patrick.net

Like Parlor tricks?

All through this comic until I got to the last pane, I was thinking, yeah that wouldn't matter if it didn't affect state policy via religious politicians and the voters who put them in office.

It's like when Bush said, "God told me to invade Iraq.". At that point, it's no longer an academic issue. Over a million Iraqis dead, including children, because some dumb ass president is listening to the voices in his head.

Dan8267 says

It's like when Bush said, "God told me to invade Iraq.". At that point, it's no longer an academic issue.

did he actually say that?

Dan8267 says

Over a million Iraqis dead, including children, because some dumb ass president is listening to the voices in his head.

One word: oil.

Actually the Earth is more like 19 years old. The main question is what are you using to determine the length of each year. My years are based on the length of time it takes the solar system to revolve around the galaxy. Which is about 230 million Earth years per revolution. If anyone believed in the Bible was on Pluto, they would firmly believe the Earth is 1,488,000 years old (Each Pluto year is 248 Earth years).

uomo_senza_nome says

did he actually say that?

Yes. Scary, isn't it.

uomo_senza_nome says

One word: oil.

Oil, religion, region control, a boost in the polls, and the threat of Saddam selling oil in euros instead of dollars. There were a couple of reasons for the U.S.-Iraq War 2, but none of them official.

Dan8267 says

Oil, religion, region control, a boost in the polls, and the threat of Saddam selling oil in euros instead of dollars. There were a couple of reasons for the U.S.-Iraq War 2, but none of them official.

Also, war is the neo-cons equivalent of the stimulus packages.

Also interesting: More than 80% of Americans believe in evolution. more than 80% of Americans believed in WMD in Iraq. I.e., most of Americans (at least 64%) believed in both. Or, in other words, believing in evolution does not add to your ability of critical (or any level of logical) thinking.

Moreover, 60+% of Americans believed in Hussein Al-Qaeda links. That means that at least 48% of Americans are absolutely ignorant, while believing in evolution :)

Dan8267 says

Or, in other words, believing in evolution does not add to your ability of critical (or any level of logical) thinking.

back for more I see? What do you mean believing in evolution? It is a logical conjecture based on overwhelming scientific evidence.

michaelsch says

more than 80% of Americans believed in WMD in Iraq

based on fabricated evidence as we now know. do you mean to say evolutionary evidence is fabricated, LOL?

michaelsch says

That means that at least 48% of Americans are absolutely ignorant, while believing in evolution :)

You're comparing totally different things and confusing the discussion.

michaelsch says

Also interesting: More than 80% of Americans believe in evolution. more than 80% of Americans believed in WMD in Iraq. I.e., most of Americans (at least 64%) believed in both. Or, in other words, believing in evolution does not add to your ability of critical (or any level of logical) thinking.

No, but understanding evolution and the evidence for it does. Science is not faith. It's critical thinking skills, evidence, and healthy skepticism.

michaelsch says

more than 80% of Americans believed in WMD in Iraq

The stupidity of the American citizen never ceases to amaze me. It was obvious that Bush was out-right lying about the WMDs because

1. The UN inspectors found absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
2. Despite this, the UN was willing to search every rock and pebble, but Bush kept saying, "there is no time".

Bush knew there were no WMDs and he successfully got America to go to war before rational minds could prevail. This is exactly why there should be legal consequences for anyone involved in starting the US-Iraq War 2 including senators, representatives, Bush and his cabinet, the intelligence officers, and any generals/brass who war mongered.

I don't know. something got messed up in the code I guess. But you know I meant michaelsch.

Dan8267 says

The stupidity of the American citizen never ceases to amaze me.

:). Dead on.

michaelsch says

Also interesting: More than 80% of Americans believe in evolution.

Yeah, but a bunch of them believe it's something that happens after creation.

Understanding of evolution is low. People pointing to a current event representing what they think is strength and then saying, "Darwinism," is not evolution. Any process taking millions of years aludes common conception. Many people are struggling to conceive of the next year.

Dan8267 says

Over a million Iraqis dead, including children

Will you share your source for that info? I've been hoping to spread whatever facts I can find on the number of deaths bought in the name of U.S. taxpayers

Over one million Iraqis have met violent deaths as a result of the 2003 invasion, according to a study conducted by the prestigious British polling group, Opinion Research Business (ORB). These numbers suggest that the invasion and occupation of Iraq rivals the mass killings of the last century—the human toll exceeds the 800,000 to 900,000 believed killed in the Rwandan genocide in 1994, and is approaching the number (1.7 million) who died in Cambodia’s infamous “Killing Fields” during the Khmer Rouge era of the 1970s.

