How can anyone doubt that these people are Communists?

The Workers’ World Party-staffed ANSWER Coalition first used them during the [May 1st = MAY DAY] 2006 nationwide illegal alien marches.

And yes, those are the same Che Guevara signs recycled from 2006, too… Che chic is back. It never left.

How can anyone doubt that these people are Communists?

Obama: “I remember May Day”

“Yes, We Can!” –> “¡Sí se puede!” –> Alinsky Radicals –> Lucifer

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

70 Responses to How can anyone doubt that these people are Communists?

  1. Workers’ World Party

    The following is not a joke:

    Greetings from the Communist Party of Bosnia & Herzegovina

    Dear Comrades,

    On behalf of the members of the Workers’ Communist Party of Bosnia & Herzegovina please receive warmest comradely greetings with best wishes for successful work of your Convention.

    Our two parties have established relations of close fraternal cooperation in the past few years and we will do our best to develop and strengthen them. We are very interested in the newest developments in American society as well as in your party. We hope that the adoption of new programmatic documents will serve as a solid basis for strengthening of the workers’ movement in the United States, whose most important component should be your party.

    We are eager to learn about decisions of your convention and new successes of communists in the struggle for democracy, social justice and socialism in the United States.

    Goran Markovic, President of the Main Board
    On behalf of the Main Board
    Workers’ Communist Party of Bosnia Herzegovina

    First published 07/19/2005

  2. This is not a joke, either:

    November 6, 2005

    Workers of the world united in solidarity with Garland

    International outrage over the arrest of Workers’ party president Sean Garland grows apace. At least in lefty circles. The Communist Party USA (yes, there is such a thing) issued a statement calling the arrest “a violation not only of the civil rights of Comrade Garland as an Irish citizen, but of the sovereignty of the country of Ireland”.

    Cuban and Venezuelan solidarity activists have also weighed in, saying it is hypocritical that America would “kidnap” an Irish citizen for a non-violent crime, while knowingly harbouring right-wing terrorists.

    Alleged dollar-forger Garland must be comforted by such comradely displays of solidarity. It must be reassuring to know that he has friends in such hot places.

    Yeah, Che Guevara is a friend in a “hot place”.

  3. This may initially sound off-topic, but it’s not.

    Why did Harrison Ford revive the “Indiana Jones” character for one more movie?

    I believe it is because prior to doing so, the “last” “Indiana Jones” movie was one that ended the series on a very Christian note, and emphasized the importance of Jehova (in Latin it starts with an “I”) and the importance of faith.

    Now, the “last” “Indiana Jones” is one that ends the series on a very different note. It paints the “anti-Communists” as the bad guys, and the people suspected of being Communist sympathizers as the good guys. It also does a complete 180 from the Christian themes of the prior movie. Now, the movie actively promotes a concept endorsed by many atheists: the belief that life on this Earth originated from aliens.

  4. Jonah says:

    It’s theories like this that remind me why I fell in love with the blog. Red, you’re amazing.

    Do you take requests? Do Battlestar Galactica next!

  5. Ryan says:

    Now, the movie actively promotes a concept endorsed by many atheists: the belief that life on this Earth originated from aliens.

    WHAT?!?!? Who the heck says that?

  6. Math says:
    Now, the movie actively promotes a concept endorsed by many atheists: the belief that life on this Earth originated from aliens.

    WHAT?!?!? Who the heck says that?

    You didn’t get the memo? You really should take your atheism more seriously and get with the program!

    Seriously though, that’s what they think of us. They can’t seem to grasp that we can accept that we don’t know where we come from and don’t need to make up a god or aliens to make up for it.

    Kudos to red though, he really surpassed himself on this one. The most f*ed up, frivolous theory I have read here. Keep up the good work!

  7. WHAT?!?!? Who the heck says that?

    Atheist icon Richard Dawkins.

