Blogs 4 Brownback

March 15, 2007

Is There Anything Less Scientific Than Science?

Filed under: Democratic Idiocy,Science — Sisyphus @ 2:51 am

From its embrace of evolution to its ridiculous assertions that the world is running out of oil, it is clear to right-thinking people that science often serves one side of the ideological spectrum. Sadly, that side is not the side which right-thinking people embrace.

We see it all the time. Anyone who challenges the hegemony of leftist men of “science” like Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, and Albert Einstein is automatically ridiculed, labeled a fool, or ignored entirely. Such is the fate of those who understand intelligent design, for example.

Clearly, the world was designed. Who could look at a sunset and call it a result of random coincidence? Who looks at the beauty of a meadow full of lilies, without also pondering the awe-inspiring Love of the One who designed both flowers and the Earth upon which they grow, and the Sun that warms them? Who can look at the human heart and not observe that the G-d-shaped hole many of us have carried within it was meant to be filled with the Gospels of Love and Truth?

Sadly, the ignorant exult in their ignorance. The mock us, they assail us, they persecute us at every turn. This despite cogent, rational, sensible explanations for why evolution must be nonsense. As if the Word of the Lord were not enough, though! That’s the part that makes me angriest of all. Scientists will worship the tenets of a dead Englishman who sailed around riding Galapagos turtles, but ask them to read the Scriptures for their evidence and they look at you as if you were the crazy one! The struggle against their idiocy continues, however. True science marches on.

Obviously, funding for “science” is an area in which President Brownback will have to continue the stellar work of George Bush. The potential for harm to the fragile minds of our nation’s children is enormous, should their heads become filled with lies like evolution, or should they not be taught the controversial nature of Heliocentrism.

67 Comments »

  1. Proof by sunsent? Write that in a thsis my friend!

    Comment by themurmish — March 15, 2007 @ 3:25 am | Reply

  2. What’s a thsis? For that matter what’s a sunsent?

    Please, while we welcome comments of all type (pertaining to the post’s subject matter) and contrary opinions, we beg our commentariot not to post drunk or high on drugs. Thank you.

    Comment by Psycheout — March 15, 2007 @ 3:45 am | Reply

  3. Wow, Sisyphus. That was a brilliant post.

    I’m speechless.

    Comment by Psycheout — March 15, 2007 @ 4:30 am | Reply

  4. Actually, Psycheout, I just clicked on the murmish’s link, and English isn’t his first language. His entire site is in German. We shouldn’t leap to conclusions about our fellow man.

    Comment by lyssie — March 15, 2007 @ 7:22 am | Reply

  5. If so, then I totally totally totally apologize.

    One thing I love about you, Lyssie, is your complete and total reasonableness. You have the patience of a saint.

    Comment by Psycheout — March 15, 2007 @ 7:25 am | Reply

  6. “Actually, Psycheout, I just clicked on the murmish’s link, and English isn’t his first language. His entire site is in German. We shouldn’t leap to conclusions about our fellow man.”

    There’s his problem right there, maybe. A language barrier.

    murmish, if evolution is correct, why do I find a sunset beautiful? What possible evolutionary sense does this impression of beauty serve? Answer me that, please.

    Comment by Sisyphus — March 15, 2007 @ 7:32 am | Reply

    • @Sisyphus ~ Those that could see the beauty of a sunset would be able to survive the miserable conditions in hopes of seeing another.

      Comment by Laila Moysey — September 19, 2010 @ 8:10 pm | Reply

  7. Wow, I’m almost speachless as well. Don’t know where to begin.

    Wait a minute – is this satire? If so, excellent!

    I did explore the “nonsense” link in “This despite cogent, rational, sensible explanations for why evolution must be nonsense.”

    Very good arguments therein. Guess this confirms that this IS really satire!

    Dave

    Comment by Dave — March 15, 2007 @ 8:24 am | Reply

  8. I don’t see what’s so nonsensical about ther beliefs of 95% of the people on the globe, Dave. We believe in God, unlike you. If I had to venture a guess, I’d say the 5% of the world that “embraces” atheism and evolution are the ones pulling our leg. You’re the ones with the satirical, nonsensical beliefs. Ours have been consistent since the world began, and the Lord cast Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden.

    Comment by Sisyphus — March 15, 2007 @ 8:28 am | Reply

  9. I like Dave. Let’s make him our in-house troll. He’s like an indoor garden gnome. Other than his foul language, of course.

    Wait a minute…is this our resident troll Dave or a new Dave? It’s so confusing. No profanity though. You must be a new Dave.

    Comment by Psycheout — March 15, 2007 @ 8:37 am | Reply

  10. Anyone who challenges the hegemony of leftist men of “science” like Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, and Albert Einstein is automatically ridiculed, labeled a fool, or ignored entirely.

    Actually, Einstein was quite devout. He very wisely realized that man is not capable of knowing everything there is to know about life, the universe and its inherent secrets. He quite firmly believed that religion and science can and must co-exist, and that God gave us our fine brains in order to be able to use science in order to be able to better understand His creation. Of course, the Dawkins crowd has very conveniently ignored the fact that the greatest man of science was also a true man of faith.

    “My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”

    We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality.

    Everything is determined by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as for the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust – we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper.

    Comment by lyssie — March 15, 2007 @ 9:10 am | Reply

  11. Wow, again. Why do you conclude I don’t believe in God?

    Further, why do you equate acceptance of evolution to being an athiest?

    Foul language? Please help me understand.

    Dave

    Comment by Dave — March 15, 2007 @ 9:22 am | Reply

  12. Sorry, Dave. You’re not the only Dave on the Internet. We have an occasional troll who goes by the name of Dave who tends to use foul language and likes to link to the church of Satan.

    I assumed you were that Dave and not the Dave that you are. You are most welcome, as is our foul-mouthed resident troll.

    The troll Dave doesn’t sign his name as Dave, Dave, so now I know how to tell the Daves apart, Dave. I hope that clears things up. Sorry for the confusion.

    Comment by Psycheout — March 15, 2007 @ 9:38 am | Reply

  13. Note to self: do not name any future children David. They’re everywhere!

    Comment by lyssie — March 15, 2007 @ 9:47 am | Reply

  14. OK, I understand.

    Sorta like all the Steves? :)

    Not your usual Dave

    Comment by Dave — March 15, 2007 @ 10:00 am | Reply

  15. Did somebody call me?

    Comment by David — March 15, 2007 @ 10:05 am | Reply

  16. “Actually, Einstein was quite devout.”

    Einstein was a devout pacifist. Pacifism is the worst kind of mental disorder. He was also a Deist, which is the third worst mental disorder. The second worst being atheism, of course.

    “Further, why do you equate acceptance of evolution to being an athiest?”

    Evolution and theology are mutually exclusive. Mealy-mouthed pseudo-Christians will pretend otherwise, of course, but a simple perusal of Genesis will reveal the fallacy of their assertion.

    Comment by Sisyphus — March 15, 2007 @ 10:22 am | Reply

  17. “Evolution and theology are mutually exclusive.”

    According to Anne Coulter in her recent “Godless” book, it’s liberals who claim evolution “proves” Godlessness. Sounds like you’re saying it, too. Are you and Anne in disagreement on this point? Or is she one of those pseudos?

    Dave

    Comment by Dave — March 15, 2007 @ 10:52 am | Reply

  18. What is your opinion of intelligent design, then? A lot of people are convinced that evolution DOES exist, but that evolution itself was designed by God — that He knew that human beings would affect their surroundings, and so designed us to be able to adapt to the changes that we create.

    Comment by lyssie — March 15, 2007 @ 11:06 am | Reply

  19. Don’t know if you are asking me, but I think Intelligent Design is harmful to both science AND theology. It’s just a PR campaign trying to pander to the gullible – and succeeding in fleecing their $$. No truly informed thiest nor secularist should buy that story.

