While most pundits didn’t seem to want to declare a winner of the rather tame first Republican debate, columnist Roger Simon at Politico.com went out on a limb and declared Mitt Romney the winner.
I think he’s right, with a rejuvenated-sounding John McCain coming in second. Romney, Simon said, "looked and sounded presidential." And he seemed more on message than the others. "Romney was a man with a plan. He knew what points he wanted to make and he made them."
McCain probably had the best line of the night with his vow to follow Osama bin Laden "to the gates of hell."
The worst moment: when Sam Brownback raised his hand when the candidates were asked who doesn’t believe in evolution. Also embracing that astonishingly anti-science worldview were Tom Tancredo and Mike Huckabee.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- HLP on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
109 Comments
Randy,
Why is it embarassing to not believe in Evolution?
There are so many flaws in that theory how could you believe in it?
You have to be someone who simply doesn’t even care enough to try to understand the theory of Evolution to actually believe it or someone so opposed to God that you will accept anything to support it, no matter how far fetched.
I have maintain for some time now that I think that Romney will be the nominee. That could change if Fred Thompson gets in.
I posted the following earlier on the open thread.
“Evolution” is a purposely imprecise word.
A person could reasonably say they believe in evolution if they believe in that which can be demonstrated, such as variations within a species, and yet reject that which cannot be proven such as the theory of common descent. Or they could answer no to the question, because they don’t buy into everything under the “evolution” tent.
It was therefore an unfair and/or poorly phrased question. The answers of the candidates were meaningless.
It’s not imprecise at all.
Everybody who studies it knows what it means.
It’s only the denyosaurs who want to cast doubt on it that quibble and equivocate on meanings.
Look at how they substitute the scientific use of the word “theory” for their own common usage.
It’s a “theory” in the same sense as the theory of gravity–that mass has gravity, and the more mass, the more gravity.
Just because one can’t observe this for every object with mass in the universe, since the universe is thought to be infinite, that doesn’t mean the theory is wrong or incomplete or unverifiable.
Duh.
And Brownback and everybody watching knew what he meant when he raised his hand.
It meant he substitutes irrationality based on a false reading of scripture for a realistic view based on science.
That he represents Kansas is our national shame.
CapnAmerica,
I think what outlander was talking about was that when most people talk about Evolution they are thinking only about species change and adaptation: micro/macro evolution.
That is what many of the arguments are centered around.
Yet the actual theory of Evolution when taught in our schools encompases much more.
So lets go just go one step back from macro Evolution to life.
How does Evolution explain the beginning of life? What are the “facts” it has to support this?
If you want to defend Brownback, outlander, have the guts to do so.
But to pretend that the question was ambiguous and so nobody knew what Brownback meant is just a lie.
Words have meanings. Actions have meanings.
By Allah, I wish the party of personal responsibility would stop spinning and take responsibility . . .
When you start getting into the meat of the theory you start seeing the lack of any evidence and facts at all.
The scientific theory of Evolution does not claim to answer the questions as to the origins of life, merely the evolution of the species from living organisms.
Nathan, with all due respect–
Someone who believes like you and dad do, that the earth is only 8,000 years old?
We don’t have any common ground to talk about this subject.
You choose to embrace the patently false because it gives you consistency with your bad interpretation of Genesis.
You have a right to believe that.
But I’m not going to waste time discussing science with someone who has rejected the scientific method upon which science is based . . .
WSClark,
Then why do they teach that life was created by some “spark” in school and that the universe was created by the Big Bang all in conjunction with the Theory of Evolution?
To say that the theory of Evolution only explains the evolution of the species is an absolute lie and fraud on it’s face.
No where do they explain or teach Evolution as:
1. Assume life began2. Assume first life is single cell simple organism.3. Now Evolutionary theory begins and we full believe….
If you actually think that is the way it is taught you have been out of school for a very long time.
CapnAmerica,
I have yet to interject anything about my faith here.
Yet you choose to not engage in a discussion with me because I believe in God?
I can argue about the theory of evolution without ever saying one thing about my faith.
Typical liberal you are though, run and hide and make excuses.
OK, Capn Genius. How do you answer that question in this situation? As a person with a science background, I understand that the word “evolution” is sometimes used to describe genetic changes within a species. For instance some drug resistance in bacteria. Yet, I am a skeptic of “evolution” as it applies to the theory of common descent. What should I say in answer to the question?
“How does Evolution explain the beginning of life?”
Despite Darwin’s book title, _The Origin of Species_, the theory of evolution is completely silent on the origins of life. I submit holding up how things might be taught in public school as representing official theory is very disingenuous at best. Surely you can do better than that.
Time for a commercial for those of you who are in, and wish to remain in, the reality based community.
This is a must-see dcoumentary on intelligent design-evolution debate. Much of it filmed right here in Kansas and featuring KS BOE staff. See those of you who are sane, there.
“A Flock of Dodos: The Evolution – Intelligent Design Circus”7 p.m. Monday, May 7CAC Theater (right next to the Rhatigan Student Center)No charge
A link about the documentary:
http://www.flockofdodos.com/
Typical liberals run and hide and make excuses. From the past 6 years under GWB, the conservatives spend money we don’t have, start a war with a country that did not attack us on 9/11, made the war of the have and have nots even more of a certainty. And Nathan and the rest of the so-called Christian Conservatives are busy fighting about evolution?
Why are these dedicated Christian Conservative Republicans not outraged by their own leader’s incompetence? Why are they not outraged by their party’s leaders lack of morals and the obvious greed and corruption?
Then, and only then, will I believe what a Christian Conservative Republican preaches to my face. Don’t bring God into this argument – God has nothing to do with politics. Politics is too dirty for God’s hands.
Sun,
Once again, I have yet to interject my faith here.
Why don’t you slow down and do some comprehension of the discussion before going off on your little rant.
Science has never proved that any species evolved from any other species, much less that scientists evolved from dumb brutes.Evolution is a lie.
Romney did, in retrospect, seem more in control than the other candidates. Winning a debate is one thing, and winning a nomination, quite another. I have this hunch that good old Mitt, with his borderline glib tongue, is going to get himself in a jam further on up the road. He definitely plays well on TV, though, and Joe S. of MSNBC (I can never remember how to spell his name) also called victory for Romney.
Did McCain truly come in second? Geez, he was all over the place. I thought his “gates of hell” statement was over-the-top, and I continue to think that candidates in both parties are overly concerned with puffing up their chests on the subject of foreign policy. A genuine hard-ass doesn’t have to expend much energy explaining how tough he is. You can just sense it about a guy that he’s not to be trifled with, and you know in your heart that you’ll get your head knocked if you cross the line.
I haven’t written about Brownback yet. He needs to work on his voice. As he gets into making his point, his voice tends to rise about an octave until he sounds almost like a kid who just came in from playing in the sandbox where he saw this big, huge airplane in the sky. That said, I don’t really dislike the guy. You get the impression that his heart is in the right place, even if you disagree with him on a few of the issues. I thought he made a valid point that a political solution ought to be a major part of the solution in Iraq. (After watching George Tenet on Charlie Rose last night, however, it’s hard to be optimistic about that topic.)
Rudy G. has the dilemma of trying to be pro-choice even though he hates it. Several analysts have already pointed out that he needs to get his story straight and that he needs to do it fast. Last night, the more he talked, the more he seemed to get himself into a jam.
Steven,
Do better? That is the crux of the issue for almost all of us.
That our public schools are teaching our children something with little to no founding on fact or science at all.
Every attempt we make to clearing up the things which children are being taught are confronted with nothing but the same irrational name calling and labeling we see here from the likes of CapnAmerica.
To say that Evolution doesn’t attempt to explain the orgins of life is disingenuous.
No where do they start explaing evolution on the premise of:
Assume Life.
Assume what that life is.
Now we can tell you all about our wonderful theory of Evolution.
What I found interesting was all the candidates using the word track…”make families stronger”. What the hell does that mean exactly? More intrusive gov’t in my home? My kids have a mom and dad that live together and provide a happy home for them. I don’t need the gov’t helping me out. Would someone please explain to me what this means?
The Theory of Evolution does not attempt to answer the question as to the origins of life. To try to claim that it does is to attempt to hijack the debate with non-applicable points.
And how long I have been out of school has nothing to do with it. Unlike some parents, I paid attention to what my children were being taught in school.
Mike: If I remember correctly, Brownback launched into that little number when asked about corruption in the GOP. The next thing you knew, he was clear off the subject and complaining about a general lack of morality in the country and a breakdown in families. Was he trying to say that politicians are corrupt because society is corrupt?
These Washington politicians need to clean up their side of the street. It’s been looking like a full-time job for quite some time.
WS Clark,
Fine. For the sake of argument, lets go with:
1. Assume life2. Assume what that life was
Now lets start debating “Evolution”
I watched the debate with some interest as to which candidate would be the one to step back from Bush.
I also noted Brownback’s comments about strengthening the American family. I wonder what he thinks the president can do in that regard, unless he is referring to gay marriage, which banning would have absolutely no effect on hetro families.
Perhaps the “good” Senator is just pandering to the Religious Right.
All the candidates used that phrase at one time or another during the debate. I just don’t know what it means? How they plan to do it? What it means for the country etc.. I do wonder if they think they are running for president or King?
What is the debate, Nathan?
I believe the scientific theory of Evolution. The overwhelming majority of scientists and medical professionals do as well.
You are not going to change my mind and I am certainly not going to change yours.
You cannot absolutely prove creationism and I cannot absolutely prove evolution.
I believe that the Earth is millions of years old. You believe that the Earth is 10,000 years old.
I believe that the dinosaurs predated humans by millions of years. You believe that Noah took dinosaurs on the Ark with him.
What is the point of a debate on this topic?
The point would be that there is no real proof for Evolution.
Of course you see no reason to debate it, just like the scientists who believe it.
It is already being taught, it is already being pushed as a religion, and anyone who dares ask questions is ridiculed or ignored.
Just like now.
Questions? How dare you question Evolution you creationist wierdo!
This only further illustrates the problem with Evolutionary theory.
You can’t challenge it or ask questions.
“How dare you question Evolution you creationist wierdo!”
I never referred to you as a creationist weirdo (notice the correct spelling.) I have read your debate points before – you claim that all of the animals on the Ark were vegans and that they only became carnivores after Mt. Ararat.
What is the point of debating if those points are going to be entered into the argument?
Believe what you want – I really do not care – but there is no point in the debate if that type of logic is going to be used to support your position.
End of debate.
WS Clark,
Once again, I have yet to say one thing here about my faith.
I am here to challenge Evolutionary theory, not give you an alrternative.
However, you do point out yet another problem with scientists and Evolutionary theory.
That there is no other alternative.
When it comes down to it, they have to believe it and do everything they can to prove it because what would the alternative be?
I don’t need to prove to you creation to refute Evolution.
The discussion last time, I was merely answering questions about Creation.
However,
If you really wanted to, I could easily show you the scientific proof and evidence to support a young earth view.
I am merely trying to keep this simple by focusing on Evolution. I wouldn’t want to confuse any of you by interjecting too much at once :)
The morality issue is one that they have milked for several elections. It goes back to Clinton, at the very least, when we were all supposed to put aside knowledge of what people are really like and assume that the president and his fellow Dems were the only ones with spiritual problems to resolve. (Never mind if it was anybody’s business.)
It’s easy to talk at length about values and morality, in a sense, for the very reason that you mention: there is not a hell of a lot that a president can do about it.
In his novel, “The Human Stain,” Philip Roth calls it “The ecstasy of sanctimony.” The opening pages speak of the Lewinsky matter. Roth writes: “In the Congress, in the press, and on the networks, the righteous grandstanding creeps, crazy to blame, deplore, and punish, were everywhere out moralizing to beat the band…”
Last night’s moderator, Chris Matthews, was right in the middle of the sanctimony as I recall.
You believe that Noah took vegan dinosaurs on the Ark with him.
After that, what is the point of the discussion?
I still cannot believe that almost 1/3 of the GOP presidential candidates were willing to raise their hand and admit to a national audience that they are complete morons. Anybody that really believes in a fairy tale creation myth is not fit to be president.
Sun,I’m sure I’m not alone in saying that I scroll by as crap any posting that starts “Typical liberal…”
They could have at least asked some follow up questions like:
Is it possible to actually fall off the edge of a flat earth?
What caused the sun to stop revolving around the earth?
What is the name of the demon that causes the common cold?
WS Clark:
Typical Evolution discussion tactic, make fun of the opponents belief instead of actually supporting Evolution.
I’m wondering if Fred Thompson wasn’t the real winner as the result of last night’s debate. He had the good sense to not yet formally declare (yes, I think he will), letting the others show their “strengths and weaknesses” to those who bothered to watch, to be publicly subjected to the pundits and endless discussion. When he gets in, he’s had quite a bit of the work he might otherwise need to do in the too-early (IMHO) period by others without it costing him any money.
“The morality issue is one that they have milked for several elections.”
Remember when shrub campaigned to “restore honor to the white house”?
hehehehehehhheeheh!
Who knew corruption, incompetence, fiscal irresponsibility and lies were what he had in mind!
Scott,
Not believing Evolution is not a dismissal of science, only one small part of it.
I love science, I love studying science. There are many wonderful fields of study.
Not accepting one theory doesn’t make you some unscientific loon.
But, you continue the typical debate tactic, make fun of any who oppose…
Vaughn: you might be right. Thompson might give Romney a run for his money on stage and on camera. He is, after all, an experienced actor.
What about Newt?
Or maybe Jeff Gannon/Guckert was what the shrubster had in mind concerning honor and the white house?
Dozens of Heads Were Bowed
By Dana MilbankFriday, May 4, 2007; Page A02
Let us pray.
Let us pray that, on next year’s National Day of Prayer, there is better attendance at the “Bible Reading Marathon” on the West Front of the Capitol.
Organizers put out 600 folding chairs on the lawn — the spot where presidents are inaugurated — and set up a huge stage with powerful amplifiers. But at 9:30 a.m. yesterday, not one of the 600 seats was occupied. By 11 a.m., as a woman read a passage from Revelations, attendance had grown — to four people. Finally, at 1 p.m., 37 of the 600 seats were occupied, though many of those people were tourists eating lunch.
Where was everybody?
“This isn’t that kind of event,” explained Jeff Gannon, spokesman for the host, the International Bible Reading Association. Gannon, actually a pseudonym for James Guckert, had earned fame in 2005 representing a conservative Web site at White House briefings until it was revealed that he posted nude pictures of himself on the Web to offer his services as a $200-an-hour gay escort.
Let us pray for the power to understand how Gannon made his way from HotMilitaryStud.com to the International Bible Reading Association.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...
Fred Thompson=Another bleeding actor.
Just what we DON’T need in the White House. We barely survived the first one.
Oh, but they are the party of family values. (Big eye roll here)
Nathan – hate to break your bubble here but you always interject your faith in your opinions. I have no problem with your expression of your faith but my question was why are Republicans of faith not outraged with their leader’s incompetence and lack of moral leadership?
Why did you totally avoid my questions and then typically accuse me of picking on you for your expression of your faith?
I did not question your faith – I question your loyalty to a group of Republican leaders who have not exactly delivered the honesty and integrity returned to the White House that GWB promised when elected.
Why are Christian Conservative Republicans not outraged. This time, try to answer the real question and not go off on some rant about how you are not allowed to express your faith.
KFG,
Even with all the examples you could try to twist or dredge up, the majority of the Republican Party has more stock in virtue, morals, and family value than the Democrats ever will.
I am sorry that the Christian ideal of Family Values doesn’t include homosexuality.
Sun,
What incometence and lack of moral leadership are you talking about?
Perhaps that is why I am not outraged, because I am not seeing what you are seeing.
I see that Nathan is not only a young earth creationist wacko but also a gay basher.
Ignorance and hatred, two great fundie tastes that always go great together.
None are so blind than those who refuse to see. This is something you apparently need to work on. Look at the last 6 years of corruption, greed, lack of moral leadership, K-street gang, Jack Abramhoff. Does any of these things ring a bell?
Look outside your little closed-off circle of blind loyalty and see things as they are truly are and not as you wish them to be.
Not only is Ronald Reagan’s Republic Party just as dead as he is, it smells about as bad.
The 30% or so who inexplicably think George WMD Bush isn’t an incompetent oaf are the very people 10 middle-aged (some older) white men must pander to if they’re going to win the GOP nomination. Since it’ll take a simple majority to win at the convention, these 10 white men are fighting over 15% + 1 Americans. If that’s not the definition of a fringe party, tell me what is.
This is a party for the 1 out of 5 dentists who recommend sugary gum for their patients who chew gum. This is a party for people whose rejection of evolution must assume there were saber-tooth poodles scampering around to avoid getting stomped on by Tyranasauris Rex. The Republican Party is for people who believe if we only eliminated all taxes the Federal Treasury would be flooded with money.
The Republic Party has devolved into the “Pollution is Good,” a “Living Wage is Bad,” and “Every Sperm is Sacred” party. Throw in a bit of “Brown People are Bad,” — Arabs, Mexicans, teenaged loose women (their tans, you know) — and you’ve got your Republic Party presidential candidate for 2008.
Good luck with that coalition.
“make fun of the opponents belief”
There is zero evidence that the carnivorous dinosaurs were vegetarian. If you believe that, fine. I am not making fun of your beliefs, but you cannot ask me to believe your debate point that has is strictly speculation on your part. Even the Bible does not make such a claim.
Therefore, there is no point in debating you on this topic, since you enter into the debate points that cannot be support by fact.
Good post Long time poster. But I feel I must disagree about the brown people are bad statement.
The true Republicans love the idea of minorities in the country, especially the illegal ones – they are cheap labor to make higher profits.
WS clark,
Are we debating about the Ark or Evolution?
I am trying to talk about Evolution and you keep talking about the Ark.
Which is it?
I can talk to you about the Ark if you would like.
Sun,
The only thing in your little rant that came close to resembling something about this administration is the perjury trab on Abramoff.
That is not 6 years of corruption and greed.
I am not blind. I am still waiting for you to show me all this corruption and greed you are ranting about.
Everyone I know who has met Bush or spoken with him have some of the highest praises for his demeanor and faith.
I don’t agree with all his policies, but I don’t think Bush is some great evil like you make him out to be.
You seem to be more blinded in your hate than you accuse me of.
“Which is it?”
Fine, Nathan. How did Noah get all the animals on the Ark and why didn’t they eat each other and Noah and his family?
WS Clark,
Ok.
We need to establish a few things first.
Do you even believe that the Earth was under a great flood as the Bible accounts?
Do you believe that Noah existed?
Do you believe that Noah built an Ark at all?
What is the point in telling me that I am rediculous about animals on the ark if you think the whole thing is rediculous?
Lets start with the big picture and not the little details.
LOL
I swear, sometimes the WE blog is just a frickin’ gift.
The OP topic is “who won the GOP’s first debate?” and poof Nathan goes off topic. To “discuss” the existence of evolution, no less. Holy crap batman, THAT didn’t take long before the GOP headed straight south while shoutin’ north.
Yeah, that’ll pull in the voters.
LOL
How did the bridge scene go in Monty Python’s Holy Grail?
Black knight: Come back, coward!
White knight: But you’ve no legs!
Black knight: A mere flesh wound!
Nathan, you scientist you, for a guy who has no problem “proving” the young earth, how many thousands of years ago did chiggers appear?
Because I think you’ll probably have a serious chigger problem real soon.
Nathan: Chiggers?!? Nonsense! They’re my steeds!
LOL
Well, yeah, “sun.”
The Republic Party really enjoys exploiting brown people’s labor.
It’s one of the amazing things about the Republic Party’s lemming-like path to self-destruction.
Hispanic people are extremely family-oriented. They’re overwhelmingly Roman Catholic and should buy into the GOP’s alleged pro-life agenda.
But Republics just can’t help themselves. They’re racist to the core. Remember Allen Keyes? No candidate since Reagan has better expressed the so-called principles of the Republic Party. Keyes was an articulate, passionate believer in all that conservatives *say* they believe in. Would they vote for him? Ha!
Too brown.
“telling me that I am rediculous”
Copy and paste where I said that you were ridiculous and I will apologize. If you can’t do that, the you owe me an apology.
This was no debate. It was a farce.
Asking silly questions that have nothing to do with the real tough issues.
Would you hire Karl Rove?Would you pardon Scooter Libby?What do you hate most about America?Would it be good for America to have Bill Clinton back living in the White House?
These aren’t questions from a profession moderator. They are silly Democrat attack questions.
Ask the same thing to the Democrats on their debate.
I don’t care about Bush’s demeanor and faith – it is his policiies, both foreign and domestic that worry me.
And if you cannot see the corruption, greed and lack of morals in Bush’s administration and the last 6 years of Republican-controlled Congress – then, my friend, that is why the Republicans will continue to lose their grip of power in Washington. What do you think the election in 2006 was about? It was a watershed of Republicans losing their power. Wake up and smell the coffee, my friend.
…”make families stronger”.
How many divorces among the GOP front-runners?
Divorces among the GOP front-runners don’t count Ben – that rule only applies to other people that the GOP don’t agree with.
You know – do as I say and not as I do?
…”make families stronger”.
How many divorces among the GOP front-runners?
Did Rudy use that phrase Ben? I don’t recall that he did. His divorces are a real problem for him as I see it.
Mitt Romney did use the phrase. He is devoted to his first wife. And that fact will help him win the Republican nomination.
Ask Hillary how many times has your husband William Clinton cheated on you?
Ask Rudy and McCain how many times they cheated on their former wives.
Liberals can be so dense when it comes to arguing Evolution. Why aren’t Conservatives held to the same standard about Creation? Besides the outrageous contention that the planet is ~8,000 years old, this thing about the world being created in 7 days; sez who? Any witnesses? Adam was created from mud. Can that be repeated in a lab? Where’s the solid evidence of Noah? If everybody on the planet died in the flood, who told the story? Noah and his family? How do they know whether the whole world was flooded? Did Noah and his family go every place in the world and see it flooded?
Is there any point to this endless stupid tit-for-tat bickering? Not the debate (though at this point there’s no point to that either), the one on this thread . . . . . .
The point is that many Americans, myself included are not comfortable with the idea that the person elected to the nation’s highest office believes in a literal interpretation and application of centuries old myths and fairy tales written by unknown authors. The fact that some candidates are willing to use those beliefs as the basis for making decisions that affect the entire country is downright scary.
I doubt that many people would support or vote for a presidential candidate that made decisions based on his Jedi training and knowledge of the force or that firmly believed that Sauron and the orcs were a serious threat to the United State and to me there is no substantial difference between the bible and a fantasy or science fiction novel.
Choosing to believe that the earth was created in six days, that dinosaurs shared the planet with humans and that the planet is only a few thousand years old despite all evidence to the contrary is insanity.
“Ignorance and hatred, two great fundie tastes that always go great together.
Posted by: Scott | May 04, 2007 at 03:53 PM”
Hee hee Scott. Reminds of the Reese’s commercial.
“Hey, you got ignorance in my hatred”
“No, you got hatred in my ignorance”
“Ummmm, tastes great” say both!
It goes back to Clinton, at the very least, when we were all supposed to put aside knowledge of what people are really like and assume that the president and his fellow Dems were the only ones with spiritual problems to resolve. (Never mind if it was anybody’s business.)Posted by TRT
TRT I really get a little tired of argument. Clinton, the highest boss in the land was having sex in an office owned by the American citizens with a young lady many years younger than he was who worked for him. If this happened in the work a day world the libs would be screaming for blood. Look at how they yelled at Foley and ALL he did was write a few emails to young pages, who were all of legal age.
Cut the bull that it was only about sex.
I am one Christian conservative that is sick of hearing the hipocracy on here when all Nathan was trying to do was demonstrate that evolution was/is a theory and not fact.
Wipi defines it like this:The word theory in “theory of evolution” simply means that evolutionary ideas have not been and, indeed, cannot be tested in every possible circumstance. …
There are many good scientists who will tell you that carbon dating has been proved to be inaccurate more than once. Who knows how time was counted before we adopted the calendar we use today after the death of Jesus? Why is it anymore of a stretch to believe our God created a perfect world for us to live on than to believe that a spark set off a dust storm one day and lo and behold life as we know it today was here.
Believe anyway you want to believe but don’t try to paint those who don’t agree with you as ignorant or less knowledgeable than you are.
You obviously do not know the difference between a scientific theory that meets the criteria for peer-review documentation, and a layman’s version of a theory as something that someone suggested to explain a situation.
Learn the significant difference and then comment.
By the way, gravity and relativity are considered “theories.”
Do you doubt either of them?
Scott isn’t it great that we live in a country that gives you the freedom to believe as you do and me the freedom to disagree.
Because we weren’t cut with the same cookie cutters we are different in numerous ways.
A major difference between me and you is I really don’t care how you feel about evolution but for some reason you feel the need to put down anyone who dares to think differently.
If evolution can ever be proven to be a fact then you will have the opportunity to say ‘I told you so’.
“If evolution can ever be proven to be a fact”
Gravity cannot be proven as a fact – are you saying it doesn’t exist?
ID has zero peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support the “theory.”
Evolution has 150 years of peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support it as a SCIENTIFIC theory.
Who ya’ gonna believe?
Wow, this thread is SO off topic.
As usual, the Rude One has the definative take on the sorry excuse for a debate last night.
Rude language, so if you are an easily offended wingnut, dont click.
http://www.rudepundit.blogspot.com/
WS you obviously don’t know the difference between a fact (provable and duplicateable) and a theory (strong probably it is true but not duplicateably). Until something is proven to be fact it is considered a theory. This means that under the same circumstances, with all conditions being equal the results are always the same. If this is not the case it is indeed a theory as evolution is or anything else that is a theory is.
So… we’ve moved from all abortion all the time to all global warming all the time to all evolution all the time?
How predictable.
So, GRM, what is the evidence to support the “theory” of creationism?
By the way, evolution took place over millions of years – obviously it cannot be duplicated in a laboratory environment.
Christ.
Actually ksgrm. There is a difference in the definition of theory.
Theory is non-scientific sense means: to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation.
In science Theory means: is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.
It follows from this that for scientists “theory” and “fact” do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.
Thank you, Joe.
WS I can only speak for myself but I believe in creatationism by faith. And I don’t think of it as a theory. It’s not scientific, no one has tried to duplicate it nor has it been disproved.
We really don’t know the exact age of the earth now do we? Carbon dating once thought to be the most accurate way to date the globe was disproved many times. So the actual age of the earth is open to interpretation.
Farmie if you have something else you would rather discuss – throw it out. Now lets see that would be either gay rights, hate crimes against gays or gay/lesbian marriage. Did I miss any of your pet topics?
Let’s see – Creationists think the Earth is 10,000 years old.
Evolutionists think that the Earth is millions of years old.
Not exactly splitting hairs, now is it.
The ID/Creationists have claimed “evidence” for years – where is it?
In all reality, I just want to see ONE piece of legitimate evidence that supports ID.
ksgrm? Are you of Christian or Muslim faith?
Joe that is correct if we are discussing mathmatical theory, but the definition if much more accurate when we are discussing evolution.
ev·o·lu·tion (v-lshn, v-)n.1. A continuing process of change from one state or condition to another or from one form to another.2. The theory that groups of organisms change with passage of time, mainly as a result of natural selection, so that descendants differ morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors
This is what Darwin spent his life trying to prove happened but he fell short. This is one of those arguments that could be argued infinitum and it would prove nothing. I Say lets just agree to disagree.
I am of the Christian relegion
How ’bout some evidence to back up your theory of creation via ID?
It’s cool! There is no convincing you or others with they are stead fast on religion. Either it be Christianity or Islam when it comes to young earth and no evolution. Abortion is another subject people will not change their minds.
Or the Religion of Global Warming Doomsday, that are convince that the earth will be destroyed in a decade by CO2.
Take your pick!
You couldn’t convince me to be a weakling leftist to save my life.
So we all have entrenched beliefs.
WSClark is asking for someone to prove faith. How cute…
But I want to make one last point on evolution. What it really is.
evolution is the change in a population’s inherited traits from generation to generation. These traits are encoded as genes that are copied and passed on to offspring during reproduction. Mutations and other random changes in these genes can produce new or altered traits, resulting in inheritable differences (genetic variation) between organisms. Evolution occurs when these differences become more common or rare in a population. This either happens through natural selection, which is caused by differences in the reproductive value of the traits, or randomly through genetic drift.
I never asked anyone to prove “faith.” There are those that want ID to be taught along side evolution. I asked for scientific evidence of ID.
If you want to teach ID in science class, you must have scientific evidence.
Or it cannot be considered science.
You can have your faith – just keep it out of our schools.
You will never hear me say I want ID taught in the schools. Rest easy.
Thank God.
Wait WS – Are you Muslim or Christan? I just wondered what God you were thanking?
Seriously we are having a Wii Golf Tournament at our house tonight and they are getting tired of yelling at me when it is my turn.
If you have never played this it is more fun than a barrel of monkeys. The best game our grandkids ever talked us into buying. They just keep kicking us off though so they can play – go figure.
This golf game is just like the real thing but without the sunburn.
“How ’bout some evidence to back up your theory of creation via ID?”
One post from republicans, and intelligent design is basically thrown out the window:-)
I am neither Christian or Muslim.
KSGRM: Sorry it took me so long to respond. I had a few errands to run, such as going out and eating a nice dinner.
My take on the Republicans is that they are particularly susceptible to seeming hypocritical about issues of morality because they spend so much time presenting themselves as the values party. Regarding the Clinton/Lewinsky ordeal, as I understand it, Gingrich himself was cheating on his wife during this time, yet he was up on the telly sounding appalled about the president. None of these guys are in danger of being nominated for sainthood, which is fine by me. I would like to see both parties err on the side of not digging around in one another’s personal business, but history teaches us that the great Pericles of Athens was subject to the same kind of attack, and I am willing to bet that he engaged in this rough and tumble as well. So the debate rumbles on. We all have our biases. If I have an objection to the social conservative agenda, it amounts to this: I think it’s a lousy idea to bring religion into the political arena because it trends toward in-fighting between the religious factions. History is rich with stories about warring religious groups. In this country, people have the freedom to believe or not to believe and government should respect that and stay out of it. That’s my bias and I plan to express it. You retain the option to put forth your own opinion.
The only way to settle this debate is have a shaman slaughter a goat and read the signs in their entrails.
Arguing with Nathan about evolution is God’s proof that you have too much time on your hands. QED.
They don’t believe in evolution so they must be amazed every time they catch a cold. Is this the same country that managed to make it to the moon, decode the human genome and cure polio?
It’s really not that difficult to reconcile being a Christian and accepting Evolution. It’s all a matter of time and literal interpretation. If you believe the Bible is the literal word of God, you’re in the unenviable position of defending the absurd. If you get past the 7 day Creation schedule, Evolution is no problem. But the Bible addresses what a day is to God, and it’s not absolutely 24 hours. Could be 10,000 years (or more). Did God create Adam from mud? Without a doubt! How long did it take? There’s the sticking point.
