Author Topic: Are they all fucking nuts?  (Read 20873 times)

gunnar gunnarson

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1144
    • View Profile
Are they all fucking nuts?
« on: February 17, 2007, 06:34:19 PM »
Read it and shudder.  More here.  And here.

Sometimes I just want to pull the blankets up over my head and hide till they all go away.

Debra

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11228
    • View Profile
    • April Reign
Are they all fucking nuts?
« Reply #1 on: February 17, 2007, 06:46:00 PM »
To answer your thread title in a word YES

I read a bit about this yesterday. What can you say against this kind of stupidity?
“Damaged people are dangerous. They know they can survive.” —  Josephine Hart

Toedancer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13966
    • View Profile
Are they all fucking nuts?
« Reply #2 on: February 17, 2007, 06:50:12 PM »
They should all be forced to live in a Planetarium/Observatories for a week.
So they can actually use their frekkin Eyes and Watch the movements of the heavens.

The Religious Right will always hate Scientists, the facts always get in the way. The RR believe if you can't see it, then it ain't there.
"Democracy is not the law of the majority, it's the protection of the minority." -Albert Camus 1913-1960

Debra

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11228
    • View Profile
    • April Reign
Are they all fucking nuts?
« Reply #3 on: February 17, 2007, 06:53:30 PM »
Or maybe more to the point if you can't see it, it is there.
“Damaged people are dangerous. They know they can survive.” —  Josephine Hart

Abdul_Maria

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
Are they all fucking nuts?
« Reply #4 on: February 17, 2007, 09:03:25 PM »
these are the people that Shrub works with and for.  i'm not sure how much of his motivation is religious and how much is greed-based.

if they were just sitting on a bench at the park talking to themselves, i wouldn't worry.

if they were just sitting at Congress doing not much of anything, i wouldn't worry too much.  it would be like Gerald Ford's presidency.
i don\'t really Hate Republicans.

i just think they need to be institutionalized & fitted for straitjackets.

gunnar gunnarson

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1144
    • View Profile
Are they all fucking nuts?
« Reply #5 on: February 17, 2007, 09:58:07 PM »
Quote from: Abdul_Maria
if they were just sitting at Congress doing not much of anything, i wouldn't worry too much.  it would be like Gerald Ford's presidency.


you know, that's a pretty good line, and i want to laugh, until i remember that it was under ford that kissinger green-lighted indonesia's invasion of east timor.

skdadl

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32874
    • View Profile
    • http://www.pogge.ca
Are they all fucking nuts?
« Reply #6 on: February 18, 2007, 08:39:03 AM »
I still run on the assumption that there are more cynical manipulators behind these campaigns than there are true wingnuts, but gee, those guys are making it hard for me to hold that position. And yes, I do believe that a lot of people who fall for the campaigns believe this stuff.

fern hill

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10640
    • View Profile
    • http://scathinglywrongrightwingnutz.blogspot.com/
Are they all fucking nuts?
« Reply #7 on: February 18, 2007, 09:22:45 AM »
Oooh, there's a ton of this loonytunitude out there.


http://www.geocentricity.com/


Quote
Of all the sciences, the Holy Bible has more to say about astronomy than any other. The Scripture speaks of the sun, moon, stars, the host of heaven, planets, and constellations. It talks about the heavens, the firmament, and tells us that the lights in the sky were made for the earth, for man, to give light by day and by night, to serve as signs, and to determine the seasons. The ancients, particularly the Jews, claim Adam as the first astronomer. They number Seth, Enoch, Shem, and Abraham among the greatest ancient astronomers. Major astronomical themes occur in Genesis, Numbers, Joshua, Judges, Job, Psalms, Amos, Luke, Hebrews, 1 & 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation.

This site is devoted to the historical relationship between the Bible and astronomy. It assumes that whenever the two are at variance, it is always astronomy—that is, our "reading" of the "Book of Nature," not our reading of the Holy Bible—that is wrong. History bears consistent witness to the truth of that stance.

brebis noire

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4707
    • View Profile
Are they all fucking nuts?
« Reply #8 on: February 18, 2007, 09:34:35 AM »
Wingnutism is one thing, but this worries me even more:

Quote
There is nothing much unusual about the 197-page dissertation Marcus R. Ross submitted in December to complete his doctoral degree in geosciences here at the University of Rhode Island.

