tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-126661942011-07-14T14:25:18.594-07:00Try to change my mind, and one day I will be right about everything.natehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08827084964034033551noreply@blogger.comBlogger391100tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12666194.post-1149015465934522192006-05-30T11:38:00.000-07:002006-05-30T11:57:45.990-07:00

So I reread mr. gugg's post and thought, "okay, let's see if there is any life in this thing."Presupposition: God exists.(I don't know if anyone here actually thinks otherwise, and maybe I'm wasting my time, but hey, what is the chance anyone will read this anyways? If everyone agrees, tell me and I'll move on to another one.)The shorter form of the argument:(1) The universe is contingent.(2)

alder treenoreply@blogger.com42tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12666194.post-1124286613196249912005-08-17T06:45:00.000-07:002005-08-17T06:50:13.203-07:00

I haven't read or posted anything here in quite a while, but I read this in The Onion and got a kick out of it and thought you all might too. Enjoy:Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

emeryroolzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16898776167850924516noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12666194.post-1120714623999504692005-07-06T22:33:00.000-07:002005-07-07T07:31:07.286-07:00

After lurking around here for the past few months, I'd like to make an observation.This is going nowhere, and will continue to do so. It is fascinating and educational in terms of facts--oh yes indeed, I've learned a lot of facts here--so it's quite a diverting corner of the web. But debate isn't about a mere trading of ideas--it's about changing minds, about demonstrating that one way of

Fr. Ahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11732185067893985903noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12666194.post-1120093103612192582005-06-29T17:54:00.000-07:002005-06-29T17:59:57.056-07:00

Okay, I lied. One last post before I sign off. This article brilliantly explains why I rarely ever read Krugman. No, it's not because he is a flaming liberal. I have no inherent problem with reading liberals and examining their arguments. Nor is it because he claims to have expertise in fields of economics that he does not (his focus was on free trade and globalization). It's because his

Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01643475253783506808noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12666194.post-1120008465852915502005-06-28T18:26:00.000-07:002005-06-28T18:27:45.856-07:00

Scroll down. It's about the Coca-Cola ad.The Great Satan Manufactures Satanic Products...If you live in the middle east, invest in Pepsi.

natehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08827084964034033551noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12666194.post-1120006805664755782005-06-28T17:56:00.000-07:002005-06-28T18:00:05.680-07:00

I'm going to blatantly neglect this blog for a few days, possibly weeks. A random series of non-interconnected events have conspired to make me rather happy. Rather incredibly happy. And, for some odd reason, I don't want to spend as much time gathering invective and throwing it, or talking with people who would do the same.So, for anyone now participating - carry on, or check back in a few

natehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08827084964034033551noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12666194.post-1119966790578147212005-06-28T06:44:00.000-07:002005-06-28T06:53:10.583-07:00

No disrespect intended, but those who would prefer to make excuses for instead of demand answers from the Bush Administration vis-à-vis torture – they look like this.Don't worry, it's a comic.

lifeintheGnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12666194.post-1119934306493025132005-06-27T21:50:00.000-07:002005-06-27T21:51:46.496-07:00

The stories cut both ways, it seems.

natehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08827084964034033551noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12666194.post-1119829561062111252005-06-26T16:42:00.000-07:002005-06-26T16:46:07.553-07:00

From the Washington Post.Even if you think it's no big deal to condemn a man to death, is it becoming of a country alleging to spread "freedom" to behave in such a manner?

lifeintheGnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12666194.post-1119552735862718292005-06-24T11:51:00.000-07:002005-06-24T10:14:32.430-07:00

Let me begin by saying one thing:ginobiliginobiliginobiliginobiliginobili(Let that sink in.)And now on to Moore. The following was composed yesterday, ere game seven.____________________________________________________________________________________Let me state one thing at the outset:Michael Moore is a genius.And he is not a liar.Why, then, do I despise him? Because he is not commited to truth.

natehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08827084964034033551noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12666194.post-1119636093167151372005-06-24T10:17:00.000-07:002005-06-24T11:01:33.176-07:00

First off, I invite MG to take a look at what will be the beginning of a long series of arguments against the reliability of Michael Moore. More will come, as time and need permit.I'm also going to chime in (later) on the idea that fundamentalist Moslem terrorists do not like the US because of our foreign policy. MG has made a statement to that effect (though he didn't mention Moslem

natehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08827084964034033551noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12666194.post-1119558635158171162005-06-23T13:23:00.000-07:002005-06-23T14:25:56.053-07:00

