Rush Limbaugh just pulled a "Why we still got monkeys?"

[marom1963]

John Vance Garner, then Harry S. Truman.

Very good!
And look at dyslexic me! I made a grammatical mistake. Oh, well, at least my mistake was due to dyslexia and not ignorance. I'll go back and fix it.

[Mike Cl]

My brother died of Agent Orange. He worked on the planes that dropped it. Same with the chemtrail people. They have to live  under the chemtrails too. So, how stupid are they?

I don't understand what point you are trying to make.

[gentle_dissident]

I don't understand what point you are trying to make.

I think the point is, where would they find such hardcore government employees to participate in this?

[drunkenshoe]

In 2016 people are STILL confused about this? 

This is a highly optimistic question to the point of invalidty. For the US and for the world all over. If we are talking about the US, among Western countries it is one of the least likely to accept the concept of evolution.

The political argument/propaganda/show produced against the support for the 'general' idea of evolution has nothing to do with what people like Rush Limbaugh thinks/believes because they are just designed to take attention with a rhetoric that needs to address the levels of the bottom pool. It's made for sensation and keeping things alive. It has nothing to do with understanding of evolutionary concepts. It's about keeping the subject restrained to a long dead white bearded madman's ramblings and a internet debates of a bunch of other creazies who follows him.

But the most important point here imo is there are other problems about acceptance of the concepts of evolution in terms of what the majority understands when asked if they support the concept of evolution opposed to scientific concept of evolution.

According to wiki, 'the support for evolution' in the West is generally: Iceland, Denmark and Sweden over 80 %. 48% in the UK. 59 % in Norway, 61 % in Canada, 66% in Brazil, 49 % in the US...blah blah.

But look at this:

According to a 2007 Gallup poll,[125] about 43% of Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." This is only slightly less than the 46% reported in a 2006 Gallup poll.[126] Only 14% believed that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process", despite 49% of respondents indicating they believed in evolution. Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; only 22% of those with post-graduate degrees believe in strict creationism.[126] A 2000 poll for People for the American Way found 70% of the American public felt that evolution was compatible with a belief in God.

Therefore in that bunch of statistics the amount of people who support the natural evolution process without the intervention of a supreme being and/or aware that the concepts of evolution today means a huge field of science that every other field sits on it -has to agree with it in a way- is A VERY LTTLE MINORITY even in the general demographics who supports the concepts evolution. The amount of people who believes in theistic evolution is much higher than people who support the natural evolution process without the intervention of a supreme being.

It's highly likley the same thing goes for the Scandinavian socities if put under scrutiny. The fact that they all have it taught in their schools doesn't change anything, because they also have religious states-laws and a church of state but that didn't prevent their society to evolve to be the most secular.

The amount of people who are aware what is 'theory of evolution', 'evolutionary sciences'; the fact that the birth of theory of evolution -and its basics- is the subject of history of science is a very upsetting minority in the world, even in the group of people who support evolution.

So about the question OP asks. People are not still confused about "why do we still have monkeys" nonsense. They don't know, neither care about it including a considerable amount of people who support evolutionary concepts. Because this has turned in to a political show long time ago. Like everything else.

[marom1963]

This is a highly optimistic question to the point of invalidty. For the US and for the world all over. If we are talking about the US, among Western countries it is one of the least likely to accept the concept of evolution.

The political argument/propaganda/show produced against the support for the 'general' idea of evolution has nothing to do with what people like Rush Limbaugh thinks/believes because they are just designed to take attention with a rhetoric that needs to address the levels of the bottom pool. It's made for sensation and keeping things alive. It has nothing to do with understanding of evolutionary concepts. It's about keeping the subject restrained to a long dead white bearded madman's ramblings and a internet debates of a bunch of other creazies who follows him.

But the most important point here imo is there are other problems about acceptance of the concepts of evolution in terms of what the majority understands when asked if they support the concept of evolution opposed to scientific concept of evolution.

According to wiki, 'the support for evolution' in the West is generally: Iceland, Denmark and Sweden over 80 %. 48% in the UK. 59 % in Norway, 61 % in Canada, 66% in Brazil, 49 % in the US...blah blah.

But look at this:

Therefore in that bunch of statistics the amount of people who support the natural evolution process without the intervention of a supreme being and/or aware that the concepts of evolution today means a huge field of science that every other field sits on it -has to agree with it in a way- is A VERY LTTLE MINORITY even in the general demographics who supports the concepts evolution. The amount of people who believes in theistic evolution is much higher than people who support the natural evolution process without the intervention of a supreme being.

It's highly likley the same thing goes for the Scandinavian socities if put under scrutiny. The fact that they all have it taught in their schools doesn't change anything, because they also have religious states-laws and a church of state but that didn't prevent their society to evolve to be the most secular.

The amount of people who are aware what is 'theory of evolution', 'evolutionary sciences'; the fact that the birth of theory of evolution -and its basics- is the subject of history of science is a very upsetting minority in the world, even in the group of people who support evolution.

So about the question OP asks. People are not still confused about "why do we still have monkeys" nonsense. They don't know, neither care about it including a considerable amount of people who support evolutionary concepts. Because this has turned in to a political show long time ago. Like everything else.

People are comforted by the belief that there is a divine caretaker - a daddy or a mommy - and they are not going to allow anything to take that away from them - not even if one were to present them w/proof positive that God does not exist. They can't get through a day w/o it. I accept this a long time ago. What I want is to be left alone - not to convert the World's stubbornly stupid.

[drunkenshoe]

People are comforted by the belief that there is a divine caretaker - a daddy or a mommy - and they are not going to allow anything to take that away from them - not even if one were to present them w/proof positive that God does not exist. They can't get through a day w/o it. I accept this a long time ago. What I want is to be left alone - not to convert the World's stubbornly stupid.

I am aware of this, marom. However, this is far more complicated than humans needing the comfort and care of a sky daddy. See, contrary to the common atheist belief, people do not believe in gods and follow religions because they are stupid. They do, because it is beneficial and profitable for them in many various levels as an individual and as agroup; as a society. In fact, I'll go further and say that evaluating the problem this way is 'religious in thinking' itself. Because it's supporting the idea of god and religion and accepting delusion and the baggage it brings as 'beneficial' to human species to go on almost in terms of nature. It's not. Never has been.

There are many dynamics of benefits and profits -in various levels- that depends on it beyond the sky daddy need. Economics and politics. Money and power. Classes. Classes based on identity, 'values' not just wealth and what it provides as the common denominator.

[We are highly violent, intelligent social primates. We protect ourselves and even each other from each other. We have an extremely evolved sense of belonging and a sene of making ourselves 'real', As a result we are pogrammed to turn everything we are given to a means of profit-benefit even at most times this is unconscious. Human is walking defense mechanism in individual and in mass scale. Whatever happens they will bend it to survive and create a base that will affirm their identity and make that identity accepted which they believe is unchangable and absloute while it is constantly shaped and changed. This is far more complicated than comfort and care. In fact, considering the nature and tendencies of the most religious groups at most times Having uncomfort, pain, even despair is the best thing the member benefits and feeds on. The comnon default persecution complex among almost all religious groups is based on this. The nature of religion. Puritanism in countless levels. Feeding on a created 'transcendental helplessness' in a way. ]

If a process can be started to manipulate the circumstances/conditions under those dynamics, in time when a tipping point is managed, the process would reverse and the system this time would manipulate itself into other set of benefits and profits which is secularism.

Of course, it's easier said than done. However the amazing thing is, this is already at work in the US as I see from outside and many other places that looks pretty obscure. Yes it  would take a very long time, we probably wouldn't even see it, but human development is not a linear process and it is not deterministic.


And you sound a bit depressed. Are you OK? (My impression over all.)


Edited.

[marom1963]

I am aware of this, marom. However, this is far more complicated than humans needing the comfort and care of a sky daddy. See, contrary to the common atheist belief, people do not believe in gods and follow religions because they are stupid. They do, because it is beneficial and profitable for them in many various levels as an individual and as agroup; as a society. In fact, I'll go further and say that evaluating the problem this way is 'religious in thinking' itself. Because it's supporting the idea of god and religion and accepting delusion and the baggage it brings as 'beneficial' to human species to go on almost in terms of nature. It's not. Never has been.

There are many dynamics of benefits and profits -in various levels- that depends on it beyond the sky daddy need. Economics and politics. Money and power. Classes. Classes based on identity, 'values' not just wealth and what it provides as the common denominator.

[We are highly violent, intelligent social primates. We protect ourselves and even each other from each other. We have an extremely evolved sense of belonging and a sene of making ourselves 'real', As a result we are pogrammed to turn everything we are given to a means of profit-benefit even at most times this is unconscious. Human is walking defense mechanism in individual and in mass scale. Whatever happens they will bend it to survive and create a base that will affirm their identity and make that identity accepted which they believe is unchangable and absloute while it is constantly shaped and changed. This is far more complicated than comfort and care. In fact, considering the nature and tendencies of the most religious groups at most times Having uncomfort, pain, even despair is the best thing the member benefits and feeds on. The comon persecution complex among almost all religious groups is based on this. The nature of religion. Puritanism in countless levels. Feeding on a created 'transcendental helplessness' in a way. ]

If a process can be started to manipulate the circumstances/conditions under those dynamics, in time when a tipping point is managed, the process would reverse and the system this time would manipulate itself into other set of benefits and profits which is secularism.

Of course, it's easier said than done. However the amazing thing is, this is already at work in the US as I see from outside and many other places that looks pretty obscure. Yes it  would take a very long time, we probably wouldn't even see it, but human development is not a linear process and it is not deterministic.


And you sound a bit depressed. Are you OK? (My impression over all.)


Edited.

You are very intelligent and very perceptive. I like your post.
Yes, I am a bit depressed - always. I suffer from Major Depression - was diagnosed when I was 15. I'm 52. I'm also autistic.
Not important.
What's important is that I am very impressed by your World view. Very incisive. Very. I enjoyed reading that very much.

[drunkenshoe]

You are very intelligent and very perceptive. I like your post.
Yes, I am a bit depressed - always. I suffer from Major Depression - was diagnosed when I was 15. I'm 52. I'm also autistic.
Not important.
What's important is that I am very impressed by your World view. Very incisive. Very. I enjoyed reading that very much.

Thank you. Glad to hear you like it. (I have never lived in an English spoken country so I have a language -culture-barrier with the forum which makes it difficult for me to express my opinion in complicated subjects and as a naturally hotheaded, highly blunt person unfortunately I have difficulty in reacting moderately at times, but I mean well.)

I have an experience with major depression too. I have lived that way around 6 years after early 30s but managed to get out of it a few years back. (I'll be 40 in August.) I still have a long way to go, but I know I'll never be 'well adjusted' or 'fit in'. Though I have cared much about it before, eventually I learned not to care about it in a more conscious and healthy way. So yeah I'll be always a bit depressed too. But you know what, anyone who is not depressed a bit is either deluding themselves, or not caring about anything or simply a naive considering our civilisation over all. I prefer my position in a heart beat every time I think about it. *Winks

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I don't understand what point you are trying to make.

That people who spray the chemtrails have to live with the results. They're "poisoning" their own environment. Seems a bit stupid to me, IF they were really doing that.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Very good!
And look at dyslexic me! I made a grammatical mistake. Oh, well, at least my mistake was due to dyslexia and not ignorance. I'll go back and fix it.

Just a history nerd joke. NOBODY remembers Garner.

[TomFoolery]

That people who spray the chemtrails have to live with the results. They're "poisoning" their own environment. Seems a bit stupid to me, IF they were really doing that.

Yeah, I never could get on board with the chemtrail thing no matter how hard I tried to stretch the logic. So the government is paying commercial airliners to dump chemicals all over the populace? Why? The government is also the populace: they live here too, along with their friends and families. Not only that, but if they were testing the effects of something, they sure as shit have been doing it for a long ass time. You think they would have wrapped up that study by now.

[Mike Cl]

That people who spray the chemtrails have to live with the results. They're "poisoning" their own environment. Seems a bit stupid to me, IF they were really doing that.

Yeah, I agree with that. 

I do not doubt that the govt. would/will/has experimented with a group of people with/without their consent.  I've seen it and I've read about such studies.  But this chemtrail is a bit far-fetched--in the 'they did not get to the moon' kind of stuff.

[widdershins]

Rush Limbaugh is just a typical ignorant know it all.  He knows everything, even when he doesn't know anything.  He's an ignorant obnoxious jerk with a radio show.   When he's sober he acts like a lot of people get when they're drunk, loudly expounding on stupid shit in a bar.  Would you like to have a beer with a guy like that?

You know, I tell people all the time, "I remember when I was 15 and knew everything.  Nobody could teach me anything back then because I knew it all."  Maybe some people just don't grow out of that.

[widdershins]

Yeah, I never could get on board with the chemtrail thing no matter how hard I tried to stretch the logic. So the government is paying commercial airliners to dump chemicals all over the populace? Why? The government is also the populace: they live here too, along with their friends and families. Not only that, but if they were testing the effects of something, they sure as shit have been doing it for a long ass time. You think they would have wrapped up that study by now.

This is one of the more interesting ideas from the lunatic fringe.  All of the problems you just mentioned any given believer will simply make up answers on the spot to explain it away.  Since there has never been a shred of even "soft evidence" that this is happening other than lines in the sky they are free to just make up whatever fits and change it on a moment's notice.  There's no evidence to shoot down, so you can't ever corner them.  This one is 100% pure belief with no evidential backing whatsoever.  That's why when people talk about it, frothing at the mouth at the juicy secret they're revealing, the claims are very vague.  They usually don't claim to know much except that it's happening.  They LOVE to point out how they were blocked from learning more in one way or another.  And the "experts" in the matter are quick to point out how much they know about jets (in one case I saw this amounts to "I've watched jets since I was a kid, so I KNOW how jets work!)  It's really fascinating to dissect what they're actually saying.  Instead of bolstering their case with evidence, which they don't have, they bolster it with ideas of what they CAN'T learn or what WILL happen when it comes out.  Essentially they bolster their case with nothing more than their 100% certainty that it's true and it actually works better than the Christian method because at least they have a book of bullshit you can find problems with.  These people have nothing.  You can do no fact checking because they don't offer any.  It's really the perfect belief system, if you have the right aberrations in your brain to allow you to believe something instantly based solely on emotional rather than evidential arguments.  I think most people who believe this simply believed it the moment they heard about it.  It's not one of those things you can really convince people of, I would hope.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Religion is just another lunatic fringe theory. That's why most people "respond correctly" when asked, but never, ever, walk the walk.