help the poor.“ My personal assessment was ”they have never attempted to raise a child because if you do everything for them – they will never learn to do for themselves. Now I believe it is all planned to make our society dependent on the government.
Report Post »Diane TX
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 4:11amThe Professional Left is always pushing the idea that a Black person can not be Black and Conservative, or Black and Republican, at the same time. In their eyes, that Black person is somehow defective because they don’t buy into their Socialist garbage.
The really successful Black people in the World have all been Capitalist. That includes Oprah Winfrey. Yeah, she is a very successful Capitalist, not a Socialist at all. I think that it is great for her, since she was a nobody when she worked in Baltimore, MD (when I lived there) and she quickly rose to the top on her talent, and great instincts.
She did what was good for Oprah, not what was good for every other Black person. The moron who called Herman Cain a “black garbage pail kid” and a “monkey” is a mental midget who is racist against Black people who are successful.
Report Post »PIL
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 10:11amJuan Williams is one of the nicest liberals I know.
No Smokers Need Apply: Why you should care even if you don’t smoke.
Report Post »http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/2011/02/no-smokers-need-apply-why-you-should.html
megansmom
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 4:07amIf those comments were made by a white person, they would be called racist them self. You know not more than 60 years ago the majority of black people were struggling to become educated men like Herman Cain and now that they have every chance to do so, they choose to divide themselves and live in the slavery of government handouts.
Report Post »American Pride
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 4:35amIn their OWN community, if a black student does well in school, he is DERIDED by other black kids. They say he is acting “white” and ridicule him. That is unfathomable in my world. To tear someone down because they are bettering themselves through education??
Unbelievable.
Report Post »nzkiwi
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 5:01am@Megansmom
Yes, I remember Charles Payne said he had to put up with that when he was young. Regardless, he went on to become a financial success on Wall Street and is a well known commentator on Fox News.
Report Post »nzkiwi
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 5:08amOops. I meant to direct that to American Pride. Sorry.
Report Post »American Pride
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 4:05amI am proud of Juan Williams. He has broken through the 4th wall. The wall that the black leadership has built around the everyday black man. Maybe whitey isn’t the root of all your problems.
Report Post »GBMBulletsSKNRD
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 4:28amI agree with Mr. Willams on almost nothing. He is however a man of integraty and I would happily stand side by side with him.
Report Post »SpankDaMonkey
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 6:39am.
Does Black on Black Crime really surprise anyone?
It’s like the Crab Theory, put one crab in a bucket he can climb out, add another and they keep pulling each other back into gutter just like in real life…………………..
Report Post »Oil_Robb
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 8:56amDoes Black on black crime really really surprise anyone ? According to U of Michigan 91% of black deaths are commited by another black …..Keep huntin
Report Post »Showtime
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 9:06amWhen Juan Williams was with NPR and appeared as a contributor to Fox News, I couldn’t stand him. Then NPR fired him, and Fox News hired him the next day. That was probably the best thing that could have happened to Juan. O’Reilly asked him to host The Factor, and Juan did such a good job that I emailed O’Reilly to sing his praises.
Juan may be a liberal, but he has respect for conservatives and points his finger at liberals when they step over the line. Juan Williams is a honest man, and I respect him even more for defending Herman Cain.
Report Post »komponist-ZAH
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 3:39am“…described…Herman Cain as a ‘black garbage pail kid’ and a ‘monkey’”
But….but…but conservatives are racist?
Yet another high-tech lynching for a black man running off the leftist plantation.
Report Post »nzkiwi
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 5:04amCondolezza Rice said that her father joined the Republican party. He wanted to join the Democratic party but they wouldn’t have him because he was black.
Long time ago, though.
Report Post »ExpertShot
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 5:38amAs Herman says, three tactics used by the libs when they are challenged by a conservative to debate anything:
Report Post »S = Shift the subject
I = Ignore the facts
N = Name Call
SlimnRanger
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 8:04amThe more i hear Herman Cain talk the more i like him,and if he gets the GOP nominee he certainly has my vote,he will be the first black man for me to vote for,i didn’t vote for Obama and it had nothing to do with race,I felt in my heart he was a wolf in sheeps clothing,Cain is one very intellegent man ,I love it when he said he is called a racists when he disagrees with Obama
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 10:32amNow maybe Juan can extend this understanding to lib feminists who attack conservative Women.
Report Post »jzs
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 3:34amI’m sickened by attacks on black liberals.
Report Post »komponist-ZAH
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 3:43amSo then, you were sickened when NPR fired Juan Williams?
Report Post »AmeriWoman
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 3:45amNo one is attacking black liberals, you’re in the wrong thread or intentionally deflecting this one.
Re The artice posted above…:
That’s a shame. Sad to see people acting that way. They don‘t speak for honest decent folks and that’s how we all have to think of it. If you engage them in discussion other than refusing to have any debate or conversation with them, you enable them. I’ve been called some of the worst names you can think of over the years and most of it comes from the left. I’ve found ignoring them and refusing to have anything else to say to them works very well. I’m glad to see Juan Williams speak out against this whole matter.
AW
Report Post »komponist-ZAH
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 3:57am…Or how about this: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/beck-calls-dc-chocolate-city-no-wait-that-was-npr-never-mind/
Report Post »Mister President
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 4:09amThe fact that people see black conservatives as black conservatives and not simply conservatives is the problem. I like Juan. He seems like a good guy. Even though we disagree philosophically, I could at least have a reasonable conversation with him and reach a compromise. When I heard NPR fired him, the first thing that popped into my mind was hoping Fox would give him a big million dollar contract. Glad they did.
Liberals have to play the race card. It’s all about psychological tactics and personal attacks. Since liberals cannot argue the facts and since their basic philosophy of the welfare state is fundamentally flawed, they must attack the person presenting the facts and pointing out the flaws in their philosophy – whether it be Mr. Beck or a conservative or an enlightened libertarian. Just find dirt on the person, or, better yet, make it up and take things out of context.
Report Post »jzs
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 4:21am@AmeriWoman, you must be new here. Every liberal of any color is attacked on this website. That’s what how this website makes money. Of course Obama is attacked in virtually every post, and whenever the First Lady says American children should eat healthier (as any nutritionist or doctor in the world would agree), she’s called a fatty idiot. But let‘s just say that’s because Obama is liberal.
What’s in vogue now is attacking Muslims. Probably 1/4 of every thread here is thread about someone of Arabic decent – without knowlege of their actual religion or lack thereof – who did something bad. And everyone here chimes in about the evils of the Muslim religion, although they conveniently forget there is about one rape and one murder per minute in this, our Christian nation.
Thanks for your opinion Ameriwoman, and feel free to believe that only conservatives are without racial bias. Cling tightly to that.
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 4:38am“obvious racial hostility which drives contemporary American conservatism”
Conservatives aren’t against particular colors of skin, so this is wrong.
The problem is that those who make these statements cannot see that it is their racially based culture which keeps them from participating in Capitalism. And then when examples of those who largely don’t hold to their racially based culture present themselves, they’re somehow traitors to their race.
They also ignore the fact that if we were all black, Conservatives would STILL reject those who thought they deserved more than they worked for.
Report Post »TNT1
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 4:39am@jzs I really like the way liberals like you,I’m guessing your a lib by the way you talk only about what you think instead of talking agout what Juan said.Typical don’t answer the question before you but change the topic.You are either a politician or should become one.in fantasy land
Report Post »Diane TX
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 4:47amJZS,
I don’t think that those who “rape and murder” are strict adherents to any Christian religion. Now in the sicko version of Islam, it’s A-OK to rape women because the “men” can’t be expected to control their “manliness” unless the female covers herself from head to toe. The women must also make sure that their eyes don’t fall upon an unknown male, because that is also a justifiable reason to be raped. The cutting off of heads and hands also seems to be very popular in the sicko version of Islam. I know that not all Muslims are of the “sicko variety”, but the great, uneducated, unwashed masses are.
Report Post »notsodumblond
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 5:11amPlease give me a reference that any public Conservative that has used race as an attack on Black Liberals? I suspect you react before you think, just as you have been taught to do under years of Democrat Liberalism.
Report Post »Ironmaan
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 5:23amJZS
Your a dope.