ORB’s research covered fifteen of Iraq’s eighteen provinces. Those not covered include two of Iraq’s more volatile regions—Kerbala and Anbar—and the northern province of Arbil, where local authorities refused them a permit to work. In face-to-face interviews with 2,414 adults, the poll found that more than one in five respondents had had at least one death in their household as a result of the conflict, as opposed to natural cause.

This is from Project Censored. There were a whole bunch of articles and estimates by human rights groups a few years ago. I don't remember where they are though.

The main problem with estimating deaths is that politicians like to count dead bodies precisely because this grossly underestimates the number of casualties. After all, if you blow up a body, you can't count it because all the pieces are too small.

The correct way to estimate is to look at the Iraq population before the war and then count the living after the war. Subtract the two numbers and calculate the rate of population growth. Compared the actual rate of population growth to the projected growth based on the previous decade. The difference will give you an estimate of the number of deaths caused by the war itself. Non-war related deaths including natural deaths and homicides would have already been included by using the projected rate of growth from historic numbers.

FunTime says

Will you share your source for that info?

Google 'The war you don't see'.

Dan8267 says

These numbers suggest that the invasion and occupation of Iraq rivals the mass killings of the last century—the human toll exceeds the 800,000 to 900,000 believed killed in the Rwandan genocide in 1994 ...

I'm willing to bet that the Average Iraq citizen would be more than happy to have Saddam back if they could have there dead relatives back too. While Saddam was ruthless dictator and his sons treated any women they wanted as there personal sex slave, overall the average citizen really didn't have all that much contract with them. There something to be said about a Dictatorship with safety and security than Democracy with chaos and insecurity. Well at least they died "free" citizens.

TechGromit says

There something to be said about a Dictatorship with safety and security than Democracy with chaos and insecurity. Well at least they died "free" citizens.

The dictator himself was propped up by the US, which is the mother of all irony.

http://www.tjuUWr9vaXo

Dan8267 says

Over one million Iraqis have met violent deaths as a result of the 2003 invasion, according to a study conducted by the prestigious British polling group, Opinion Research Business (ORB). These numbers suggest that the invasion and occupation of Iraq rivals the mass killings of the last century—the human toll exceeds the 800,000 to 900,000 believed killed in the Rwandan genocide in 1994, and is approaching the number (1.7 million) who died in Cambodia’s infamous “Killing Fields” during the Khmer Rouge era of the 1970s

Isn't this just evolution? In other words, the strong prevailing over the weak in the endless and bitter struggle for limited energy resources? I thought that's what evolution was all about.

I think war is horrible. But wouldn't Darwin say that war is good, since it elminates the "unfit" and enhances "natural selection"?

wthrfrk80 says

I think war is horrible. But wouldn't Darwin say that war is good, since it elminates the "unfit" and enhances "natural selection"?

Tsk, tsk. Is this what's really at the heart of all evolution deniers? They think that evolution is suppose to be a moral code? Evolution is a tale of morality in the same way that nuclear physics is. I.e., not at all.

Evolution is a theory that explains how life works, not how you should live your life. Evolution is a cold-hard fact like the existence of gravity. Just because the law of gravity implies that jumping off a cliff will cause you to plummet to your death, doesn't mean you're suppose to do it.

Yes, war does affect human evolution as does genocide. However, evolution only explains how things work, not whether or not a change or a method is "good" or "moral". In fact, evolutionary theory predicts that some species will drive themselves to extinction due to short-term interests such as fighting and sexual preferences.

The assertion that evolution is a tale of morality can only be based on the principle that your genetic self-interest is all that matters in the universe. Certainly, this is the prerogative of your genes, but does that mean it is your primary goal?

Dan8267 says

Evolution is a theory that explains how life works, not how you should live your life. Evolution is a cold-hard fact like the existence of gravity. Just because the law of gravity implies that jumping off a cliff will cause you to plummet to your death, doesn't mean you're suppose to do it.

But don't words like "should live" and "suppose to do" imply the existence of will? Don't those words imply that I have some control over my actions and am not simply pre-determined (ever since the big bang) by physics to take certain courses of action?

Morals don't really exist if we are all completely under the control of impersonal laws of physics. Ex: a person commiting a "crime" has not done anything "immoral", they are simply doing what they have been programmed to do by their brain chemistry.