1 You know how I know you're gay?

This post.

It's really like some kind of therapy for you after the World Cup loss, isn't it?

-phat

just joking, you're my 5th favorite poster here.

2 When I have free time for reading, I use it to read economics textbooks.

3 Good to see you're making the pivot from 'Smart Military Blog' to 'Smart Nature Blog '.

Got to be some crazy blog money in that.

There may be more in being Al Gore's masseuse. Honestly, if you're all about the benjamin's, go that route.

4

Thoreau's cabin was also at the intersection of the two most popular footpaths in the area and he spent a lot of his time at his sistere's house eating pie.

His apparent hypocracies and inconsistencies madden my students, but the older I get the more forgiving I am.

Always remember that Thoreau wasn't doing this hermit thing in a vaccum.  It was a time of weird social optimism. People created communities like Brook Farm and Fruitlands because they thought it was possible to develop a better human being.  In fact, other people had set themselves apart individually as well, David Wheeler for example. 

So many of his most infuriating statements can be seen as Thoreau just differentiating himself from the others of his day and earlier.

5

Way off topic:  Hey, I didn't know the Overton Window was a thing (outside of the novel).  It's an actual thing.  And it's a thing I liked and advocated for moving before I knew it was a thing.

Explained briefly

6

For a good novel on environmentalism run amok, I recommend Niven and Pournelle's Fallen Angels.  Simply outstanding.  Politically hard-hitting and funny as hell in places.

Good background on Walden, Monty.  I've never read it (nor claimed to) but that contextualization might change a few minds.  Or not.  People are pretty stupid, as a rule.

7 I have all of Gould's books (the mass market ones, not his scholarly disquisitions on the undersides of snails, etc.), and would have to say Dinosaur in a Haystack is my favorite, but that might just be because I picked it up most recently. With apologies for the green and/or Lib subtext in these two books I highly recommend them. Flight of the Iguana by David Quammen (a series of mid-length pieces examining evolution/natural history in modern context) and The Universe Below by William Broad. Fascinating book on the nearly impossible to imagine things/phenomena one finds at the deepest depths of the ocean.

8 T.H. White's "The Goshawk."

9

I stay away from man/nature books....not the scientific sort, the philosophical....because my own thoughts are just that. I don't appeciate the needd others feel to tell me how I should live because of their metaphysical interpretation.

Now I like the sciency stuff because it adds to a knowledge base that will give my own worldview an organic flow, rather than being led by a leash into a certain thinking.

Epistemic closure!!!

I am re-reading The Closing of the American Mind becuase it has special relevance today. Much  as our educational system been corrupted by the forcing of a liberal orthodoxy based largely on the works of 19th century German nihilists, we today are being fed only one side of the story by the increasingly left media.

Sorry Monty, but Zen and the Art is just one of those piece of crap books that is de rigeur of the faux-intellectual set. It just bored the crap outta me.

10 Vis - The Council Gritter.

11

So many of his most infuriating statements can be seen as Thoreau just differentiating himself from the others of his day and earlier.

Posted by: Catholic Cowboy at June 27, 2010 09:10 AM (0Jyi

Exactly!!!He was just a poseur. Sort of a precursor to Al Gore

12 About Thoreau: I always wondered how his mind would have been changed if he'd been in danger of being eaten by a bear, of freezing to death in a sudden winter storm, or of starving to death when he couldn't find or grow food. Naturalism is easy when you don't have to fight Mother Nature every step of the way. "Tourist naturalists" can rhapsodize about Nature because it's not constantly trying to kill them.

13 Sorry Monty, but Zen and the Art is just one of those piece of crap books that is de rigeur of the faux-intellectual set. I have sympathy for people who feel this way. A lot of my friends hate it too. It's just one of those books that made an early impression on me and which I've liked ever since. I think I'd probably like it a lot less had I come across it later in life. (There's a fine line between stupid and clever, as I learned in Spinal Tap.)

14

"The college idealists who fill the ranks of the environmental movement seem willing to do absolutely anything to save the biosphere, except take science courses and learn something about it."

— P.J. O'Rourke

15 14 Good one. PJ comes up with some great lines. Maybe I'll go read "All the Trouble in the World" again .

16 Books?!?!?  I only read teleprompters.

17 Nature? Boring. When trees get USB 2.0 ports, I'll give them a second chance.

18 I never understand the feeling that Genesis is at odds with science. People get hung up on 7 days -replace days with epoch or another word for unspecified chunk of time and its a pretty good description in just a few words. Then Adam from clay --well read on to Cain and Able and tell me THAT contradicts man evolving from primates.

19

McPhee is an absolute treasere, and I wish more people would read his stuff.

McPhee writes in a very engaging style that draws the reader in.  I haven't read all of his books (he's extremely prolific) but he even makes geology interesting to a regular person like me.  In the contest of this thread, Coming Into the Country was the first book of his I read (it was a Christmas present) and immediately got me hooked.

The smartest lib I know, by a wide margin, believes that complex subjects like calculus could be better grasped by people if they understood the historical perspective; ie. what problems existed that it solved.  I think this is part of what drives McPhee.

20 Books? Meh. The only books I've read are The Communist Manifesto and Golf For Dummies.

21 Put that hippy trash down before you warp full gHey.  Get yourself some good Don Pendleton series (like, The Executioner) from the nearest 2nd hand shop to purify your system.  Come back to the light.

22 The Most Dangerous Game By Richard Connell

It was required reading by my trainers.
I and my cohorts made the path through the woods to our hideout lethal.
Glad we didn't catch anyone.

23 oops, wifes nick there

24 "Darwins Black Box" makes good arguments for a creator and makes fun of the silliness of evolution. My take on evolution and Darwin is that he was knocking on the door of genetics. And, we use the term 'evolve' for the process of genetic selection and variability, as seen in light and dark moths.

25 um I cheered at the end of Into The Wild. Does that count?

26 also Teddy Roosevelt's hunting books are good exemplars of nature writing I guess

27

Man and nature books?? Does Old Yeller count??

It makes me cry every time I read it.

...and don't be a smartass

28 Maverick... did you use the "Malay Mancatcher"?   Good call man, I never could figure why he used the bowie knife in the trap the got the cossack though... lost his best implement there where a sharpened stick would have worked.  Was in a pinch for time i suppose. 
Anyone read "A Little Boy Lost" by W.H. Hudson?  Strange tale, especially when Martin bunks out with mother nature.

29 It turns out that "communing with nature" is much easier when your friend owns the land and lets you live on it for free, and you can trot down to the general store when you run out of sugar or salt.

America has always been a shitty place.

30

evil midnight bomber what bombs at midnight at June 27

I clapped when ther Junkie got mauled by his Bear "friends"!

31 I only got through the first 5 pages of "Zen & the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance". It was assigned to me my first semester at college. Instead of the assignment, I wrote a 4 page paper on why I didn't want to read it. The professor gave me a D! A D! He didn't fail me. He said the D was for creativity. That was the moment I realized my professors probably took mescaline & listened to Odetta in the dark in their underwear.

32

Ron White had a great joke about Timothy Treadwell, the guy who lived with the bears up in Alaska, who in appreciation for his friendship...ate him.

White said  "..and to think his daddy said he would never amount to shit."

33 "Darwins Black Box" makes good arguments for a creator and makes fun of the silliness of evolution. The problem is that Michael Behe made a very fundamental logical fallacy, which is explained here. It fatally undermines the entire book. This is the problem with a lot of writing on the "anti" side of the evolution argument: they tend to be lawyers and theologians rather than scientists; and when they are scientists (rarely), they tend exist at the fringes of their disciplines. This lack of specialized knowledge leads many on the "anti" side to make fundamental scientific mistakes, misunderstandings, and fallacies. They also don't keep up with the current state of the science very well: I hear the same arguments against evolution I heard way back in the 1970's in spite of the fact that the science has improved by light-years since then with the advance of our understanding of DNA (the "New Synthesis" model). But oh dear $DEITY$ don't let this turn into an LGF "evolution" pissing-match. My point is simply that the quality of the writing in the two camps is far better on the pro-evolution side than on the anti-evolution side.

34 >>Posted by: Michelle O at June 27, 2010 09:44 AM (M9BNu)

An early example of a "Food Desert"?

35

About Thoreau: I always wondered how his mind would have been changed if he'd been in danger of being eaten by a bear, of freezing to death in a sudden winter storm, or of starving to death when he couldn't find or grow food. Naturalism is easy when you don't have to fight Mother Nature every step of the way. "Tourist naturalists" can rhapsodize about Nature because it's not constantly trying to kill them.

Monty, farmers are the ultimate naturalists as they have always known all Mother Nature's vagaries.  A late frost and your orchard is screwed, a hail storm and your grain crops are done, a disease or pest plague and everything else is gone.

36 Joanie, I never read Jack Shite in college. It itook me until after, when I couldn't afford CATV that I began to read stuff that didn't concern my immediate needs. Now with kids, I'll read anything when they are quiet. Like this crummy blog!

37

Fuck Thoreau. I hate that fucking book.

Ever read 'Trout Fishing in America' by Richard Brautigan?

That is as close to a nature book as I can get. 

 Yeah it's a bit Hippy / Beatnick but it is a fabulous read.  Most of Brautigan is.  'A Confederate General from Big Sur' and 'The Tokyo - Montana Express' are also favorites.

 

38 Since we're talking about nature writers, I want to recommend everybody to ignore the works of Edward Abbey, who wrote in one of the most nails-across-the-blackboard cringingly boring style I've ever encountered.  I hope that fucking loser died an extremely painful death when he mercifully left the planet for the few minutes of WTF he inflicted on me when I ill-advisedly mucked my way through a few pages of one of his sucky books before throwing it back at the library.

39 Ive read Brautigan. Not bad, that guy.
Also Joyce Carol Oates had some good essays. But I didnt want to get all lit-crit shitty

40

His apparent hypocracies and inconsistencies madden my students, but the older I get the more forgiving I am.

I find that about myself also.  But I am still unforgiving toward those who are unforgiving to people who are disagree with them, without any attempt to understand them.  Live and let live is not very present these days.

41 That was the moment I realized my professors probably took mescaline & listened to Odetta in the dark in their underwear.

You have no idea...

42

listened to Odetta in the dark in their underwear.

Anybody who claims to like listening to that obese whore should have their ears cut off.

43 *trying to decide what military surplus crap to buy*

44 Posted by: hutch1200 at June 27, 2010 10:00 AM (My4Ze) I know what you mean. I didn't read for fun until a few years out of college. Now I mostly read autobiographies. Better than fiction, I say.

45 "Ever read 'Trout Fishing in America' by Richard Brautigan?" Never read it, but have heard the band of the same name. Remember that kid several years ago who legally changed his name to "Trout Fishing in America"? What a dick.

46 I only like them with "happy endings"

47

I've read none of the books Monty mentions. Hmph.

Gotta get me s'more science learning to keep up with the kids. A lot of it just didn't stick when thrown at me as a kid. Hopefully I can do better now with my kids.

48 White said  "..and to think his daddy said he would never amount to shit."


Oh no you di'int.

49

Posted by: Monty at June 27, 2010 09:55 AM (jM/Et)

I would generally agree w/ that even as a anti-evolution guy; that said the evidence against both God and evolution are so strong that sometimes it feels like they offset each other and both sides are at a standstill, I would also argue that fallacy in that perticular book can't answer why we still have no conclusive evidence of evolution (and frankly no conclusive evidence of a God/Creator has yet been shown)

That's the last I'll say on that subject before the pissing match gets started

OT: damn it, I was hoping to vent on the ONT about my exp. w/ the soccer douchebags (all apologies to soccer fans offended by that) at the soccer thread, I saw that there was a link to the salem shout out list, oops, I mean the 100 hated people by the left list, damn my gf for making me do, er, um, stuff and missing it

50 Travel books: You need to read Paul Theroux.

51 Patrick F. McManus.  Some of the funniest stuff I have ever read.

52 Read any Peter Hathaway Capstick, Monty?

53 it makes geology not only interesting, but fascinating.

My absolute favorite NY travel book is the Roadside Geology of New York, one of a series by Mountain Press (I also have the Wisconsin volume, but it takes second place after the brewery guide).  It's organized by highway--example, a chapter on the Thruway from Syracuse to the MA state line--and describes what you're seeing and why (the answer is usually "glaciation") and what kind of rock it is.  I have learned so much about what I've seen here (and there is so much I didn't get to see).

I don't read a lot of the metaphysical/philosophical stuff; I'd rather go out and see the world and make up my own mind about it.

54 *do I really want 5 canteens? This is the tough decision of the day*

55

Richard Pipes' Property and Freedom has a good chapter on possessiveness in animals and early human societies.  

If evolution is true, what happened to that first creature that realized it was mortal?  What purpose did it find worthy of bothering to grub for more roots and carry on?  Did that line just die out immediately because they were too damn depressed to get laid?  Those who immediately invented a purpose-giving deity reproduced? 

And where the hell was I? 

     

56 He sometimes strays into New Age-y areas, but I really like the works of Lyall Watson. 

57 I currently have Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson" This is the best one-volume treatment of basic economics ever written, I think. I think every high school kid should be required to read it before being allowed to graduate. It's a slim little book, too -- only about 200 pages or so. Yet chock full of wisdom. Peter Hathaway Capstick I read Death in the Long Grass way back when, but I think that's it.

58

My absolute favorite NY travel book is the Roadside Geology of New York

Awesome! That is exactly the kind of thing I want for homeschooling. I'm getting the local version.

59 Walden isn't a bad book, it's just vastly overrated.  Thoreau hangs out in the forest and builds three-legged stools.  That's pretty much the summary of the book right there.

60
28 did you use the "Malay Mancatcher"? ..

Amongst other things. We modified it to come crashing down an uphill trail
from a greater distance. Made you jump out of the way into a covered pit.

61 What about physics? I need something that explains how the world works, not something that explains physics, IYKWIM.

62 Popular science writing is a lost art.  I recommend Lewis Thomas's Lives of a Cell for the kind of thoughtful, accessible writing you don't see much of any more.  He even expressed an early concern for HMOs, if I recall. 

For basic economics for the  non-economist, in addition to Hazlitt, I would recommend Bastiat.  He railed against the same kind of phony two-party system (one party disguised as two) and pork-based politics that we see today, only he wrote it in 1850. 

Also, if you really want to lose all faith in humanity, I recommend Fiat Money Inflation in France, by Andrew Disckon White (free online).  It was written in 1912, before the creation of Federal Reserve, and it's a calm, dispassionate accurate history of the monetary rape of a once-healthy economy.  It's a strange thing to realize that we're living through the exact same thing as post-Revolutionary France, 200+ years later. 

63 What about physics? I need something that explains how the world works, not something that explains physics, IYKWIM.

Posted by: Mama AJ at June 27, 2010 10:31 AM (XdlcF)

Isaac Asimov writes very well on that imo.

64 What about the original mother earth catalogue, put legs on it and you would have a coffee table.



/sarc

65

Three must-have books for any conservative's shelf that also happen to dispel leftst myths about the environment:

Liberty & Tyranny by Mark Levin

10 Things You Can't Say In America by Larry Elder

Conservative Combacks to Liberal Lies by Gregg Jackson

66 "Shit Jefferson Said"....Vol. IV

67 mama - have you looked at Tom Baugh's offerings?
http://www.softbaugh.com/courses/

68 Try some books on beekeeping . The Queen Must Die or from a technical viewpoint , The Hive and The Honeybee .
The natural world in all it's horrible glory .