    Dave

    Comment by Dave — March 15, 2007 @ 11:15 am | Reply

  20. Sorry, Dave. I meant to address the question to Sisyphus, where he was so adamant that God and evolution are on opposite sides of an unbridgeable gap. I am happy to hear your opinion too, though. :)

    That’s the thing: the mysteries of life are so deep, and faith is something that is so incredibly personal, that it is human nature to seek answers, and to try to understand. Even the Bible itself can (and has) been interpreted through the filter of each reader’s personal experiences. I think that’s why the topic of religion is often such a hot-button issue: people base their lives around what they consider to be the truth of things, and it is often very disorienting when someone challenges that truth. But, it also gives us the opportunity to further explore our own faith and to explore (and hopefully strengthen) our own convictions.

    Comment by lyssie — March 15, 2007 @ 11:23 am | Reply

  21. According to Anne Coulter in her recent “Godless” book, it’s liberals who claim evolution “proves” Godlessness. Sounds like you’re saying it, too. Are you and Anne in disagreement on this point? Or is she one of those pseudos?”

    No, I agree with Ann. Evolution is a Godless theory that only liberals, atheists, and other mentally deranged individuals embrace. Intelligent design is the only sensible explanation of how a thing like evolution could even be possible, and even THAT doesn’t explain how it could happen in less than 6,000 years. Still, I’ll admit that ID is probably correct. The Lord possibly allowed for hyperspeed evolution in the first 2,000 years or so.

    Comment by Sisyphus — March 15, 2007 @ 12:25 pm | Reply

  22. It didn’t happen in less than 6000 years. Anyone who believes everything started 6000 years ago is sorely out of touch with reality, IMHO, regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof.

    But again, you seem to be perfectly in line with Anne’s accusation about liberals – you fit the description. She claims that liberals claim that evolution proves there is no God. You’re claiming that too – God and evolution are mutually exclusive. It’s either or. So you’re one of the liberals she spews about?

    You can’t at the same time agree with Anne yet rile against the “mentally deranged”, who disagree with her on the very same point. Can’t have it both ways. Who is mentally deranged here?

    I can tell I’ve entered a forum where it’s pointless to discuss these issues.

    I wish you well in your life.

    Dave

    Comment by Dave — March 15, 2007 @ 1:15 pm | Reply

  23. Sisyphus, I gather from your posts that you are a Catholic. As a fellow Catholic, I am disturbed that you find evolution and theology incompatible. Catholics are not fundamentalists and the Holy Catholic Church does not deny and preclude the possibility that evolution was the means of God’s creation. The pope has said as much. If need be, I’d be happy to provide a link.

    Nor is intelligent design the same as creationism. You seem to be arguing a creationist perspective while the Church embraces intelligent design. My apologies if I have misunderstood your position. While you are of course entitled to your own opinion, it should be clear that your own opinion is not the same as that of the Catholic Church on this one.

    That aside, I agree with most of what you say and stand for at this site, with the notable exception of bombing certain Arab nations, which I can’t tell if you are joking on or not. (A position I am fairly confident is incongruent with Brownback’s “full life ethic” approach).

    Comment by Noonan — March 15, 2007 @ 2:14 pm | Reply

  24. No I was not drunk and yes English is not my first language but I claim that my English is usually good I just tent to do a lot of typo no matter in which language.
    Probably science (or at least I ;-P) can’t give you an explanation why we as humans like sunsets but science doesn’t claim to be able to explain everything. That’s not how science works. Science is not about the content but about the methods you generate it. It’s about theory and proof. If there is something that can’t be disproofen it’s not of any interest for science. Knowledge theory had this in the beginning of last century with Karl Popper. If I say something I have to give a way how to check it. If I say there are fairies in my garden I have to show this. It’s not other peoples task to show that I am wrong but it’s mine to proof that I am right. Only b/c I don’t know why certain things are like they are that does not mean that the next explanation that someone made up some time ago is the right one. I agree that thee are certain things that can’t be proofed but we have to rely on. Those are our axioms. But axioms are not a thing of which you should have plenty and also nothing about people should disagree. They also have to be as tiny as possible. I tend to hold it with van Frassen for this and only accept theories which I can utilize. God is a way too big assumption to be an axiom and not all people agree on it and I don’t know any theory based on god which actually could be utilized. I strongly recommend Ian Hackings book on knowledge theory for further studies for everybody here. He is not a famous critic on religion but only about science theory. At least as far I know him.
    It’s very hard to talk if you don’t have the same axioms but completly impossible if you don’t the same methods. That’s the real cleft between science and faith!
    Now someone will tell me that 95% of mankind (I think even more) believe in a supernatural being bla bla bla…
    So yes they do. But they disagree about nearly everything regarding it.
    People at all times have believed in a god or most of the time they had polytheism but all their gods were different and they all had the same great proofs like today believers. And it’s only a question of time until Abrahams man slaughtering god from the old testament will die too.
    Even if there was some supernatural being I wouldn’t d what is told in the bible cause it’s the least that I can expect from someone that he could show up and tell me what he wants. That’s no way to behave esp. when you are almighty!