IMHO, Evolution is the work of God.
ksgrm earlier stated, “We really don’t know the exact age of the earth now do we? Carbon dating once thought to be the most accurate way to date the globe was disproved many times. So the actual age of the earth is open to interpretation.”
1. Age of earth = 4.6 billion years, +/- 1%. You’re quibbling about the 1%?2. Could you please explain how carbon dating has been “disproved many times?”3. Carbon-14, with its half-life of 5730 years, is not used to establish the age of the earth because after about 60,000 years its activity has decayed to where it’s indistinguishable from the background radiation. Other isotopes are used to establish the age of the earth – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_earth or “Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective” at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
Ah, Sam, now everyone will know you’re from Kansas. All of my friends living outside of Kansas laugh at me now. Even people from Oklahoma!, now that is bad. McCain the old war horse! Yep, get after that damn boogie-man bin Laden. But John, everybody will go to the gates of hell…the question is, how many will go in after him? Humnn..
I had a good laugh while watching the GOP debate! I should say the GOP sideshow. The candidates were falling all over themselves in trying to show who was the best at hoisting the “Gipper” mantel! Rudy lost his way most of the time. If this were a dance contest Guliani would win the best “Stumbler” award. Romney wins the Colgate “Whitest teeth” award along with the best dressed candidate. The only thing missing was the lack of jewelry. Mitt, where’s the BING? Po Ole John! He failed miserably in his attempt to preach. That line…”And I will follow him to the gates of hell!”, was so lame! I was embarassed for him. Is it me or does it look like McCain has cheeks full of nuts?! Anyway, the nite belonged to…..er who did it belong to? After that little peepshow I have no idea!!!
XXX,
You have to completely dismiss many things besides what a “day” really means in the Bible to think evolution can coincide with being a Christian.
1. If God used Evolution to create the world, then Adam and Eve were the first evolved humans?
Not even Evolutionary theory supports that there were one sole pair of homosapiens.
Evolution is change over time.
You would have to really stretch and twist things to come up with how God created Adam and Eve with Evolution.
2. If there is no Adam and Eve, then why does man need a Savior?
3. If there is no Savior then what is the point of being a Christian?
4. The order of which the Bible says God created things doesn’t coincide with the way Evolution does. You have to dismiss what the Bible says about the order of creation.
XXX,
I could go on all day. The simple fact is that you choose to dismiss what the Bible says for your convienence.
If it is absurd to defend what the Bible says in Genesis, then it is just as absurd to believe that God sent his only son to die for our sins.
What is the difference in defending our Savior over Creation in terms of absurdity?
Why did God need to send His only Son to die for our sins if in fact God made the rules in the first place?
Since God is one third of the Trinity, and therefore He Himself was being crucified, why didn’t He just save Himself the trouble and change the rules to allow “Christians” to confess their sins and be saved?
Why was it necessary for all that drama with the cross and everything?
WS Clark,
God didn’t “need” to send his son to die for our sins.
God sent him to show how much he loved us.
That is true, nathan, if that is what one chooses to believe. Just because you believe the Bible literally, does not make it so.
Again, Nathan, no one here is trying to deny you your right to your Christian faith. So don’t have a cow, take a deep breath and if you truly believe in your faith, you should be content and stop harassing others who choose not to believe the same way you do.
Well, well: Bush is now at 28% in the polls, and the leading Democratic candidates soundly trounce any of the propective Republican front-runners.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18505030/site/newsweek/
No wonder the seven dwarves were tripping over each other on their way to do obesiance at the altar of Saint Ronnie.
Bring on Fred Thompson; bring on Newt Gingrich; bring on anybody. This Administration and the previous Republican Congress have so screwed up the country, and have so obviously lied about every damn thing, that the Democrats could run a dead flounder for President and probably still win a majority among Independents.
Do you remember how well George Romney did against Lyndon Johnson in the 1968 presidential election? Surely, you remember Howard Dean’s effort to unseat George W. Bush in the 2004 election?
Don’t remember? Well maybe it’s because frontrunners Johnson, Romney and Dean weren’t around by the time the presidential election arrived. It’s much too early in the presidential race to evaluate which candidate has the best chance of winning. We don’t know for sure what the issues will be. Osama bin Laden might even be dead by next year.
I heard the “Follow him to the gates of hell” comment, but not the question, so naturally I assumed he was talking about GWB!
Is this the “reputable scientist” (PHD. Theology) of whom you speak debunking carbon dating?http://www.kent-hovind.com/articles/Tripp/carbon.htm