David E. Fastovsky, left, and Jon C. Boothroyd, professors at the University of Rhode Island, defend the science done by Marcus R. Ross.
His subject was the abundance and spread of mosasaurs, marine reptiles that, as he wrote, vanished at the end of the Cretaceous era about 65 million years ago. The work is “impeccable,” said David E. Fastovsky, a paleontologist and professor of geosciences at the university who was Dr. Ross’s dissertation adviser. “He was working within a strictly scientific framework, a conventional scientific framework.”

But Dr. Ross is hardly a conventional paleontologist. He is a “young earth creationist” — he believes that the Bible is a literally true account of the creation of the universe, and that the earth is at most 10,000 years old.

For him, Dr. Ross said, the methods and theories of paleontology are one “paradigm” for studying the past, and Scripture is another. In the paleontological paradigm, he said, the dates in his dissertation are entirely appropriate. The fact that as a young earth creationist he has a different view just means, he said, “that I am separating the different paradigms.”



From: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/scien ... ref=slogin

fern hill

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10640
    • View Profile
    • http://scathinglywrongrightwingnutz.blogspot.com/
Are they all fucking nuts?
« Reply #9 on: February 18, 2007, 09:51:18 AM »
I found the same story and posted here: http://www.breadnroses.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?t=19822

brebis noire

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4707
    • View Profile
Are they all fucking nuts?
« Reply #10 on: February 18, 2007, 10:00:25 AM »
:oops: Sorry fern. It's possible that I got the link from there and don't even remember.

fern hill

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10640
    • View Profile
    • http://scathinglywrongrightwingnutz.blogspot.com/
Are they all fucking nuts?
« Reply #11 on: February 18, 2007, 10:13:47 AM »
Don't apologize. It's good to have shared terrors. :wink:

This is an interesting question of conscience, I think. The long NYT article quoted scientists from both sides. If someone can keep his or her beliefs out of the work, should that be enough? If someone is just playing along and plans to use the resulting credibility to support some loony theory/group, how would we know? Should such people be decredentialized? (I just made that up.)

brebis noire

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4707
    • View Profile
Are they all fucking nuts?
« Reply #12 on: February 18, 2007, 01:28:05 PM »
I don't know. There's the issue of liberty of thought. Nobody wants to prevent scientists from having religious beliefs, and unfortunately these guys hold their religious beliefs as untouchable and unquestionable, which normally should be contrary to the scientific method. I don't think that's so much the case in practice though. A guy like Richard Dawkins can be just as dogmatic about atheism as these guys are about belief in God.

Way back, I knew a guy from a strongly fundamentalist family who purposely chose to study geology and eventually paleogeology and palentology with the express purpose of debunking evolutionary theory. But it took just a couple of years of basic undergraduate science for him to realise that he didn't need to stop being a Christian to accept evolution. He eventually went on to become curator of a paleontology museum in the US and came up to Quebec a few years ago to debate against a creationist guy in a public debate at Bishop's University. The creationist guy was also from the US, and he was funded to the hilt - he had books and videos and pamphlets, the whole creationist/intelligent design set-up. The evolution guy not only had to debate his position with his fundamentalist family in attendance, but he had no outside resources supporting him. He only had his science and his many years of education. His arguments and his credentials were superior and more scientific, but the creationist guy had been trained to debate specific points. It was a strange experience to see science trumped by a fundamentalist with more money and technology.  :(

Croghan27

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7694
    • View Profile
Are they all fucking nuts?
« Reply #13 on: February 18, 2007, 02:41:48 PM »
One of the joys of my life came when I discovered Arthur Koestler. In his The Sleepwalkers, he looks at the lives of many of the major figures in early science (as we know it) and astronomy.

He divines that Copernicus, first published his De revolutionibus (1543) and then, when finding out that it contradicted the official teachings of the church - spent the rest of his life denying it.

http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/koestler.htm

Too late - the fox was loose in the hen house. The science behind his initial vision of the universe was too valid for any later denial - even his.

Arthur's reputation has been in something of a slide lately. but he is still and entertaining read.
"It is also a good rule not to put overmuch confidence in the observational results that are put forward until they are confirmed by theory." -- Arthur Stanley Eddington

Croghan27

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7694
    • View Profile
Are they all fucking nuts?
« Reply #14 on: February 18, 2007, 02:47:01 PM »
oh yes,, if anyone is wondering, and you all must be, today's Rapture Index is 160.

http://www.raptureready.com/rap2.html
"It is also a good rule not to put overmuch confidence in the observational results that are put forward until they are confirmed by theory." -- Arthur Stanley Eddington

 

Return To TAT