I can hardly believe that Bill O’Reilly wants our opinion, but there it is, he’s asking, we should deliver.
The O’Reilly Factor wants to know what you think the WORST Entertainment TV show series of all time is. No news shows or specific episodes should be given as answers. The winning show may be featured in a new “American TV Icons” segment!
What do you think is the WORST Entertainment TV show series of all time?
Isn’t the answer obvious? This has to be a trick question. It’s got to be “O’Reilly Factor”.
His restriction that it not be a news show doesn’t disqualify it, since the O’Reilly Factor isn’t a news show.
Unfortunately, this poll doesn’t show the results, so you’ll be going in blind — you’ll have to cast your vote and trust that Bill O’Reilly will later report it accurately. I know, I used “trust” and “Bill O’Reilly” in the same sentence, just quit laughing, get up off the floor, and vote.
Done.
How useful it drops you to some weird page with no result….Must be that O’Reilly factor…..
Done. Because the thought of pissing Bill off gives me a chuckle.
Well that felt quite satisfying. There’s a little something extra in my step this morning.
“The O’Reilly Factor”, *clear cache*, lather, rinse, “The O’Reilly Factor”, *clear cache*, lather, rinse, “The O’Reilly Factor”, *clear cache*, lather, rinse, “The O’Reilly Factor”, *clear cache*, lather, rinse, “The O’Reilly Factor”, *clear cache*, lather, rinse…*
*…times 10^5. Thanks iMacros.
are you guys sure this poll was really created by bill?
i went to the orielly factor website and couldnt find a link to it anywhere. they did have a poll about miss california, but that was it.
i dont think PZ might have gotten tricked into thinking orielly created this poll.
My first thought was “The 1/2 Hour News Hour”.
Inside Edition?
Done, for your viewing pleasure!
Inside Edition for sure. FUCK IT, WE’LL DO IT LIVE!
The poll is linked now on O’Reilly’s site, so it’s probably legit. Too bad there’s no chance that Billo would actually be honest about poll results if his show won. Heh.
Jerry Springer? Anything with that woman with the fingernails!! And so on and so on……
Jerry Springer? Anything with that woman with the fingernails!! And so on and so on……
Yeeeah, I’m not even going to waste my time on this one. No matter what, Countdown will be #1, followed by every other major MSNBC news show, then however other many channels they feel like listing. FauxNews won’t even be on there.
You don’t even need to type. The answer is right there, just copy & paste.
O’Rly is rly asking for it this time.
If he’s the one that wins (loses?) this poll, I predict a “Fuck it! We’ll do a different poll!” from his peoples.
O’Reilly is an ignorant cockhead, he gets my vote. Even if it doesn’t get aired, the thought of Billo popping a vein is just too good!
Tide come in, tide go out.
SInce I think that O’Illucid will not report the numbers for his show I voted for Yhe 700 Club.
I wrote in the Glen Beck Show
Although O’Reilly would be up there, the clear winner should be “America’s Funniest Home Videos”.
That was a show that originally allowed people to air funny videos that were shot innocently by people simply trying to capture mundane moments.
It grew into a showcase for staged videos where malicious, stupid, often painful pranks were played of unsuspecting victims solely for the purpose of enriching the photographer. AFHV was kind of the first reality TV show and represents everything that is wrong with modern mass media.
I think that Bill is ultimately responsible, but it could be only at the prompting of readers of his site. At least it asks you to give your own poll question, once you’ve put in your “answer.”
It doesn’t look like the poll is going to give any results, except maybe to the people running the site. I didn’t bother putting in The Factor, going instead for Revelations. I’m not sure if that’s the short-lived Xian show a couple years back, or not, but the one of which I’m thinking even had IDiot nonsense on it (I heard, since I didn’t watch).
Seems better than putting in The Factor, which thrives as much on opposition as it does on support (hint, they’re not surprised or displeased at negativity).
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
And having Bob Saget as the host only compounded the wrongness.
Copied and Pasted. “Fuck it, we’ll do it live. WE’LL DO IT LIVE!!!!”
O’Reilly isn’t THAT bad I think.
<JackNicholson>Bill O’Reilly can’t handle our opinion! </JackNicholson>
Since O’Reilly absolutely will not count votes for his show on grounds that it’s news, I’m voting for “Touched by an Angel.”
How about The 700 Club?
Since O’Reilly absolutely will not count votes for his show on grounds that it’s news, I’m voting for “Touched by an Angel.”
It *does* say that no news shows or specific episodes can be entered. So I’d say anyone putting in “The O’Reilly Factor” will just get their vote thrown out.
Bob Saget is awesome. It’s not his fault he was on the most evil show on television (Full House, for the record, not AFHV). Well, not entirely his fault.
It’s nice of them to provide the name of the show for copy & paste, so you can’t spell “O’Reilly” incorrectly.
4chan’s /b/ has had similar feelings, which could REALLY bomb this thing, but it hasn’t been pushed very hard. No way Bill would mention if his own show had the most votes anyway.
@Dan B:
But, if they were creative, they would push it. Bomb it. Report the bombing to other news media outlets. Watch Bill squirm.
Oprah. Definitely Oprah.
I dunno… I could see Billo pointing out that godless liberals have crashed his poll.
Also… surveymonkey? Seriously? They can’t shell out to get their own IT guys to program their own survey scripts?
Ooh, ooh, ooh! Maybe PZ can get ambushed by one of his producers!
My response:
“The O’Reilly Factor, hands down! Great work! You suck!”
Put that on your teleprompter and read it, you apoplectic freak.
Strippers?
Where?!?!
OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
A poll, not a pole.
sorry.
Why not one that is much more popular and gives out some very negative political vibes – 24?
A North-Central European? Where?
Ahh, too bad Apple pulled this app. I could so see Billy’s face on the “Me so holy” screen.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2009/05/13/moos.me.so.holy.cnn
Uhh, guys… I find it highly unlikely that Bill O’Reilly is using a survey monkey poll to solicit viewer’s opinions. Despite the inanity of the content, there’s nothing wrong with the scripts on the O’Reilly factor webpage. It even has a poll. If he wanted to do this survey, I’m sure the website people could handle it, and put it somewhere a little more official. So I’m not going to vote on the survey because my vote is that the survey is a hoax.
I put The Real World. I have been and always shall be looking forward to its cancellation. O’Reilly is a jackass but most “journalists” are. However, The Real World and reality t.v. in general seem celebrate people acting like jackasses and encourage it.
I wrote in “Hannity,” also not a news show, and to my thinking, far worse than O’Reilly.
The Flintstones obviously.
They should not be mixing humor with real science about creation.
My vote: The Falafel Factor with your host Peabody O´Rally.
I had to vote repeatedly on this one.
It’s OK… y’all don’t have to bother with this poll. I voted for everybody.
#48: whoops… that was me posting that, not Anonymous. Counter was up to about 2,400 perfectly-spelled entries when I paused to type this…
GROAN!
Oh, 24…you killed Keifer in my eyes. I always thought he was kind of hot. He even turned me on in Dark City (yes, I am sick). But when the 24 series started, I just couldn’t get all that worked up over him anymore. The fact that he phoned in his role in the (admittedly awful) Dragonlance cartoon just sealed the deal. His voice acting as Raistlin could have been the one saving grace in that steaming pile of shite, but you could tell he didn’t even try.
Yeah, it might be good to have a block vote for O’Reilly, though there’s no way in hell that dishonest bastard is ever going to count it. The reason will be “it’s a news show”, but how much do you want to bet that the liberal news shows won’t get disqualified for that same characteristic? Anyway, it would definitely piss him off to be reminded about how many sane people there are in the world–oops, I mean godless liberals. ;)
Agreeing with this:
Offering up this bit of my recent political blasphemy:
Junk Science:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/timtimes/2009/05/junk-science.php
Enjoy.
And did it ever occur to you that Bill might just hand all the posting godless liberals over to Fox Security? Then we`ll all get a little visit..
Gone into hiding.
Then don’t believe it. Any time anyone says they can’t believe something, a big red flag should start waving, because they are going to start believing it, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Damn, folks, it’s a place called Survey Monkey. It isn’t at a Fox News site. Fox is perfectly capable of carrying out an on-line survey if they want to. I see no evidence at all that this has anything to do with Billo, or will ever get back to him. (I can’t say much more about the survey site, as I’m not about to enable JavaScript there.)
Pharyngulation is phun, but let’s not all get all mindless horde, here. Leave that to the fundamentalists.
I will vote every hour for ‘The O’Reilly Factor’, I doubt he will give the full results.
http://www.TheNewAtheist.com
American Dad. It’s on Fox and Seth McFarlane has ultimately assumed that complete crassness = funny. The only thing going for it is that the Fox loving Wingnuts are unaware American Dad is satire.
Did anyone see [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9agKJUqq44]this video[/url]?
I simply entered “Fox New’s full program line up.”
That could go for most news outlets. For some reason I get weirded out looking up a girl’s skirt or down her cleavage when she is telling me how many people just got killed or how much money the gummint can’t account for.
And why do they all move their heads about so playfully? And how do you smile when segueing from the story of a dead child to news that a pizza parlor is opening on Pleasant Street?
I miss Chet Huntley.
Sorry, this video
Ineffable, if you post a video, we don’t want to see it. It will be to junky propergander.
Did anyone see this post by Egnor?
Apparently he is responding to this guy named Jeffrey shallit. (I first heard of Shallit when Dembski said Shallit would obssesively stalk, and harrass him and his colleagues.)
Now Shallit seems to be advocating eugenics and killing off babies with Down’s Syndrome.
Egnor did a good response with an anecdote about his experience with small children
Done and done. Victory!
Seems that way to you, does it? Perhaps if you remove your head from your sphincter before reading you’ll find your comprehension improves.
…although I doubt it.
Everyone here is wrong. I’m not sure if you overlooked it, never saw it or just didn’t see what wrong with it but there is one clear winner.
Grey’s Anatomy.
Phew! Not being a baby, it looks like you just missed the cut-off Ineffable, you liar.
“Phew! Not being a baby, it looks like you just missed the cut-off Ineffable, you liar.”
How am I lying? Read the post I linked to you again.It is clear that he wants to kill those with Down’s Syndrome.
ugh
Egnor?
Seriously?
Bullshit. He asks a rhetorical question, explicitly about abortion. Cute babies and the killing thereof are not mentioned.
How am I lying? whines Ineffable.
Here’s Shallit’s comment:
If you’d read his comment and Somerville’s essay, he’s not making a positive claim for eugenics. Rather, he’s arguing that she’s decrying some ‘labelling’ function of political correctness as bad because it invites one to treat the label rather than the underlying argument, while doing the exact same thing by labeling Quebec’s proposed policy as ‘eugenics’ and therefore bad rather than making a cogent argument for why the policy is bad.
Okay, so maybe you’re not lying in this case, but rather stupidly illiterate.
Yes, what does this have to do with evolution’s news and views? Or with science?
Oh, right, as much as ID ever has to do with science. Nothing at all.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
When asked in a poll like this, reply O’reilly Factor.
He couldn’t have ‘did a good response’ since he clearly did not understand the point Shallit was making. As neither did you, though you were content to parrot Egnor, you fucking witless wonder.
Actually, the post just before Egnor’s is more interesting. Not that it tells us any new facts, but that they’re admitting that ID is pretty much a PR failure even in religious circles:
I’d note that ID is not controversial in scientific circles, where it is nearly unanimously understood to be garbage.
More fun is the fact that it is not a joke that the “Waterloo” Dembski predicted appears to have been accurate, only it’s the IDiots who are on the French side.
They’re parading a bunch of charlatans (definitely charlatans where ID is involved, though not necessarily in other areas) as “scientists associated with the ID movement” (careful wording there, as there are no “ID scientists” as such) to “answer” questions from the audience. I definitely hope that there will be some very good scientists there, who will ask the sorts of questions that strip ID of any scientific credibility.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
“Yes, what does this have to do with evolution’s news and views? Or with science?”
Because it is clear that Shallit is a Darwinist and promotes Darwinist ideas of eugenics. the Discovery Institute makes scientific discoveries to combat Darwinism.
No, it’s not, fuckwit. Try reading for comprehension, you freak.
Comp-re-hen-sion.
I gave Olberman a few votes.
Wow, that was a wad of dumb.
And your premises are unsupported–as usual.
Furthermore, again, what were those scientific discoveries that the Dishonesty Institute makes? Counting on my fingers, all I see is my fist.
“Ineffable” refers to the meaning in your comments, does it not?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Eugenics is not based on Darwinism. Eugenics is based on animal husbandry, which goes all the way back beyond your godbotting goatherds who wrote the bible. In fact, Darwinsim is a term used to creobots almost exclusively in this country. Which means you are already behind in comprehension. Evolutiion is call “modern synthesis” these days, and includes about 150 years worth of science not available to Darwin.
@Glenn D
Don’t you read the news? Darwinism is in big trouble.
Did you ear about the Altenberg conference. In there 16 leading scientists and philosophers of science came to re-evaluate darwinism and express their skepticism of it.
See this piece by science journalist Susie Mazur
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0807/S00053.htm
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/07/credibility_gap_in_damage_cont.html
According to Mazur, there are “hundreds of other evolutionary scientists (non-Creationists) who contend that natural selection is politics, not science, and that we are in a quagmire because of staggering commercial investment in a Darwinian industry built on an inadequate theory.”
See even the scientists at Altenberg admit evolution is inadequate.
To quote expert Casey Luskin “Simply consider the Altenberg conference just this past summer and it’s clear that Darwinian evolution is on the ropes, not on the rise.”
Dembski predicted that evolution would fall soon and it seems his predictions are coming true.
Well for example, ID fellows M.Behe and Scott Minnich discovered the flagellum and blood clotting were irreducibly complex. Stephen Meyer discovered that the Cambrian explosion supports ID. Dembski discovered Complex Specified Information (CSI) in living organisms. It seems to Discovery Institute is true to their name and makes all sorts of scientific discoveries.
Fuck Ineffable, the little lying piece of shit. He engaged with some off topic fecal matter by Egnor, demonstrating that he didn’t even read Shallit’s piece–whether Egnor did or not is debatable, that he’s clearly wrong about Shallit’s point is not.
When this has been pointed out to him, he ignores it and runs off whining about ‘big trouble’ for Darwinism, which is about as accurate a prediction by Dembski as the 2,000-year-old Christian belief that Jesus is coming back in our lifetimes.
Man, somebody should’ve taken this asshole around behind the barn and taught him not to lie.
The worst of the worst? For the show that degrades humans more than any other, even worse than the ultraconservative talking-heads, I have to say Jerry Springer.
FAIL
No
and No
you’re confusing “discovered” with “asserted”
Why do I keep thinking that you’re putting me on?
Evolutionary theory has always been inadequate, and it is not too unlikely that it always will be. Historical sciences do have problems with finding out all that we would like to know.
The scientists at Altenburg were both aware of the unexplained areas in evolutionary theory, and of the importance of evolution as the absolutely crucial explanatory model that we currently have, one that explains everything since at least the Precambrian fairly well, in fact.
I hadn’t seen anything as funny yet today as you calling Casey an expert. True, I hadn’t been seeking the funny out (if I had, I’m sure I could have seen funnier), but this is certainly more funny than the amusing bits I have read.
I’d like to say that Casey is at least an expert liar, but frankly, he seems rather inept at that as well. OK, for idiots he’s adequate, but that’s it.
BTW, of course I knew about Altenburg (I even know how to spell it), having read about it in journals as well as on Pharyngula. We’re well aware of what it was about (hint, Casey was lying again), and we hope that evolutionary theory will indeed lead to further ideas regarding life. We have to rely on it, since ID is a barren wasteland, and everything else is equally stupid, or, if sound, it becomes incorporated into the theory.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Ineffable you’re not doubt an idiot that doesn’t even know it.
Ineffable, if evolution is in trouble, please cite twenty papers from the peer reviewed primary scientific literature in the last ten years supporting any other encompassing biological theory other than evolution. Without any citations, you have nothing scientific to back up your inane statement. Which means you have nothing.
You see, creationism and ID are religious ideas. And have been declared as such by US courts. Religion does not refute science. Only more science can do that, hence my challenge in the previous paragraph. I’ll await your citations. Since they won’t be coming, I’ll just get along with my life.
Here’s a little about the blood-clotting complex from talk origins, you liar:
Here’s some info about Behe being a dishonest moron, you fuckwit:
Lots of things produced by evolutionary processes are ‘irreducibly complex’, including processes in evolutionary simulations that no designer has anything to do with. Read some Lenski, assface.
FAIL AGAIN
Nope
You eat up every little bit of distorted bullshit you are fed don’t you?
Well for example, ID fellows M.Behe and Scott Minnich discovered the flagellum and blood clotting were irreducibly complex.
I’ve discovered that Dumb-ski’s brain is irreducibly simple. But then, that’s what we would expect, given that it consists of only a single molecule of oxygen.
Read it. PZ already fisked it.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/altenberg_meeting_next_week_ex.php
Seriously, refuting the evolution-denying liars-for-Jesus is kind of a big thing on this blog. You really might want to throw a few terms into the “search” box in the upper-left corner of the page next time you have the urge to vomit offal like this all over the rest of us.
Suzan Masur is an anti-evolutionist. In this article she tries, unsuccessfully, to get Sir Paul Nurse to admit the “evolution is in trouble.” The woman obviously has an agenda.
It doesn’t matter. The fucker won’t read anything; his goal is to repeat shit as if it were true. Says a lot about the moral integrity of assholes like Ineffable, doesn’t it? I can’t imagine a better ambassador for his god than this selfish, dishonest little prick.
What’s next Ineffable?
Are you gong to tell us about Piltdown man?
How about the statistical probability of life on earth?
Seriously dude, you are in way over your head.
I’m no scientist and I knew these things off the top of my head. Wait until a biologist or geneticist or any other of the numerous fields that supports evoltuion comes in and tears you a new one.
You don’t stand a chance.
@Redhead here are lists of papers
https://creationwiki.org/Creation_in_secular_journal
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC
It is clear that intelligent design and creationism are 2 other theories than evolution in scientific journals. there are much more than 20 there.
What’s next Ineffable?
Five bucks on “no transitional forms in the fossil record”.
Done.
Ineffable,
Please tell me the testable falsifiable theory of Intelligent Design.
Sorry Ineffable, you lose. You must show each article is in a primary peer reviewed journal. Most on your list is from non-peer reviewed or ID journals, which mean they are worthless to you. You need to up you credibility and that starts with knowing what you are talking about. No, filter those articles and present the proper ones to us. (By the way, we know is on the list, and why the fail, which is why you are wrong.)
On the off chance that you’re not a Poe, let’s be clear that “irreducible complexity” as understood by Behe, Minnich, and Dembski were already known, and had been predicted in evolutionary theory like 60 years prior to their great “discovery.”
If the Cambrian “explosion” was predicted by ID, then the enormous amount of evolution since then is contrary to the predictions of ID. Unless, that is, ID simply “predicts” whatever is already known, the apparent modus operandi of ID at this time.
The only entailed ID prediction I have ever seen was Paley’s, who said that life’s designs would be like those of an architect’s or an artificer’s. That is to say, it would betray rational thought. Darwin thoroughly falsified that prediction, and so ID has refused to use any entailed prediction since then.
The Cambrian “explosion” really does appear to be predicted by evolutionary theory, since the huge increase in oxygen levels just before that would be expected to produce conditions for rapid evolution. Much remains to be understood about the Cambrian radiation, of course, and oxygen levels may have been only one factor (extinction was likely another factor). However, it is best understood as the “Cambrian radiation,” since it is akin to many other radiations following extinction, although unusual in its extent.
Gee, did Meyer also discover that the Ediacaran radiation supports ID? I mean, surely an adaptive radiation which left few or no descendents is to be expected of a designer. Designing life so that it will go extinct must require a great deal of planning. Uh huh. And purpose, don’t forget purpose.
Let’s see, did Meyer tell us why so many phyla from even the Cambrian radiation were designed, only to go extinct fairly soon thereafter? Seems I missed it.
Evolution, by contrast, really does predict extinctions (although not all extinctions, some of which are due to vagaries in climate and in asteroid trajectories), a great many of them. In fact, the further back you go, the more extinct taxa, just as evolution predicts.
And none of the “designs” were ever resurrected, even though that would be a simple matter for any true designer to do.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Ineffable,
First, those as suspect.
Second,
Go to PLoS and search under evolution in the journals.
How many papers there do you see?
Try PubMed next.
how many there?
Please tell me the testable falsifiable theory of Intelligent Design.
And how does intelligent design explain PYGMIES + DWARFS????!!!!11one!!!
Making claims isn’t in Ineffable’s nature, anymore than telling the truth is. Instead, he’ll just repeat the same tired canards that Behe, and Dembski do, attributing his claims to them.
“Did you hear? Leading scientists Behe and Dembski found God in our bones! Darwinism surely is on its last legs.”
Notice how he hasn’t responded to any of my responses regarding Shallit, the flagellum or the blood-clotting complex? He’ll ignore those, but if you ask for papers, why here’s twenty!
He’s a mouthpiece; a living, breathing conduit. I know of ants whose job it is to store sugar for their sisters whose lives must be more fulfilling than this hanger-on.
exactly
certain there are lots of shows i’ve never seen that are even worse, and come on, o’reilly can be funny after a couple of beers and a doobie.
voted for “dog, the bounty hunter”
certain there are lots of shows i’ve never seen that are even worse, and come on, o’reilly can be funny after a couple of beers and a doobie.
voted for “dog, the bounty hunter”
The poll says not to suggest news shows. O’Reilly’s program is hardly good journalism, but he thinks it is, and if he fixes the facts, then why wouldn’t he manipulate a poll of his own? For that reason, I named a show he likes: “ALF.”
Completely OT, but I was wondering if my fellow bacon lovers here had seen this: http://bakonvodka.com/
Just remember to copy and paste these poll links; that way they won’t know where we’re from.
Seriously, you guys, stop talking about evolution and start talking about how we all hate Grey’s Anatomy.
@#14
Haha indeed! Doing just that gave me some perverse joy and had me in a giggling fit… Sometimes these polls can be very entertaining.
Hey Red John! Do you live in one of the four states where this stuff is for sale? If so, can you send me a
bottlecase?Thanks in advance.
MMmmm. Bacon.
Back on topic, when it comes to TeeVee programs (comedies, dramas, thrill shows), I find that the Sturgeon Principle is most appropriate. Therefore I have, through a combination of having other things to do and not being engaged by the subject matter or the theatrical treatment thereof, missed well in excess of 90% of TeeVee programming since the sixties.
Outside of not understanding a joke or reference now and then, I feel fine. The really funny, dramatic and thrilling show is going on right in front of me. And I play a role in it. Now, that’s entertainment!
I was thinking perhaps “The Howard Stern Show” and others of its ilk, but then it occurred to me that those aren’t the least bit entertaining unless you have severe mental deficiencies.
SO, I did the Master Cephalopod’s bidding and voted for O’Reilly Factor – ten times.
Funny how ineffable the postshitter runs off when his attempts to refute evolution are not only shown to be completely demolished but to be oldhat.
I beg to differ. The Howard Stern show is quite funny.
I voted for “Touched by an Angel”
Not only is the Stern show funny, just last week it was agreed on the show that there was no god.
I voted for “The Ineffable Show”.
“…the Discovery Institute makes scientific discoveries…”
Now THAT’S funny!
I’m wondering why no one has pointed out Ineffable’s actual ‘sin’: Using for proof biased sources. It is the familiar refrain of the god-botherers, citing a source as proof because the source says so. (“The Bible is true because it says so!”) In this case, Ineffable has cited as supporting proof of his ‘argument’ a creationist site and HQID, each loaded with tons of “examples of peer-reviewed publications.”
A couple things strike me as odd about those “examples,” though – why are there no links to any of these “examples”? Surely in this day and age there has to be some site with, if not the whole article, at least excerpts not taken out of context? Which brings up another problem: Context. There is no way to tell, from the examples given, what the context of these articles is. I can tell, however, that some of those publications are themselves suspect, like Regnery publishing (infamous for pushing tripe from the likes of O’Reilly, Hannity, and Coulter). It’s very possible that the maintainers of these sites are trying to impress visitors with the sheer number of articles without bothering to mention that these citation are probably being shredded in those same articles; their very appearance in those articles is enough to convey authority.
I also noticed many of the articles presented on these cites can be found in philosophy publications; I lack a proper scientific background, short of some college-level astronomy and physics, but it strikes me as odd that you would discuss possible earth-shattering theories regarding our biological processes in a philosophy forum. How is that “peer-reviewed”?
All in all, I can safely assume that Ineffable is quite possibly one of the dumber trolls to hit this blog, to assume that no one here would bother to know what he is talking about or bothering to question his sources. In short, he’s a twat.
Thank you – Sir Craig, over and out…
I wrote in “The O’Reilly Factor, it sure isn’t news.”
OT
I just learned some useful information from Matt Nisbet!
Red John @108 said “Completely OT, but I was wondering if my fellow bacon lovers here had seen this: http://bakonvodka.com”
PW – Seems someone has finally put those pesky fruit flavored vodkas in their place. I, for one, applaud this decision. Do you know if they are planning further meat/liquor pairings?
Another vote for O’Reilly Factor!
Shouldn’t we be writing in the 700 Club just for shits ‘n giggles?
@Crudely Wrott, 110: Unfortunately no. I live in Utah, which is directly south of Idaho so I’m hoping that it won’t take long for it to get here.
@Primewonk, 122: I don’t know about any further plans for meat/liquor pairings, but one can always hope I guess.
SurveyMonkey? Really. Self-respecting Grad students don’t even use this thing anymore. How freakin’ cheap can you get?
Poll participation always make my day. Seriously, its my best medicine. Thank you.
jesus ok with torture…..
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090513/ap_on_re/us_rel_religion_today;_ylt=AsKQ8O3MW6NoIMV5RtnN93FH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTJvdTBlN3VxBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwNTEzL3VzX3JlbF9yZWxpZ2lvbl90b2RheQRjcG9zAzMEcG9zAzMEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawN0b3J0dXJlZGViYXQ-
“Gary Bauer, a former Republican presidential candidate affiliated with several Christian right groups over the years, said the discussion should not come down to “Would Jesus torture?”
“There are a lot of things Jesus wouldn’t do because he’s the son of God,” he said. “I can’t imagine Jesus being a Marine or a policeman or a bank president, for that matter. The more appropriate question is, ‘What is a follower of Jesus permitted to do?'”
Bauer said the answer is “it depends” — but the moral equation changes when the suspect is not a soldier captured on a battlefield but a terrorist who may have knowledge of an impending attack. He said he does not consider water-boarding — a form of interrogation that simulates drowning — to be torture.
“I think if we believe the person we have can give us information to stop thousands of Americans from being killed, it would be morally suspect to not use harsh tactics to get that information,” Bauer said.
Under Christianity’s just-war tradition, recognized political authorities have the responsibility to protect the innocent from grave harm, said Keith Pavlischek, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, evangelical scholar and retired Marine colonel.
That means not just lives that would be lost in an attack, but the justice, order and peace of the broader international community at risk from terrorism, said Pavlischek, a member of the Presbyterian Church in America, a conservative denomination.
If authorities believe a detainee has information about an imminent attack, it’s morally acceptable to use coercion, inflict pain, cause discomfort and use force in an attempt to prevent the attack, he said.”
Here’s another poll about a national health insurance plan. Do that voodoo that you do so well!
http://fwnextweb1.fortwayne.com/ns/editorial/poll/
“No. The government would just screw it up” is leading with 43%. Bleh.
but hey, at least only 12% are deluded enough to think it’s “one of the best” :-p
well fuck. #131 was me. stoopid typepad
Want a proper burial?
Look here: http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article3075007.ece
Headline reads: Last stop before Valhalla.
Modern Norwegians (the real ones, non-xian) now have their own burial sites.
Well, in truth it is a burial site set aside for teh members of the old heathen religious society Bifrost http://www.bifrost.no/
But regardless, that religion was one helluva lot saner than xianity and other lunacies, because it was more like mythology, and the gods were celebrated in blotgilde, major, raucuous parties lasting for several days, with lots of mjød.
Much favoured party game included throwing bones from the devoured meat at each other. Just for fun.
No preaching, no pedophiles.
Sounds better than listening to a half-wit talking nonsense in a cold building with hard seats, among lots of humourless cretins, uh?
Stop taking the bait people. Trolls don’t even need to work here …
boring
Bill O is really a lesser evil compared to Glenn Beck.
Funny I don’t think of either of them as evil.
They’re way to much of a joke.
And Beck is by FAR the bigger of the two jokes.
There is a definite difference between evil and annoying.
I don’t watch the “Factor” as I can’t stand Bill O’Reilly but I voted for it as I am sure that “My Mother the
Car” was infinitely more entertaining.
(After all Ann Sothern, a favorite actress of mine, was the voice of the car.)
Don’t forget it also degrades horses.
Hmm what happened to the blockquote?
Vote for “Touched By An Angel.” That really pisses off the religious right.
There is still a chain email going around, it’s on Snopes, of angry Christians protesting the supposed forcible removal of the show “Touched By An Angel” for mentioning the word “God” on air.
Of course there was no such call to get that show revoked, and no such ruling that shows cannot use the word “God” on air. However, millions of pissed off Christians wrote angry letters and emails to the FCC and congress, to save their beloved God show.
Oh, wait, we where supposed to vote for “his” show? Damn, here I took it semi-serious and said either Ghost Hunters, or Ghost Whisperer, with Dog Whisperer being a close second. lol
Is it irony that the site is SurveyMONKEY.com?
Of course the Discovery Institute makes scientific discoveries. Why else would they be called the Discovery Institute?
Guys come on . Darwinism is losing ground. it is not only the Altenburg 16 who question evolution. Even more recently “New Scientist” showed Darwinism was wrong and the Darwinian tree of life had been “annihilated” by genetic evidence. National geographic also questioned Darwinism.The Di has a list of over 700 prestigious scientists with PhD’s from Cambridge, Yale ,Harvard and other top science institution who question Darwinism.
@???
Come on even Stephen Jay Gould admitted there were no transitional forms (and he was a darwinist).
Darwinists always present the same old debunked alleged transitional forms For example one presented Tiktaalik (which has been debunked by Casey Luskin),archaeopteryx (which was debunked by Sir Fred Hoyle) and the ape-men which were hoaxes (like Piltdown man and Lucy)
You call yourself ‘ineffable’ – and yet, every time you make the mistake of posting here you get ‘effed’ by dozens of posters, time and time again.
Do you think there’s anyone who posts here you doesn’t know the claims you are presenting – ‘hundreds of scientists question Darwinism’; denbunked transitional forms etc. – are a combination of distortions, quote-mines and blatant lies?
If you do you’re even stupider than you appear.
@Wowbagger
I am not a lair I just like good science. I suggest you read the ” Evolution News and Views” blog. they discuss many of the traditional evidences scientists try to use for evolution and how they are flawed. the Discovery Institute also has many insightful articles on science availible on their site.
I just want to point out falsehoods when I see people use them. You should agree.Tell your Darwinist friends “don’t use that fossil or those embryo drawings because they have been proven wrong”
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gould_quotations.html
“Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists — whether through design or stupidity, I do not know — as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.” — “Evolution as Fact and Theory,” Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, p. 260.
“The anatomical transition from reptiles to mammals is particularly well documented in the key anatomical change of jaw articulation to hearing bones. Only one bone, called the dentary, builds the mammalian jaw, while reptiles retain several small bones in the rear portion of the jaw. We can trace, through a lovely sequence of intermediates, the reduction of these small reptilian bones, and their eventual disappearance or exclusion from the jaw, including the remarkable passage of the reptilian articulation bones into the mammalian middle ear (where they became our malleus and incus, or hammer and anvil). We have even found the transitional form that creationists often proclaim inconceivable in theory — for how can jawbones become ear bones if intermediaries must live with an unhinged jaw before the new joint forms? The transitional species maintains a double jaw joint, with both the old articulation of reptiles (quadrate to articular bones) and the new connection of mammals (squamosal to dentary) already in place! Thus, one joint could be lost, with passage of its bones into the ear, while the other articulation continued to guarantee a properly hinged jaw. Still, our creationist incubi, who would never let facts spoil a favorite argument, refuse to yield, and continue to assert the absence of all transitional forms by ignoring those that have been found, and continuing to taunt us with admittedly frequent examples of absence.” — “Hooking Leviathan by Its Past,” Dinosaur in a Haystack: Reflections in Natural History, New York: Crown Trade Paperbacks, 1997, pp. 360-361.
Haeckel. again. don’t you fucking READ this blog before posting your stupid shit on here?!
and I’m really curious which fossil(s?) the DI has “proven wrong”. that can only be hilarious…
ineffableeffing liar wrote:I’m sorry; that answer is incorrect. Your score for this post is 0/2.
Please try again.
ineffababble,
Because they are lying sacks of shit who apropriated a name that makes them sound legit to people who don’t know better, of course. Next?
Speaking of lying sacks of shit – here followeth Stephen Jay Gould’s own words. Your move, dirtbag.
“It is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists — whether through design or stupidity, I do not know — as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.” Gould, Hen’s Teeth And Horses Toes, page 260
“We have even found the transitional form that creationists often proclaim inconceivable in theory — for how can jawbones become ear bones if intermediaries must live with an unhinged jaw before the new joint forms? The transitional species maintains a double jaw joint, with both the old articulation of reptiles (quadrate to articular bones) and the new connection of mammals (squamosal to dentary) already in place! Thus, one joint could be lost, with passage of its bones into the ear, while the other articulation continued to guarantee a properly hinged jaw. Still, our creationist incubi, who would never let facts spoil a favorite argument, refuse to yield, and continue to assert the absence of all transitional forms by ignoring those that have been found, and continuing to taunt us with admittedly frequent examples of absence.” Gould, Dinosaur In A Haystack, page 360-361
Except they don’t, and have stated that they are very irritated with people who attribute to them things that they never said or even implied.
Nope. they applied a rather senstaionalistic headline to an overview of how many things have been learned in the field of biology over the last hundred and sixty years, and are rather irritated that shitheads like you are proclaiming things that they never said. But that’s typical of your sort.
Criminally false. They published an article about the fact that there are people who do, and how they are wrong. Do you even read the material that you think supports your position, or just repeat what others tell you about it? Never mind; the answer to that question is revealed by everything you’ve said in this thread. You really need to get out more.
*cough* How many are actual scientists, how many of those who are have any expertise in evolutionary biology, and how many are named Steve? Never mind; we already know the answers to those questions, and you’ll never understand why we chuckle.
Tiktaalik is about as perfect an example of a transitional form as one could ever hope or expect to find, and Shubin’s meticulous documentation of it one of the most brilliant and yet easily understandable pieces of scientific scholarship in decades. Luskin, an untested lawyer with no scientific expertise whatosever, dismisses Shubin’s findings by way of outright falsehood, claiming that Shubin provides no bone comparisons to other tetrapods when in fact the comparison is printed right on the diagram in large, friendly, easy-to-read letters.
Um. Wow. Insanely wrong. Hoyle, who had no expertise in biology or paleontology, certainly did make a sweeping accusation, but had no facts to back him up and his accusation was easily disproved.
Absolutely no one, no one whatsoever, holds forth Piltdown Man as anything other than a clumsy fraud, so your accusation is a lie. As to Lucy, that’s a real fossilized skeleton of a real extinct hominid, so please demonstrate where this supposed “hoax” is regarding it.
effing-able is a troll. Don’t feed the trolls.
I do like his phrase “traditional evidence” though. As opposed to magical evidence I suppose.
Remember: Magic explains nothing. Spread the word …
Ok guys I guess I was wrong about S.J. Gould .
I just read some quote from him on some site. Apparently he did think there were some transitional forms later on.
And I guess I was wrong about national geographic too.
And the DI. And Casey Luskin. And Tiktaalik. And Archaeopteryx and Fred Hoyle. And the New Scientist article. And Lucy. Et cetera.
Well, he probably isn’t a lair… (You could of course subtract at least half a point for the horrible run-on sentence.)
Ineffable, just consider your vapid intellect wrong before you post, and then just not post because you know nothing cogent. If you do that, you will finally get something right.
I applaud you for being able to admit to being wrong. Now here’s the million-dollar question:
How many times do we have to demonstrate that your sources are lying to you and we are telling the truth before you start treating those sources’ claims with more skepticism than you do ours?
Agreed; he’s more like a drafty, ramshackle hide-out than an actual lair.
The projection and wrong here is reaching monumental levels.
1st. You can not name a single debunked “alleged transitional form” that is currently in the scientific consensus.
2nd. The creationists have made a literal (you pendants kiss my ass) profession of recycling debunked canards. You’ve proven this your self in this very thread by pointing to the Evolution news and views blog and even mentioning their “700” list. The streets of skeptical debunking are littered with the corpses of creationists’ canards and attempts to posit junk as science.
3rd. Casey Luskin couldn’t debunk a summer camp cabin with a thermonuclear bomb.
Here’s a new poll from Parade Magazine:
http://www.parade.com/news/intelligence-report/archive/who-should-help-struggling-churches.html