Just The Facts Ma'am

Posted Tuesday, May 26, 2009, at 2:15 PM

I had to laugh upon seeing the comedy team, Penn & Teller, get thousands of signatures from leftists dummies to ban water. Dihydrogen Monoxide.

The Penn & Teller folks did not lie, or exaggerate about the Dihydrogen monoxide, when they asked the sheeple to sign their petitions, and the leftists wackos could not sign the petition fast enough. Thousands of religious leftists goofs signed a petition to ban water.

You can see it for yourself on YouTube, search "Penn & Teller get hippies to sign..." and you'll see it. Penn makes an excellent point in this video, there are way to many followers. People who just follow along and swallow any dogma that comes along, because it sounds right.

In my arguments with my friend Michael Hendricks regarding schools, and what is taught in them, Michael did something that almost all the folks on the religious left do. He claimed to have facts on his side, specifically, the fossil record he pointed too to justify diluting kids in school with anti-God theories.

Let me demonstrate what is going on. Lets say there is a person, predisposed to hate women. That person could make this statement, all factual. "Since women were granted the right to vote, we have had the Great Depression, the Dust Bowl, World War 2, Korean War, Vietnam War, AIDS, fifty million abortions in the US alone, a runaway porn industry, and terrorists striking the United States". This woman hater could, for his own political bias, claim that women granted the right to vote were responsible for the ills I mentioned.

If you argued with this woman hater, he could say that everything he just told you is factual. You and I both know that this numskull misinterpreted the facts, and drew a wrong conclusion.

Much is the same with the debate of Creationism and the religious lefts' view of things. They draw the wrong conclusions from the facts. The Bible says the "all of creation declares Gods glory." The religious left says those rocks are millions of years old. I point to the Bible, and they point to their prophets, scientists bought by taxpayer money, who come up with conclusions that match their religion.

Do they have Mr. Peabodys' Way Back machine? Have they gone back and see if that rock was there 250 million years ago? No, but they use their hatred of God, their anti-god predisposition, to present facts so that our kids draw the wrong conclusion.

Now Scientists that draw a different conclusion from the religious left are subdued, blacklisted, and the facts trampled upon.

There have been many studies of Mt. St. Helens and the aftermath. Canyons, formations, petrified forests and wonders the religious left have been saying took millions of years, were done in weeks after St. Helens.

Yes, the fossil record exist. No, the fossil record does not back up loony Darwinism. The religious left further complicates things by purposefully confusing natural selection and Darwinist evolution. There is certainly daily natural selection that goes on.

So you folks out there who still believe in God, don't let the religious left jump up on some soap box and point to the fossil record. The fossil record is a fact. Lying conclusions drawn because of an anti-God bias, are not fact.

Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

Debating religous conservatives on the origins of man is impossible. No matter what scientific proof is presented you will throw out quotes from the Bible. The problem is, you cannot prove the existence of a god. No matter how many times you present your bible, you will still not convince an athiest. Likewise, an athiest will never convince a devout believer.

-- Posted by mccookreader on Tue, May 26, 2009, at 2:21 PM

Would you not say you are exactly the same way sam. I say I have proof with the fossil record, you say you have proof from the Bible. but in your example I am a goof, leftist wacko, etc, etc, you used so many different terms it actually made me tired.

But it does make me wonder why you think only the left signs petitions. The right was diluded (in my opinion) to show up in the thousands for a "New" Boston Tea Party headed up by a man that has not paid taxes in years. But oddly enough you and your friends on here are staying silent on that little tidbit while you are screaming from the rooftops about the tax evaders in the Obama administration, proving yet again what is deemed horrible and sacriligeous coming from the left is seen as honorable and patriotic on the right. Very nice.

By the way Sam, do you think you can get a little more vitriol into your blog? You are just turning into a hateful little man.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, May 26, 2009, at 2:35 PM

Sam,

I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I read your post. Primarily because of your Penn & Teller reference. You see, I love their show. I've seen most of the episodes. And the one you mentioned was particularly hilarious. It was about the hysteria surrounding contemporary environmentalism. It didn't say environmentalism was 'bad', just that too many people are too crazy about it.

They've also done other episodes that are against some of the things you might associate with the 'left' (PETA, recycling, carbon credits, etc.) Of course, these are things that are associated with the 'left' and the democratic party (though they are not necessarily pervasive in every liberal's political positions).

But what made me laugh is the episode I just re-watched last week. The one that attacks creationism/ID as superstitious nonsense, and defends evolution as scientifically factual and sound (which kind of goes against the rest of your post). You should check it out. Their show is called "Bullsh!t". Other episodes you might want to take a look at include: The Bible, The Death Penalty, the War on Drugs, Family Values, Mother Theresa, Miracles, Anti-Prostitution laws, Abstinence Education, and the War on Porn.

These episodes are anti-death penalty, pro-drug legalization, anti-family values, pro-prostitution, anti-abstinence education, pro-porn, anti-creationism, and VERY anti-religion. Pretty much spitting on the whole gambit of modern social conservatism/republicanism.

So that's why I laughed.

The show calls out certain people from the right and the left (that's why I love it), though I think it hits closer to the heart of the right (religion, social conservatism) than the left. Or maybe I just think that way because I'm not a PETA fan, and I'm not 'hysterical' about the environment, just concerned.

-- Posted by jhat on Tue, May 26, 2009, at 2:48 PM

McCook Reader - I am not against Scientific evidence, I am against politically motivated lies disguised as scientific evidence.

Mikie - don't even try to lecture me a Vitriol bro. I read your stuff before your lord Obama won the election. Nice shot with the hateful little man bit. Cheap shots are a staple for you on the left, whenever Truth is shined on your darkness.

AND bro - the Tea Parties are about the only thing American that is going on in America nowadays. No surprise that you would be against them.

You and I both know that it is the left who hates, not the right. It is your hatred that is shinning through.

-- Posted by sameldridge on Tue, May 26, 2009, at 2:48 PM

mccookreader,

Speaking as an atheist, there are plenty of things that could (and would) change my mind about the existence of a god. I would be more than happy to elaborate if you wish.

-- Posted by jhat on Tue, May 26, 2009, at 2:49 PM

Sam,

Be fair. A quick look at this blog (and at the general national discourse) reveals that BOTH sides have the capacity to spit hate at each other. All we can do is try our best to remain civil on an individual level, and NOT contribute to the hate-spewing branches of our respective political parties. I try my best every time I write a response to be rational and hate-free. I like to think that I do an OK job.

The question to ask is not "does the left hate?" or "does the right hate?", the question should be "Do I hate?".

-- Posted by jhat on Tue, May 26, 2009, at 3:23 PM

Are you going to sit there, Sam, and say that it is the left NOT the right expousing the hate after what you just wrote above? Seriously?

And please, don't call me bro. We are both adults, let's leave the immature nicknames for teenagers.

If by American you mean that tea bag parties were paid for by businesses and sponsored by Fox News then yes I guess you can say that it is American. If you are going to honestly sit there and compare what happened on tax day to what happened two hundred years ago then you've got another thing coming and obviously have little historical perspective. You think just because they called it a tea party it was directly correlated to the Boston Tea Party

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, May 26, 2009, at 3:34 PM

And as for your statements about ID/creationism.

They ID hypothesis has not been proven. It has barely even been tested (by scientific standards). And by some definitions, it is not provable (in that the mechanism of intelligent design, a deity, is supposedly beyond the reach of science).

No peer-reviewed journal articles supporting intelligent design have ever been published. Not because they are being censored. But because astoundingly few have even been submitted, and the few that were did not meet the scientific standards for publication (issues with testing, spurious evidence, etc).

The theory of evolution (note it is a theory, NOT a hypothesis), has been well tested again and again. It is able to make accurate predictions about life on earth (a hallmark of a good theory). And it is well supported by existing evidence. It is the unifying theory of natural biology.

Evidence that conclusively disproves the theory of evolution (or proves ID) would be groundbreaking. Certainly Nobel Prize-worthy.

The difference between science (evolution) and religion (creationism/ID).

