Rush Limbaugh: What has evolution ever predicted?
Jason Spaceman
---------------------------------------------
There's another objection that some people have to evolution, and that is, to
some people it's a tautology, survival of the fittest, meaning that what
survives is the fittest. It's always amazed me that liberals embrace this.
Liberals hate the survival of the fittest, do they not? Liberals are obsessed
with the equality of outcome. Liberals say they're animated and motivated by
the fact that they can't stand the inequality of things. It's not fair that
somebody should be richer than somebody else. It's not fair that somebody should
have two houses while somebody else has only one. Well, if they're gonna
profess their belief in evolution, isn't it the case that the survival of the
fittest must be allowed to explain all of this? In other words, that some
people have more than others because they're more competent; they're more able;
they're more fit. And yet the same people want to tell us, "Oh, yeah, you have
to believe in survival of the fittest. That's why the weak members of the tribe
end up being slaughtered, that's why the weak lion goes away and gets creamed by
the wildebeest or whatever the hell happens. You know, vanishes into the veldt
in Rhodesia." Darwin's major premise is the Origin of the Species. Now, I,
living in Literalville, say, point me to a species we have seen originate. I'm
sorry, I live in Literalville. Origin of the Species. Okay, I'm sorry. As
much as people may love Darwin, he cannot explain the Origin of the Species.
And nor can I. Nor can Marx, and nor can Obama.
Now, back to tautology. How do you know it's the fittest, survival of the
fittest? Well, the only way you know that it's the fittest is that it survived.
It's just circular. It really doesn't advance anything. You know, people find
comfort and faith anywhere they can. And some people are hell-bent on not being
religious. It's an article of faith with them. "I'm not going to be sucked in
by some religion. I'm not going to surrender my mind to a bunch of baseless
religion." Some people have that attitude while other people totally immerse
themselves in it and be very comfortable having faith. But Darwinism isn't
science any more than creationism is. Global warming is not science, it's not
been proved in the scientific method. Another test of whether something is --
and I'd have to confirm this with my official climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer,
University of Alabama Huntsville -- but to me another test of whether something
is science or not is if it's predictive. Can you predict from your knowledge of
the science? Evolution is not predictable. What has evolution ever predicted?
What can we know for certain is going to happen down the road because of
evolution?
--------------------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092910/content/01125112.guest.html
J. Spaceman
Free Lunch
<notr...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in talk.origins:
Some people are just too stupid to understand that simple shorthand
references are not designed to be literal descriptions.
John S. Wilkins
Or to understand that because some theory doesn't make all predictions,
but only some, it isn't therefore not predictive. No theory predicts
everything.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, Bond University
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Jason Spaceman
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
r norman
And whatever a theory does not predict must therefore be emergent?
Ernest Major
<notr...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> writes
>Now, I, living in Literalville, say, point me to a species we have seen
>originate. I'm sorry, I live in Literalville. Origin of the Species.
>Okay, I'm sorry. As much as people may love Darwin, he cannot explain
>the Origin of the Species.
Would anyone care to persuade Limbaugh to donate some money (say $10,000
- I hear he's a rich man) for every species that we've seen originate.
--
alias Ernest Major
John S. Wilkins
> On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 10:20:24 +1000, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
> Wilkins) wrote:
>
> >Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >
...
> >> Some people are just too stupid to understand that simple shorthand
> >> references are not designed to be literal descriptions.
> >
> >Or to understand that because some theory doesn't make all predictions,
> >but only some, it isn't therefore not predictive. No theory predicts
> >everything.
>
> And whatever a theory does not predict must therefore be emergent?
I'm gonna slap you upside the head so hard...
Mike Painter
<snip>
> http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092910/content/01125112.guest.html
>
> J. Spaceman
I watched Rush a few weeks ago on an old sitcom "Hearts Afire" and he was
pretty funny.
I sometimes wonder if he has not just done the same thing that Art Bell did.
Find something that would make him a lot of money and go with it.
There is a lot more money feeding the "Somebody Said It, It Must Be True."
fundamental/conservative crowd than the liberal side.
I'm not totally immune but question a lot more after a few years here.
Ron O
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 19:34:36 -0400, Jason Spaceman
>
> >J. Spaceman
>
> Some people are just too stupid to understand that simple shorthand
Probably much more simple than that. Some people are just stupid.
Ron Okimoto
bpuharic
<jspa...@linuxquestions.net> wrote:
>From the article:
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>There's another objection that some people have to evolution, and that
>is, to some people it's a tautology, survival of the fittest, meaning
>that what survives is the fittest. It's always amazed me that
>liberals embrace this. Liberals hate the survival of the fittest, do
>they not? Liberals are obsessed with the equality of outcom
so he says evolution is true but liberals refuse to accept it....THEN
he says:
.. But Darwinism
>isn't science any more than creationism is.
evolution is false because it has no evidence
what's pathetic is so many americans are as right wing as he is.
David Hare-Scott
>
> I sometimes wonder if he has not just done the same thing that Art
> Bell did. Find something that would make him a lot of money and go
> with it.
> There is a lot more money feeding the "Somebody Said It, It Must Be
> True." fundamental/conservative crowd than the liberal side.
>
I don't know specifically about Limbaugh but from a broader perspective you
are on to something. It is much easier to generate opinions than to do real
journalism and you get a much bigger audience pandering to fear and
prejudice than sense and clarity.
David
cassandra
"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the
American public"
Or more pithy if less relevant:
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers."
John S. Wilkins
Here's why:
<http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/09/100930-collective-intel
ligence-groups-teams-women-sensitive-health-science/>
John Falsename
wrote:
>
> J. Spaceman
Ah good old Rush. Repeating the stupidity of his pseudo-right wing
crowd. He probably has no theological reasoning for denying evolution
anyway. Biblical speaking he is on the high way to hell.
Curiously, right wing radio host Michael Savage had this to say (a
while back), on evolution that left me surprised:
Boikat
wrote:
>
> J. Spaceman
As a book title says, "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot". That says
it all.
Boikat
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 19:34:36 -0400, Jason Spaceman
>
> >J. Spaceman
>
> Some people are just too stupid to understand that simple shorthand
> references are not designed to be literal descriptions.
Or possibly some people know that they can gain more political
influence and money by telling people what they want to hear and
already believe rather than trying to educate them by telling them the
truth.
RF
Rodjk #613
> r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 10:20:24 +1000, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
> > Wilkins) wrote:
>
> > >Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> ...
> > >> Some people are just too stupid to understand that simple shorthand
> > >> references are not designed to be literal descriptions.
>
> > >Or to understand that because some theory doesn't make all predictions,
> > >but only some, it isn't therefore not predictive. No theory predicts
> > >everything.
>
> > And whatever a theory does not predict must therefore be emergent?
>
> I'm gonna slap you upside the head so hard...
> --
> But al be that he was a philosophre,
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
I don't get it...
Rodjk #613
cassandra
> But al be that he was a philosophre,
>
> - Show quoted text -
I wonder if this is an emergent property.
cassandra
There was a time when I drove several hours to work and back. In
order to stay awake, I would listen to the "Big Mikes" on the radio
(Gallagher, Medved, Savage). I am surprised to hear him support
evolution, although if you listen to your entire link, you will hear
him says things similar to Mike Behe.
Burkhard
John, he doesn't get it - slap him harder!
J. J. Lodder
Nah, upside is bad technique.
Should be left, right, left right,
Jan
Frank J
>
> - Show quoted text -
Even if Limbaugh is as science-illiterate as he comes across (I
suspect that at least some of it is faked), he has most likely read
and understood the answers to his misconceptions, including:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA500.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html
They are hard to miss, especially for someone who (1) scours the
literature to find opponents’ views that he can misrepresent, and (2)
has an anti-evolution activist brother (David) who must have these
articles at his fingertips.
But he knows he can’t refute the refutations, even with quote mining
or other word games. So he pretends that they don’t exist.
As for “telling them what they want to hear,” I would bet that both
Limbaugh brothers have also read and understood this:
http://reason.com/archives/1997/07/01/origin-of-the-specious
Richard Clayton
See also: "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them."
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." — Rudyard Kipling
Rodjk #613
<sigh>
I still don't get it...
Rodjk #613
Burkhard
Nor do we, we just like the thought of mindless violence inflicted on
other people.
John S. Wilkins
> On 1 Oct, 16:03, "Rodjk #613" <rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 1, 8:42 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > > On 1 Oct, 14:02, "Rodjk #613" <rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 30, 8:27 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> >
> > > > > > r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 10:20:24 +1000, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
> > > > > > > Wilkins) wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > >Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > >> Some people are just too stupid to understand that simple
> > > > > > > >> shorthand references are not designed to be literal
> > > > > > > >> descriptions.
> >
> > > > > > > >Or to understand that because some theory doesn't make all
> > > > > > > >predictions, but only some, it isn't therefore not
> > > > > > > >predictive. No theory predicts everything.
> >
> > > > > > > And whatever a theory does not predict must therefore be
> > > > > > > emergent?
> >
> > > > > > I'm gonna slap you upside the head so hard...
> >
> > > > > I don't get it...
> >
> > > > John, he doesn't get it - slap him harder!
> >
> > > Nah, upside is bad technique.
> > > Should be left, right, left right,
> >
> > <sigh>
> > I still don't get it...
> >
> > Rodjk #613
>
> Nor do we, we just like the thought of mindless violence inflicted on
> other people.
... who insist on making everything about emergence.
Frank J
Emergence! Everybody to get from street!
> --
> John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, Bond Universityhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
> But al be that he was a philosophre,
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre- Hide quoted text -
r norman
wrote:
What is going on here? I am very confused!
And my head hurts badly along the upside.
John Falsename
Yeah, I listened to Savage a lot back in my days at my old job.
Interesting character. I also caught the way he sounded like an
Intelligent Design proponent in this clip but even at that it's funny
hearing two theists duke it out with one another.
Greg G.
John, how much do you pay your henchmen for upside-the-head slapping?
I always wanted to be a henchman when I grew up.
Mike Painter
> >>
>>>>> I don't get it...
>>
>>>>> Rodjk #613
>>
>>>> John, he doesn't get it - slap him harder!
>>
>>> Nah, upside is bad technique.
>>> Should be left, right, left right,
>>
>>> Jan
>>
>> <sigh>
>> I still don't get it...
>>
>> Rodjk #613
>
> Nor do we, we just like the thought of mindless violence inflicted on
> other people.
That road leads to Christianity.
Kleuskes & Moos
> On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 08:49:23 -0700 (PDT), Frank J <f...@verizon.net>
Must be an epidemic.
Ron O
> Jason Spaceman wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092910/content/01125112.g...
>
> > J. Spaceman
>
> I watched Rush a few weeks ago on an old sitcom "Hearts Afire" and he was
> pretty funny.
>
> I sometimes wonder if he has not just done the same thing that Art Bell did.
> Find something that would make him a lot of money and go with it.
>
> There is a lot more money feeding the "Somebody Said It, It Must Be True."
> fundamental/conservative crowd than the liberal side.
>
Rush is wrong so often that he likely doesn't know what a successful
prediction is. Soneone else likely has to tell him when he accidently
makes one.
Ron Okimoto
William Morse
emerge from the big bang?
John S. Wilkins
Possibly not, if the serial multiverse is true, but that's merely
emerging, not emergence.
Kermit
> On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 08:49:23 -0700 (PDT), Frank J <f...@verizon.net>
So there's no downside to getting slapped upside the head?
I would have thought otherwise. Now *I'm confused.
Kermit
cassandra
You might be slap-happy.
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
Limbaughs Dittohead ass" groups
is nothing more than spreading the worst ignorance available.
William Morse
You've been holding back on us. You apparently can explain how all of
cosmological history emerged from the big bang ;-)
John S. Wilkins
It's obvious. This margin does not contain room enough for the proof, so
I leave it as an exercise to the reader...
Walter Bushell
If there is not enough room in the margarine, write it in the butter.
--
The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
is good, or is it the reverse?
William Morse
butter did it.
Earle Jones
nmp <add...@is.invalid> wrote:
> Boikat wrote:
>
> > As a book title says, "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot". That says it
> > all.
>
> Please don't call Limbaugh a big fat idiot. It's insulting to a lot of
> big fat idiots.
*
The first time I saw Glenn Beck on TV I laughed. At first I thought it
was someone like Frank Caliendo doing Rush Limbaugh!
earle
*
PS: "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot" was written by Al Franken.
That's Senator Al Franken.
earle
*
Free Lunch
talk.origins:
>Boikat wrote:
>
>> As a book title says, "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot". That says it
>> all.
>
>Please don't call Limbaugh a big fat idiot. It's insulting to a lot of
>big fat idiots.
Rush Limbaugh did prove that Dean Wormer was wrong. "Fat, drugged and
stupid" is a way to go through life if you find a way to engage with
other hateful people who hate civilization.
heekster
wrote:
Eh, that should be "fat, *drunk* and stupid".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1hnwvWhbJw
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
That was before he got older.