Report Post »The left specifically attacks blacks on the right out of fear they are going to lose a dependent, and that they will encourage other blacks to do the same. Liberal policies have enslaved blacks, and has only worsened their situation, and the stat bear that out. I know its painful for you, but your a dupe for those on the left who are in power.
http://guerillatics.com
1911a1
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 5:45amJZS… Nobody is attacking Obama because he is Black ( is he also half white ?) who freaking cares ? what gets attacked is his community organizing liberal entitlement redistribution of wealth big gov. growing poverty promoting overspending union supporting bankrupting our country policies ! his POLICIES ARE DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY ! and if Michelle Obama wants to be the self proclaimed nutritionist , that’s fine . but when she want legislation passed to force business` to conform to her ideology . and to force people to eat the way she thinks they should , then we have a problem . it has nothing to do with color , but content of character. this is a REPUBLIC , not a SOCIALIST STATE ! Black conservatives are constantly attacked as well as white conservatives as well as Hispanic conservatives are all attacked . and when any one disagrees with a liberal or a Marxist or a commie or a fascist ,,,, then BOOM down goes the race card , but you know , the race card BS ain’t working no more dude ,,,,,,
Report Post »Enuff Zenuff
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 5:45am.
@JZS
As a conservative, I too am sickened by any attacks on ‘black’ liberals if the attack is based on skin color. I have no problem with attacks on liberals for the failure of their ideas as long as the remarks are colorblind.
Juan Williams was pointing out that too often liberals are NOT colorblind – that liberals hold a special hatred for highly intelligent and accomplished blacks specifically because they are black. That would be like a white conservative holding a special hatred for a white liberal as a ‘traitor’ to their race… Sorry, but I’m just not seeing that out there.
I‘d like to know if there are ANY true conservatives reading this who wouldn’t have much preferred to cast their 2008 presidential vote for Justice Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Herman Cain, Alan West, Condi Rice or any number of other (black-but who cares?) true conservatives if they’d been on the ballot – instead of having to vote for John McCain… Anyone? I have yet to meet any…
Liberals who are constantly seeing skin color are the true racists. Keep deflecting it though – it gets the attention of the other liberals and makes them feel good – Don’t you think?
Report Post »LIBSALWAYSLIE
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 5:53amI guess you didnt bother to read and or watch the video to see what we are talking about
Report Post »grandmaof5
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 5:54amAnyone ever notice how liberals can always justify anything they say but turn vicious if a Conservative says exactly the same thing? I like Jaun and often wonder, after the way NPR treated him, and how vicious the attacks are moving towards 2012, not to mention Wisconsin, why he doesn’t join Conservatives in the fight to save our country. This country has been good to him, he has worked hard and achieved to American dream (with some bumps along the way), but to keep siding with those that want the dream only for themselves is a mystery to me.
Report Post »Moment of Clarity
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 6:05amJZS – I WANT the First Lady to encourage/promote healthy dieting and exercise for kids, which is accomplished by marketing – I DON’T WANT her legislating parenting skills
Report Post »HappyStretchedThin
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 6:27amI love America and idiots like JZS.
Report Post »JZS, your very words speak against your own point.
You can say black liberals are attacked. But you can‘t HONESTLY say they’re attacked BECAUSE they’re black, rather because of their poisonous world-view!
You can say we attack Michelle Obama here. But you can‘t HONESTLY say she’s a target because of her race, rather because of her silly food-czar nanny-state notions!
You can say we attack radical Islam here. But you can‘t HONESTLY say it’s because they’re Arabs (which not all are, of course) or any other race, rather because of their belief system which holds as law things that are anethema to the freedoms we will not relinquish here in America.
1911 is dead on. Our attacks our principle-based. We are judging the content of their character and the bankruptcy of their ideas. Manifestly NOT their race, religion, age, gender, or any other “Census category” you can think of.
Your very attacks and our responses are evidence that you think wrong.
gr8photoman
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 6:42amI doubt seriously you’re sickened all that much, jzs. You‘d like us to ’think‘ you’re sickened. Personally I don’t think your that nauseous.
I think your 8 lbs of horse squeeze in a 4 lb bag.
Report Post »hifi74
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 6:58amFunny you should say that JZS, because it would seem that the people that have the biggest problem with race are the ones who bring it up all the time. Lets see who are the ones bringing race up nearly all day everyday? Ohh thats right the liberals do. Hmmm seems that they may have some closet issues to deal with there, or ooooor the liberals toeing their line have a closet issue with accepting the obvious racial discrimination coming from the left. Might I point your attention to some quotes from some well known liberals that faired little to no scrutiny from people like you because they are liberals. So lets take a look shall we.
“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,“ ”I mean, that’s a storybook, man.” – Joe Biden Vice President
“ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama – a ‘light-skinned‘ African American ’with no ***** dialect, unless he wanted to have one.’ ” – Harry Reid
“A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee,” – Bill Clinton, talking to Ted Kennedy about then Senator Obama
Where was the outrage then? Sorry JZS but if you are going to make wild accusations like that you better come to the ring with something better then that flaccid pipe dream “reality” of yours!
Report Post »Quazza
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 7:21am@JZS
“And everyone here chimes in about the evils of the Muslim religion, although they conveniently forget there is about one rape and one murder per minute in this, our Christian nation.”
So, what you are saying is two wrongs make a right? Also, Obama said we are not a Christian nation remember?
Report Post »dutchtouch
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 7:30am@JZS while addressing @ameriwoman you hit the nail on the head.
Report Post »Liberals of ANY color are often attacked. But that is NOT because of their color. It is because their philosophy is so egregious and has been proven to be wrong time and again.
The real racists are on the left. They ALWAYS see the color of an opponent or even the person they support.
Case in point. During the last presidential elections many people voted for Obama, not because they necessarily agreed with him, but because they wanted to be PART OF HISTORY. What was the historical event? The First Black President. So you see, they voted for him because of his race. YOU SORRY YET?
I didn’t vote for him because of his left wing views which were very clearly on display. I was called a racist though.
country_hick
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 7:31amjzs
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 4:21am
@AmeriWoman, you must be new here. Every liberal of any color is attacked on this website. That’s what how this website makes money. Of course Obama is attacked in virtually every post, and whenever the First Lady says American children should eat healthier (as any nutritionist or doctor in the world would agree), she’s called a fatty idiot. But let‘s just say that’s because Obama is liberal.
Hmmm… Go take a look at the Huffington Post. ALL things Conservative are attacked there. THAT is how they make their money. Bush is attacked in virtually every post. Anyone who disagrees with the current administration is attacked. Parents are attacked and told they are incapable of raising their own children without the government telling them how to do it.
Dare to take a look at the hate the LEFT is showing up in Wisconsin. It will mirror the hate that was shown to Bush by the left and CLAIMED to be shown by the right to Obama (but rarely shown). Oh, by the way, isn’t Wisconsin a prime example of what your sides major spokesperson, Pelosi, called ASTROTURF?
Report Post »Lone Ranger
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 7:53amJuan is finally opening his eyes. Democrats are holding blacks in chains of ideology just as they used to hold them in chains of iron. And if any of them wander off the plantation, like Clarence Thomas or Juan Williams, the liberals set their dogs on them. A 90% voting bloc for democrats is not loyalty, nor gratitude, nor trust. It is servility. You don’t have to scratch a democrat very deeply to see the racist beneath.
But hey, you don’t have to believe me. Look at their own words.
http://stoprepublicans.blogspot.com/2008_06_01_archive.html
Report Post »RightUnite
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 7:57am@JZS… What you really meant to say is, “I’m only sickened by attacks on black liberals, I’m ok with attacks on black conservatives”. We know how your liberal mind works.
Report Post »arx
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 7:59amJZS, it’s not a christian nation, remember? Sadly, it’s packed full of godless wonders, such as yourself, who don’t know up from down, left from right. Floating aimlesslly around, forming opinions not on logic, and God given understanding between right and wrong, but on what they want to believe. If it WAS a christian nation, like it used to be, there would be a general harmony and prosperity that we had for the first two centuries of the republic. When was the last time YOU went to church?
Report Post »Rob
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 8:04amI can’t stand black liberals… or any liberals.
Report Post »LAMET
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 8:04am@Americanwoman – IGNORE JZS – he’s a liberal troll posting FALSE information.
As usual – they cannot deal with FACTS or with honesty – they just LIE and try (unsuccessfully) to discredit everyone. they are PAID to post this information.
They are the ones posting the attacks on liberals so they can go back to their Masters at mediamatters and moveon.org – who in turn claim the TROLL postings are legit to their audience of sheeple…
Report Post »Cemoto78
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 8:21am@HappyStretchedThin,
Excellent. I agree 100%.
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 8:22amGood work JZS! With just two short posts you brought out all sorts of comments! This has turned into the “respond to JZS” block.
It must suck to have to go to these extremes to get someone to talk to you. Why don’t you climb out of the basement and get out and see the real world. Maybe meet a nice woman (or man) that you can find something in common with…er…scratch that…Maybe meet someone who finds you sexy…er….sorry…Maybe meet someone who finds you witty and clever…No…
I don’t know JZS, maybe you should just stay in mom’s basement and troll the Blaze looking for someone to respond to you. We love you here JZS…
Report Post »smithclar3nc3
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 8:47amWhere when and by whom?
Report Post »Oil_Robb
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 8:50amTher are no attacks on black liberals…..where is Sharpton on this one?
Report Post »Showtime
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 8:56am@JZS ~
You have stepped in it now!
Georgia’s 5th District is “represented” by John Lewis, a black progressive Democrat who would have blacks beholdened to government handouts. (That’s what is referred to as keeping them on the plantation.) Rather than vote for legislation that would fuel the engine to produce jobs and security for his constituents, he votes for whatever Obama wants and is in lock step with him.
What the government gives, the government can take away. In today’s time, what the private individual makes, Obama is working on taking away.
Georgia is a Republican state. We don‘t care what color a man’s skin is. We care about conservative values. Herman Cain is a conservative, and the Democratic Party is giving him a hard time about conservatism. Do a search on Herman Cain. You will see that he is an intelligent, productive conservative. We like Herman Cain here in Georgia both as a man and as a conservative. He has good sense and uses his head, not the government dole.
Report Post »Tomr
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 8:59amEnuff Zenuff
Excellant post…My thoughts exactly.
Report Post »watchtheotherhand
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 9:23amI would submit that liberalism by its very nature cannot be color blind. It is an ideology rooted in social justice and this then mitigates that one see many issues through the lens of race, ethnicity, and creed. Not necessarily right or wrong as defined by others who do not subscribe to liberalism and whether those conclusion are successful or not. That‘s why black conservatives are attacked because it undermines liberal ideology at it’s core. A black conservative man/woman is an antithesis to liberalism that threatens some of its presuppositions about social justice. Therefore race (skin color) cannot be divorced by liberals from most situations. Liberalism is a religion (even though many who consider themselves liberal detest religion). If you like at its basic root values it is religious in nature without the divine character present. It can in many ways be just as militant as Islam can be in its demand that people either convert or submit. Liberal radicals are no less passionate about their beliefs than radical Muslims and there goal like Islam is the spread of their religion throughout the world !!! Just my 2 cents !!
Report Post »rocktruth
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 9:33am@JZS
Our Christian Nation? That’s a joke. Our nation is rapidly becoming atheist. At least 60 percent believe in Darwinian Evolution. After we took prayer out of schools in the 60′s all hell broke loose. Lawlessness has rapidly increased ever since.
The irony is that many liberal atheistic societies seem to be a vacuum for Islam.
Report Post »I wonder why? Because Christian’s are forsaking their calling commanded by Christ.
Mark 16:15
trolltrainer
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 9:58amRocktruth:
“@JZS
Our Christian Nation? That’s a joke. Our nation is rapidly becoming atheist. At least 60 percent believe in Darwinian Evolution. After we took prayer out of schools in the 60′s all hell broke loose. Lawlessness has rapidly increased ever since.
The irony is that many liberal atheistic societies seem to be a vacuum for Islam.
I wonder why? Because Christian’s are forsaking their calling commanded by Christ.
Mark 16:15″
Actually, I got good news for you my brother/sister!!! This is NOT true! You might be surprised to learn that the majority of Americans consistently believe in Genesis creation!!! Just under that percentage are the theistic evolutionists…or as I call them, the “confused” Christians who have bought into the evo dogma but still remain firm that God is in control. These people are easily reached by showing them just how weak the evo argument is. Darwinian evolutionists are actually a VERY small percentage, though in fairness to them they are growing presently…Up to 16% in 2010!
http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx
What is even more inspirational is the fact that teachers, by and large, do not buy into evolution either and only about 28% of biology teachers actually TEACH evolution! Around 13% actively teach creationism. The majority…60%…cautiously remain non-committal in the classroom and gloss over the subject.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08creationism.html?_r=1
I have learned through the years that liberals, atheists, evos…are actually a small, radical fringe element with a very large and obnoxious voice. The truth is the vast majority of Americans are still Christian and most if us believe in Genesis creation though we have typically been shy about voicing those beliefs in light of the fact that most people have been taught evolution is “proven scientific fact” for several generations now. But the pendulum is swinging back and creation scientists have caught up, giving us new models and theories that account for ALL scientific fact and still remain true to the Bible. Christians are becoming informed like never before.
There is still much hope. Even though this country has turned from God the vast majority of its citizens are still godly people. We quietly go on about our business while the fringe lunatics dominate the media and news and loudly cry and stomp their feet. But look at it this way, there is really no need to fight them…We have already won. Maybe not in this world, but we have eternal life.
Report Post »GODSAMERICA
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 10:15am@jzs
Report Post »Actually, if you wanted to have an open mind and really paid attention you would see that the majority of posts here are directed at what the liberals are doing in their attempts to bring down our Constitution and our freedoms. While some of us are so fed up with their attempts that it kind of runs over and anger at them directly leaks through that is not what we have been doing. Also, if you were open minded enough to pay attention and look for the truth from both sides you would see that the liberals are completely unable to prove that what they want is good for this country and so therefore all they do is make personal attacks on anyone and everyone that disagrees with them. They are afraid to discuss the issues and what they are doing because then they would have to agree that they have become a very destructive force against freedom, truth and the FREE American Way!
Curioso
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 10:22amMr Herman Cain has my vote for President if he gets on the ballot in 2012.
Report Post »This Gentleman has a very impressive resume and would be a great President.
He is someone that you can look up to and say be more like Mr Cain See what he has done.
abc
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 10:27amJZS clearly touched a nerve. But for various reasons depending on your political stripes. To conservatives, they find insulting attacks on their positions as racist because most can tell you that those policies are based upon ideological principles. They view liberals as the real racists who seek to promote programs that favor minorities when our democracy and market are filled with race-blind opportunities. Liberals, on the other hand, find insulting those attacks of “reverse racism” by conservatives (e.g., Beck calling Obama racist against white people), since their programs are also based upon a principled desire to undue real racism in America that persists today. The find the racism on the conservative side, since the denials of persistent racism by conservatives as the same self-serving pattern of denial that existed in more obviously racist times.
Who is right? Probably both sides, which is why everyone should be more respectful of the other side. There certainly is no mind readers out there that know whether a black conservative embraces positions calling for the end of affirmative action because they profit from being a shill who profits from ignoring the racism still suffered by other members of his or her race, or because they believe that such programs have long past served their purpose. And there are no omniscient right-wingers that can know for sure whether the black liberal promotes policies of social welfare because they benefit minorities in numbers disproportionate to their percentage of society, or because they truly seek to help all of the downtrodden regardless of race.
We do know this: 1) there still IS racism in America; 2) the incentives and norms in society are such that this racism manifests obliquely and subtly rather than in an obvious fashion; 3) the racism that exists works both ways, with whites racist toward blacks, blacks toward whites, both of these toward Hispanics, and all of these toward Arabs/Muslims, Asians, etc.; 4) it is always better to focus on facts and known outcomes rather than unknowable motives of speakers with regard to race (i.e., focus on some policy being regressive of discriminatory rather than calling a person racist); 5) it is critical in a multicultural/multiracial society (which is a great strength of America), that everyone reject this behavior when they see it; and 6) it is equally critical that they also reject selective outrage (only focusing on one particular type of racism, like reverse racism, or zeroing in on the bad behavior of only one race, like this site’s reporting on Arabs out of proportion with reality) that subtly furthers a racist perspective.
What is racism? It is the replacement of real information about the characteristics of a real person with unreal, skewed and unflattering allegations of different and untrue characteristics of the group that such a person belongs to. This is done by some out of ignorance, by others as vengeance for some perceived grievance, and by still others out of political or other instrumental calculations calculations (i.e., playing on others’ ignorance or anger for cynical reasons), like, for example, the Southern Strategy employed by Republicans, or like the race-baiting that occured at the end of the OJ Simpson trial by his defense attorneys.