    If you don’t believe me, watch the movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

    If you don’t believe me, and won’t have the intellectual honesty to watch the movie, then at least read Ed Morrissey’s review, confirming what I said about Dawkins:

    the film does an excellent job of demonstrating atheism as a belief system. Atheism as represented by Richard Dawkings and others in this film gets exposed as exactly the kind of belief system they claim to despise. They can’t prove God exists — and they can’t prove God doesn’t exist. They make the common fallacy of arguing that absence of evidence amounts to evidence of absence.

    But in a way, this is all secondary to the real issue of the film: academic intolerance. The debate over ID vs Darwinism sets the table for a truly disturbing look at academia. Science should be about the free debate and research of ideas and hypotheses for duplicable results and provable theorems. However, as the examples Stein and the film provide amply show, the Darwinist academic establishment will brook no dissent from the orthodoxy — and scientists have to be shown with hidden faces to speak to the issue for the film.

    Amusingly, Stein asks people how the first cell came to be. None of the scientists could give him a straight answer. Dawkins himself admits he doesn’t know and that no one else does, either — but postulates that aliens could have brought life to this planet, and then postulates that another alien civilization could have brought life to that planet, and so on. He then concedes that one entity could have been the original source … but insists that entity could not possibly have been God. For this he gives absolutely no evidence at all, relegating it as a belief system somewhat akin to Scientology.

    All of this is extremely effective, as are the many allusions made to the Berlin Wall during the film. The theme runs throughout, and it explicitly refers to the defensive academic establishment as having built a wall that tramples on freedom of thought and discourse.

  8. Math says:

    If you don’t believe me, watch the movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”

    If you don’t believe me, and won’t have the intellectual honesty to watch the movie, then here is Ed Morrissey’s review, confirming what I said about Dawkins:

    That would be like me telling you to watch Bowling for Columbine to convince you to give your guns up. Those movies are biased and are only good to make the people who already believe feel good. Intellectual honesty has nothing to do with it.

    Expelled Exposed

  9. Truth: Marxists and Sharia law Muslims share a hatred of Jews and Christians.

    Truth:

    And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

    John 8:32

    Truth:

    Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”

    John 14:6

    Truth:

    Those who can’t handle the truth,
    try to silence those who speak it.

  10. Jonah says:

    Truth: Marxists and Sharia law Muslims share a hatred of Jews and Christians.

    Marxists hate Jews? I wish you could pass that along to the White Army when they were leading pogroms against my ancestors.

  11. From a comment I posted 2009/02/20:

    Go check out this comment and this comment.

    This supposedly non-controversial topic created far and away the most controversy of any thread in the history of Hot Air. See how a combined 178 unique user names contributed over 2300 comments, with Biblical Creationists outnumbering Anti-ID Evolutionists more than 2 to 1, and if you add the middle ground folks, the Pro-ID crowd outnumbering the Anti-ID crowd nearly 3 to 1.

    Tell that to the folks at “Expelled Exposed” who claim, as you do, that there is no debate:

    We’ll show you why this movie is not a documentary at all, but anti-science propaganda aimed at creating the appearance of controversy where there is none.

    I say Ben Stein is right. And the “Evolution Exposed” folks are the ones with the “anti-science propaganda”.

    I say that the fascist imposition of Darwinian Evolution in our schools is part of the Communist’s game plan to Defeat the Ultra-Right” and turn the USA into a Socialist/Communist country.

  12. Yes, Marxists hate Jews. Even in your example, did the Marxists defend the Jews? No.

    And if your point is to suggest that Christians hate Jews, I say that no one who hates Jews is following what Jesus Christ of Nazareth taught, and therefore they aren’t Christians (followers of Christ), regardless of what they call themselves.

  13. Intellectual honesty has nothing to do with it.

    Intellectual honesty has everything to do with it.

    If you could handle the truth, you’d watch the film and judge Dawkins’ own spoken words for yourself.

    The people at Expelled Exposed don’t want you to watch the movie. They can’t handle the truth, and don’t want you to see the truth.

    Darwinian Evolution is not science. It is taken by faith. This topic has been discussed ad nauseum in the Hot Air post I linked previously.