Vardis Fisher , The Mountain Man .
 One of my all time favorite books .
Fuck Robert Redford .

69 Best short story abt nature?
To Build a Fire
lol

70 My husband wants to visit Vicksburg soon. I'm excited because I've never crossed the Mississippi River by car before. The kids and I will read up on some of the history etc.

71

Isaac Asimov writes very well on that imo.

<goes to check husband's bookshelves>

Cool, thanks.

72 When I was working for a graduate minor in environmental studies I was required to some book written by an old time naturalist. It was mostly about birds, particularly the sandhill crane. I can't remember the name of the book or author, probably because I didn't like it. It was a fairly small paperback and considered a classic. If any of you morons know which book I'm talking about please tell me the title because it's driving me nuts.

I've read tons of stuff about nature, own several field guides, etc. but I've never found books by naturalists interesting.

73 ok gf is tapping her foot. gotta go mo-ronz

74 Ed Anger .  Aldo Leopold ? maybe

75 Ed- was it Audubon?

76 Sand County Almanac ?

77 ok ok signing off geeziz

78

I'm excited because I've never crossed the Mississippi River by car before

I recommend using a bridge. You might run into trouble if you don't

79
Sand County Almanac ?

Posted by: awkward davies at June 27, 2010 10:46 AM (B4e7Q)

Bingo! Thanks.

80 Nature books aren't my thing, but I fondly recall reading "Hatchet" by Gary Paulsen as a child.  Short synopsis: 13-year old Bryan Robeson (get it?) gets stranded in the Canadian wilderness after his plane's pilot dies of a heart attack.  Bryan is then forced to adapt and improvise to survive alone, but fortunately he was given a hatchet as a gift from his mom before he got on the plane.

 

81

Back in the late '70's when I was a kid, I went with my older brother as he drove across the frozen Ohio River in his VW Bug..

..God, my parents were pissed when they saw us on the news

82

I recommend using a bridge.

What would I do without the advice of morons??

83 Thanks, Monty. I've added some books to my reading list. I can appreciate your leeriness towards "custodian". 'Tis a word much abused. However, I think, used properly, it is a term that is appropriate. If you put it in the context of the legacy we leave to our children (either actual or societal), then we are, indeed, custodians to a certain extent. We teach our children to clean up after themselves. We strive to give them opportunities greater than we had. We work to ease their burdens, and to allow them to dream the bigger dream. Certainly, in that context, we would want to leave the land which they will inherit in as good a condition as possible. Does that mean pristine and untouched? No. Does that mean we aren't allowed to rationally exploit those resources which enhance our lifestyles and ease said burdens? Of course not. Are we leeches and parasites best suited to the caves? Please. But there is a certain responsibility to act rationally and with care. To make sure the damage we do is minimized. To act in a manner which exploits without destroying. Indeed, to set an example. We have been given a gift by G-d. It is in our interests, and those of our children, to use it wisely.

84 Liberty & Tyranny by Mark Levin

Please PLEASE don't read this book.  It is tiresome.  He caricatures the enemy to be this hybrid Satanic/Hitlerian creature.  I bought it and then regretted it once I got about into chapter 3.  I couldn't finish it.  It can be summarized as follows:  "They are evil.  We are good."

85 "What about the original mother earth catalogue..." You mean the Whole Earth Catalogue? I had never heard of this until I read Courtney Love's Mother's autobiography. Apparently, this was her bible when they lived on a hippie farm in New Zealand. One ingredient in the psychosis of Courtney.

86 Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate" about nature vs nurture.  Definitely not what one would expect from a Harvard prof (although he was at MIT at the time).

87 Liberty & Tyranny by Mark Levin

Please PLEASE don't read this book.  It is tiresome.  He caricatures the enemy to be this hybrid Satanic/Hitlerian creature.  I bought it and then regretted it once I got about into chapter 3.  I couldn't finish it.  It can be summarized as follows:  "They are evil.  We are good."

Posted by: chemjeff in moving hell at June 27, 2010 10:52 AM (hCVP5)

Although I think the book is better than your description (I believe specifically on the environment he's writes well) I also get put off with his, at times, unnecessarily confrontational style (I say that as somebody who regularly listens to his "rewinds" as the best thing on radio along with Tammy Bruce).  For example, I stopped reading one of his dog books (Saving Sprite iirc) after he badmouthed somebody who'd hit a dog with his car who subsequently returned to try and help out.  I'm guessing the guy didn't know what happened at the time and came back to try and figure it out and isn't by definition a bad person deserving of ridicule and condemnation.

88 I read Edward Abbey in my misspent youth . He felt the same way about "stewardship" as you do about "custodian" . Definitely a strange guy but in his defense , he preferred his philosophers to wear boots rather than sandals . Not a vegan .

89 Just a question here, is the new Dan Brown novel worth the time and money? I think its The Lost Symbol?

90

badmouthed somebody who'd hit a dog with his car who subsequently returned to try and help out....

Probably a Korean saying "Rou gonnra eat drat?".

91

A Brief History of Time by Steven Hawking

...I never understood the Theory of Relativity until I read this..

OK..I still really don't

92

98 So Obama wants to slap a 15% tax on banks now?  Gee, I wonder who picks up the bill for that

Well, duh...the banks

93 95 It's not bad. Pretty much exactly what you'd expect for the genre. Less classic puzzle solving than some, and the most glaringly obvious "clue" goes unrecognized for three-fourths of the novel, but plenty of conspiro-history to keep you reading if that's what you're in the mood for.

94 Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate" about nature vs nurture. Pinker is an exceptional writer about cognitive science. Marvin Minsky is another one. I've actually studied both men quite a bit -- I've worked in the AI field pretty intensively in the past, though not so much now. Interesting parallels to the natural world, especially in insect colonies. For pure futurist bravado, Vernor Vinge and Ray Kurzweil have written a lot on the technological "singularity" they see coming in the next 50-100 years. Interesting stuff. Also, to understand the "evolution doesn't need a God" argument often espoused by atheists, I recommend Dan Dennett's book Darwin's Dangerous Idea. It's about the most well-written attempt to explain why Nature doesn't need God. (He fails, in my opinion, because like all such attempts he still ends up impaled on the Prime Mover dillemma. Nature either has to be eternal -- and thus un-created -- or has to emerge ex nihilo. Either way leads to some really knotty scientific thickets.)

95 90,

That's the one thanks.

96 John McPhee's  The Curve of Binding Energy, if you don't understand what that is about from reading the title then you need to read the book.

97 I just bitch about what people I don't like don't read.

98

 His aim is to help people like him, who rejected stale school textbooks and dry explanations, to appreciate how we have used science to understand the smallest particles and the unimaginably vast expanses of space. With his distinctive prose style and wit, Bryson succeeds admirably.

Awesome, thanks. And there's a version for people with really, really short attention spans for the children called A Really Short History of Nearly Everything!

99
You know what would be a good post for a Sunday on a political blog?

A roundup of the Sunday morning shows.

Videos, a little analysis offered by the poster, and an open discussion. You know, kinda like how political bloggers used to do it in the olden days.

100 omg......there is no way in hell i'd vote for huckabee.....

101 I agree that Zen and the Art of Moto ... is an interesting book, but might be a book you have to read at a certain age (kind of like Catcher in the Rye). Zen and the Art dealt with some ideas that were new to me so it  had a real impact.

102
Today's word of the day^tm is livid.

For instance: This morning they forgot to toast the english muffins on my Egg McMuffins. I am fucking livid.

103 I read Edward Abbey in my misspent youth . He felt the same way about "stewardship" as you do about "custodian" . Definitely a strange guy but in his defense , he preferred his philosophers to wear boots rather than sandals . Not a vegan .


