Archives for posts with tag: defending the indefensible

C-SPAN reran the #HamOnNey debate on 22 February 2014.

I watched. Caught it all this time. The family watched most of it with me.

Ken Ham and young-earth-creationists (YEC) love to assert that the ark was big enough to hold all the kinds of animals if “kind” is defined as family, two classifications up from species.

Ken Ham et al. claim to be defining kind and other words according to the bible, but can anyone tell me where he gets this definition of “kind”? Please? I understood him to indicate his current definition is based on science rather than the bible—on research his scientists are doing. What’s up with that?

Check it for yourself, the bible uses “kind” and synonyms with some variability, from what we call breeds to a basic generic category such as “bird”. However, specifically, Leviticus 11:22 gives us a very good definition of “kind” as used by the bible itself. New American Standard Bible: “These of them you may eat: the locust in its kinds, and the devastating locust in its kinds, and the cricket in its kinds, and the grasshopper in its kinds.” This appears to be at least as restrictive as species.  Read the rest of this entry »

First Things blog published this:

Group Lie
Monday, November 4, 2013, 10:15 PM

Mr. Scott asks if it is now the standard mode of the Democratic Party to lie and condone lying. I ask too.

If you lean liberal, in the progressive sense, or are simply a registered Democrat, do you condone lying?

This strikes at the heart of my being. Truth first!

When Bush “lied” about Iraq’s WMDs, the whole world was agreeing. While the facts were proven errant, there was ample evidence found to show why everyone thought otherwise. It wasn’t a lie so much as an illusion, even intentional deceptions on the part of Iraqis. Our current President simply operates in narrative mode, fact free. There is never a consideration for truth and facts from the current administration. Never.

The current administration from top to bottom sticks to the narrative no matter what. Enough people will follow, they seem to believe, to keep things moving in the intended direction. So far, the strategy seems to be working for them. They are playing us for fools, and we continue in shame. (Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Shame on all of us.)

Anthony Watts rightly makes fun of the Mann-child and the Lewandowskyites here,

Anthony correctly states that the alarmists are losing the argument so they are now trying to suppress dissent. (Not new, actually. It has been part of their tactics from the beginning.)

Anthony correctly points out that this is the tactic the soviets used where they asserted that only crazy people would disagree with them, so those who disagree must be locked away and medicated into oblivion and silence.

I agree with Anthony that the likes of Mann and Lew need professional counseling and help. If they are not yet dangerous to themselves or others, they are likely to be soon. They really seem to need help. The paper sited is truly sad. Emotionalism, not science.  Read the rest of this entry »

So unbelievable! How could rational humans living today depict themselves burning books? Doesn’t this provide sufficient evidence that the alarmist cause is radical, dogmatic, religious and ideological hysteria of the worst type, the murderous, genocidal type? This really is case-closed for anyone who has not already drunk deeply of the kool-aid.

Watts Up With That?

From the Fahrenheit 451 department comes this indictment of California’s higher education’s “tolerance” for opposing views. When I first got the tip on this, I thought to myself “nobody can be this stupid to photograph themselves doing this” but, here they are, right from the San Jose State University Meteorology Department web page:


The caption from the SJSU website reads:

This week we received a deluge of free books from the Heartland Institute {this or this }. The book is entitled “The Mad, Mad, Made World of Climatism”. SHown above, Drs. Bridger and Clements test the flammability of the book.

Maybe they just can’t help themselves, note the pictures on the wall.

Here is a screencap of the website relevant section:

View original post 95 more words

Where Do Gleick’s Apologists Draw the Line?

via Where Do Gleick’s Apologists Draw the Line? « NoFrakkingConsensus.

%d bloggers like this: