1. Comment #185736 by LaurenceH86 on May 28, 2008 at 11:53 am

I think Edward Sisson is just in it for the money. Typical Lawyer lol

Other Comments by LaurenceH86

2. Comment #185737 by TheSwede on May 28, 2008 at 11:54 am

I can't open the file with firefox.

Anyone got any ideas?

Other Comments by TheSwede

3. Comment #185742 by RickM on May 28, 2008 at 12:16 pm

IDers; disgusting, lying bastards.



Swede,

No prob with Firefox here. Just dragged the .rm file to RealPlayer.

Other Comments by RickM

4. Comment #185760 by Pattern Seeker on May 28, 2008 at 12:54 pm

Amazing. Just watched the vid and Barry Lynn destroyed that pseudolawyer Sissy. I can't believe a "reverend" defends our cause here in America so eloquently. Though he may be religious, this man is definitely on our side. Once again, I think this speaks to us non-believers as to how do we find common ground with people like Rev. Lynn to defeat the delusional IDiots.

Other Comments by Pattern Seeker

5. Comment #185767 by truthcounts on May 28, 2008 at 1:22 pm

I think Rev Lynn does as good a job as any atheist in defense of Evolution. I was impressed. The scientific ignorance of the average American is so embarrassing as seen in the callers questions, it enables the Discovery Institute a voice where there should be none.

I wish they would stop using the term Darwinism. This should be corrected at every pass. It is the theory of evolution... Not "Darwinism".

Other Comments by truthcounts

6. Comment #185768 by taichi86 on May 28, 2008 at 1:24 pm

One caller said "Evolutionism". He knows very much about the subject I suppose :-D

Other Comments by taichi86

7. Comment #185774 by leviticus on May 28, 2008 at 1:39 pm

I hate how this thing logs you out if you take to long to post your comment f***** annoying, and something that should be addressed elsewhere is suppose.

I watch the video and came to the conclusion that nothing new was really discussed. I agree with LaurenceH86 that Edward Sission is either in if for the money or maybe he just wants to undermine the foundations of biology for his only religious reasons and is merely disingenuous about his motives. Again the video is an hour long discussion with the usually group of caller argument about gaps in the fossil record and no real evidence for evolution garbage.

Sission makes the same old pathetic claim that intelligent design does not necessarily postulate the existence of a god. Even if he doesn't not personally hold these beliefs it should be noted that the men who came up with the Intelligent Design movement did infact intend to place not only god but their god into the role of the intelligent designer. This was proven in the Dover trial by Barbara Forest evidence and is discussed in great detail in the her book with Paul R. Gross Creationisms Trojan Horse (a book I'd only recommend for those very interested in Intelligent Designs dirty history, it was very good to me, but some find it too long and dry).

Other Comments by leviticus

8. Comment #185786 by rod-the-farmer on May 28, 2008 at 2:19 pm

I too got logged out for being too long listening to the show. Rather interesting, but the fascinating thing to me was that they had separate call-in numbers for the audience. One for Republicans, one for Democrats, and a third for Independents. Gadzooks. This is Dawkins' "muslim child" taken to a new level. I am still shaking my head and chuckling. What possible reason would there be for this ? Suppose a Democrat deliberately or accidentally calls in using the Republican phone number. Does a bolt of lightning strike him down ? Or deaf maybe ? Maybe his membership card is set on fire ? Do they stop him mid-question from asking a "Democrat" type question on the Republican line ? (Shakes head again.) I could NOT make this stuff up, and I have said that SOOOO many times on this site.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

9. Comment #185798 by Severus Snape on May 28, 2008 at 3:08 pm

LaurenceH86 - Lawyers are paid to represent their clients, so it certainly is typical for lawyers to be "in it for the money." Of course lawyers do pro bono work, but most of the time lawyers get paid for the work they do.

Other Comments by Severus Snape

10. Comment #185800 by Dhamma on May 28, 2008 at 3:16 pm

As much as I dislike that the scientists are theists, they may be the only way to first get americans to accept evolution and eventually drop their ridiculous little belief in a god as well. If you believe in the evolution, I may accept that you believe in deism, but the judeo-christian god is NOT compatible with evolution. If the evolution is true, and god created the world and every animal in only six days, then the bible simply MUST be wrong.

Other Comments by Dhamma

11. Comment #185801 by swordsbane on May 28, 2008 at 3:30 pm

"What is Intelligent Design?"

"It's not Creationism."

"So what is Intelligent Design?"

"Evolution is wrong."

Yeah.. Nothing new going on here.

Other Comments by swordsbane

12. Comment #185802 by Geodesic17 on May 28, 2008 at 3:37 pm

I present the following argument from authority:

"How you believe doesn't affect the doctrine. Either at a certain moment in evolution God breathed into one particular ape-man who was Adam, or God could have taken a handful of dust and blowed and created a man just like that" - Billy Graham ("Cooperative Evangelism at Harringay," United Church Observer, July 1966).

Other Comments by Geodesic17

13. Comment #185803 by AoClay on May 28, 2008 at 3:39 pm

Rod,
I imagine it is so nobody can complain for a lack of balance. If there are different phone lines, you can make sure to do a fair share so some Billo figure doesn't get angry.
I haven't watched the show so I don't know, but that's my guess.

Other Comments by AoClay

14. Comment #185808 by Dhamma on May 28, 2008 at 4:04 pm

Btw, was this really a video? I only got audio, despite running it in the realplayer. I just installed it in Ubuntu, because the others could only playback the audio. But I didn't get any video now either.

Other Comments by Dhamma

15. Comment #185817 by MuNky82 on May 28, 2008 at 5:07 pm

Guide for Windows users:
Go to www.free-codecs.com
Search for "Real Alternative" (left pane under "Tools")
Download and install (Preferably the non-"lite" version)
Run Media Player Classic (bundled with non-"lite")
Drag and drop the rtsp link into it (or copy and paste the link in File>Open File...)

I prefer to use Real Alternative because it is just the bare, reverse engineered, codec. Unlike the bloated application from Real with its annoying background processes and ads. There is a Quicktime Alternative also. Media Player Classic is a great little application if you want a light basic player that handles most audio and video formats, as long as you have the codec.

Other Comments by MuNky82

16. Comment #185821 by quill on May 28, 2008 at 5:35 pm

Unfortunately, people like this can always defend their use of the term "Darwinism" by pointing out that atheists and "evolutionists" like Dawkins also say "Darwinism" when they're talking about Darwinian theory. It gives them cover.

Other Comments by quill

17. Comment #185824 by Quine on May 28, 2008 at 5:47 pm

Unfortunately, people like this can always defend their use of the term "Darwinism" by pointing out that atheists and "evolutionists" like Dawkins also say "Darwinism" when they're talking about Darwinian theory. It gives them cover.

Well, we can stop. I know some think it is pedantic, but again I must insist that vocabulary matters. There is no 'ism involved in the theory of evolution by natural selection. The "teachings" of Darwin have no special status other than what is demonstrably true. These days I try to use "Natural Selection" instead of just "evolution" to make it clear to everyone who is listening that this is the key point. I am no "Darwininist" just as I am no "Popperian" and correct anyone who mischaracterizes me as such.

Other Comments by Quine

18. Comment #185827 by Border Collie on May 28, 2008 at 5:54 pm

Does anyone know how to make RealPlayer not time out every 2-3 minutes? I can't watch this thing. And, yes, I've updated everything.

Other Comments by Border Collie

19. Comment #185831 by chuckgoecke on May 28, 2008 at 6:20 pm

As one caller eluded to, I thought the discussion here was very useful and civil. Rev Lynn did a great job. He made me both proud of and confident in the NCSE specifically, and all us rationalists generally.
For the person having trouble with the video, you need to have Real Player available, as well as Firefox as your browser. My Firefox browser asked me if it was ok to launch the player, so I guess it needs to be told of the link at some point. Real Player is now available on Mac's for free, in a stripped down version.