    Comment by themurmish — March 15, 2007 @ 4:54 pm | Reply

  25. I have to add that I don’t think that evolution disproofes god. I don’t think here is a way to do that. But I also don’t see a way to poof it. So it’s uninteresting.
    And about intelligent design and evolution: I won’t say that evolution is 100% true. Maybe it’s even 100% false but it’s the best we have. At least big parts of it can be proofen but there is nothing that can be proofen about ID. So why damn evolution and see ID as the blessing idea?

    Comment by themurmish — March 15, 2007 @ 4:59 pm | Reply

  26. As Stephen Colbert said, “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.”

    Comment by RDM — March 16, 2007 @ 12:07 am | Reply

  27. RDM, you do realize that Stephen Colbert is a satirist, right? So it was a joke.

    It’s kind of cute how easily liberals are deceived by the media.

    Comment by Psycheout — March 16, 2007 @ 2:12 am | Reply

  28. Yes, Psyche, and he was satirizing you and people like you. And yet here is Sis, arguing that science has a liberal bias. You two are the reason he coined the phrase “truthiness,” and the reason that he says he doesn’t like books because they contain too many facts.

    Comment by RDM — March 16, 2007 @ 7:38 am | Reply

  29. Is there anything dumber than some dork crying about about science ON A COMPUTER? Hey Syphillis who do you think made yur computer and the internet? ANgels!?!

    Yo, I’m Syph I dont take drugs when I getsick, fon’t drive and eat nuts and live in a cave.

    Hey, he must be a liberal!

    ROFLMAO!

    Comment by Anon — March 16, 2007 @ 10:08 am | Reply

  30. No offense, Anon, but you sound like a real idiot.

    I’m sure you think you’re clever and funny, but you’re not.

    Does anyone else see the irony in a liberal making a stupid comment in a post filed under Democratic Idiocy?

    Comment by Psycheout — March 16, 2007 @ 4:18 pm | Reply

  31. I think RDM is an obsessed weirdo. S/he’s even coining nicknames for us. Watch out for a full-blown meltdown.

    Comment by Psycheout — March 16, 2007 @ 4:20 pm | Reply

  32. ooooh noooo!! Psycho called me an iddiot! It must be the EVIL computer and internet makes him talk taht way cos hes such a good Christian. Maybe all that ELCTRICITYS driving him nuts. Wonder what psycho does when he gets sick. Dear G-d Im sick and I can’t take medicine because a scientist made it!! Dear G-d I think I broke my leg but I cant go to the hosptial cos theyll use science to make me better!! Oops cant call 911 the phone is EVIL. And deliver me from ambulances!!! Engines are evil gas is evil the stuff inside is all full of EVIL!!! Dude even the Amish use sceince. get out of America Psycho, theres tons of science that goes on here. Go find somewhere people think lightbulbs are the DEVIL.

    Comment by Anon — March 17, 2007 @ 5:01 am | Reply

  33. ooooh noooo!! Psycho called me an iddiot!

    It seems that “Psycho” hit the nail right on the head.

    Comment by Psycheout — March 17, 2007 @ 12:18 pm | Reply

  34. I would like to join the ranks of those who ridicule you. You are hanging on to the victimization of Christianity, the same persecution complex that calls out a “War on Christmas.”

    Are you really afraid of science? Then perhaps you should examine your preconceptions. Science is feared because it leads to inconvenient truths. Especially wrt evolution. Intelligent Design is not science and that is why scientists ridicule it. It is stupid and the people that promote it are not scientists, they are propagandists. You are an idiot if you fall for it. This is merely an attempt to circumvent the 1st Amendment, and calling it a “competing theory” is a lie.