Just as a river eventually smooths the rocks in its bed, so has our social discourse and interractions smoothed the relations between races in this country. The world hasn’t ended with interracial marriages or minorities running companies or even ascending to the Presidency. But that doesn‘t mean that the jagged edges of racism and its ill effects doesn’t still exist, but the contours of it are pretty complex, and the simplistic accusations coming from both sides are hardly descriptive of it. So everyone should show more respect to others and to the complexity of the problem before hurling evocative comments with such dogmatic certainty.
Report Post »abc
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 10:33amTrollTrainer, you wrote that creation “scientists” have caught up, and that atheists and (presumably) evolutionary biologists are merely a fringe group. Please cite for me that peer-reviewed journals that real scientists publish in, so that I can believe that what you are saying is true. My understanding is that Scientific American, Science, and a ton of other well-respected, authoratative scientific journals continue to maintain a theory of evolution that does not admit to the key precepts of so-called creationism (e.g., irreducible complexity), so creationism is rightly considered (still) to be religion rather than science. Please cite the references to disabuse me of this view. Else, please apologize for making false statements.
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 10:36amABC,
A little hint: Since we all know you as a troll, albeit one who thinks he is reasonable, no one is going to read more than a few lines from you. I am sure you worked really hard on that post, but knowing I am going to totally disagree with your illogical way of thinking and anything you might say, I am certainly not going to waste my time reading all that.
Report Post »Showtime
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 10:41am@trolltrainer
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 8:22am
Good work JZS! With just two short posts you brought out all sorts of comments! This has turned into the “respond to JZS” block.
——————————————————–
I was just thinking the same thing!
JZS, I haven’t found anyone to agree with you YET!
We are called “conservatives,“ not ”racists,“ or even ”racist conservatives.” We are conservatives.
Pure and simple.
Herman Cain is sick of liberal attacks on black American conservatives, too. I heard him say so on “Boortz” one morning this week. He is proud of being free and “off the plantation.”
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 10:57amABC writes:
“TrollTrainer, you wrote that creation “scientists” have caught up, and that atheists and (presumably) evolutionary biologists are merely a fringe group. Please cite for me that peer-reviewed journals that real scientists publish in, so that I can believe that what you are saying is true. My understanding is that Scientific American, Science, and a ton of other well-respected, authoratative scientific journals continue to maintain a theory of evolution that does not admit to the key precepts of so-called creationism (e.g., irreducible complexity), so creationism is rightly considered (still) to be religion rather than science. Please cite the references to disabuse me of this view. Else, please apologize for making false statements.”
That is more like it! I will take the time to read your trash when it is easily digestible.
This is one of the older arguments evos resort to when they cannot address the substance of the debate. Peer review. A review by your peers to insure your article meets certain standards. How does this prove something is fact? There is, in fact, a creation based peer review that insures any scientific work meets the crtieria of bible scripture. Show me where any evolutionist meets this?
You know as well as I do that the scientific community has shut out any scientists that do not agree with their old boy’s club. I am sure you have watched Ben Stein’s “no intelligence allowed” which, as it happens, is not peer reviewed. That is just the tip of the iceberg when you see some of the stories out there. The recent astronomer at the University of Kentucky is just one example.
But it is a moot point because peer review does not mean anything. Why don’t you show me where Dr. John Baumgardner’s model of Catastrophic Plate Tectonics comes up short as a scientific possibility? It sure explains the geological formations we find much better than Continental Drift. Show me where Dr. Russell Humphrey’s cosmological model fails. He has undergone many personal attacks yet his theory is airtight.
Even at that, I could prove you wrong by showing you many peer reviewed articles written by avowed creationists. That is not really the point though, is it? You would be correct in that anything that has to do with ID, or anything that questions evolution, is not going to meet peer review. Look at all the problems Dr. Mary Schweitzer ran into with her blood cells in a T-Rex thigh bone, and she is not even a creationist. Again, it proves nothing. Argue substance. Show me how evolution works. Show me how life began…Without intelligence. You cannot. You lose. People are not stupid.
Report Post »abc
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 11:00amTroll,
A little hint for you: you actually have read more of what I wrote than you let on, in all likelihood. And your unwillingness to respond to my fact-based claim that what you wrote about science versus creationism is TOTALLY FALSE and CONTRARY TO THE FACTS, then any rational person should ignore you, not me, on this point. That they do not doesn’t prove you right, since they, like you, are in a small minority of thinking, rational people who choose to believe facts rather than fantasy. And since we in the mainstream regularly consult informed rational people rather than fantasy-deluded fringe groups in every other aspect of our lives (e.g., consulting a doctor, hiring a lawyer, managing our portfolio of investments, etc.), there is no reason that we should stop when it comes to deciding what theory to believe about where humans came from. Thus, you will not be the only one ignoring someone who disagrees, as I will do the same to you. THe difference is that I will have numbers and facts on my side, while you will hypocritically assert that those numbers and facts do not matter even as you plan your next check-up not at a shaman or religious faith-healer, but in the office of a scientifically trained physician. And that difference makes all the difference.
Also, unless you are a mind-reader, you are not in a position to claim with authority whether I am a troll or just a citizen interested in ensuring that fellow voters get all the facts and are thus a little smarter going into the ballot box. But since you prefer fantasy to facts in the realm of science, it wouldn’t surprise me to hear that you think you really are a mind reader.
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 11:01amOh, BTW ABC,
I think it is YOU who owes the apology. I fully backed up the statement I made by the links I provided. One to the Gallup Poll, which is universally recognized as the polling standard in this country, and the other to the NY Times…Which I would argue is not even worth wiping your butt with…But from the evo side should be one of the more acceptable news rags out there.
You apologize to me!
Report Post »watchtheotherhand
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 11:12am@ ABC good post…..I agree we should not nor can we know with certainty anyone’s motives. However, we can judge the fruits of someones motives as noted by their own actions or words over time so as to demonstrate a character pattern, we cannot paint large groups accurately but must old individuals responsible for their character demonstarted. Therefore, I agree wholeheartedly and would take it a step further beyond racism based on skin color, and include other areas of discrimination/division such as politics, religion, social status, perceived intelligence, nationality, sexism. Heck, we typically can’t even get along in families any more so it should not be surprising that we attack others with differences noted above. I agree we cannot make sweeping generalities. There is most definitely true racism on both sides and what I call opportunistic racism (using the racism allegation to gain political traction or ground ie Jesse Jackson in my humble opinion). There are people who do not discriminate based on skin color on both sides that feel denigrated when that allegation is tossed broadly like a hand grenade indiscriminately harming those who may not be guilty to begin with. I know Juan Williams is a liberal and I am a conservative through and through, but I admire Juan for being consistent and calling it for what it is and not putting ideology above right and wrong. I find him to be reasonable even though I disagree with many of his positions. Good comment ABC again very reasonable.
Report Post »C. Schwehr
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 11:14amNote: JZS is a TROLL…..ignore the comment.
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 11:14amABC writes:
“And since we in the mainstream regularly consult informed rational people rather than fantasy-deluded fringe groups in every other aspect of our lives (e.g., consulting a doctor, hiring a lawyer, managing our portfolio of investments, etc.), there is no reason that we should stop when it comes to deciding what theory to believe about where humans came from. ”
Correct! Just ask your doctor!
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2005/08/01/prsa0801.htm
Oh, the source is peer reviewed…
Report Post »seemsew
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 11:15amJZS, you are really off the wall with your view that black liberals are always attacked on this site. What you do not and, probably CANNOT understand is that I and most on this site DO NOT LOOK AT THE COLOR OF ONE’S SKIN, but LISTEN or even READ the words. Without some like you pointing out skin color all of the time, I often would not even know a person’s race. Give it up!!
Report Post »watchtheotherhand
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 11:27am@ ABC and TROLLTRAINER….I will get this out there right off the bat. I am a Christian and a believer in the Bible’s account of creation. I have also, as a physician, been required to take many biology classes including many evolution classes, so I don’t speak from a place of ignorance. Although, I do believe that evolution (as the explanation for the existence of things including big bang for universe birth) is still the more prevalently held beliefs of scientist (that is what they are interpretations of the evidence), more and more scientists leading their respective fields are gravitating to some form of intelligent design because of some of the very difficult problems evolutionary thought is facing as we learn more about the Universe. Just my 2 cents.