I liked Desert Solitaire.  But, as for the rest, fuck him.  I love Lake Powell.

104 105, Monty, The Prime Mover Dilemma is a funny thing. Some use it to prove God exists. Of course it leaves open the question, "Well, then who created God?", with the reply, "Nobody, God by definition always existed". If you can believe that something always existed, that thing doesn't have to be God. Also, the Prime Move Dilemma is irrelevant when discussing natural phenomena. Try Neil Shubin's "Your Inner Fish" for a good and satisfying read on where we came from.

105

Hmmm, if In the Heart of the Sea: The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex counts as a nature book, then yes I've read one recently.

I gave Walden an honest try but put it back on the bookshelf unfinished.

106 My favorite sciency book is Leonardo Da Vinci's anatomy of man (compilations of drawings published by various publishers in different books). 

As for the evolution topic, Monty hit it on the head: 

Evolutionary theory has changed much since Darwin's day. 

It frustrates me to no end to read people try to use "logical arguments" (as opposed to scientific ones) to refute a 150 year old book while ignoring the most compelling evidence for evolution: the ability to use protein sequences to demonstrate the relatedness of organisms through phylogenetic tree analysis.

I think it's also extremely ironic that religion or a belief in God is used to somehow bolster the anti-evolution arguments when it was the Catholic Church's support of scientific scholarship that has provided much of the scientific evidence for and tools for studying evolutionary biology.  There may be some religions that require their believers to reject evolution, but it certainly isn't all or even the majority from what I can see. 

107 If you like McPhee's writing I recommend Berton Rouche starting with The Medical Detectives

M&M's would love Ernle  Bradford especially The Great Siege (Siege of Malta 1565),  The Sultan's Admiral: The Life of Barbarossa, Nelson, and Drake

My sentimental favorite McPhee book is Oranges, and entire book about oranges yet much much more from the Orangery at Versailles to the Tropicana tanker that used to travel between Miami and New York  

108

Monty @12:

Actually, Thoreau advocated hunting and fishing in Walden, mostly as a way to better understand nature, but I think he was pretty far from a Gaia-worshipping idiot.

109 Do right-wing political junkies still watch the morning shows? I used to but once I realized that 80% of the guests (and the host) were partisan lefties I stopped. I refuse to give them my attention.

Plus the issues seem ancient. I rarely watch FoxNews Sunday even though I think it's the best one. But by the time the Sunday shows air I've already seen, heard, and read the pundit class (both right and left) thoroughly dissect the issues.

What  are they gonna talk about today -- McChrystal, the spill?

These shows are like the Time and Newsweek of TV news, and the news is just as stale.

110

Videos, a little analysis offered by the poster, and an open discussion. You know, kinda like how political bloggers used to do it in the olden days.

I stopped watching them when I found them rehashing discussions that bloggers had covered on Wesnesday. Esp. when they would only get through the first two layers of arguments when moron commenters had gotten through five layers of same.

Until later, my friends.

111

Because a lot of it is about nature, I would recommend the journals of Lewis and Clark--an added bonus is reading about true American heroes.

Oh, or the Ambrose book about L & C--I can't remember the title.

112

Videos, a little analysis offered by the poster, and an open discussion. You know, kinda like how political bloggers used to do it in the olden days.

Add me to the list of folks who stopped watching the Sunday shows because they are just rehash of week-old administration talking points. 

Back to packing hell. Have a nice Sunday, folks!

113 On sciency books ... Godel, Escher, Bach was great. Both fun and informative.

I read most of Dennet's popular works. The Mind's I was a nice collection. Darwin's Dangerous Idea was also quite good. Consciousness Explained ... didn't.

The Cartoon History of the Universe series is fun -- the author also has a similar series on various science and math subjects. It was written back in the 80s, I think. The author has an enjoyable irreverent take on religious history ... although even then he refused to draw Muhammed.

114

Dianne Ackerman's "A Natural History of the Senses".  Why?  Because she makes very mundane, dry, scientific subjects (like photosynthesis) read like luscious, sensual poetry, while still keeping to the scientific process -- and there is something to be said for that.

I do not approach evolution with fear and trepidation: in fact, I fail to see why there is a  brohaha over it in the first place.  For the non-religious it should be a non-starter: there is nothing within evolutionary theory or scientific discovery that remotely touches the religious (although there are some moral/ethical topics that it might be very wise to pay some heed to); as for the religious: evolutionary theory if anything celebrates the glory and infinite wonder of the Creator's purpose and art, so what's the problem?

115 O'Rourke is quite good.

And all the denizens of Cadillac Ranch who wrote letters to Car and Driver thought so, too.

116 Thanks wodeshed.

117 The Sunday Talk Shows are of, by, and for the Washington D.C. elite. They are irrelevant and fading away.

118
Yeah, you guys are right about the Sunday morning shows but you're missing why they're still important.

People, by and large, and under-informed. They do not know what we know. They do not think like we do. Not everyone hates what Obama is doing and thinks he's an anti-American piece of shit. Not everyone knows, for example, who Barney Frank is and how he's partly to blame for this deep recession we're in.

The Sunday morning shows is how the Democrats and Republicans communicate with the ignorant masses. We need to monitor these shows to know what the people know, keep track of the lies, and keep an eye on the stupid Republicans.

119 Hmmm...  perusing my bookshelf for really good nature books.

Let's see.

Grow 'Em Right by the Dougherty brothers.
Quality Deer Management by Alshiemer.
Precision Bowhunting  by Eberhart
Bowhunting Pressured Whitetails by Eberhart

Do those count?

120 135, I agree, but people are moving away from TV and other old-style media. The pols have mostly failed to see this but a turning point is coming. One day soon a prominent pol will do an interview on the net and not return NBC's phone calls.

121 If you enjoy philosophy, one of the best ways to read Walden is to first read Emerson's "Self-Reliance."  In sometimes striking ways, I think Thoreau tries to practice what Emerson preaches.

122

To be honest, I find Levin slightly tiresome. Always seems on the edge of that one great on-air implosion.  Perhaps I just don't get his sense of humor (people say he has one - I just never find it). Not as funny as Rush, not as smart as Ingraham, sort of like a poor-man's Sean Hannity (who, I must admit, I don't get either).

On the otherhand, not nearly as annoying, boring and pompus as Micheal Savage.

I like Michael Savage but only for the humor value.  I like listening to the nutball callers, or Savage's nuttier outrages delivered with a thick New York accent.  I like his show for the same reason I like Dr. Laura's show - to see the car wreck unfold before my eyes.

And yes Levin is just angry.  He is always angry about something.  I just cannot listen to a guy who is just outrageously outraged all the time every day.  At least Rush has humor, and Hannity seems upbeat most days (at least whenever I do catch his show, which is not too often).

123 Let me second the motion on Pinker's "The Blank Slate." The book thoroughly skewers the leftist notion that human nature is infinitely malleable, and thus conformable to their utopian visions.  Superficially, Pinker might appear to be equally contemptuous of both the political left and the right.  However, I have a sneaking suspicion that he is a closet conservative.  While he flips his nose at the outermost fringe of the right wing (to maintain his cred among academics), he reduces the core ideas of the left to ash and rubble. 

Pinker's other magnus opus, "How the Mind Works," is also wonderfully rewarding reading. 

My favorite baseball book is "Moneyball,"by Michael Lewis.  Of course it's not just about baseball. 

Lee Smolin's "The Trouble with Physics" talks about how we lost generation of bright minds to chasing string theory.  Science background required.

124 I purshased liberty and tyranny but could not read it. I'm ok with it since it may be the first book I bought from a conservative I did not read. I wish I could buy a book written by Ace Or Iowahawk. I would buy five copies for my mother.