    I hope to see you on the foor of the GOP convention in my hometown next year, voting for Brownback. And I hope he gets the nomination so that people can see how far the party of Lincoln has fallen.

    Comment by Mike Haubrich — March 17, 2007 @ 11:18 pm | Reply

  35. Welcome, Mike! I have only one question for you: what’s a “foor?” Other than that, remember the old adage: he who laughs last laughs best.

    Comment by Psycheout — March 18, 2007 @ 12:42 am | Reply

  36. MIKE, take your AL BORE PROPAGANDA elsewhere before you put us all into a COMA with your DROWNING POLAR BEARS!

    Comment by b4bnc — May 4, 2007 @ 8:19 am | Reply

  37. Almost every statement in this post is mistaken. I find it hard to believe this post is serious. However, the comments suggest that the author of this post means what he says. Let’s work through this piece by piece.

    “From its embrace of evolution to its ridiculous assertions that the world is running out of oil, it is clear to right-thinking people that science often serves one side of the ideological spectrum. Sadly, that side is not the side which right-thinking people embrace.”

    Science does not concern itself with ideology. It is a method of analysing and understanding the natural world. The fruits of science may help or harm an ideology, but the process itself is not ideological.

    “We see it all the time. Anyone who challenges the hegemony of leftist men of “science” like Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, and Albert Einstein is automatically ridiculed, labeled a fool, or ignored entirely. Such is the fate of those who understand intelligent design, for example.”

    Those who “challenge the hegemony” are dismissed for a reason. They are not credible. Reading your post, no compelling reason to doubt the prevailing science is given. You are clearly motivated by your religious beliefs, and such arguments are not effective at persuading those who do not already share them.

    “Clearly, the world was designed.”

    No, it wasn’t.

    “Who could look at a sunset and call it a result of random coincidence? Who looks at the beauty of a meadow full of lilies, without also pondering the awe-inspiring Love of the One who designed both flowers and the Earth upon which they grow, and the Sun that warms them?”

    Random coincidence is not the issue here. It is clear from your post that you are not scientifically literate. This is reason enough to pay no attention to your claims. I mean no offence by this, but it is the simple truth.

    “Who can look at the human heart and not observe that the G-d-shaped hole many of us have carried within it was meant to be filled with the Gospels of Love and Truth?”

    G-d shaped hole? Not sure what you are talking about. Are we talking about the actual physical heart in your chest (in which case a hole is a very bad thing) or some other heart that doesn’t actually exist?

    “Sadly, the ignorant exult in their ignorance. The mock us, they assail us, they persecute us at every turn. This despite cogent, rational, sensible explanations for why evolution must be nonsense.”

    I must have missed “those cogent, rational, sensible explanations.” Perhaps they are in a different post.

    “As if the Word of the Lord were not enough, though!”

    It isn’t. Let me put it this way. The Word of the Lord, by which I assume you mean the Bible, does not convince anyone who does not already believe it is true. If somebody believes, then invoking the “Word of the Lord” is unnecessary, they have accepted it. If somebody doubts, then the Word has no sway over them. This is an appeal to authority, and the entire point of science is to mistrust such appeals. The theories of men such as Darwin and Einstein remain accepted not because no-one dares question them, but because all attempts to prove them wrong have failed (so far).

    “That’s the part that makes me angriest of all. Scientists will worship the tenets of a dead Englishman who sailed around riding Galapagos turtles, but ask them to read the Scriptures for their evidence and they look at you as if you were the crazy one!”

    Riding Galapagos turtles? What are you talking about? The Scriptures are not evidence, it is simple as that. At best, they reflect the knowledge of the time they were written. Do you believe that no progress has been made since?

    “The struggle against their idiocy continues, however. True science marches on.”

    I’m not sure what your definition of “true science” is. Clearly it is an unusual one.

    “Obviously, funding for “science” is an area in which President Brownback will have to continue the stellar work of George Bush.”

    An explanation, please.