Report Post »watchtheotherhand
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 11:31amJust one of many examples………………..
SEATTLE, Oct. 19 /PRNewswire/ — The theory of intelligent design will
Report Post »have its first major European showing at a international, scientific
conference in Prague, Czech Republic next Saturday, October 21. Promoters of
the conference — Darwin and Design: A Challenge for 21st Century Science
(www.darwinanddesign.org) — say that attendance at the Congress Centrum in
Prague could reach 1,000 attendees, including scientists from Europe and the
United States, teachers, students and the general public.
“The conference will clearly demonstrate that the theory of intelligent
design is based upon scientific evidence and discoveries in fields such as
biochemistry, molecular biology, paleontology and astrophysics,” said speaker
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, director of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science &
Culture, himself an Oxford educated philosopher of science. “Many in Europe
know intelligent design and the case against Darwin’s theory of evolution only
through inaccurate accounts they have received from the media, and this
conference will help educate them on what intelligent design is really about.”
abc
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 11:35amTroll,
“You know as well as I do that the scientific community has shut out any scientists that do not agree with their old boy’s club.”
Just like the NFL has shut out 40+ year olds like me to preserve their young boy’s club. This is just bad reasoning. They shut them out because they have not produced science. As the great biologist Dawkins noted, just because a given creationist claims they cannot think of how one biological entity (organism or organ) turned into another doesn‘t mean that it didn’t happen or that some other scientist has not already explained it. Their stupidity cannot constitute counter-evidence. Science is not made that way, although a lot of political dogma clearly is.
“I am sure you have watched Ben Stein’s “no intelligence allowed” which, as it happens, is not peer reviewed.”
Yes, the movie was not peer reviewed and was heavily edited to serve a viewpoint that is based upon false premises, so it was soundly attacked by nearly every scientific journal in the country. Reason, a libertarian journal, also attacked it. Stein, by the way, is an economist and a lawyer, so how he becomes an authority on biology is beyond me. And his interviewing fringe scientists doesn’t automatically lend them credence either.
“That is just the tip of the iceberg when you see some of the stories out there. The recent astronomer at the University of Kentucky is just one example.”
To the uninformed, there is always an iceberg tip or slippery slope to point to. But scientific knowledge doesn’t work that way. And every major court in the country has properly held that creationism is not science, but I guess they, like the vast majority of scientists are delusional. There is an entire literature out there describing scientific paradigms and how overturning one never looks liike shifting from black to white, but from one shade of grey to another. Unfortunately, the creationists are calling for a shift from black to grapefruit. This is beyond wrong. It is truly laughable. But you will not understand this, and I know this, so I simply ask you to show me proof that a given creationist idea is scientifically sound but still excluded from publication. Name one example. That movie you cite did not, as Scientific American clearly laid out in a published response.
“But it is a moot point because peer review does not mean anything.”
Peer review means a lot, actually. Scientific method requires that experimental conditions be replicated, and that all potential counter-examples are accounted for. The problem with this highly conservative thought process, which demands caution in making claims, is that non-scientists or sloppy scientists can keep throwing up obviously wrong counter-examples that scientists must address. And when those counter-examples are disproven and not respected, then those non-scientists claim bias. But that is not why those theories are rejected. They are rejected because they are bad science, just like I am rejected from the NFL because I am old, fat and slow. By the way, if your attack of peer review is so solid, then I expect that you do not partake of all the other fruits of scientific method (the same method used in questions of evolution), like modern medicines, cell phones and airplanes. I doubt that it is true, but will not wait for you to apologize for attacking teh peer review process that you parasitically use when you need it but attack when it creates a theory that conflicts with your fantasy religious beliefs.
” Why don’t you show me where Dr. John Baumgardner’s model of Catastrophic Plate Tectonics comes up short as a scientific possibility? It sure explains the geological formations we find much better than Continental Drift.”
Actually, it doesn’t. Baumgardner used a supercomputer at Los Alamos to prove that the young earth theory, implied by the story of Noah and Genesis is true. This is not science. Scientists start with a null hypothesis and attempt to disprove it, thereby eliminating all other possibilities other than a given theory. Baumgardner didn’t consider all of those other alternative explanations but zeroed in on the one he wanted to prove, which is dishonest science. Go read Richard Feynmann‘s ’74 commencement speech at CalTech to see other examples of this and a beautiful explanation of how science is supposed to and generally does work. By the way, to answer your question, Baumgardner ignored the mainstream theory of continental drift, which all evidence supports and which reflects a better fit explanation for out the continents look today. This young-earth adherent hasn’t provided an explanation for highly disperate movement of tectonic plates, which all evidence shows has never moved faster than a modest number of centimeters per year, that his theory requires. But this doesn’t bother him since he is not interested in finding the best explanation, but merely the explanation that preserves Genesis. But the mainstream, accepted theory doesn’t admit to the biblical story that Baumgardner wants to prove. That doesn‘t make it any less powerful as the most likely explanation for how the earth’s plates have functioned for billions of years, but it does make that accepted theory problematic to religious fundamentalists, but they are not scientists. Now, because any scientist can plainly see that what Baumgardner did isn’t scientific method, it doesn’t belong in a scientific journal, just as I do not belong lining up behind an NFL line to hike a ball or take a handoff.
“Show me where Dr. Russell Humphrey’s cosmological model fails. He has undergone many personal attacks yet his theory is airtight.”
His theory is not airtight at all. You just want to claim that, since you, like he, need it to be airtight to preserve your biblical stories. But that isn’t science. It is religious driven politics. His theory has been thoroughly discredited, actually. Don’t believe me? Check out the brief explanation of scientific criticism that has proven it false, along with a bibliography to read the original sources:
http://paleo.cc/ce/humphrey.htm
What you are saying is equivalent to claiming a flat earth. Please stop.
“Even at that, I could prove you wrong by showing you many peer reviewed articles written by avowed creationists. That is not really the point though, is it? You would be correct in that anything that has to do with ID, or anything that questions evolution, is not going to meet peer review.”
Creationists publish all the time in other areas of science that do not relate to evolution, thereby disproving your claim that these people are being discriminated against. Just like I might be able to enter the NFL as a water boy but not a star QB, thereby showing that the NFL is not discriminating against me, but just my fitness in a given area. Same with those creationists.
“Look at all the problems Dr. Mary Schweitzer ran into with her blood cells in a T-Rex thigh bone, and she is not even a creationist. Again, it proves nothing. Argue substance. Show me how evolution works. Show me how life began…Without intelligence. You cannot. You lose. People are not stupid.”
Actually, Charles Darwin already did this some time ago. The scientific community immediately realized that you didn’t need an intelligent creator to explain biological complexity, and an entire new paradigm was born. Non-scientists, apparently, are still catching up. But at this late stage it is surprising. We have observed even speciation in a lab, so the theory has been proven under experimental conditions. There is nothing left to prove. The “difficulties” you cite are tertiary order questions about particular details within the theory, but the paradigm itself is so strong now that it would be tougher to overturn than the theory of gravity. Please go read the theory in a university biology textbook and reflect upon it, since you clearly haven’t. This is not a religious exercise, but an intellectual one. I think you will begin to see that your claims are off-base.
Report Post »Edgar Bennet
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 11:37am@JZS
In regards to your rape state. One lil difference is the rapee isn’t usually being called a Jew derisively by multiple observers/participants
Report Post »abc
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 11:50amTrollTrainer, polls do not displace scientific research. Scientific method is not a popularity contest. Also, the polling data about doctors misses the point and is problematic. First, it misses the point since doctors use meds that are designed and prescribed based on science highly informed by evolutionary science, so even if the doctor says he is a fundamentalist Christian, if he’s prescribing you meds, he is standing on the shoulders of Darwin as he is doing it, as are you by benefiting from it. The professed belief of that doctor doesn’t change that fact. Also, I noticed that the poll you cite shows that 76% of doctors believe in God, versus 86% of the general population, highlighting that those who are exposed to science are more likely to be less religious than the general population. In his book, Surely You’re Joking, Richard Feynmann highlights how exposure to science causes people to doubt, since this is what science requires, and this is corrosive toward their religious beliefs. That is a good working theory for why scientists in general (including, according to your citation, doctors) are less likely to be religious.