125

Richard Vavra's "Such is the Real Nature of Horses" for all the equine afficianados out there (although it is a nice nature book for anyone).  Very simple photojournalism on the subject -- no agenda other than trying to study the creature in question (although he does seem to take a swipe at domesticated animals -- but he may have a point to some extent), and the photographs are gorgeous and insightful.

I find that with any author, it's important to know how to read them -- if you follow everything they say without question, well, then you are in trouble.

126 my fav nature books... • Apocalypse Not • You Are Here: A Portable History of the Universe • Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (it is too a nature book -- a lot of it takes place outside)

127

I found Krakauer's Into the Wild to be an excellent back to nature story.

But then I'm a sucker for happy endings.

128 138  Thoreau and Emerson do need to be read together -- and it also helps to have a firm grip on American history up to the point of their writing; brings a lot to the experience of reading them.

129 Walton and Cotton The Compleat Angler is an interesting old read on the treatises of angling for various species of fishes.

130 #135  The Sunday morning shows is how the Democrats and Republicans communicate with the ignorant masses. We need to monitor these shows to know what the people know, keep track of the lies, and keep an eye on the stupid Republicans.

How many people watch the Sunday morning political shows?  I'm guessing they're watched more among the older demographics, but still not a whole hell of a lot of people.

More and more people are moving to net-based news sources, and that's a good thing.  Let the Sunday morning TV political shows rot in their own stagnant filth. 

131
Two great general reader science books are Chaos by James Gleick and The Secret House by David Boudanis. Chaos explains Mandelbrot sets, butterflies that cause hurricanes and the endless scaling of reality.
Secret House tells of self healing aluminum, the mites who surround us and much more.

A timely travelogue is Skeletons On The Zahara. A shipwreck puts a group of American sailors at the mercy of desert Arabs, where they experience the fate that awaits the West if the Muslims win.

132
How many people watch the Sunday morning political shows?

A lot more than read blogs, brah.
Next time you're in your local supermarket ask someone to name their rep in congress. Or ask them if they heard of Cap & Trade.

And then ask them if they're familiar with Big Oil. The average person knows very little about politics except what they hear on the mainstream news.

133 If you can believe that something always existed, that thing doesn't have to be God. Or you can simply say: that Thing that always existed is God, by definition. "Nature", "the Cosmos", etc. -- maybe all just different names for the same thing. I think that most religious people would simply disagree with the "blind watchmaker" theory; that God has intent and purpose in what unfolds in the world of everyday things. The Prime Mover dilemma is the ultimate schism between science and religion: religion can answer it (unsatisfactorily, and by fiat), but science can't -- science by definition being the study and explication of Nature as it exists. Scientific truth may be specific to the universe and dimensionality we live in -- there is no reason to believe it would hold true elsewhere/elsewhen. I like science books that don't try to reduce everything back to whether God did it or not; I prefer "here's what we know; here's what we think we know; here's what we still don't know" kind of things. And Smolin's book about the problems with String Theory is indeed good.

134 How many people watch the Sunday morning political shows?

I used to watch FNN, but I just got tired for listening the paid spokesmen from both parties come on and deliver their Spin Of The Week. I suppose the other talking head shows are more or less the same.

135 How many people watch the Sunday morning political shows?

A lot more than read blogs, brah.
Next time you're in your local supermarket ask someone to name their rep in congress. Or ask them if they heard of Cap & Trade.

And then ask them if they're familiar with Big Oil. The average person knows very little about politics except what they hear on the mainstream news.

You may be right, but this begs the question: is the focus of this blog to "reach out" to the "average person", or for the converted to joke amongst ourselves?  Maybe that's why the Sunday shows are not covered here.

136 I like: The Red Queen - Matt Ridley 1491 - Charles Mann The Lost City of Z - David Grann Cataclysms on the Columbia - John Eliot Allen A common theme of the last three is that the idea that the landscape and ecosystems of North and South America hadn't changed for eons until the White Man came and destroyed the precious, precarious balance is utter bullshit.

137 George B. Dyson's Darwin Among The Machines is a pretty good read. He's an interesting guy. His Old Man is pretty smart, too.

138

"Walden" by  Thoreau is good in stretches, but parts are silly and self-adsorbed.  Some of his criticism of an "unexamined" life, and being to obsessed with materialism alone are still worth considering.

Emerson is such a silly, obsolete logical positivist. He, the abolititionists and the "fire-eaters" and slave holders of the South  helped foment the worst, stupidest war this country has ever fought. The "Civil War" which was anything but.

I did like "The Immense Journey" by Loren Eisley. A lot of the writing is from a personal perspective and he saw minor miracles in nature. I think the world is full of minor miracles that sustain us, which makes it easier to tolerate the past, present and expected future political buffonery that is an affront to any thinking person.

139 I used to be a Sunday news show fanatic. Watched them all, got worked up when people lied, laughed when they looked stupid, etc. Now, for all the reasons everyone else has listed, I hardly ever watch. I usually put them on in the background, but hardly ever pay attention. Next week I'll watch and discuss them if anyone else wants to. (Though I don't know if everyone in the country gets the same shows in the same order at the same times.)

140
...is the focus of this blog to "reach out" to the "average person", or for the converted to joke amongst ourselves?

Probably the latter since there are only about 20 5 of us on this blog using about 200 sockpuppet names.

The reason why I like to watch the Sunday shows is to keep an eye on them bastids. It tells me what they're thinking they want me to think they're thinking.

141

I have read a number of those books. 

 

Getting back to nature is great.  But here is a hint, Rousseau was wrong.  People are people regardless of where they are. 

I remember watching Lonely Planet where the British guy was in Lappland or something, and they were butchering a caribou or reindeer.  They told him they ate the green stuff in the gut, since they do not have veggies that far up north.  So he dipped his finger in the gunk, tried it, and make an ugh face. 

And then all the natives started laughing and told him "We never eat that!" 

Good times.  Good times. 

142

I found Krakauer's Into the Wild to be an excellent back to nature story.

But then I'm a sucker for happy endings.

HEY!

143

Mama AJ, there is a series of science books by a guy named Basher that are good brief introductions for kids about science concepts, there is one for physics, biology, chemistry, astronomy, and the periodic table. Each concept, like “radio wave” is accompanied by a drawing kind of a spin on anime style, of a cartoon character of that object. I’m reading them with my son and learning a lot myself. Just one warning, don’t get the “Earth” one, it is the only one of the series so far that has a really leftist “OMG the earth is doomed, humans are evil” bent to it.

144 "Or you can simply say: that Thing that always existed is God, by definition. "Nature", "the Cosmos", etc. -- maybe all just different names for the same thing. I think that most religious people would simply disagree with the "blind watchmaker" theory; that God has intent and purpose in what unfolds in the world of everyday things." Posted by: Monty Ok, but most folks don't picture God as an eternal collection of natural forces and substance. They see God as a sentient creature. Then they impose their own preference for there being intent and purpose behind the Universe onto their definition of God. People redefine God until they are satisfied with the definition they have made. This is why the Prime Mover Dilemma is irrelevant to Science and perfectly suited to Philosophy and Religion.

145 Patrick F. McManus is hilarious if you are an outdoorsy type.  I have 8 or so of his books.  Even if your not an outdoors person, you might try one, they are a quick read.

146

Let me second the motion on Pinker's "The Blank Slate." The book thoroughly skewers the leftist notion that human nature is infinitely malleable, and thus conformable to their utopian visions.  Superficially, Pinker might appear to be equally contemptuous of both the political left and the right.  However, I have a sneaking suspicion that he is a closet conservative.  While he flips his nose at the outermost fringe of the right wing (to maintain his cred among academics), he reduces the core ideas of the left to ash and rubble. 

Didn't Pinker do a major fuck job on Stephen Jay Gould or am I thinking about somebody else?  Either way Gould always irritated the shit out of me with his puerile putdowns of conservatives that played well with the clueless douches that read the New York Review of Books.  I'll concede that he wrote in a nicely engaging style but he was still at heart a cocksucker.  Whoever it was that ridiculed him pointed out that academics considered him a popularizing fraud and hobbyist who didn't understand the first fucking thing about evolution; in other words a useful idiot.

147 Hey, thanks for the insights, really. I, too, am religious, or consider myself such. However, the theory of evolution has little to do with my religious beliefs, if too at this point, I am not a believer in evolution. This summer, fall, and winter (as long as it takes) I plan to review the subject again, in depth. The last time I rolled the bones, evolution lost. Still, a review is always good. Your book list is a good starter for the "other side". I doubt if you can read all these comments, let alone comment back if you should want. But, as I said, thanks for the offerings. And, really, even if I disagree with your assessment at the moment, bully for you having reached your own conclusions, braving into no-man's land with your humble flag, and even offering some of the better reading on the subject... but more, for doing so humbly. You, unlike Dawkins and the other lefty freaks, can be influential with your stance and belief where they will just be jettisoned as dead souls. Carry on! (wayward son

148 Whoever it was that ridiculed him pointed out that academics considered him a popularizing fraud and hobbyist who didn't understand the first fucking thing about evolution; in other words a useful idiot. Posted by: Captain Hate You know, I've found this odd current of contempt lurking in Science books when Gould is mentioned. There is respect for his scholarship, but also some hints of rejection.

149 If you want something funny as hell, I recommend The Best of Hook and Bullet.   If you like Iowahawk, you'll love this book.  It's a parody of outdoor mags like Field and Stream, Sports Afield, and Outdoor life. 

150

I take evolution as a proven fact; I am also a believing Christian.

Me too. Just for fun, should the conversation ever turn that way and there are Dims present, float that tidbit by them and notice their reaction. Watching the libs' mental gears attempt to mesh is oddly satisfying. Things, of necessity, had to have been created first in order to evolve. The two aren't at odds, at least not to me. It's just a matter of which one came first.

I've been remiss in my reading assignments this summer. Currently meandering my way through Pursuit of Honor by Vince Flynn. Have yet to read Liberty and Tyranny, or Arguing with Idiots or The Lost Code.

Maybe if I spent less time on the compu... nah.

 

151 I take evolution as a proven fact; I am also a believing Christian.


Really?  For someone that has read so much you have not thought this out.  If you take a Darwinian viewpoint of the Origin of Species and the development of life then you must deny the Biblical concept of Original Sin, which came into the human race via a single couple (Adam and Eve).  Without the concept of original sin there is no need or purpose of the forgiveness of that sin via Christ.  Sin came into the world by one man it can be take out of the world by one man, that is the Biblical equation.  You break that equation then your faith is worthless and pointless, Christ would have to die again and again for each man and woman.

If you smuggle evolution in as "God's way of creating all this life, including us, you have humans descended from apes, down to man, then man arising from groups, finally in one fell swoop from a hundred thousand years of variations of stone axes to civilization, agriculture, writing, city building, virtually out of nowhere in a flash of time.  From whence commeth?

And just because all Darwinists squawk like parrots over and over "Evolution is a fact, Evolution is a fact!"  Nothing they postulate can answer how we have symbiotic life, or parasites.  Nothing they postulate can overcome the impossible mathematical problems of the first living cell from inorganic matter, nothing they postulate tells us WHY, let alone the unbelievably complex of the how. 

They cannot tell you of the complex behavior of animals that they simply label as instinct, then walk away smug in their assurance that the obvious fact of their tautology has been made clear to all.  Let alone the laughable falsehood of "survival of the fittest," as a driving FORCE? behind evolution.  If such a force existed why is it held in abeyance for millions of years as not so good fish, evolves to not so good lizard, rinse and repeat for any new species that needs TIME to become a most excellent competitive form of life in its new niche.

So no you are not both a Christian and Darwinist at the same time, just as there is no such thing as an unhappy hunted fish getting rid of its fins to acquire legs, although Darwinists like to substitute time as God in their equations.

Darwin assured us an in his time that when the fossil record was fully explored, then the millions of transitory species would be found, those that were not quite fish, and not yet lizard.  Yet nothing has ever been found, all species appear SUDDENLY in the fossil record fully formed and they continue until extinction in the same form, or they exist to this day.   You can tell me Archaeopteryx is your transitory species, and my scientific experts will just as authoritatively tell you it is just a bird.

152 111 omg......there is no way in hell i'd vote for huckabee.....

Posted by: phoenixgirl at June 27, 2010 11:25 AM (ucxC/)

Heh, I take it you saw Certain-Fuckin'-Doom-abee on Chris Wallace today? 

153 My favorite piece of nature writing isn't actually prose--it's The Spell of the Yukon, the poetry collection by Robert Service. Service is underrated, I think; he's a lot like Kipling, focusing on clever rhymes and a pretty wicked sense of humor. Spell of the Yukon is mainly about the life of the early-1900s gold miners, and how they had to fight tooth and nail with the territory in order to get it. But I think he also accomplishes the amazing task of making the "let's work WITH the land, not against it" viewpoint something other than maudlin. His work acknowledges Nature, especially the Yukon, as being fucking scary and not to be trifled with. Almost twenty lines in "The Law of the Yukon," one of his best known poems, consists of all the ways Nature will fuck your shit up if you go up against her with any kind of gauzy ideas or an unprepared attitude:

Drowned them like rats in my rivers, starved them like curs on my plains,
Rotted the flesh that was left them, poisoned the blood in their veins;
Burst with my winter upon them, searing forever their sight,
Lashed them with fungus-white faces, whimpering wild in the night;

Staggering blind through the storm-whirl, stumbling mad through the snow,
Frozen stiff in the ice-pack, brittle and bent like a bow;
Featureless, formless, forsaken, scented by wolves in their flight,
Left for the wind to make music through ribs that are glittering white;
Gnawing the black crust of failure, searching the pit of despair,
Crooking the toe in the trigger, trying to patter a prayer;
Going outside with an escort, raving with lips all afoam,
Writing a cheque for a million, driveling feebly of home;

That is some badass poetry.

154 Posted by: eman He doesn't strike me as a man with many friends, that's for sure. But apart from his political (real political and academic political) beefs, he gets a ton of respect from me. I've spent weeks worth of time wandering the Harvard Mus. of Nat Hist. as a direct result of his books. Whatever anyone feels about Gould, they should definitely take at least a day trip at the Harvard Museum of Nat Hist. It's my personal fave museum. Others are many times larger, more modern, more everything, but none are as "good" as Harvard's. (Also, if you go check out the Peabody Anthrop. & Arch. Mus.)

155 Foghat is playing the National Anthem at the NASCAR race right now????

156 "You can tell me Archaeopteryx is your transitory species, and my scientific experts will just as authoritatively tell you it is just a bird." Perfect timing. Head to the Harvard Museum and see the "original" Coelacanth.

157 Yesh, I read all of Brautigan's books when I was a dope smoking teenager. Are they as good now as they were then? Also, how can someone mention McPhee without mentioning The Survival of the Birch Bark Canoe? And I got finished The Rational Optimist by Matt Ridley, a MUST-READ book I probably would have never picked up myself, but someone was thoughtful enough to loan me a copy, and I am so glad they did.

158

Posted by: eman at June 27, 2010 12:47 PM (kFytp)

I think there's a small skirmish in the scientific fields of academia between people that do advanced research in obscurity versus people that publicize what they do for the masses.  Mrs Hate used to interact at a Cleveland university with Lawrence Krauss, who wrote a book The Physics of Star Trek, which I think is an interesting way to get the masses interested in concepts of the field.  Many of his colleagues looked on him as a lightweight whose ego was second to none; there's a lot of evidence of the latter because he wrote a number of Op-eds, some of which in the WSJ, with a really snottily dismissive attitude toward religion in which I thought he came off like a complete douche.  He's subsequently gone to Arizona State so I'm not aware of what he's been up to recently.  I can still see some value in what he does though; and find the whole dustup amusing.

159 The following is a true argument between an Evolutionist and Christian, both scientists and friends at the university of Toronto.  The Christian scientist was Aurthur C. Custance of Doorway Papers Fame.  I cannot remember the Darwinists name, but another professor, I believe they were both biologists.

Scene:  They were sitting in the quad observing the activities of squirrels.

Evolutionist:  Custance you think God created life, species, take a look at those squirrels, looking for the nuts they hid before winter, now it is spring and they have to find those nuts until new ones grow, did you know they forget where they hid about one third of those nuts?  If God had created these squirrels, don't you think he would have given them better memories to find their food stores they buried?


Custance:  How do you think God planted all these trees?

160

134 The Sunday Talk Shows are of, by, and for the Washington D.C. elite.

They are irrelevant and fading away.

Agreed. As far as I know, none of my family or friends, left or right, watch these programs. The liberals I know get their news and analysis from NPR. The conservatives from Rush, Beck, Fox News, etc.

Probably the only people who watch these shows are the New York-Boston-Washington elite who look at them before going out to the country club for Sunday brunch.

161

Heh, I take it you saw Certain-Fuckin'-Doom-abee on Chris Wallace today? 

Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at June 27, 2010 12:57 PM (OeYmP)

I sure as hell did; although I was pleased that erstwhile cocksucker Chris Wallace prefaced the interview by showing the fucking New Yorker as the source of the recent shilling for Yuckabee.  IOW McCain v2.0

162 How about first novels that interested y'alls in reading?

163 # 181 - Easy - The Martian Chronicles, I was probably about 10 or maybe 11

164 175 "You can tell me Archaeopteryx is your transitory species, and my scientific experts will just as authoritatively tell you it is just a bird."

Perfect timing. Head to the Harvard Museum and see the "original" Coelacanth.

Which evolved into what?  From what?  The burden is on evolutionists to show us literally billions of transitory species, and evolutionary dead-ends, ought to be there since there are billions of species over time and the transitory species should far outnumber known recognizable types.  But alas never found, so Stephen J. Gould himself, despairing of the actual EVIDENCE of the fossil record for special creation invents the "Punctuated Equilibrium," theory, mockingly called the Hopeful Monster theory. 

He postulates that since transitory species never appear in the fossil record, then it must be that species SUDDENLY came into existence time after time, then evolutionary forces for most of the time operate at imperceptible speeds.  God is that laughable or what?  We never find the transitory species so it looks like species suddenly appear now and then, it must be Evolution operates like no other observable force in nature, speeding up and slowing down at whim.  These Darwinists should get Noble prizes in tautology.

Yeah, like the speed of light changes over time.  These are the minds that have driven evolutionary theory, you must have a real desire to BELIEVE this nonsense to go that far.  Kind of like Obama voters, really, really, really believe in hope.

165 The Eiger Sanction by the greatest fiction writer of all time.

166 Yeah, Jehu, you wanna know what Obama voters are really, really, really like? Loudmouth pussies who scream and squirm whenever one of their precious tenets is challenged. So you go fuck yourself and I'll go back to understanding and enjoying the natural sciences. Useless prick.

167 Jehu: As I said, I don't want this board to degenerate into the LGF "begone, thou unbeliever in Darwin!" bullshit. As I said: I am both an New Synthesis Darwinian and a fairly orthodox believing Christian. I see no reason at all why the two need conflict. Most arguments I hear to the contrary are either peurile or uninformed, but it's not worth arguing over (that's why we have TalkOrigins). My only point is that natural science absolutely depends upon a basic understanding of evolutionary theory. Nothing in nature makes sense without it. Most of the "anti" folks seem very badly-informed about current evolutionary theory, and consequently cannot argue for their own side or against the under very well. (But in my experience Christians don't even understand their own theology all that well from a philosophical standpoint either. I doubt one in ten can really explain the concept of the Trinity.)

168 against the under Against the other, that is.

169 - Easy - The Martian Chronicles, I was probably about 10 or maybe 11 Posted by: mercanaire at June 27, 2010 01:20 PM

Yep. That came for me shortly after Childhood's End and, of course, James and the Giant Peach. J&tGP was earlier but Childhood's End was around 10.

170 Childhood's End was around 10.

Posted by: jcjimi at June 27, 2010 01:31 PM (wDhX2)

Childhood's End is one of my favorite books by Clarke but I can't imagine trying to process its contents at 10.

171

Childhood's End is one of my favorite books by Clarke but I can't imagine trying to process its contents at 10.

Posted by: Captain Hate at June 27, 2010 01:40 PM

It was just a good story to me then - not much processing involved. It would be fun to re-read it and see what I think.

172 Loudmouth pussies who scream and squirm whenever one of their precious tenets is challenged.

Yeah, Jehu, you wanna know what Obama voters are really, really, really like? Loudmouth pussies who scream and squirm whenever one of their precious tenets is challenged.
So you go fuck yourself and I'll go back to understanding and enjoying the natural sciences. Useless prick.

Posted by: LincolnTf at June 27, 2010 01:26 PM (Um3jj)

The irony is so thick you could cut it with a knife!

173 128 On sciency books ... Godel, Escher, Bach was great. Both fun and informative.

Posted by: huh

I picked it up too and am making slow progress. I have to read it and then think about the exercise. If I were to rip thru it like a novel, the salient points would be missed.

174 57: "[W]hat happened to that first creature that realized it was mortal?" Dreamed up some way to deny the realization? 

175 185 Yeah, Jehu, you wanna know what Obama voters are really, really, really like? Loudmouth pussies who scream and squirm whenever one of their precious tenets is challenged.
So you go fuck yourself and I'll go back to understanding and enjoying the natural sciences. Useless prick.

Who is screaming like a little girl that had her dolly taken away?  The ignorant and children enjoy fantasy.

176 186 Jehu:

As I said, I don't want this board to degenerate into the LGF "begone, thou unbeliever in Darwin!" bullshit. As I said: I am both an New Synthesis Darwinian and a fairly orthodox believing Christian. I see no reason at all why the two need conflict. Most arguments I hear to the contrary are either peurile or uninformed, but it's not worth arguing over (that's why we have TalkOrigins).

My only point is that natural science absolutely depends upon a basic understanding of evolutionary theory. Nothing in nature makes sense without it. Most of the "anti" folks seem very badly-informed about current evolutionary theory, and consequently cannot argue for their own side or against the under very well. (But in my experience Christians don't even understand their own theology all that well from a philosophical standpoint either. I doubt one in ten can really explain the concept of the Trinity.)

Nice evasion, neither can you, or did you attempt to address any of my points, particularly how you can believe in evolution and not know or understand that all Christian faith is underpinned by the doctrine of Original Sin, yet you go on to talk about how Christians do not understand their own doctrine, this is pretty fundamental.

It is not much of an issue to me, I just wonder on what your faith stands?  On the one hand you have demonstrated you have never thought out the implications of dismissing the doctrine of Original Sin, but on the other had you implicitly embrace Darwinism, something Marx and most of the tyrants of the last century, also eagerly embraced.  Forgetting the "so-called," scientific evidence, did you know Marx was so enthralled with Origin, he wrote Darwin asking to dedicate Communist Manifesto to him?  Many of the robber barons of the late 19t century just LOVED Origin, seeing in it a scientific theory for their brutal and rapacious ways.

 

177 Longtime lurker, infrequent poster has to say something in reply to Monty's mention of Pat McManus and a couple supporting comments ... oh man, seriously, truer words have never been spoken.

McManus is far and away the funniest writer I've ever read. I've read all his published books, and read most of his humorous essay collections several times, some of my older copies are worn to tatters. As a kid I too laughed uncontrollably at his stories. Woke up the family, even. :-) And now my kids laugh; when they were very young I read stories to them, then later they read McManus for themselves. By the way, Pat's family has a website, just search on his name.

Echoing Guy Fawkes @ 61: yes, even those among you who don't care for the outdoors can relate to these quickly read essays (with few exceptions most of them were originally published in The Last Laugh, the humor column starting on the last page of Outdoor Life magazine) and laugh so hard it hurts. That is not an exaggeration, honestly. Even if you aren't an outdoorsy person you will likely really dig Pat McManus. My wife has only camped a little and fished maybe three times as a kid but she really enjoys all the stories.

In fact, even if you've been camping only one time in your life (that time in the backyard won't count unless you were still a kid and you stayed out there all night), even if you were born and raised and still live in an urban jungle, even if you've never caught a fish or pulled the trigger or bowstring of a hunting weapon, even if you weren't a Scout and never hiked longer than the distance through the mall, even if you've never cooked whole potatoes in campfire coals until they were indistinguishable from rocks ... it doesn't matter. Many of his stories aren't even really about the outdoors at all, or the outdoors activities are just used as a prop or setting. The stories are hilarious and meaningful commentaries on childhood, adulthood, growing up and getting older, relationships in all stages of life, friends and family, various flyover country and backwoods concerns (most everything is set in Idaho, where Pat grew up), and lots more, filled with an assortment of characters you really will have to experience to fully appreciate.

Or, if you do enjoy outdoor activities (mostly camping, fishing, and hunting), and still haven't read McManus? Oh, my. I envy the hell out of you. Once you get started you'll read everything he's ever written, and the entire time you will just kick yourself for not knowing about all this earlier. Run, do not walk, to get your mitts on some McManus.

And no, by the way, I don't work for him and am not related to him. His stuff really is that good.

I'd start with A Fine And Pleasant Misery, then move on to They Shoot Canoes, Don't They?, Never Sniff a Gift Fish, and The Grasshopper Trap. He also published a shorter book with more kid-oriented stuff in it, Kid Camping from Aaaaiii! to Zip.

Then there are several more where that came from. You won't regret it.

178

Mama AJ, there is a series of science books by a guy named Basher that are good brief introductions for kids about science concepts, there is one for physics, biology, chemistry, astronomy, and the periodic table. Each concept, like “radio wave” is accompanied by a drawing kind of a spin on anime style, of a cartoon character of that object.

Oh, excellent. Thank you.

179 Jehu: Let us make an accord, you and I: you may assume that your rapier-like wit and devastating logic has won the day, and that you may now do whatever else you had planned for today that does not include bothering other people; and I will completely ignore anything else you have to say on this or any other topic. So let it be written. So let it be done. Selah.

180

"Custance:  How do you think God planted all these trees?"

"then walk away smug in their assurance that the obvious fact of their tautology has been made clear to all"

Did someone mention the irony being thick around here?

181 Monty. Do yourself a favor and read Life's Matrix A Biography of Water Philip Ball No speechifying, just the facts about water,

182 dr kill: That book looks interesting! Thanks!

183 Jehu, Your posts are riddled with error concerning Evolution by Natural Selection and about the evidence that supports the Theory. You are correct about how Original Sin and the Mission of Christ are both undermined by evolution. No Original Sin, no need for Christ. So, we see why you go to great lengths to undermine Evolution with streams of drivel and poo. If you do understand Evolutionary Theory and the scientific evidence, then your posts are riddled with lies. If you don't understand Evolutionary Theory and the scientific evidence, the your posts are equally worthless, but for a very different reason. Get thee to a nunnery.

184 It is true that anti-evolutionists tend to be a little weak on the science side (but not always--Dave Swift and Michael Denton come to mind).  However, a lot (most) evolutionists will brook no dispute over even the slightest fraction of their theory.  When it is taught in schools, none of the open questions in the theory are ever discussed.  It has been noted that under the more stringent guidelines for the teaching of evolution in schools, S.J. Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium could not be taught.  I think it is inappropriate that a science such as evolution should be taught as if it is proven and infallible.  There are honest questions to be asked of evolution, such as the various speciation problems, and it does no good for them to be suppressed for fear of calling anything about the theory into question.
It's often forgotten what a huge effect Darwin's book had on society when it was published.  Religion was ubiquitous in Darwin's time, and many people were disturbed by this.  It seemed to them to be something that should have been swept away by the Enlightenment, and yet here it was, with no viable alternative.  The Origin of Species was like the sudden discovery of a Bible for secular humanists--suddenly, they had their "proof" that God was not necessary.  Promptly, thousands of Europe's greatest intellectuals got into a gang knife fight with each other.  Although the theory of evolution hasn't really been of much practical use, philosophically it surely must be the most important book of the last thousand years, marking the very instant Western civilization split into large religious and secular camps for the first time in history.  It's no surprise it remains controversial to this day.

185 Gould may or may not have been a Marxist but he covered up his lefty political views well in his science writing. (I've read almost all of his pop science books and a couple of his serious books) McPhee is tremendous. One of the nature books I've read recently is "The Red Hourglass" by Grice Gordon. Each chapter looks at a common predator - from various insects to pigs. The chapter on the Black Widow Spider is amazing. Gordon isn't a scientist - just an observant amateur. Here's a bit on black widows (from memory). If a Dr. suspects you have a BW bite he'll ask if this is the most pain you've ever felt. If you answer yes, there's a good chance it's a BW bite.

186 118 My sentimental favorite McPhee book is Oranges, and entire book about oranges yet much much more from the Orangery at Versailles to the Tropicana tanker that used to travel between Miami and New York Posted by: tmitsss I read that one. It is great!

187 Interesting that the advanced scientific proponents of Darwin here never addressed any of my points, they either emoted in purple-faced rage, or ran away.  What a strong convincing theory.

188 eman:

203 Jehu,

Your posts are riddled with error concerning Evolution by Natural Selection and about the evidence that supports the Theory.

You are correct about how Original Sin and the Mission of Christ are both undermined by evolution. No Original Sin, no need for Christ.

So, we see why you go to great lengths to undermine Evolution with streams of drivel and poo.

If you do understand Evolutionary Theory and the scientific evidence, then your posts are riddled with lies.

If you don't understand Evolutionary Theory and the scientific evidence, the your posts are equally worthless, but for a very different reason.

Get thee to a nunnery.


Ok, show anything I said that is not true and NOT based on actual scientific observation, vis-a-vis the fossil record.  Or go read something deeper than a Time-Life book depicting apes walking until they stand as men.   Anyone here that believes in Darwin's Theory of Evolution that can explain how any symbiotic life system came into existence by Darwinian evolution, without saying magical words like "nature designed," or "it came about," then I will join your side.  Show me the MATH!

189 You won this one jehu mate.

190

I have to side with Jehu. To be clear, I don't believe that evolution, as it stands, undermines the Christian faith. Thus, as a theologian, I could care less.

But, from a scientific standpoint, evolutionary theory has holes. Granted, so do many theories: the Fermi gas model of the nucleus is quite incomplete. In many situations, it does the best job of describing the nucleus of an atom, but no one can rightfully call it proven. Similarly, the standard model of quantum mechanics, which is THE most successful scientific theory to date, has holes and limitations. So great are these holes that they warrant significant monetary expendatures for CERN and other particle accelerators. Evolution, which is less successful than quantum mechanics, must be regarded as unproven by the transitive property of inequalities, particularly when it continues to be the subject of great research.

I've heard evolution described as the unifying theory of biology. Well, a unifying theory in physics must explain all observed phenomena and stand up to all testable hypotheses. Evolution is simply not complete enough to do the same for biology, whatever its successes.

191 so good