    If you really want to see what an open debate looks like, go read those 2300+ comments. Or, you can stick your head in the sand and belive the folks at “Expelled Exposed” who claim:

    We’ll show you why this movie is not a documentary at all, but anti-science propaganda aimed at creating the appearance of controversy where there is none.

    ROTFL…”creating the appearance of controversy where there is none“…Yeah, there is no controversy…that is why so many different people contributed to making that the most commented thread in the history of HotAir from its inception up until that point in time. Since then, significant numbers of new registered commenters have been added to HotAir, so some more recent posts have exceed that comment count, but I wouldn’t be surprised if that post still leads in the ratio of comments per registered commenter (# comments/ # of registered commenters at the time).

    Or, we could just submit to the “consensus” of Evolution, as we are expected to just submit to the “consensus” of Gore-bull Warming.

  14. Everyone else in the world seems to know how to greet the Japanese Emperor without scraping the floor…

    how to greet the Japanese Emperor

    An Emperor leads an Empire.

    It’s enlightening to look at Obama’s words and actions in regards to “Empires”.

    Obama is a Marxist who believes that the United States is an Empire that must be brought to its knees.

    But my journey is part of a larger journey – one shared by all who’ve ever sought to apply the values of their faith to our society. It’s a journey that takes us back to our nation’s founding, when none other than a UCC church inspired the Boston Tea Party and helped bring an Empire to its knees.

    – Barack Hussein Obama
    June 23, 2007

    Obama, representing the U.S. Head of State, just lowered the head of the U.S. “Empire” below the head of the Japanese “Empire”.

    “Citizen of the World” on a Journey to Bring USA to Its Knees?
    By itooktheredpill, posted on January 3, 2009

  15. Math says:

    You want me to go read a conservative blog’s comment (run by Michelle Malkin no less), and an ID promotional movie to get the “truth” about evolution or Dawkins? Are you for real? Have you heard of the words “bias” and “objectivity”?

    And at any rate, how is speculating that MAYBE we could come from alien any crazier than BELIEVING AS ABSOLUTE TRUTH that a big dude in the sky created us?

    By the way if God created Earth, therefore he’s not from Earth, therefore he’s an alien.

  16. Ryan says:

    Dawkins was asked specifically if he could think of a way that life on Earth could have been seeded. He said I suppose one could imagine that aliens seeded life, but they themselves must have evolved. Stein was trying to make him look stupid, and that is pure dishonesty. Dawkins does not believe that aliens seeded life on Earth, and if you did any research you would know that.

    The evolution debate is over. The fact that you need to go to an ultra-conservative forum to find those that agree with you is telling. There are no credible scientists who do not accept evolution. It’s a fact in every sense of the word.

  17. westexan says:

    The evolution debate has only just begun–That is to say, about 1976 years ago in AD33 when Jesus Christ was crucified.

    “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold all things have become new.” (2nd Corinthians 5:17).

    That is to say:anyone in Christ, anyone who has became a christian, is a “NEW CREATION” a new creature in Christ. The new christian has became something he/she was not before. They (christians) are a NEW CREATION, a new creature. They have evolved, not by the Darwinian theory but by the Spiritual process of God the Father through His Son Christ Jesus.

    “For we (christians) are His (God the Father’s) workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God (the Father) prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.” (Ephesians 2:10).

    “And to make all people see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created ALL THINGS (the UNIVERSE and LIFE) THROUGH JESUS CHRIST:” (Ephesians 3:9).

    Jesus Christ is the very God who “In the beginning created the heavens and the earth and all that is in it”–including life, who spoke the Ten Commandments at Mt Sinai and died AD 33 on the cross. Meaning, Jesus Christ created Adam the first man made in the image of God. The first man with a spirit, which seperated the first man from the animals that inhabited the world at that time. Adam was a “NEW CREATION” created in Christ by Christ. But of course. This mystery still continues today and there is no missing link(s). Man is what man has always been and monkeys and apes are what monkeys and apes have always been. Adam became a new creation, a new creature in Christ (God The Creater), maybe somewhere between 10,000-30,000 years ago. No ifs ands or buts.