Watch, the fact that evolutionary biologists are struggling with certain aspects of the evolutionary paradigm (i.e., haven’t yet developed a theory for how one evolutionary advancement led to another) doesn’t mean that the theory has been disproven. It means that more time is needed to find those links, which has been the ongoing pattern for years. Creationists 20 years ago claimed that hemoglobin was too complex of a molecule to arise naturally, but now we have a solid theory for how it came to evolve. The same will be true in other areas, since that pattern has been going on for over 100 years. Also, it saddens me to see scientists reverting to intelligent design, since that really doesn’t explain anything. Think about it. You ask, why did that child get sick? I respond, because God did it. What do we now know, in terms of useful information, as a result of that explanation? Nothing. Now, if I were to start to explain the germ theory of disease and how we must keep food clean or use anti-biotics, now we have something useful. So, from my perspective, saying God did it is actually a cop-out. It also likely reflects the infiltration of politics and political money into a process that should not admit such taint. The Discovery Institute is staffed by religious leaders and funded by religious groups, and they, not scientific groups, are funding the Intelligent Design “scientific” conference that you referenced. This is a terrible mix: scientists willing to put forward unscientific, unproductive theories, funded by religious groups with a vested interest in proving the science wrong that undercuts their religious myths. No self-respecting modern scientist should confuse this with honest scientific work. Go read Feynmann‘s ’74 commencement speech at CalTech and you will see the only proper critique of scientific method. The one you cite doesn’t qualify.
Report Post »UlyssesP
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 11:56amjzs,
Report Post »Wow. Learn to read. What was that? You spent all your school days being dragged to protests by unionized teachers? Should have learned to read.
Edgar Bennet
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 12:00pm@ ABC
All ur proving is that science is a religion in and of its own. You don’t seem to have an open mind and anti-creationism is intertwined with your self identity
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 12:06pmABC:
I am done with you. Just in starting to read your response I can see we are now getting into the game of semantics. You spend 5 paragraphs essentially saying nothing, just talking in circles. NFL…Science…Yeah, they fit together…Baumgardner did indeed model what we know already happened. He used a supercomputer to show how the flood is possible…Thereby shutting up all who said it was impossible. Not only is it possible, but it best fits what we know today. So why would any sane, rational person not look at the model? Does it prove anything? NO! It is simply a theory, just like evolution. Likewise, you can object to Humphrey’s model. But he has adequately answered any objections. Does this mean it is true? Nope. But you cannot defeat it. Darwin answered nothing, only created infinity more problems. There is no “speciation in a lab!” You name something a different name and say it proves evolution? Lol! At best it proves intelligent design! You can call an animal anything you want, but it remains the same animal though it may have adapted by losing genetic information. But it has become nothing else, just a degraded version of its parent.
In any case, you write much but say little. Just play with words and meanings. You do the same in the political spectrum also, that is why no one takes you seriously here. I have work to do this afternoon, I cannot play any longer. You keep on believing what you like, it matters not. My side will lose in the end anyway, we all know that. At least on this earth. I am good with that. I just try to reach those I can while they still have the chance of seeing clearly. You are obviously blinded so I am wasting my time with you. What I say is foolishness to you. I understand.
Watchtheotherhand:
You write:
“Although, I do believe that evolution (as the explanation for the existence of things including big bang for universe birth) is still the more prevalently held beliefs of scientist (that is what they are interpretations of the evidence), more and more scientists leading their respective fields are gravitating to some form of intelligent design because of some of the very difficult problems evolutionary thought is facing as we learn more about the Universe.”
I would not argue that. I think ABC also interpreted my first post to say that the scientific community was turning to creationism. That is not at all what I said, I was talking about the general public. The numbers I gave are from Gallup. Case closed.
Report Post »watchtheotherhand
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 12:13pm@ ABC…I would most definitely take issue with you on the observation of a new species arising from an entirely different one. The Lab experiment I believe you are referencing was totally discredited. Just to keep it real !
Report Post »watchtheotherhand
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 1:39pm@ ABC…the theory of evolution solves nothing more than Creation (actually less).. Evoltuion cannot deal with how anything got here. The singularity of the big bang. Where did that come from? it still doesn’t answer the Origin of existing things namely the universe. God, however, by the essence of definition does not have a beginning. So evolution has the same difficulties as you see that creation has that’s why so many say that evolution may actually take more faith to believe in than an Intelligent Designer. Do you realize on a purely mathematical scale the improbability for the order of the Universe not to mention life on this planet. Mathematicians have calculated that the odds are greater than there are atoms in the known universe. Now that my friend is faith to believe those odds…….
One of the facets of science is mathematics–I began looking at the Big Bang Theory through the spectrum of math and probability and came to the conclusion that it is an improbable theory. To be viable scientifically, there should be a quantifiable probability that it would even be possible.
Let’s ignore for the moment that there is no viable explanation of where the initial atoms came from. Or that, in all the vastness of the known universe these atoms could somehow find each other to initiate the explosion. (This alone, if quantified as a mathematical probability, would exceed a googleplex–or a google raised to the googleth power–a number that is so big that it cannot be written by a human in an entire lifetime.) Note: A google is a one followed by 100 zeros
Additionally, you have the obvious fact that there is no scientific evidence in any other case of order coming from chaos. Or, if it is possible, what are the odds? How could you quantify the odds of order coming from chaos? The initial odds are so staggering as to preclude any further belief that this could be true.
Report Post »watchtheotherhand
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 1:44pm@ ABC….I think you and I would both agree that of all sciences mathematics is the most solid and least prone to interpretive error. It is truly the universal language of reality. In math, opinions, ideologies and agendas are crushed under the weight of pure facts.
Report Post »watchtheotherhand
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 1:50pm@ ABC….I really enjoy your comments they keep me sharp and focused and even though we disagree on some things we agree on others. But I simply don‘t have enough faith to believe in evolution and we will simply just have to settle for a gentleman’s disagreement. Have a good day.
Report Post »abc
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 1:59pmEdgar, your comment reveals a true lack of understanding of scientific method. It is one thing to have “faith” in a process that is itself proven, and quite another to have “faith” in a bunch of logically unconnected stories that have never been empirically proven. One creates all material progress and even makes predictions that come true. The other is a bunch of stories that are not verified and have predicted nothing prospectively. That you do not see that is rather troubling.
Report Post »abc
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 2:02pmTroll, of course you‘d say you’re done with me. I’ve linked you to scientists who have scientifically proven that your dear fellow religious friends are wrong. Even if it were true that I talked in circles, it is irrelevant. The examples you cite to make your point have been thoroughly refuted. I‘m not surprised that you’d give up so quickly, given this.
Report Post »abc
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 2:09pmWatch,
Experimental observation of speciation has NOT been discredited. You might want to take a look at the massive literature documenting it:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Can you please keep it real and reality-based?? Otherwise, I too enjoy the discussion and obvious bear you no ill will. I would just note that science has effectively pushed God out of the picture entirely, with the exception of the first nanosecond of the Big Bang and what came before that. There is no need to nor usefullness in invoking God to explain questions of empirical reality, and that upsets religious people, since they can no longer justify their beliefs and political wishes on the simple basis of God wills it or the Bible says so. But that political desire doesn‘t change the reality that the science is solid and hasn’t been assailed. Those that claim otherwise are not in command of the facts but are in denial for political or faith-based reasons. But that is not good enough to ignore the data. If you are not convinced of evolution, you ought to study it more. It is by far the most important and ingenious aspect about how the universe works. If you have to conclude that there is a God that set it in motion before the Big Bang, then so be it. But you cannot say it has no strong basis, since that would be more like a flat-earth claim. And we cannot tolerate that, as you will agree.
Report Post »KICKILLEGALSOUT
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 2:43pmDown with the Liberals! They are all just Commie Traitors!
Stand up! Speak out! They aren’t afraid to do so for their Commie beliefs, why don’t you share yours just the same, who cares what these lunatics think, spread the word, unite together and take back your community and your country!
Report Post »waggie
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 2:45pmWhat happened to toning down the rhetoric? I guess that doesn’t apply to liberals. All the more proof that they are dishonorable butt lickers.
Report Post »watchtheotherhand
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 3:10pm@ ABC…..last point I promise,,,,,I still did not see you deal with the science of mathematics and the significant problems evolution/big bang pose mathematically. Trust me I have taken more college courses on evolution than you might realize I have heard and studied and had to research every argument evolution puts forth from graduated to punctual equilibrium an so on. It most definitely is not as “factual” as I think you are trying to paint it and no scientist I know or have talked with or read has the unshakable confidence you seem to possess in making almost “matter of fact” statements. Science once held that the Nebraska man was absolute proof of a “missing link” it was taught in school books for years……Until it was proven to be a hoax and a pigs tooth. The hoaxster came forward afterward also. Archeology used to literally mock the existence of literal places as Sodom and Gomorrah….until they were unearthed. Science and the knowledge of fallible men sure seems like a scary thing to place so much faith in that they could never interpret the evidence wrongly. They have done it time and time again. Most recently man-made global warming.
Five Questions Evolutionists Would Rather Dodge
By William A. Dembski
Evolutionists are masters at covering the flaws and weaknesses of their theory. Here’s how you can clean house.
Most evolutionists give the impression that evolution is a settled fact of science, on the order of the Earth being round or revolving around the Sun. Evolution, we are assured, has been overwhelmingly confirmed. Only rubes and ignoramuses debate evolution. Any resistance to it is futile and indicates bad faith or worse.
For instance, Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins accuses those who refuse to accept evolution with being “ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).” To this he recently added: “I don’t withdraw a word of my initial statement. But I do now think it may have been incomplete. There is perhaps a fifth category, which may belong under ‘insane’ but which can be more sympathetically characterized by a word like tormented, bullied, or brainwashed.”
Despite such bluster, evolutionary theory is in sad shape. Cambridge paleontologist Simon Conway Morris, writing for the premier biology journal Cell, recently remarked:
“When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: ‘It happened.’ Thereafter, there is little consensus….” To the public, the evolutionary establishment presents a united front. But this illusion of consensus quickly evaporates once you know where to look and what questions to ask.
What follows are five key questions you can use to lay bare the inflated claims of evolutionists. Evolutionary theory is not a slamdunk. It is an exercise in storytelling that masquerades as a scientific theory.
1)The Fossil record Itself
2)Natural Selection
3)Detection of Design
4)Molecular machines
5)Testability
http://defendtheword.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/five-questions-evolutionists-would-rather-dodge-william-a-dembski/
Report Post »Jim in Houston
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 3:52pmLiberals don’t do that sort of thing, do they? This is exactly the kind of racism they try to hang on conservatives and Tea Party members. Can you spell HYPOCRITES?
Report Post »hthompson1
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 4:20pmI am simply sickened by liberals, period!
Report Post »abc
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 7:22pmWatch,
You are quoting a guy who works for the Discovery Institute. They are not scientists. They do not even pretend to do science. They have a mission to prove a given viewpoint right no matter what, and they have financial incentive to muddy the waters around the theory of evolution by taking scientists’ comments out of context. They do for creationism what Exxon does for global warming. And the pattern of argument is similar: demand absolute, dogmatic precision in the theory, which many other branches of science from cosmology to medicine do not demand, and then, knowing that the bar is set too high, declare victory. This author you reference misquotes and takes out of context Stephen J. Gould, who never concluded that the massive flowering of new species and the scarce number of pre-existing species was a problem for evolution. In fact, his theory of punctuated equilibrium helps to explain it. That knocks out #1. Meanwhile, the other Harvard professor (who, incidently, doesn’t write “for” the Crimson–that would be an undergraduate student position, but was quoted in that publication as a leading expert in his field) quoted by your reference was talking about the need for scientists to not speak dogmatically about their field. Yet, when critics like those at the Discovery Institute DO approach the subject dogmatically, it is difficult to not sound dogmatic in one’s criticism of them. I’ve already sent you references showing that evolution has been “tested” in the lab, so go read those references and stop listening to a non-expert instead. That’s #5 on your list. #4 merely argues that because some molecular machines in the natural world look different than ones that we’ve made, they could not be made by anyone but God, but this is a dumb argument that is already addressed in the Blind Watchmaker. Have you read that book? Go read it and you’ll see why #4 is an odd claim to make. #2 is the weakest claim of all, since it argues that nature lacks a power to “choose” in a deliberate long-term planning way one design over another, but this is not true. Very tiny differences in the probability of survival, do lead to one design winning out over another, which is how it manifests. The author claims that there is no evidence of this, but the evidence is overwhelming. The idea is so powerful that it has been applied to other arenas by man, like vaccine design and high frequency finance. So that’s #2. #3 is really bad as well, since it confuses the search for clues of intelligence with clues of intelligent design, this is like saying, here is a picture by Picasso, so God must have made man. Wrong. So when SETI looks for a coded pulse that perhaps describes pi or reflects a work of art or (not unlikely) describes evolution–since a great proof of intelligent life would be a message from beings that they know where they came from–since those are artifacts of life rather than life itself. It is amazing that someone could confuse the two.
With all due respect, the Discovery Institute is filled with a lot of intellectual lightweights with fancy degrees. I’m not impressed by the degrees, and even less impressed with the scholarship, which in this case, hides more than it reveals. And the overall quality of logic is problematic at best and intentionally deceptive at worst. You cannot expect more, however, since the goal of DI is not to do science, but to make a political statement and defend a worldview in spite of any facts to the contrary. That is not science. And those non-scientists are not qualified to judge the science. They do not allege fraud. They cannot allege mistakes in the theory. So they exaggerate the unknowns and falsely claim that those unknowns destroy the theory, but they do not. There is no massive conspiracy by scientists to hold evolution together, but there is a coordinated effort by non-science groups to destroy it and outlaw it from classrooms. And this is terribly wrong. Show me real evolutionary scientists making this claim–and misquoting or selectively quoting such people, as the DI and Ben Stein have done, do not count–and I’ll sit up and take notice. Otherwise, this is the same old misinformation campaign that has been run since the days of Lamarck, and at least he was a scientist with a competing theory…
Report Post »mattquest
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 7:40pmFunny, I’m just outraged by racist attacks on politicians, like the one in the story above, regardless of political leaning. What’s more outrageous than that though, is blaming racism for true criticism of policy, as you do. This attempt to shift the argument away from policy and onto race is comical at best. You can’t argue facts so you attempt to change the argument altogether. Good luck with that.
Report Post »mattquest
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 7:53pm@WATCHTHEOTHERHAND
Report Post »I‘ve got a few questions you’d probably rather dodge. Have you read Stephen Hawkings latest book? Do you claim to be more knowledgable about the world around us and where we likely came from than him? I don’t.
rocktruth
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 10:45pm@ trolltrainer
Please get your facts straight! I am not talking about the people who believe in Darwinism + God = Life.
December 17, 2010 – 4 in 10 Americans believe in strict creationism. That is 60/40! Like I said.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/four-americans-believe-strict-creationism.aspx
This nation has been backsliding for many years now. I do have hope but unless Christian’s are preaching the Gospel and living a godly life nothing is going to change but get worse.
Report Post »One1
Posted on February 19, 2011 at 12:34amJZS – We challenge liberal’s positions. We never look at a persons race. That’s a liberal condition.
Report Post »watchtheotherhand
Posted on February 19, 2011 at 8:42am@ MATTQUEST….Intelligence my friend is no the issue but what a persons bias is as he interprets the evidence most certainly is the issue. ABC likes to tout that his resources are real scientist but they start with this supposition,…..there is no God. And so when looking at the evidence this possibility is never entertained. So you would believe a mere man and his fallible intelligence over an Omnipotent, Omniscient God? Believe me evolution is part of a religion every bit as much as Creation and it takes in my opinion after looking at all the evidence more of a leap of faith to believe in big bang/evolution. Notice ABC still did not address the huge problem of mathematics and evolution. You guys really don’t understand the mathematical odds for everything to occur not only at all but at very specific timing intervals to one another. The math does not lie and this my friends is why many scientist worldwide are calling into question your supposed slam dunk facts. Sure I could site this and that and you could retort. Obviously this is a huge topic with much information but if you think you guys or your scientists are not bias then I can’t help you. That’s why ABC arguments are nothing more than trying to discredit sources not info. And BTW the website that ABC gave for speciation is really funny because it proves nothing other than really good artificial genetic engineering and selective breeding. Of course species can change within some defined parameters. But new species with wings when there was none or even transitions in between do not occur have not occured and if it goes on all the time then it is pretty interesting their lack in the fossil record!!! Thats is exactly why Stephen J Gould had to come up with punctuated equilibrium because he knew the record didn‘t reflect the gradual evolution so hey we gotta be right so let’s just come up with a neat little theory that simply explains away the evidence. Only problem his theory runs into is that the precious time scale evolutionists rely very heavily on all of a sudden becomes more or less obsolete in punctuated equilibrium. It’s obvious MATT and ABC are bias and think they have cornered the market on facts and ABC “scientists” are just as ulteriorly motivated as anyone else so that is most definitely a disingenuous attack,but for those following there is most definitely a bias interpretation of the evidence as is mine. The question is whose bias is better?
Report Post »mattquest
Posted on February 19, 2011 at 1:22pm@WATCHTHEOTHERHAND
You got all that about me from the two questions I asked? You couldn’t have proven your tendency to jump to conclusion and/or completely fabricate things when they suit your predetermined opinions any faster than you just did with all the assumptions you made about me.
How did you manage to avoid answering either of my questions in that novel you posted in reply? I guess I’ll have to figure it out myself. To the question of have you read Stephen Hawkings latest book I’m going to say no. Spoiler alert, he believes the big bang theory with no divine intervention/intelligent design/hand of god involved is the more likely scenario. To the question of whether or not you think you’re smarter than the most brilliant man of our generation… I guess you do? All joking aside, if you truely are open minded, it’s an awesomely thought provoking book, The Grand Design.
Report Post »watchtheotherhand
Posted on February 19, 2011 at 11:07pm@ MATT….Are you really trying to suggest that SH’s knowledge is infallible? You really think he possess all knowledge about the origins of the universe? Can you honestly say that when SH sat down to look at the evidence he was not biased against even entertaining the idea of a creator God? Of course he was, like I said it isn’t matter of his or someone else intelligence its about their bias that they will filter all the evidence through namely that he was an atheist at the outset and would never (no matter what the evidence pointed toward) would have ever included God in his equation for origins. Like I said it has nothing to do with the intelligence of the man it has everything to do with his presuppositions that he approached the evidence to begin with. He was an Atheist and as such his views did not allow him to interpret the same evidence we all have access to objectively as so many falsely claim, therefore his theories reflect his belief that there is no God. I’m not sure what you think I read into about you but I was commenting on your confidence in the intelligence of a man who approached the evidence with a conclusion before he started and then formed a theory that fit, and that is not scientific according to methodology………………..
Hawking here is using the same incoherent “argument” as Oxford chemist Peter Atkins, also a wellknown atheist, who believes that “Space-time generates its own dust in the process of its own self-assembly.” (3) Atkins dubs this the “Cosmic bootstrap” principle, referring to the selfcontradictory idea of a person lifting himself by pulling on his own bootlace. His Oxford colleague, philosopher of religion Keith Ward, is surely right to say that Atkins’s view of the universe is as blatantly self-contradictory as the name he gives to it, pointing out that it is “logically impossible for a cause to bring about some effect without already being in existence.” Ward concludes: “Between the hypothesis of God and the hypothesis of a cosmic bootstrap, there is no competition. We were always right to think that persons, or universes, who seek to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps are forever doomed to failure.” (4)What this shows is that nonsense remains nonsense even when talked by world-famous scientists.
Report Post »watchtheotherhand
Posted on February 20, 2011 at 9:03am@ MATT…..SH The Grand Design is not a statement of new thought or positions by the way. Many have made most of his same arguments. So what that does tell me is that you are not as well read on this topic as I think you may presume to be given your comments that this is “very thought provoking”. Just my deduction made on your few statements not jumping to “conclusions”. SH was a committed atheist and as such his work was no less bias than anyone else. His worldview was the filter through which all the evidence was processed. If you don’t understand what I am putting forth look up and study worldviews and how they influence even the most “objective” people toward interpretations of the world around them. And remember conclusions about origins fall more under the discipline of philosophy than they do true science even SH concurred on that point in one of his last interviews even though he tried to conjoin the two together.
Report Post »watchtheotherhand
Posted on February 20, 2011 at 4:11pm@ MATT….apparently you are the one who would rather dodge my rebuttal and questions……..George Francis Rayner Ellis is a high profile cosmologist who has co-authored paper on the Big Bang with Stephen Hawking. In a profile in Scientific American, he honestly admitted the role of philosophical assumptions: “People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth as its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.
Report Post »watchtheotherhand
Posted on February 20, 2011 at 5:43pm@ MATT…….Try researching the following problems with Hawkings position from other opinions (scientists) even those that have worked and co-authored with him from the following topics:
1. The fallacy of verified prediction
2. Hubbles admission about prejudice in regard to evaluating red shift data
3. Sir Fred Hoyles book slamming the Big bang in favor of the quasi-steady-state-creation model (2000) – not God creation but eternal universe because they acknowledged the problems with big bang required an initial cause they were strong atheists.
4. Problems with cosmic background radiation (CBR) bias and assumption in data evaluation
5. Light element abundance and the many controversies within the Big bang community itself
6. Symmetrical patterns within the CMB and the problems this creates for Big Bang
7. The Horizon Problem and the universal temp. of CMB that exceeds this horizon
8. Missing antimatter
9. Dr James Trefil, professor of physics at George Mason University, Virginia, accepts the big bang model, but he admits that there are fundamental problems:
There shouldn’t be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are galaxies, they shouldn’t be grouped together the way they are.
He later continues:
The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn’t be there, yet there they sit. It’s hard to convey the depth of the frustration that this simple fact induces among scientists.2
The creationist cosmologist, Dr John Rankin, also showed mathematically in his Ph.D. thesis that galaxies would not form from the big bang.3
The formation of stars after the alleged big bang is also a huge problem. The creationist astronomer, Dr Danny Faulkner, pointed out:
Stars supposedly condensed out of vast clouds of gas, and it has long been recognized that the clouds don’t spontaneously collapse and form stars, they need to be pushed somehow to be started. There have been a number of suggestions to get the process started, and almost all of them require having stars to start with [e.g. a shockwave from an exploding star causing compression of a nearby gas cloud]. This is the old chicken and egg problem; it can’t account for the origin of stars in the first place.4
Another problem is cooling a gas cloud enough for it to collapse. This requires molecules to radiate the heat away. But as Teaching about Evolution points out in the quote earlier, the big bang would produce mainly hydrogen and helium, unsuitable for making the molecules apart from H2, which would be destroyed rapidly under the ultraviolet light present, and which usually needs dust grains for its formation—and dust grains require heavier elements. The heavier elements, according to the theory, require pre-existing stars. Again, there is a chicken and egg problem of needing stars to produce stars.
Abraham Loeb of Harvard’s Center for Astrophysics says: ‘The truth is that we don’t understand star formation at a fundamental level.’5
Assumptions
The big bang is actually based on a non-scientific assumption called the cosmological principle, which states that an observer’s view of the universe depends neither on the direction in which he looks nor on his location. That is, the earth is nowhere special. However, there are alternatives to the big bang that reject this assumption. One has been proposed in the book Starlight and Time6by Dr Russell Humphreys, a physicist working with Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico. He has developed a new cosmology which uses the same theoretical foundation as all modern cosmologies including the big-bang—Einstein’s theory of general relativity.
This results in a cosmology which allows for the formation of the universe in the biblical time-frame, as well as the traveling of light to earth from stars billions of light years distant. This plausible solution to a commonly raised skeptical problem works because general relativity shows that time is different in different reference frames with different gravitational fields. So the universe could have been made in six ordinary days in earth’s reference frame, but the light had ample time to travel in an extraterrestrial reference frame. However, as with all scientific theories, we should not be too dogmatic about this model, although it seems very good.
10. Lack of observation evidence of population III stars
11. Nebular Hypothesis problems
12. Problems with angular momentum and Big Bang
13. The suns T-Tauri phase problem and the existence of Jupiter and Saturn
14. Sun mass and “supposed” age and extreme Earth temps early on and that it should be 25% brighter now based on Einstein’s theory E=Mc squared
15. The problem with rocky planet formation and the rotational axis of Venus
16. Computer models have never been able to account for the gas giants Uranus or Neptune forming so far from the sun given current Big Bang theories.
17. Huge problems with the Giant Impact Hypothesis of moon formation.
18. Fallacious distant starlight solution
If you have an honest and open mind you might want to check all this out for yourself rather than letting Stephen Hawking (a committed atheist) interpret it with his bias and worldview as the answer key.
Report Post »