Science looks at the evidence around us (e.g. fossil record) to reach a logical conclusion (life evolved on earth).

Religion takes a conclusion (the Bible says god made life on earth), and looks for evidence to support that conclusion.

Science is willing to change it's mind. The theory of evolution (as well as most other scientific theories) is constantly modified so that it represents the best understanding based upon the most recent evidence. When confronted with new evidence, the theory of evolution changes to explain that new evidence.

Religion is not willing to change it's mind. Evidence contrary to creationism is typically dismissed as inaccurate or the work of a mysterious creator.

And may I also point out, that evolution is NOT anti-god. Many many many Christians find it perfectly acceptable to both believe in God AND accept the theory of evolution. It is only those who have a fundamentally constrained view of their deity that have trouble accepting the evidence. MOST Christians seem perfectly capable of modifying their views on God so that they cant accept the evidence in favor of evolution.

-- Posted by jhat on Tue, May 26, 2009, at 3:43 PM

Thankfully Darwin's discovery of evolution completely rules out the possibility that man came from some dirt that a god used to make an image of himself out of, and that woman came from a rib of this dirt-man.

Compare the amount of interlocking data from every applicable scientific field including geology, physics, and even molecular biology, all having observational experiments done, that test and prove the hypotheses of evolution occurring, with the DISCREDITED FAIRY TALE - a big invisible monster that nobody has ever seen or heard did it.

It is frightening that mass delusions of supernatural beings still exist today. It is the same thing as saying that my invisible fire breathing dragon is more powerful than your multi-headed fire spewing sea monster. So, come around to my way of thinking or I will commit atrocities for it.

Everything from the murderous blood stained Sky Daddy who drowned virtually all humanity and other life, sentenced everyone to leave Utopia after Eve (persuaded by a talking snake) ate a magical apple, had Jonah take a ride in the belly of a whale, ruined the life of Job, told Abraham to murder his own kid, killed all the first born of Egypt, had his chosen people commit genocide on the original inhabitants of Palestine, to letting his own son be nailed to some wood so mankind could party with a ghost - is a FAIRY TALE that humanity needs to reject if we are to see many more generations.

By the way if you are dumb enough to believe that this fable is real; in the Bible, the murder count is God/millions - Devil/zero. Whom would you rather spend time with, a vengeful monster or a "fallen" angel who thought he had a better way? I am NOT promoting the Devil, just illustrating the craziness in this stupidity.

Hopefully if you were previously deluded, after reading this you will see how foolish you have been. Society needs to accelerate its retreat from worshiping outlandishly absurd fictional psychopathic beings.

There is no middle ground.

-- Posted by Fizzmick PaChee on Tue, May 26, 2009, at 4:42 PM

Sam -

You must have hit Hendricks pretty hard with the truth to get him all riled up like that. I have been tempted to comment for a while, but you do such a good job of answering these liberals. I see that liberals hate you, that is fairly clear.

However, I have not seen any hate coming from you. You have articulated your beliefs, and defend them, and taken punches all the way. Thank you for constantly speaking out on abortion.

Bro, may I call you bro? Keep speaking out. You and I, and many many others, know that America is in trouble, big trouble.

You are so right about the facts being swayed to meet a political agenda. The left has been doing it for years. The fastest way to get fired as a scientist, is to defend Creationism.

Hey Hendricks - lighten up - bro!

-- Posted by RMontana on Tue, May 26, 2009, at 10:42 PM

Montana - your kind words are appreciated.

What is up with the "bro" Michael? I sense, as I am sure you do, that it gets harder and harder to defend the nuttiness of the left.

Okay to kill the unborn, but they are all concerned about the Gitmo prisoners. Okay for government to live and demonstrate unbridled greed and corruption, yet evil for oil companies to show a profit.

I am sure having to deny reason gets old, and causes one to get a bit testy. I think what Michael senses is the total economic disaster headed our way. (Oh Michael, bro, you will get to keep your government job, so don't you worry about it, okay?) Those of us in the real world, have a tougher job on our hands...and we are well able to survive Obama.