    The evolution debate has only just begun.

  18. Ryan,

    The evolution debate is over. The fact that you need to go to an ultra-conservative forum to find those that agree with you is telling. There are no credible scientists who do not accept evolution. It’s a fact in every sense of the word.

    Whether the topic is Anthropogenic Global Warming, Evolution, or anything else, a true scientist never says “the debate is over”.

    True scientists don’t claim that “consensus” proves their theory.

    At one point in history, there was “consesus” in support of eugenics. Did that make eugenics right?

    “There are no credible scientists who do not accept evolution.” What you are really saying is “Scientists who do not accept evolution are not credible.” You use your own arbitrary definition of “credible”. You automatically reject anyone who doesn’t blindly accept evolution, even though you don’t have any scientific proof of a single evolutionary transition from a species with less chromosomes to a species with more chromosomes.

    This fascist imposition of an unsupported belief system, and the complete rejection of any challenges to that belief system, is what the movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” is about.

    As to you calling me and people who agree with me “ultra-conservative”, we are in the majority. “Ultra-conservatives” have been absolutely DOMINATING the best seller lists for months on end.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if Palin’s book outsells “Dreams From My Father” and “Audacity of Hope” combined. And then there are the books by Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, etc., all of which were #1 best sellers.

    Oh, by the way, while the press made George W. Bush out to be an idiot, and Barack H. Obama to be extremely intelligent, why is it that Bush reads several times more books than Obama?

    We, on the right, have had enough of you, on the left, implying that conservatives are stupid. Bush’s college grades were better than John Kerry’s, and probably better than Barack Obama’s. I say “probably”, because Obama won’t release any of his college records. We’re supposed to just take it on faith that he is super intelligent, even though it seems that about the only thing he reads is his teleprompter.

  19. Obama: Nah, I probably won’t read Palin’s book

    Oh, but one of the few books he did read (or at least claimed he read and provided a one sentence review of) was written by the Marxist Bill Ayers.

    Priorities.

    Oh, but Obama claimed that Ayers was just “some guy in my neighborhood”. Yeah, “some guy in your neighborhood”, whose book you helped promote!

  20. Math says:

    Oh, but Obama claimed that Ayers was just “some guy in my neighborhood”. Yeah, “some guy in your neighborhood”, whose book you helped promote!

    I wouldn’t be surprised if Palin’s book outsells “Dreams From My Father” and “Audacity of Hope” combined. And then there are the books by Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, etc., all of which were #1 best sellers.

    Do you personally know Palin, Malkin, Beck, Levin, etc? Yet you promote their book.

    Oh, by the way, while the press made George W. Bush out to be an idiot, and Barack H. Obama to be extremely intelligent, why is it that Bush reads several times more books than Obama?

    Any idiot with a second grade can read. It’s not really a sign of intelligence. Who is better off, the guy who reads one book and it causes you to genuinely think, or the guy who reads 50 mindless Harlequin novels?

    That said, I’m pretty sure Bush is smarter than he was made to look during his presidency. I think he was manipulated and terribly advised.

  21. The words “the debate is over” are not the words of a scientist; they are the words of a fascist.

    A scientist welcomes inquiry and debate.
    A fascist silences it.

    Those who can’t handle the truth,
    try to silence those who speak it.

  22. Jonah says:

    We, on the right, have had enough of you, on the left, implying that conservatives are stupid. Bush’s college grades were better than John Kerry’s, and probably better than Barack Obama’s. I say “probably”, because Obama won’t release any of his college records. We’re supposed to just take it on faith that he is super intelligent, even though it seems that about the only thing he reads is his teleprompter.

    I agree that it’s silly for any side to paint the other as uniformly stupid. Anybody who’s been paying any attention knows that there are smart and dumb liberals and conservatives. But I’m also a bit skeptical about the stock you’re suddenly putting into college grades. Wasn’t it just four months ago that the Republican party was dismissing Sotomayor as an intellectual lightweight, despite her ranking second in her class at Princeton?

  23. Ryan says:

    Mr. Pill,

    Scientists say the debate is over on whether evolution occurred not because they are fascists or blind. They say that because mountains of evidence has been found for evolution from multiple disciplines, and none has been found that points to a different theory.

    Of course nothing is set in stone, but evolution is as much a fact as the Earth is a sphere. There is evidence all over the place that you choose to ignore, and none for your side.

    As for the books, the reason conservatives sell so many books is that they scare people with doomsday theories and garbage that people just eat up. The same tactic works great for Fox News. We Liberals are too busy reading books about other things to contribute to the “bestseller” list of books by politicians and fake journalists.

  24. I didn’t see anything dismissing Sotomayor as an intellectual lightweight. I’m not saying there wasn’t anything said like that, I just didn’t see it personally.

    It’s not Sotomayor’s grades that concern me… it’s her racism and sexism. One of her rulings abused the law in order to deny white male firefighters promotions and give those promotions to non-whites and women who had scored lower in firefighter aptitude and ability tests. And her racist, sexist ruling was overturned 9-0 by the Supreme Court on which she now sits.

  25. Do you personally know Palin, Malkin, Beck, Levin, etc? Yet you promote their book.

    Point taken, but it’s a bit different when you are promoting well-known authors whose books are already #1 bestsellers. When Obama was promoting Ayers’ book, Ayers’ book was not anywhere near a #1 bestseller. I believe the purpose of that book review was a mutual admiration society. Obama promoted Ayers, and Ayers promoted Obama. Obama’s political career started in the living room of his “family friend” Bill Ayers. Why did Obama refer to Ayers as “some guy in my neighborhood” before the election, but then Ayers referred to Obama as a “Family friend” after the election?

    Any idiot with a second grade can read. It’s not really a sign of intelligence. Who is better off, the guy who reads one book and it causes you to genuinely think, or the guy who reads 50 mindless Harlequin novels?

    I presume you meant “Any idiot with a second grade [education] can read.” Normally I let things like that pass, but the context of your snide remark is deserving of an equal response. It is ludicrous to suggest that the books Bush reads are Harlequin novels or their equivalent. One of the books Bush reads cover to cover each year is the Bible.

    That said, I’m pretty sure Bush is smarter than he was made to look during his presidency. I think he was manipulated and terribly advised.

    Believe it or not, I agree with you on that. He trusted people who shouldn’t have been trusted. I don’t trust anyone who is, or has been, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, or Bilderberg group. The Globalists are enemies of our Constitution.

  26. Jonah says:

    And her racist, sexist ruling was overturned 9-0 by the Supreme Court on which she now sits.

    I’ll respond to this more later, but it was a 5-4 decision, not 9-0.

  27. Ryan,
    Where are the “mountains of evidence” of even a single evolutionary transition from a species with less chromosomes to a species with more chromosomes?

  28. Math says:

    I presume you meant “Any idiot with a second grade [education] can read.” Normally I let things like that pass, but the context of your snide remark is deserving of an equal response. It is ludicrous to suggest that the books Bush reads are Harlequin novels or their equivalent. One of the books Bush reads cover to cover each year is the Bible.

    Again you misquote me. I never said Bush reads Harlequin novels. You said Bush is smarter than Obama because he reads more books. I say the number of books read is irrelevant and not a sign of intelligence.

    I presume you meant “Any idiot with a second grade [education] can read.”

    Yes I did mean second grade education. In French when you say someone has “his second year”, it is implied you’re talking about education.

  29. You’re right, Jonah, and I was wrong. I don’t know why I thought that was 9-0 decision.

  30. Ryan says:

    Where are the “mountains of evidence” of even a single evolutionary transition from a species with less chromosomes to a species with more chromosomes?

    In the books you don’t read. We have a incredibly detailed understanding of how chromosome counts increase and decrease in genetic mutations, each of which has the potential to trigger speciation. Chromosomes can split and diverge during a mutation, and chromosomes can fuse, as was the case between humans and our most recent ancestors.

  31. as was the case between humans and our most recent ancestors.