    “The potential for harm to the fragile minds of our nation’s children is enormous, should their heads become filled with lies like evolution, or should they not be taught the controversial nature of Heliocentrism.”

    The controversial nature of Heliocentrism? Are you seriously suggesting that the Earth does not orbit the Sun? Perhaps you also believe that the world is flat. I hope you realise, or that I am making it clear to you, that although your earlier points are to some extent acceptable or defensible, attacking Heliocentrism is not. Luckily, by the time I reached this point in your post I had already lost all respect for your opinion.

    Is this website affiliated with the campaign of Senator Brownback? If he shares the view of science you promote, then his candidacy is geniunely dangerous.

    Comment by A shocked reader — May 6, 2007 @ 5:43 pm | Reply

  38. The EARTH DOES NOT REVOLVE AROUND THE SUN HOW SUTPID CAN YUO LEFT WING MORONS BE GET A LIFE AND A JOBN DEFENDING THJIS COPNTRY OR MOVE TO CANADA WITH THE REST OF THE TERASH!!!!

    Comment by Jack Fremont — May 17, 2007 @ 10:47 am | Reply

  39. LIBERALS HATE A

    Comment by Jack Fremont — May 17, 2007 @ 10:47 am | Reply

  40. MERICA AMERICA HJATES LIBERAL!

    GO BROWNABCK!

    Comment by Jack Fremont — May 17, 2007 @ 10:57 am | Reply

  41. I agree with you, Jack. You seem like a pretty sensible guy. Keep coming back!

    “A Shocked Reader,” on the other hand, sounds like an atheist and a charlatan. You have to question the intellectual honesty of someone who writes a thing like this:

    “G-d shaped hole? Not sure what you are talking about. Are we talking about the actual physical heart in your chest (in which case a hole is a very bad thing) or some other heart that doesn’t actually exist?”

    Clearly, this person doubts the existence of the soul. Why we should take such a person seriously is beyond me.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 18, 2007 @ 5:27 am | Reply

  42. [...] want my children learning about Heliocentrism in school. I think this doctrine encourages atheism, Darwinism, and anti-Americanism. I don’t want my tax dollars going to finance this kind of false science. It’s complete [...]

    Pingback by Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine « Blogs 4 Brownback — May 18, 2007 @ 10:19 am | Reply

  43. [...] I don’t want my children learning about Heliocentrism in school. I think this doctrine encourages atheism, Darwinism, and anti-Americanism. I don’t want my tax dollars going to finance this kind of false science. It’s complete rot, [...]

    Pingback by This has to be the greatest practical joke ever played. « GracefulFlavor — May 19, 2007 @ 7:46 pm | Reply

  44. Oh dear God… thank you for sufficiently motivating me to for the first do more to help the process of electing a new President than merely vote! It’s time to work my ass off to get anyone but Brownback elected.

    Comment by JR — May 19, 2007 @ 9:19 pm | Reply

  45. [...] I don’t want my children learning about Heliocentrism in school. I think this doctrine encourages atheism, Darwinism, and anti-Americanism. I don’t want my tax dollars going to finance this kind of false science. It’s [...]

    Pingback by YES! « Bien Matou — May 20, 2007 @ 3:00 pm | Reply

  46. ARGH! You’re a DEE DEE DEE!

    I don’t know, if you knew, but the colors from a sunset occur due to the difficult colors in sunlight… Ever held a prism against white light? Maybe you should try…

    Comment by bienmatou — May 20, 2007 @ 3:03 pm | Reply

  47. oho, i meant different colors, not difficult

    Comment by bienmatou — May 20, 2007 @ 3:04 pm | Reply

  48. “Clearly, the world was designed. Who could look at a sunset and call it a result of random coincidence?”

    Now, that’s science!
    I’m sure Stephen Hawking will be baffled by your groundbreaking way of thinking!

    Don’t let mathemtics or so-called “scientific experiments” fool you, after all, one uneducated man’s sentiment is the best way to study the universe!

    P.S. Keep up the good work, I enjoy reading your columns: this is one of the best parody sites I’ve ever seen!

    Comment by Skeptic — May 21, 2007 @ 8:30 am | Reply

  49. “Clearly, the world was designed. Who could look at a sunset and call it a result of random coincidence?”