Not all the guys on the left hate me. Jhat is a reasonable fellow, and he understands the passionate give and take of hard topics.

Thanks again for reading and commenting. God Bless.

-- Posted by sameldridge on Wed, May 27, 2009, at 12:40 AM

"leftists dummies" is not hate?

"sheeple to sign their petitions, and the leftists wackos" is not hate?

If this isn't pure hatred I would sure like to know what your definition of hate is.

It's easy, as you have proven, sam and now Montana to ridicule those who disagree with you.

You point to the left's "supposed" hatred of God as an example in then in the same breath viciously attack ANYONE who does not share your belief.

As it has been pointed out several times on this blog and on my blogs, there are many more Christian sects that accept evolution along with creationism than there are that outright think evolution is nothing more than hocus pocus or as you put it some left wing conspiracy (forget the fact that it has been going on for ovet 100 years, that's pretty good even for us moronic librals). You just happen to belong to a sect that believes creationism is the only acceptable cause for all we see around us.

jhat completely debunked your argument above but you came after me and me only. Is it because I called you on your hypocrisy of saying only the left hates while at the same time calling them every name in the book?

There is nothing at all wrong with being passionate for a cause you believe in. I am passionate about darwinism and natural selection and you are passionate about creationism. I'm not going to argue with you on that. It's a waste of time, because at the end I'm still going to believe what I believe and you are still going to believe what you believe.

But I will call you out every single time you make a gross accusation about what the left is doing, when you are doing the same exact thing.

And for your information sam, I don't have a government job. I am jobless right now, applying every where I can think to, so next time you want to use me as a scape goat, make sure you have your facts straight.

As for you Montana, the fact that you think the left are the only ones that are involved in the "facts being swayed to meet a political agenda" you have just made my day. Let's talk about torture, or as the right calls it, enhanced interrogation techniques. Such a better and easier term to use. But in the end, torture by any other name is still torture.

I just absolutely love that those on the extreme right, such as sam, Montana, Steffanie, Sceptre(G5) think so highly of themselves and believe that they are the ONLY ones that are right that they can say hateful things with impugnity and then shout anyone down who dare disagree with them. You guys are a fun bunch and are pretty much the only reason I still blog here. I know that anything I say will just drive you hopping mad and you will do or say anything to twist my words into something that they are not. Keep up the good work.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, May 27, 2009, at 7:44 AM

You talk as if modern biology was a political viewpoint. It's not. The facts of science have nothing to do with politics.

-- Posted by bobyyyy on Wed, May 27, 2009, at 10:46 AM

As for me Hendricks - I do not think it is hate to call people sheeple when the act like sheeple. That isn't hate speech. No more so than telling your son that he acted like a moron if he drank and drove.

I notice that Sam uses wacko to describe Liberals, or his other new word Emotionals. I can understand how that irritates you.

What do you call someone who steals? I say, you call them a theif, but there must be some kinder, long winded, politically correct term to use instead of theif.

Calling a thief...a thief is not hate speech. Calling a liberal a wacko may just be a difference of opinion. Some people would say that anyone who bungee jumps is a wacko. Is it hate speech to call a bungee jumper a wacko?

-- Posted by RMontana on Wed, May 27, 2009, at 11:20 AM

Montanta,

"Calling a liberal a wacko may just be a difference of opinion."

Can't that logic be used to justify calling anyone anything?

I mean, I could say that Christians are religious nut-jobs who hate all non-Christians or that blacks were an inferior race or that Jews were evil and greedy. Wouldn't those be hateful things to say? Even if they were my actual opinions?

(disclaimer: those are not my actual opinions, just examples of hateful things to think/say)

-- Posted by jhat on Wed, May 27, 2009, at 11:58 AM

I have never seen any proof that would convince me that the theory of evolution is real, nor have I seen any proof that god is real, or that the bible is anything more than fiction. I choose to go to church and worship god, probably just in hopes that this is the correct theory. The problem is that I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the idea that when this life is over, there is nothing. For many of us, I dont think the human mind thinks that way, or wants to think that way. As far as teaching this to kids..I dont think there is anything wrong with presenting each theory as just that, an unproven theory. Present the FACTS on both sides of the argument and allow them to decide for themselves.

I can see why the theory of evolution is presented in school, if has some scientific base. But I really dont like to see religion in school. There are too many theories out there, I think our children would be better of learning factual information in school and learning religion at home.

-- Posted by seentoomuch on Wed, May 27, 2009, at 1:56 PM

seentoomuch,

Let me preface: I'm not trying to attack, just to explain.

When scientists say evolution is a 'theory', that does not mean the same thing as a guess or a hypothesis. It in NO WAY means that evolution is unproven or untested. A scientific theory is a framework of understanding that is used to accurately predict natural phenomena and/or events. A scientific includes not just one simplistic statement (i.e. evolution is true), but a large amount of proven statements (that began as hypotheses and were tested). The theory is also not set in stone, new information can be added to it, and it can also be changed.

There is 'germ theory' and 'gravitational theory' (not to be confused with the laws of gravity, which are part of gravitational theory.

It's unfortunate, because the common definition of the word 'theory' means a guess based on logic and evidence. Something that has not been necessarily tested or proven.

So while certain parts of the theory of evolution are still hotly debated (e.g. punctuated equilibrium), the general premise of the theory has been proven scientifically by empirical tests and the examination of existing evidence.

This is why evolution is taught in science class, because it is the best available explanation based upon scientific evidence and testing.

If you have not seen evidence for evolution, I would daresay you have not looked very hard. I would recommend "the Selfish Gene" or "the Blind Watchmaker" or a college biology book on evolution. All of these layout the evidence in support of evolution, as well as provide explanations.

Now, before anyone recommends that I try reading up on Intelligent Design, let me tell you that I have. I have read books/articles on the subject. I have yet to see any clear evidence that can not be explained by other understood scientific phenomena. And any evidence I've seen leveled against evolution has not been sufficient to invalidate it, in my opinion (or in the scientific community's opinion). I don't believe Intelligent Design is incorrect because I am an atheist, but because the evidence is simply insufficient to support their claims.

-- Posted by jhat on Wed, May 27, 2009, at 2:55 PM

Well said jhat. I went to college in the 80's, and took biology only because it was required. It is safe to say that I have forgotten most of the material, Im a math guy. The point of my post was to express my opinion that I think our religious beliefs should be taught at home and not in school. I dont have a problem with any religion, and I dont expect others to have a problem with mine. I think religion is a personal thing and a family thing, not a school thing.

-- Posted by seentoomuch on Wed, May 27, 2009, at 4:54 PM

"I have never seen any proof that would convince me that the theory of evolution is real, nor have I seen any proof that god is real, or that the bible is anything more than fiction."

God is just another word for magic, and there's no magic in the universe. The Bible is 100% pure nonsense and only idiots believe in it.

The evidence for evolution is so massive that it's fair to say the basic facts of evolution are the strongest facts of science. For evolution deniers or anyone who is interested in modern biology, I highly recommend this book which was published in 2009: "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne. Please read the reader's comments on Amazon.com.

-- Posted by bobyyyy on Wed, May 27, 2009, at 5:42 PM

Bobyyyy,

I urge you to be more diplomatic when addressing theists. While I share your disbelief in a deity, I cannot agree with your wording.

"The Bible is 100% pure nonsense.."

This would connote that there is absolutely NOTHING true in the bible. Which is not the case. The Bible is certainly FULL of nonsense. But that is not to say that every word is a complete falsehood. The bible is a large book, and it does contain some passages that teach good lessons and give good advice. Just like any holy book, certainly SOME of its lessons can be applicable to man's life (they were written by men, after all).

"only idiots believe it"

This is also certainly not the case. Isaac Newton, arguably one of the smartest men to have ever lived, was a Christian. And many scientists, mathematicians, philosophers, and other intelligent men and women have believed in the Bible (as well as many other religions).

Some people simply choose to believe on the basis of faith. Not reason, rationality, or evidence. And while that choice may not be the right one logically, it does not in itself make those people 'idiots'.

You and I are both on the same page. I certainly think there is a positive correlation between average intelligence and atheism. As well as a positive correlation between religiosity and ignorance. However, ignorance or idiocy are not the only things that drive a man towards religion. Just as intelligence and rationality are not the only things that bring men to atheism.

-- Posted by jhat on Wed, May 27, 2009, at 7:35 PM

"I urge you to be more diplomatic when addressing theists."

No thank you. Theists are idiots and I'm not going to hide that fact.

-- Posted by bobyyyy on Wed, May 27, 2009, at 8:28 PM

Anyone living in the 21st century who takes the insane gibberish in the Bible seriously is just plain stupid.

-- Posted by bobyyyy on Wed, May 27, 2009, at 8:29 PM

hmmmm....wow

I have to agree that the Bible has some good messages. Frankly I think they are fairly common sense. I think many (i.e. bobyyyy) dislike it because of what it represents and the fact that it appears to be the driving force or weapon used to fight against non-believers. I do think that you need to take it for what it is...a book written by man.

I know many people who are believers. Some are family members and some are friends. While I do not agree with them I respect their choices. I do not push mine on them and they do not on me. At the end of the day we are still family and still friends. Funny how that works.

As I have begun to read these blogs it is funny how little you listen to each other and how much you ingrain yourself into your own beliefs. I avoid that because it makes me ignorant. As much as I find myself disagreeing with Sam I also find myself reading his writings more closely and often numerous times. Sitting back and contemplating what he has said. I tend to gloss over others who I find my beliefs to align with. Point being - I am not sure if I am right in my beliefs. So I challenge myself constantly by throwing myself at the opposing view to see if there is anything to learn. Sometimes there is.

For me radicalized ideas tend to divert from logic and common sense. The more radical you become the more obvious it is that you lack respect and therefore your message is lost on me. This also applies to those who I share similar views. I tend to discredit you even though I may tend to agree. Ingnorance is a lack of education and if you aren't willing to listen to the "other side" and challenge your own beliefs you will end up being the ignorant one.

When I say "challenge your beliefs" I don't mean you end up thinking the way of the opposition. Often you may just find that you feel even more strongly in your original belief. YET I would still challenge myself because there have been times where I was convinced I was right about something. To the point I would argue to the death over it ...only to learn I was wrong. It was a good learning experience.

I do admit I get some comical relief in all of these writings. You start out with an opinion then get off topic by trying to clarify who called who a name and whether name calling is ok etc.

I fight hard to be Independant. That is not to say I don't have strong opinions on anything and everything. However, you will find that some topics I am left and others I am right. I go by what makes logical sense to me. Upon making this decision it is my decision only and I change it when I feel I have gained more knowledge to do so. I gain that knowledge by listening and challenging myself. NOT by shoving my beliefs down your throat.

At the end of the day whether you believe the Bible, God or evolution the weak link in all of this is that we are human beings. Our superior intelligence has made us ignorant and callous. The fact that few of you will accept your faults as a human means you will never make any true impact on anyone regardless of what views you have.

Sincerely,

A Stupid Human (seriously)

-- Posted by dane3737 on Thu, May 28, 2009, at 12:06 PM

hmmmm....wow

I do admit I get some comical relief in all of these writings. You start out with an opinion then get off topic by trying to clarify who called who a name and whether name calling is ok etc.

Sincerely,

A Stupid Human (seriously)

-- Posted by dane3737 on Thu, May 28, 2009, at 12:12 PM

Right of Center

Sam Eldridge

- Recent posts
- Archives
- Blog RSS feed

- Comments RSS feed

- Login

Hot topics

Risking My Life Is The Bravest Thing You Do
(77 ~ 12:03 PM, Oct 30)

Hayseed
(49 ~ 11:36 AM, Sep 10)

Paybacks and Nuttiness
(34 ~ 8:29 PM, Sep 7)

I Am Ready For REFORM!
(14 ~ 10:43 PM, Sep 6)

Lib Kicker
(37 ~ 7:59 PM, Sep 6)

Home