    You take that on faith, not the scientific method:

    A method of discovering knowledge about the natural world based in making falsifiable predictions (hypotheses), testing them empirically, and developing peer-reviewed theories that best explain the known data.

  32. Math says:

    I don’t quite get your point. Evolution follows the definition of the scientific method you gave to the letter. I don’t know where you get the idea that evolution is not falsifiable. It’s the best explanation we have now, it doesn’t mean that when a better explanation comes along it will not be considered.

    But is creationism and ID falsifiable? Of course it’s not, it’s written in the Bible, which you hold as infallible and absolute truth. The conclusion is defined and immovable, and no amount of smokescreen you add around it will make it scientific.

  33. Science and the scientific method are about empirical testing and observation in the present. You make a hypothesis and then you test that hypothesis in the present, not the past.

    Claims about what happened in the past are taken by faith. Both the theory of evolution and the theory of creation are explanations of our origins in the past, and BOTH are taken by faith.

    You can’t show me a repeatable laboratory test showing one species evolving into another. You can’t prove it with the scientific method because you say that it happens too slowly to be observed.

    Again, science and the scientific method are about making a hypothesis and then testing that hypohtesis empirically in the present.

  34. Math says:

    I would gladly accept evolution is wrong if I was shown a more credible theory. Let me ask you this though:

    Under what circumstances would you accept that creationism/ID is wrong?

  35. westexan says:

    Human chromosomes and DNA are known to contain hundreds of millions of individual bits of information which are passed along from every parent to child. Scientific research has recently (2000, through the HGP ‘Human Genome Project’)) completed mapping each and is now trying to determine the function of each. It was unexpectedly discovered that a relatively small portion (technically called exons) seems to be actually needed in passing along the necessary genetic information for creating a new child. In February , 2001, scientists announced a surprising discovery, they found that fully 98% of the component nucleotides (hundreds of millions) seem to be absolutely unnecessary. These apparently unnecessary sections are technically called “introns”. If less than 2% of the human DNA is actually necessary for reproduction, what is that other 98% and why is it there? In primitive life forms, similiar exons and introns have been studied. In the process of procreation, a protozoan, Tetrahymena, has some interesting things occur. It turns out that, if the introns are left in an intermediate precursor RNA molecule stage, the process of procreation cannot continue. The intron somehow manage to snip itself out of the sequence and then splices the loose ends (of the necessary parts) together to form the functional molecule. That is not to say nor to imply that the preliminary HGP studies indicate the introns are of no functional value . Preliminary results (this is an ongoing study) of the HGP suggest that parts of the apparently unnecessary introns in humans are remarkably similar to the DNA found in bacteria and amoebae and even trees.

    In the February, 2001 announcements, scientists confirmed they found several hundred sequences that seem to be precisely identical to bacteria DNA. One of the several working scientific theories is that each organism forever maintains the DNA (genetic) code and capability of its predecessor species (in evolutionary developement) and just adds on to the DNA string for newly added adaptations or improvements. If this all turns out to be accurate, then evolution will have been absolutely proven. Every cell of every person would therefore contain genetic materials from earlier (simple) life forms. That is not to say that humans evolved from other life forms. It says THE BEGINNING OF ALL LIFE FORMS ARE FROM THE SAME SOURCE.

    “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” and all that is in it, including life.

  36. You want me to come to your side. What you don’t realize is that I spent more than two decades believing what you believe. And then I saw the light.

  37. Math says:

    You want me to come to your side. What you don’t realize is that I spent more than two decades believing what you believe. And then I saw the light.

    I’m not trying to make you switch side, I believe that to be impossible.

    So what do you have to say to those who pretend that intelligence design is science and should be though as such in classrooms?

  38. Jonah says:

    One of her rulings abused the law in order to deny white male firefighters promotions and give those promotions to non-whites and women who had scored lower in firefighter aptitude and ability tests.

    Here’s the thing. I completely agree with Ricci that New Haven acted clumsily in its handling of this case. But to say that Sotomayor “abused the law” is seriously misunderstanding what happened here. Let’s go back a step.

    The New Haven firefighters took a written exam to determine who would be promoted to seven available positions. The white candidates who took the exam ended up about twice as likely to pass as the black and hispanic candidates. Now, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits impact disparate in the following sense: if an employer chooses some hiring or promoting procedure that unintentionally selects candidates of one race significantly more often than those of another, the criterion must be explicitly related to job performance in order to comply with the law. Several other cities had found themselves in New Haven’s shoes in the past, and had been successfully sued by minorities because they failed to follow Title VII. So New Haven threw out the test retroactively (which I think was silly; they should’ve just changed it for the next round of promotions), and then opened themselves up to another lawsuit by the firefighters who had done well.

    Now, you may disagree with Title VII, but the disparate impact clause New Haven was following is exactly as written. At no point did Sotomayor “abuse” the law; she merely neglected to overturn it. And redefining a part of the Civil Rights Act would be overreaching for the Second Circuit court, so she went with the lower court’s ruling. Also note that the Second Circuit’s per curium opinion said that there were “no good alternatives” in the case, suggesting that their hands were indeed tied.

    Another thing to notice here is that what the majority in the Supreme Court decision did was to change the current understanding of a federal law. Regardless of whether you agree with the decision or not, is that not the very definition of “legislating from the bench”? I don’t think Scalia et. al. did anything wrong here (it’s the Court’s job to change the law when it violates the Constitution), but keep this in mind next time you complain about judicial activism.

    I don’t know why I thought that was 9-0 decision.

    Probably because conservative blogs tend not to mention the margin. You can’t really argue that someone who makes a given decision has no place on the Supreme Court when four such people (two nominated by Republican presidents) are already there.

  39. Jonah says:

    I didn’t see anything dismissing Sotomayor as an intellectual lightweight. I’m not saying there wasn’t anything said like that, I just didn’t see it personally.

    It was there in full force. But looking back on your blog, it seems you refrained from such remarks. Thanks, I guess.

  40. If you walked up to an apple tree, and the only apples on the ground were arranged to spell “Hello, Math”, would you think that those apples fell out of the tree by chance into that pattern? Or, would you observe that pattern and believe that an intelligent being used their intellgence to design that pattern?

    While it is not completely impossible for those apples to fall into that pattern by themselves, the odds of that happening without intelligent design are essentially zero.

    Science is all about observation.

    Without observation, you don’t have science.

    Since none of us were there to observe the origins of humanity, there are no scientific observations from the origins of humanity. We can only observe the present. It makes sense to observe the inherent complexity in anything and everything, and the greater the complexity, the greater the likelihood that that complexity is the result of intelligent design, not random events.

    And, as we observe the present, a true scientist will use scientific observations to test their theories, not the other way around.

    Do scientists use data to test theories, or do they use theories to test data? Scientists will claim the former, but here we have scientists who cling to the theory so tightly that they reject the data. That’s not science; it’s religious belief.

    Whether the topic is “Origins” or “Climate change”, the issue of scientific integrity is the same.

    Anthropogenic Global Warming is not science, it is a religious belief.

    Evolution is not science, it is a religious belief.

  41. Jonah says:

    It makes sense to observe the inherent complexity in anything and everything, and the greater the complexity, the greater the likelihood that that complexity is the result of intelligent design, not random events.

    You’re confusing things a bit here, because in the language of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, “complexity” and “randomness” are basically the same thing. The randomness of a set of information is how long it would take you to describe it: if it were truly random, you’d have to just read out the whole thing. But if I gave you a string of a million 1s and a million 0s alternating, you could describe it in far fewer than two million letters. You’d just say “It’s the sequence 10 repeating a million times.” Going back to your apple example, that configuration isn’t complex. Because there’s a pattern, it’s simple. In information theory, you’ve got order, simplicity, and predictability on one end of the spectrum, and chaos, complexity, and randomness on the other.

    Not that your argument can’t be salvaged; you don’t want to say that humans are too complex to have been formed by randomness. You actually want to say that they’re too elegant.

    I’m sure Math and Ryan know how to debunk it from there. I’ve sort of lost interest in debating creationists, but as a math teacher I do feel an obligation to point out flaws in probability as they crop up.

    Anyway, carry on.

  42. Jonah says:

    Oops. Fix my missing bold tag, pretty please?

  43. Fix my missing bold tag, pretty please?

    Done.

    you don’t want to say that humans are too complex to have been formed by randomness. You actually want to say that they’re too elegant.

    OK. Perhaps I’m using the wrong word, but you understand what I’m trying to say.

    With all of our intelligence, man has never been able to create an artificial “replacement” body part that performs as well as what our Creator created. An artificial heart is not as “elegant” as the heart which God created. A hearing aid is not as “elegant” as the ear which God created.

    We would never look at that artificial heart or hearing aid and believe that either one of them “evolved” from billions of years of random mutations.

    Yet we are asked to believe that substantially more “elegant” body parts “evolved” from billions of years of random mutations.

  44. Jonah says:

    An artificial heart is not as “elegant” as the heart which God created. A hearing aid is not as “elegant” as the ear which God created.

    Okay, now you’re using “elegant” in an aesthetic sense, which is not at all the opposite of random. An artificial heart is mechanically simpler than a human heart, and likewise a hearing aid is simpler than the human ear. Your examples are both working in the wrong direction.

  45. westexan says:

    The bible itself confirms other humans already existed when Adam was created. Before Cain killed his brother, Abel, there were four “named” humans on the planet earth, Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel. After Cain murdered Abel there were only three humans named who lived on planet earth, Adam, Eve, and Cain. Yet Cain complained to God that “anyone finding him would kill him”, when God condemned him to the life of a vagabond and a fugitive on the earth–Gen. 4:14. That was before any mention of the other children Adam and Eve had. Who could that other “Anyone” who would find Cain and kill him be? Who was Cain afraid of?

    Fast forward to around AD31-32: Luke 11: 50-51, and Jesus is disputing with the Pharisees in one of his many encounters with them in regards to their Talmudic Laws and Oral Traditions that had been handed down by word of mouth from generation to generation. Here Jesus speaks of the Prophets whoes blood had been shed from the blood of Abel to Zechariah. Meaning Abel was a Prophet of God. An expounder of God, a teacher of God.

    Who was Abel’s audience? Who was Abel teaching “God” to? Before he was murdered there were only four people NAMED who lived on the planet earth. Unless Abel was teaching Adam and Eve, his father and mother, about God, who else could Abel have possibly been prophecying to? Surely not just Cain who was not all that interested in God to begin with. Abel had an audience, else there would have been no need of a Prophet. There were other people on earth in the time of Adam and Eve. Else Abel was preaching to the choir–his parents.

    Who was the woman Cain took for his wife? Who were the daughters of men and who were the sons of God? Who or what was the serpent in the Garden that “was more cunning than any beast of the field.”?

    In Genesis 2:19-20 it is stated that “out of the ground God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And Adam gave names to them all , but for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.”

    Long story short– God and Adam checked out the “beasts” to see if there was a mate for Adam among those BEASTS. Otherwise it makes no sense to say “but for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.” The book of Exodus 22:19 says “Whosoever lies with a beast shall surely be put to death.” But when Adam named all the creatures God had created there were cattle, beasts, and birds. It is forbidden only to lie with “beasts”? What about the other creatures?

    Has anyone checked out the Max Planck Institute of Biological Evolution lately? Seems as though there is the ongoing DNA genetic sequencing of the 30,000-40,000 thousand years old Neanderthal women whoes DNA is 98.7% identical to that of modern day humans who also have the FOx gene that would enable them to communicate just like modern day people. There is also the idea among some of the research team that think the Neanderthal interbred with modern day humans. Where did Cain find, in the land of Nod, his lady friend who became his wife? And who were the sons of God and the daughters of men? Why was Adam different from all the other creatures? He was created in the image of God.

  46. westexan,
    Just curious… are you LDS?

    Cain’s Wife—Who Was She?

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