Though I appreciate the flood of evicende this site has accumulated, I'm not going to allow anonymous posts. If you're going to say something, you need to stick around to defend yourself or provide rebuttals or retractions, and so you may as well have some contact info.(Read: Derek, send me your e-mail, and I'll put you up as a contributor.)My thoughts on gay marriage here, as well as responses

natehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08827084964034033551noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12666194.post-1119549556130969642005-06-23T10:56:00.000-07:002005-06-23T10:59:16.133-07:00

Here you have it, from the horse's mouth. Michael Smith, the British reporter who broke the Downing Street Memo story explains what "fixed" means in England:There are number of people asking about fixed and its meaning. This is a real joke. I do not know anyone in the UK who took it to mean anything other than fixed as in fixed a race, fixed an election, fixed the intelligence. If you fix

lifeintheGnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12666194.post-1119540312749580782005-06-23T08:14:00.000-07:002005-06-23T08:25:12.763-07:00

Go Pistons! I’ll start with Wazoo, who doesn’t seem too far off the deep end, and maybe get to some of James. "For each person we torture, 10 recruits sign up for al Qaeda" needs a citation.Just common sense. I know the conservatives hate the expression – “this is why they hate us” but it’s true. There’s nothing unpatriotic about exploring our foreign policy to determine what we might be doing

lifeintheGnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12666194.post-1119535699148414602005-06-23T07:03:00.000-07:002005-06-23T07:08:19.153-07:00

Until someone provides evidence of anything false in Fahrenheit 9/11, no one is permitted to use the name "Michael Moore" as synonymous with lying. Disagreeing with him doesn't make him a liar. Neither does his penchant for using dramatic devices in storytelling.Now, if you ask me for evidence that Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh are liars, I'm all over it.

lifeintheGnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12666194.post-1119499509044310122005-06-22T21:04:00.000-07:002005-06-22T21:05:09.050-07:00

I forgot the most important question I wanted to ask, and the most obvious one at that:To James:MG´s presented some citations on people killed at Gitmo. We need some kind of response from you - either a refutation, or modification of your first position, or admission, or what have you.

natehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08827084964034033551noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12666194.post-1119476468486951342005-06-22T14:40:00.000-07:002005-06-22T16:17:23.226-07:00

I've made a few adjustments to James' post, to clean it up a bit and support the right team.(Go Spurs. And Ginobili.)And the links in Emery's comment are fixed.A few things to keep us on the right track, and some questions from the editor:For James:These terrorists operated in direct contravention of the rules of war.They didn’t wear identifiable uniforms. They targeted civilians. And so on.

natehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08827084964034033551noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12666194.post-1119458511112408732005-06-22T09:36:00.000-07:002005-06-22T09:41:51.116-07:00

I have a legitimate question for conservatives that has always bothered me. Help me out.How exactly does gay marriage undermine the "institution of marriage" more than "I Want to Marry a Millionaire," "The Bachelor," Newt Gingich's three divorces, (not to single him out, just an example), quicky wedding chapels in Vegas and elsewhere, or Jack Ryan tricking his wife into going into S&M Clubs

lifeintheGnoreply@blogger.com27tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12666194.post-1119418429497813322005-06-21T19:46:00.000-07:002005-06-22T14:40:05.246-07:00

Go Spurs!Anyway, it’s somewhat moot, since Durbin has apologized, but nonetheless as members of the reality based community, let’s review what Sen. Durbin said:When you read some of the graphic descriptions of what has occurred here [at Guantanamo Bay]--I almost hesitate to put them in the [Congressional] Record, and yet they have to be added to this debate. Let me read to you what one FBI agent

Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01643475253783506808noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12666194.post-1119408339432962872005-06-21T18:47:00.000-07:002005-06-22T14:37:00.526-07:00

I’ll deal with the entire Gitmo controversy in my next post. This is about the curious and somewhat amusing way that so many on the left assume that conservatives must be ignorant, or evil, or some combination thereof, to hold the views they do. Really, we aren’t either.I bet you don't even know what he actually said. I bet you only know what Rush and Sean and Bill told you to believe he said.

Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01643475253783506808noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12666194.post-1119398598611368092005-06-21T16:27:00.000-07:002005-06-21T17:03:18.616-07:00

For a quick reference, this is what Dick Durbin actually said, aptly summarized here.(And a quick plug - I´m a huge fan of the guy that does this blog, though his views are usually far more left-leaning than mine. But he´s fair. )I think Durbin´s words and the spin that´s been put on them is a good subject for debate, and if this turns into a new...thread...for lack of a better word (since

natehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08827084964034033551noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12666194.post-1118948538022024832005-06-16T12:00:00.000-07:002005-06-16T12:03:46.283-07:00

Actually, it's someone else's words, but, whatever. I think I've said about all that needs to be said and I'd just be repeating myself forever. So, read this and, uh, I dunno, stop bothering me. :)Thank to mg for the link.

emeryroolzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16898776167850924516noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12666194.post-1118939466945006162005-06-16T08:57:00.000-07:002005-06-16T09:31:06.953-07:00

a.k.a Global Warming. I haven't been here in a while, and it appears that I have some work to do. First, I should disclose that I work amongst a bunch of environmental scientists, although I am not a scientist myself. But I'm far from a tree-hugging hippie. Tree MOLESTING, maybe, but no hugging.That having been said, on to James' post: This is ridiculous. I mean really. ANWR - at least the

emeryroolzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16898776167850924516noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12666194.post-1118101113171771942005-06-06T16:31:00.000-07:002005-06-06T16:38:33.180-07:00

Michael Yon, soldier in IraqRiverbend, in Baghdad BurningVery diametrically opposed. And I´m confused as hell. Someone please help.

natehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08827084964034033551noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12666194.post-1117912828985297782005-06-04T11:06:00.000-07:002005-06-06T08:28:48.210-07:00

In an effort to keep this concise, I´m going to divide my response to MG between this post and comments. Anything I disagree with that´s not especially relevant to MG´s point appears in the comments section. The only thing that I will address here is his comments on Iraq and religion. I´ve tried to summarize his points for ease of reading; if I´ve misqoted or misrepresented, please let me know.I´

natehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08827084964034033551noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12666194.post-1117899424600490532005-06-04T08:32:00.000-07:002005-06-04T08:37:04.606-07:00

OK. An actual post.Historically, choosing science over religion hasn´t yielded universally fantastic results. The worst slaughters in recent history have been perpetrated by self-professed athiests.The point isn’t whether atheists or religious nuts like Bush and bin Laden kill more people. World leaders have been slaughtering people for centuries and will most likely continue to do so for

lifeintheGnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12666194.post-1117832775792365022005-06-03T13:59:00.000-07:002005-06-03T14:34:28.513-07:00

Links have been updated in Ben´s latest post. Visit them here:Wikipedia on IDI´ve a new question to guide the debate:Most of the controversy over ID, aside from the obvious religious associations, seems to come from the fact that ID is not, by the latest definitions of science, actually science. "Science," as it is currently defined, accepts only naturalistic and materialistic explanations for

natehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08827084964034033551noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12666194.post-1117428896264325562005-05-29T15:40:00.000-07:002005-06-10T22:10:42.543-07:00

Emeryroolz, MG, and anyone else on the opposite side of the fence should take note that BenTheGreen's stance is not strictly ID, but that of a devout Catholic espousing ID. ID doesn't specifically mention God, god, or what have you.Living things HAVE been proven to change and adapt to changes in their environment.To change or perhaps broaden the conversation somewhat, I am wondering if, while we

alder treenoreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12666194.post-1117341922195843162005-05-28T21:32:00.000-07:002005-05-28T21:45:22.213-07:00

Many historians believe the modern environmentalist movement began in 1962 when Rachel Carson published “Silent Spring.” In the book she warned that the pesticide DDT was wreaking ecological havoc on America. Particularly, she claimed that DDT caused cancer and led to a thinning of bird’s eggshells. As DDT levels in the environment rose, she stated, eggshells would thin so much that they would

Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01643475253783506808noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12666194.post-1117227475609163112005-05-27T13:55:00.000-07:002005-05-27T13:59:41.796-07:00

Rules, schmules! I'm emeryroolz, and I makes my OWN roolz.Now, I’m not going to bother rehashing everything I said in my last post. I think I demonstrated pretty clearly why I, and most of the non-religious world, think ID is a bunch of hooey. And I’ll admit that I’m not a scientist, unless you count “pimp science,” though I am interested in it and read about it every now and again. Oh, and I

emeryroolzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16898776167850924516noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12666194.post-1117069654142474682005-05-25T18:02:00.000-07:002005-05-25T18:08:44.133-07:00

Bjorn enjoyed this article by Friedman. But I dissent. I mean, look, I don't want to be drilling in the wilderness, in the cathedrals of the environment. This is ridiculous. I mean really. ANWR - at least the part of ANWR we would be drilling in - is a barren waste land, not a cathedral. And the fact that Friedman has that reaction shows he isn't primarily concerned with the foreign policy

Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01643475253783506808noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12666194.post-1116015566941565322005-05-13T13:06:00.000-07:002005-05-14T17:53:49.003-07:00

(Before we begin, view the Rules below. They will be periodically updated as circumstances warrant.) (This post is a complation of two. I'm trying to keep it short.)First off, a mark of shame for MG:MG's quote below is a good example of the misunderstanding I was describing in my previous post about science:There's no a or b or c. OK? There's one scientific method. (By the by, street cred -

natehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08827084964034033551noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12666194.post-1116014637975025212005-05-13T12:53:00.000-07:002005-05-13T13:03:57.976-07:00

(Hell with it. I've got to spend the money sometime. May as well be now.)First off, a few scoldings:MG and Emeryrooz - bad form. All posts must be in "Open Letter" form, and must be funny (the Amy Grant reference was nice, though). Sorry if that wasn't clear enough.Second, we had probably establish a few more ground rules:1) Any and all blanket statements, excepting this one, are exceedingly

natehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08827084964034033551noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12666194.post-1116000786100258082005-05-13T09:00:00.000-07:002005-05-13T09:13:06.106-07:00

I've read about intelligent design. And here's the gist of it:"There are some things that we don't fully understand. Therefore, there can be only one explanation: MAGIC."This is what we want to base our scientific education on?If you look at Darwin's theories, there's nothing that really says that evolution is incompatible with belief in god. Maybe god directs evolution. Who knows? Nobody!

emeryroolzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16898776167850924516noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12666194.post-1115945727839376462005-05-12T17:10:00.000-07:002005-05-12T17:55:27.846-07:00

My only question to you Wazoo, is where do you find your crack where you live?Introduction to the Scientific Method:1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other

lifeintheGnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12666194.post-1115746947253065412005-05-10T10:38:00.000-07:002005-05-10T11:24:19.823-07:00

(I needed some kind of marginally offensive title to get this party started.)The following two articles on Delusions of Grandeur should get us off to a good start.Intelligent Design is for SissiesI´m hoping to god that my pathetic HTML works, and that the above link will in actuality take you to mgrant8.blogspot.com. If not, my apologies, I don´t really have time to check (at the moment, I´m

natehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08827084964034033551noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12666194.post-1115412056323428102005-05-06T13:40:00.000-07:002005-05-06T13:40:56.333-07:00

Dawkins, marvelling at his own stark intelligence"Mental masturbation: the act of engaging in intelligent and interesting conversation purely for the enjoyment of your own greatness and individuality." - UrbanDictionary.comDear Mr. Dawkins,I'd like to spend the next few minutes patiently explaining why you're an idiot.Excuse me a moment... (takes five)My apologies, I had to grab a bite to eat.

natehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08827084964034033551noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12666194.post-1115276787128650142005-05-05T00:01:00.000-07:002005-05-26T18:38:59.620-07:00

Read this first, and carefully, before posting, posting a comment, or reading anything else.This blog is for people who enjoy, for one sick reason or another, arguing with other people who completely and utterly disagree. As it is pretty normal for people to be offended by others who disagree with them, it's necessary to lay down a few ground rules.1) Making fun of people is completely and

natehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08827084964034033551noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12666194.post-1119558838637729662003-06-23T13:33:00.000-07:002005-06-23T14:23:36.303-07:00

I promised to defend this assertion some time ago:The church has, in history, always (and I will defend this later) definedmarriage.Here it is.Let me make my point clear, first of all.Government legislation defining marriage as a "union between a man and a woman" is a bad idea. Historically, it's inaccurate (not in "man and woman" but in the ambiguous word "union"). The institution that will

natehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08827084964034033551noreply@blogger.com3