Other Comments by chuckgoecke

20. Comment #185844 by smithsb on May 28, 2008 at 7:37 pm

C-SPAN didn't start using separate phone numbers for different party affiliations until the Monica Lewinski situation developed in the 90s, when the number of anti-Clinton callers was way out of proportion to what was reflected in national polls. So the separate phone lines enforce a reasonable balance that would be difficult to achieve if one partisan group decided to launch an assault on the phone lines. Note that these are not toll-free phone numbers. Note also that C-SPAN hosts remain as neutral as possible--but they also leave it up to the callers to ask questions that are almost always more penetrating than anything one is likely to hear on CNN or MSNBC.

Shawn Smith

Other Comments by smithsb

21. Comment #185845 by Quine on May 28, 2008 at 7:49 pm

The calls to C-SPAN showed many of the same problems with general lack of knowledge that have popped up on the radio shows visited by Prof. Dawkins in the last couple of years. At this time RD is writing a new book presenting the evidence for the theory of evolution by natural selection which should give us a quick touchstone to answer many of these problems.

Perhaps we could find a university statistics department who would be interested in doing a comprehensive survey of what the public knows, does not know and actually thinks is true about all of this. If we had that data we would know the specific points that need to be addressed to move the public understanding of science along by the most targeted application of resources.

Other Comments by Quine

22. Comment #185848 by Frankus1122 on May 28, 2008 at 8:11 pm

From Quine:

Perhaps we could find a university statistics department who would be interested in doing a comprehensive survey of what the public knows, does not know and actually thinks is true about all of this. If we had that data we would know the specific points that need to be addressed to move the public understanding of science along by the most targeted application of resources.

This is a great idea. Get statistics. Use evidence to focus education.

From Border Collie:

Does anyone know how to make RealPlayer not time out every 2-3 minutes?

As chuckgoecke intimated: get a Mac.


From leviticus:

I hate how this thing logs you out if you take to long to post your comment f***** annoying, and something that should be addressed elsewhere is suppose.

Get in the habit of doing a quick Select All and Copy before you hit send. It works well for me. Unless of course I post something very long and uniquely insightful. Then I forget:(

Other Comments by Frankus1122

23. Comment #185880 by mordacious1 on May 29, 2008 at 12:01 am

Anyone recognize Betty, the crow, who keeps flying behind the rev. Barry Lynn? It would have been great had she bent a wire on camera, but it looks like she was just collecting loose change.

Other Comments by mordacious1

24. Comment #185881 by mordacious1 on May 29, 2008 at 12:08 am

The phone lines should not be dem. rep. ind. , but rather believers, non-believers, and don't give a crap. Or perhaps, scientists, laymen, morons. They assume that Rep./Dem are divided homogeneously on this topic. They're not.

Other Comments by mordacious1

25. Comment #185885 by Rachel Holmes on May 29, 2008 at 12:30 am

Quine,

I thnk that's a great idea.

I'm not sure how much money the RDFRS has, but it might be worth pitching the idea to them.

Other Comments by Rachel Holmes

26. Comment #185888 by mordacious1 on May 29, 2008 at 12:44 am

One caller: Where's the fossil link between the Brontosaurus and the elephant? WHAT? Brontosaurus? Do you mean Apatosaurus?
That would be one giant leap for elephantkind. The elephant evolved in tiny steps, tiny steps. Over long periods...oh why bother.

Other Comments by mordacious1

27. Comment #185891 by GoodbyeGodNZ on May 29, 2008 at 1:26 am

Great stuff Reverend Lynn. I thought I was hearing things to start with. Your whole argument and delivery was just superb. God we've got some amazing people in our camp. The whole religious establishment has every reason to be shitting themselves.