    Now, that’s science!

    I’m sure Stephen Hawking will be baffled by your brilliant, revolutionary way of thinking!

    Don’t let mathematics or so-called “scientific experiments” fool you, after all, one man’s sentiment is the best way of studying the universe!

    P.S. Keep up the good work: I enjoy reading your columns, this is the best parody site I’ve seen in a while…

    Comment by Skeptic — May 21, 2007 @ 8:37 am | Reply

  50. By the way, could you tell me where that bottomless pit of oil is, because I would like to invest in it.

    Comment by Skeptic — May 21, 2007 @ 10:51 am | Reply

  51. We have enough oil in Iraq to supply this country for decades. New supplies are being located all over the world, all the time.

    But don’t let the facts get in the way of your negativist America-hating. People like you can only scoff from the sidelines while the real American patriots propel this country forward.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 21, 2007 @ 11:01 am | Reply

  52. I think you’re being a bit selfish here, don’t the other countries (96% of the world’s population) need oil too?

    Comment by Skeptic — May 21, 2007 @ 11:21 am | Reply

  53. Propel America forward by rejecting science?

    Did you know that the Arab world was more advanced than Europe during the dark ages, until some religious leader declared that algebra, optics and chemistry were against God’s will, that it was contrary to the holy scripture…

    Look where it got them.

    If America wants to have any chance of keeping up with Europe and China, then it’s going to have to commit a lot of resources to raise the scientific (il)literacy of it’s citizens.

    Comment by Skeptic — May 21, 2007 @ 11:27 am | Reply

  54. I think you’re being a bit selfish here, don’t the other countries (96% of the world’s population) need oil too?”

    If they haven’t supported us in the War on Terror, I don’t see why we should help them. They need to understand that actions have consequences, and if they didn’t help us, they helped our enemies.

    “If America wants to have any chance of keeping up with Europe and China, then it’s going to have to commit a lot of resources to raise the scientific (il)literacy of it’s citizens.”

    That’s exactly why we need to study the Bible more thoroughly, and not waste so much time, money and energy on this Darwinist/Copernican/Marxist nonsense.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 21, 2007 @ 11:35 am | Reply

  55. Fine, you go live in the dark ages then (good luck with black death and the inquisition), but I plan on staying in the 21st century, I very much enjoy such diabolical witchcraft as electricity and medicine!

    America doesn’t have the oil (Russia and the middle east do), it can’t do shit to prevent other nations from getting it, or are you willing to go to war against China, India, Germany, Japan, Great Britain, Brazil, Italy, Spain, France, Canada, Korea and Russia?

    And even in the extremely unlikely event America would survive such a war, the oil will run out sometime, you can’t delay the inevitable, the quicker you start looking for alternatives the better.

    Comment by Skeptic — May 21, 2007 @ 12:09 pm | Reply

  56. “Fine, you go live in the dark ages then (good luck with black death and the inquisition), but I plan on staying in the 21st century, I very much enjoy such diabolical witchcraft as electricity and medicine!”

    It doesn’t profit a man to gain the world and lose his soul.

    “America doesn’t have the oil (Russia and the middle east do), it can’t do shit to prevent other nations from getting it, or are you willing to go to war against China, India, Germany, Japan, Great Britain, Brazil, Italy, Spain, France, Canada, Korea and Russia? ”

    If they oppose us, and oppose freedom, we’ll have to liberate them. That’s our sacred duty as the freest country in the history of the world.

    “And even in the extremely unlikely event America would survive such a war, the oil will run out sometime, you can’t delay the inevitable, the quicker you start looking for alternatives the better.”

    The more tyrants we take out, the fewer will survive to use up the oil.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 21, 2007 @ 12:15 pm | Reply

  57. Last time I checked Korea, France, Spain, Italy, Great Britain, Germany, Japan and Canada are already free nations, and their general living standard is higher than that of America (less crime, better health care, less poverty, better secondary education, etc..), so maybe America would be better off learning from them.