Other Comments by GoodbyeGodNZ

28. Comment #185907 by Lightnin on May 29, 2008 at 3:42 am

I can't get it to play *cries*

I did everything MuNky82 said, and it still doesn't work. I guess my only option left is to move to the US.

Other Comments by Lightnin

29. Comment #185915 by home8896 on May 29, 2008 at 4:40 am

I just can't take it seriously when I hear someone say "many people have their own definition of [Intelligent Design.]" If you can't even come up with one definition to agree upon, and everyone gets to define it however each person desire, then there's simply nothing to argue about. I mean, if everyone gets to define it their own ways, can I just define it as slow changes in the populations of animal species over time promoted by natural selection? At that point, I just couldn't listen to the ID lawyer seriously anymore.

Other Comments by home8896

30. Comment #185925 by Philster61 on May 29, 2008 at 5:48 am

Whats a lawyer doing promoting ID anyway? He isnt a scientist.

Other Comments by Philster61

31. Comment #185943 by King of NH on May 29, 2008 at 7:18 am

I agree with Dawkins summation of the argument against evolution. It seems every caller that had a problem with evolution had the same line of thought. "Gee, this stuff is hard for me to understand. Therefore, it must be wrong. Goddidit."

It seems that too many people are intelectually lazy and want an easy answer. Should someone believe evolution? Absolutely not! That's why every scientist, or academic in any field, worth listening to says, "This is what I say is true and (the important part) this is why and here is where to look for yourself." Scientists WANT people to disbelieve and attack ideas, because like in evolution itself, only the strongly supported ideas will survive. Theologans never offer this. They ask people to look inside themselves for god, then inform them they will burn in hell or they are cursed if they don't feel him/her. ID is neither of these. ID is just an empty concept aimed soley at destroying science and has no other motive.

Also, I love how the lawyer, at about 36 minutes, discusses things being taught as facts destroys inquiry. Like religion being taught as a fact so that people will reject any idea that contradicts it? I can't agree with him more here.

Other Comments by King of NH

32. Comment #185971 by Border Collie on May 29, 2008 at 9:24 am

Who is squelching ID & Creationism? Where is it being squelched? There are, what, at least tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of churches in the US? Hey, GO TO CHURCH if you want to learn about ID & Creationism. Who cares? But, if you want to teach ID or Creationism in public schools then you also have to teach Evolution in church. OK? Fine.

First time I've seen/heard Rev. Lynn. I love it when Rev's are smarter than the lawyers ... I'm glad he's on our side. Watching Sisson talk about ID reminds me of watching Condoleeza Rice talk about WMD's. However, it is very worrisome that millions of fundamentalist dollars are hiring lawyers to get into this fray. Damn, puke, cough, choke ... I LOVED the bronto/elephant thing!

Other Comments by Border Collie

33. Comment #186137 by Styrer- on May 29, 2008 at 5:29 pm

We may all feel orgasmic that a Reverend is here better advocating the place of science in the classroom than his ID-protecting, ignorant opponent lawyer in this debate.

But this does not make him an ally in fighting the real war between faith/supernaturalism and reason.

While he is useful in condemning the idea that ID is a scientific endeavour (when, by the way, was this ever hard?) he is, like Eugenie Scott, Miller and all similar NOMA adherents, simply prolonging the movement our young learners may make to submitting their beliefs to scientific scrutiny.

I do not see NOMA as a 'strategy' in the war against superstitious supernaturalism; I see it as a propitiation to the religious and to the supernaturalists. As such, it deserves our contempt, as we recognise that it permits even full-blooded and even borderline theists to think that they can put their god in a separate little box, to be brought out whenever they see fit.

Some 'tactic', NOMA.

Fuck it.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

34. Comment #191397 by Leendert on June 10, 2008 at 8:35 pm

The original links seems to have disappeared, but the same content is still available:
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=205347-6

Other Comments by Leendert