    Even if America kills everyone else on the planet, the oil will still run out at some point…

    Comment by Skeptic — May 21, 2007 @ 1:17 pm | Reply

  58. [...] I don’t want my children learning about Heliocentrism in school. I think this doctrine encourages atheism, Darwinism, and anti-Americanism. I don’t want my tax dollars going to finance this kind of false science. It’s complete rot, [...]

    Pingback by STR : THE FREEDOM BLOG » Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine — May 22, 2007 @ 10:01 pm | Reply

  59. Excellent satire!

    Oh, you forgot Belgium in your list. Please do liberate us.

    Laughable.

    Comment by Wouter Lievens — May 25, 2007 @ 1:50 am | Reply

  60. oh, well sisyphus, I can only wish you a ton of good luck when you try to “liberate” the whole world. Or better not. Would be a waste. Even with all the luck in the world, you´d get steamrolled in a way that´d put a shame to what the Red Army did to Germany in ´45.

    Oh yeah, and those thousands of russian and european nukes raining down onto the USA would make sure that you´d even loose everything , IF you´d win the war. An anti-missilie-system is good and fine. The problem is that it can´t stop that many missiles at once.

    And of course, ragarding living quality, Europe is already better. The same on economics. And militarily, were also on par. Add in the Russians and the Chinese and the US Armed Forces look like a big joke.

    Comment by PG — May 26, 2007 @ 12:02 pm | Reply

  61. -Even if America kills everyone else on the planet, the oil will still run out at some point…

    I think it’s time we teach these foreigners a lesson. If it means we won’t have any more foreigners to talk to once we’re done, that’s a small price to pay for our safety.

    Comment by Marcia P. — May 27, 2007 @ 2:50 pm | Reply

  62. I feel that I must interject here;
    Science is, at it’s core, a method – a way of thinking. The scientific method revolves around forming a theory, then accreting evidence to support said theory. Whichever bracnch of science is involved, this should form it’s basis.Controversy enters upon the interpretation of the data obtained, which is based on the opinion of the theorist.
    Please, don’t ridicule the scientific method – it is simply a means of collecting evidence to support a hypothesis. Like any tool, it’s usage is wholly dependent on the user.

    Comment by Dialethia — May 30, 2007 @ 3:01 pm | Reply

  63. [...] I don’t want my children learning about Heliocentrism in school. I think this doctrine encourages atheism, Darwinism, and anti-Americanism.” (whew, and here I thought that Galileo and Copernicus lived before the founding of the [...]

    Pingback by Words fail me « obscure views — June 1, 2007 @ 1:25 pm | Reply

  64. [...] I don’t want my children learning about Heliocentrism in school. I think this doctrine encourages atheism, Darwinism, and anti-Americanism. I don’t want my tax dollars going to finance this kind of false science. It’s complete rot, [...]

    Pingback by Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine « Apa itu Wahabi? — June 1, 2007 @ 11:13 pm | Reply

  65. Organized religion is basically a geographical/traditional belief.

    Western family cultures teach christianity. If you were born in Israel you would still be waiting for Jesus. Born in the middle east praying to the Koran.

    I was born/raised a catholic. Not by my choice but by my parents like most catholics. Rushed off to be baptized into the faith at 6 months old. Throughout the years only taught catholicism. Like most catholics while growing up never learned about other faiths. It wasn’t allowed and basically taught that being a catholic was the only way to salvation. A bunch of BS!! My parents like most were ignorant/fearful of other religions. The church teaches that.

    The RIGHT way is to raise your children is to teach them the laws of the land. When they become adults let them LEARN about the faiths or non beliefs of the world and make their own decisions. Get rid of this childish tradition that you have to be what your parents want you to be.

    Catholic church is all about MONEY, POWER, FEAR, GUILT and covering up and lying about the thousands of priests that have had sex with young children.

    Organized religions of the world are the dividing factor of people and cultures. The USA has the highest number of people in jail per capita, and yes most are protestant/catholics serving their time against crimes committed.

    Comment by John — June 25, 2007 @ 8:03 am | Reply

  66. Hmmmmmmm,,, this page is so tempting, but I will be a good boy and leave you alone.

    Comment by Arn Lewis — October 6, 2007 @ 4:19 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 37 other followers

%d bloggers like this: