Clinton vs. Obama: Reality or Hype

I read an article today at the San Francisco Chronicle online about why Illinois Senator Barack Obama “is good for” New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

When it comes to politics, like any Republican, I'm skeptical about Democrats and liberals. Perhaps it's my Catholic upbringing or my conservative views on the right to life and the right to practice religion that steer me in the "right" direction.

True, there are many people who admire Sen. Clinton for her courage to become a senator, despite the disgraceful acts of her husband, former president Bill Clinton. There are voters who believe she has great family values and that she cares about America's children and their education (at least the children who manage to be born, that is) and overall well-being. Some people believe she is concerned with health care despite her "Hillary Care" debacle in the early 1990s.

And then there are those who are hesitant to fully support the senator in the 2008 nominations because they do not feel she can or will win the presidency.

Hillary Clinton is one of the most liberal politicians of this country and yet many voters believe she is not liberal enough. Her political advisors may not want to portray her as extreme for fear that America's conservative right will not be drawn to her as a presidential candidate.

Yet, conservatives may be tempted to lean her way because she didn't stand up against the war in Iraq, in fact she supported the war initially. They may also view her caution in politics as appealing.

What really worries me is the memory of the first (and second) Clinton presidency and all the lies, scandals and cover ups.

The SFC article says:

"The doubters are ashamed to say what really worries them: that Americans don't want to relive the supposed psychodramas of the Bill Clinton years; that her association with her husband will mobilize his enemies more than it will energize his friends; that their relationship is just too complex for those critical swing voters to understand or accept."

I couldn't agree more.

On the opposite hand, Barack Obama with his two short years in the Senate hasn't accumulated a "track record" like Hillary. Granted, Hillary's reputation is often based on the sins of her husband, but compared to Obama she looks like the wicked witch of the west with a political agenda.

"... the prospect of U.S. Sen. Barack Obama's presidential candidacy is not only good for the Democratic Party, but also good for Clinton. Without Obama in the race, the Democratic primaries would boil down to Hillary and those vying to be the anti-Hillary. She might well win a battle of attrition, but without quelling the doubts."

However, I get the impression that a Clinton vs. Obama political death match may begin in the near future.

Rightwing Guy writes:

"A battle between these two Senators in the primary would be something to see and it would be a good thing for Republicans because the fighting between the two would help air out the all the dirty laundry that is heavily buried."

Indeed, it would be quite a production. I look forward to the entertainment.

The Queer Whisper has her own take on Clinton and Obama as presidential candidates (as well as John Kerry and others). She writes:

"Hillary Clinton: Not in a million years would I vote for her after her stint as Senator. She really has proven herself to be an opportunistic, backroom dealer who lacks the courage of her convictions.

Barak Obama: He's going to need to come to me when he has more experience under his belt."

I'm going to be perfectly honest and admit that I like the idea of Barack Obama as president because of his lack of experience. He hasn't had the chance to be tarnished or scandalized by the media or other politicians, yet.

Obama is a family man, with family values. Other conservatives may agree, considering the poor polls of the GOP. The Republican scandal of Mark Foley is still fresh in our minds, too.

My only concern is his views on abortion and embryonic stem cell research, two very big deal breakers for myself and many conservative voters.

But can Obama survive a presidential race? He certainly has received a fair amount of media coverage.

Outdide Report writes:

"It also says that all the Obama hype..is..well hype. Despite the endless 24 hour news buzz, Obama has not been able to make a crack in the polls. If you remember, when Wesley Clark rushed onto the scene, he briefly polled strong in the Democratic primary and was even beating Bush in the first few polls before imploding. Obama isn't as invincible as the pundits would suggest and despite Kos's statements that the Presidential race is Obama's to lose, the polls have not borne this out."

And then there is the possibility of a Clinton-Obama ticket.

Watching Washington writes:

"Republican strategists are reportedly sweating the possibility of a Clinton-Obama ticket in 2008. Their theory is that Sen Hillary Clinton (D-NY) would easily carry the states that Sen John Kerry (D-MA) carried in 2004.

But Sen Barack Obama (D-IL) would pick up swing states -- like Ohio -- to put the Democrats over the top. "

The only way this Republican would satisfied is if Obama were president. Hillary must be kept away from the power seat, even the Democrats can't deny it.

Posted by Dana J. Tuszke at December 12, 2006 3:38 PM
Comments
Comment #198879

Perhaps it’s my … my conservative views on … the right to practice religion that steer me in the ‘right’ direction.

Dana,

please elaborate. How is the non-conservative side doing anything to prevent you from practicing your religion?

Posted by: Steve K at December 12, 2006 3:53 PM
Comment #198880

“What really worries me is the memory of the first (and second) Clinton presidency and all the lies, scandals and cover ups….’Americans don’t want to relive the supposed psychodramas of the Bill Clinton years’…”

too late…or, d’you forget about bush already?

bush put clinton (and the rest of us, for that matter) to shame.

Posted by: Diogenes at December 12, 2006 4:00 PM
Comment #198882

Bush only put Bush to shame. Clinton did well enough on his own to put Clinton to shame.

Hillary would win IF the primaries were held today. Obama would run a close second. Edwards would be down the pack. And near the end would be Gore and Kerry.

I believe many Dems are hoping on HOPE that someone other than Hillary, Gore or Kerry makes it to the front before the actual primaries. It would be a huge mistake to put Hillary in position for the presidency. She hath not the gravitas, nor the slickness to do well in the first 100 days if she were to be elected. The Dems would be stuck with a slow-starter and slim-wit that would be comparible to Bush in his first 100 days.

Posted by: Don at December 12, 2006 4:27 PM
Comment #198883

Personally, I would prefer Hillary for president. She’s got the experience. Her husband has the experience. My recollection of the times he was president are they were good years. OBama seems great as well, though… we already had a president that had little experience, and that didn’t turn out so well.

My only concern really is the partisan bickering. The right hates the Clintons with a passion I don’t understand. I really don’t. O’Bama seems truly gifted at putting things in terms both parties can understand. It sure would be nice to have some peace and healing.

Posted by: Max at December 12, 2006 4:28 PM
Comment #198884

Btw, what’s missing from your post is what would really be so terrible about Hillary as president. I disagree that she is the most liberal candidate or that she would be ensconced in scandals. Why do you feel that way?

Posted by: Max at December 12, 2006 4:31 PM
Comment #198885


Meanwhile on the right, the Republican potential candidates are all competing for social conservative of the year. Even mister I’ll be stronger on gay rights than Ted Kennedy.

It may come down to a race between Hillary and Barak but for a reason that wasn’t mentioned. If I am not mistaken, Jesse Jackson got more votes in the 1984 Democratic primary than any other candidate.

Posted by: jlw at December 12, 2006 4:35 PM
Comment #198886

Max,
minor thought here, but feel the need to ask it.

If Hillary would win, which who knows at this point its anyone’s game. but being that Pres. Bush has recently been , we’ll call it “bashed” by the media and many persons on both left and right about Pres Bush 41 offering advice to him, would the same fly for Hillary getitng pointers from Pres. Bill Clinton? Would she be seen as not a strong Pres. since she needed or received help from her hubby?

Posted by: Rhancheck at December 12, 2006 4:40 PM
Comment #198889

“Clinton did well enough on his own to put Clinton to shame.”

touche. (but bush has still been much worse.)

“I believe many Dems are hoping on HOPE that someone other than Hillary, Gore or Kerry makes it to the front before the actual primaries.”

i am hoping, as well. it sure would be nice for a change if i had to spend my time struggling to decide which candidate i liked *more*…

Posted by: Diogenes at December 12, 2006 4:55 PM
Comment #198893

Thanks for the Link!

Posted by: Rightwing Guy at December 12, 2006 5:24 PM
Comment #198894

Steve

Perhaps it’s my … my conservative views on … the right to practice religion that steer me in the ‘right’ direction.

Dana,

please elaborate. How is the non-conservative side doing anything to prevent you from practicing your religion?


Again it is not the “non-conservatives” we are worried about. The far left has enough control of the however to effect my religious freedom. A large majority of the far left believe that those who believe in a Creator are nuts ridiculous and ignorant.
It is ridiculous when 1 or 2 students in a high school graduating class deprive the rest who want to start THEIR graduation ceremony with a prayer.
The far left groups use the far left courts to pass things like this no matter what the public wants.

85% of the American public consider themselves some sort of Christian.

Now lets analyze this:

Common Sense - No school can promote any particular religion.

Not common sense - The school cannot recognize that people believe there is a creator. That even defined as a theory, it is just as relevant as evelution.

Really not common sense - The far left would really like it to be taught that God is a myth and that if your parents tell you there is a God they are lying.


If you don’t believe me just watch the comments from here on out about God and those who believe in a Creator from the far lefties.

Look at the tone, the insults. Better yet, look through past blogs.

I could go on.They want to take away tax exempt status away. They want to take Christmas away from our school children. All for the perceived offense from a very fractional minority. All because “someone might be offended”.

And again Steve, it is very much not the “non-conservatives”, it is the far left.
But they got their butts spanked by the voters and their own party this last election. Just as bad, if not worse than the GOP.

Posted by: scottie1321 at December 12, 2006 5:27 PM
Comment #198896

scottie1321,

I guess you believe that church and state should be the same. ‘nuf said.

Posted by: Steve K at December 12, 2006 5:39 PM
Comment #198900

JLW,

Jesse came in third with 400 something
Gary Hart second with 1200 something
and Walter (Win 2 states in the national election, lose by a landslide) Mondale came in first with 2000 something.


Max,

What did she know and when did she really know Bill and Monica had their secret rendezvous. Did she lie too when she coined her “Great Republican Conspiracy” phrase.

Just where was that box those six months it was missing before it mysteriously reappeared under her desk missing the vital info.

Just what really happened to the Clinton aquaintence who mysteriously committed suicide down there by the White House. Wasn’t he supposed to testify?

So just why did Hillary tell everyone that Chelsea was almost killed on 911 because she was right next door when she knew Chelsea was actually far away.

Sir Edmund Hillary?

The truth on Hillary’s feelings about Americans living between the coasts…

[Jesus, Bill, I know you’ve got all these redneck relatives out there…]
-Confronting her husband when it’s discovered that one of his long-lost relatives is a member of the KKK, circa 1993. Bill and Hillary: The Marriage p. 273, by Christopher Anderson, William Morrow & Co. 1999.


She has fund raising scandal problems, and many other items that, whether right or wrong, fair or unfair, will be dredged up again in the primary and the general election.

She has plenty of scandals and I’m sure some could pop up that we don’t know yet.

Posted by: scottie1321 at December 12, 2006 6:01 PM
Comment #198901

No Steve, I don’t! Never have , never will. But the far left has to paint the picture that way to make me look like I want to impose my religion on everyone else. That’s not the truth either. So which group is right? The far left? or the 80% of the rest of us?
Enough said.

Posted by: scottie1321 at December 12, 2006 6:04 PM
Comment #198905

scottie,

“Common Sense - No school can promote any particular religion.

Not common sense - The school cannot recognize that people believe there is a creator. That even defined as a theory, it is just as relevant as evelution.

Really not common sense - The far left would really like it to be taught that God is a myth and that if your parents tell you there is a God they are lying.”


Common sense- you can send your children to a religious school of your choice.

No sense- Public school teachers don’t have the time to teach Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish, and Hindu children a religion their parents aren’t particularly interested in.

No sense at all- Creationism isn’t science, and shouldn’t be taught as such. If you want to teach your children about creation send them to the religious school of your choice, and take them to church.

Really not common sense - you can’t prove that statement, and at best it is a gross generalization. I at least admitted mine.

Posted by: Rocky at December 12, 2006 6:12 PM
Comment #198906

scottie1321,

I was really hoping Dana would bother to respond, since she’s the one who made the initial statement, but she has a habit of disappearing as soon as her post goes up.

I’m puzzled over your “which group is right?” question. You miss some critically important points:

1. Public schools are for education, not religion.
2. Science is taught in public schools, not religion. God is not part of the science curriculum, because God is not a scientific concept.
3. The fact that the 85 percent of Americans are Christian does not mean public policy and law should be based on Christianity. The other 15 percent have equal rights.

Finally, please drop the comments about the “far lefties.” If you’ve got a particular gripe against something someone said or did that you disagree with in this regard, would you please name names?

Posted by: Steve K at December 12, 2006 6:13 PM
Comment #198907

I’ve been reluctant to think of voting for Hillary but I would be much more amenable to Clinton/Obama. Hell, they should take the Rove approach and make the ticket Obama/Clinton.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at December 12, 2006 6:27 PM
Comment #198909

Well Dana, I didn’t just have a Catholic upbringing, I had an Irish Catholic upbringing, in Ireland. Now, perhaps i’m a heretic or a heathen, but I don’t see any virtue in the Church or religion having any place in affairs of state. And my reasoning is very much based on the experience of Ireland, where for many years we had what some might have been styled a theocracy, given Church influence in matters political. Not only did it lead to political and economic stasis, it led to a corrupt and unchristian temporal bureaucracy that styled itself as Christian and infallible. One that did not need to fear any challenge from any other source of power in the country. In doing so, it counted angels on the heads of pins, and forgot what Christ wanted to say.

But that was then. We were a poor, largely peasant society. Now, the people have seen them for what they are, the ones who were called to bring the little children unto Jesus, and who betrayed that trust in order that the perverts within would not bring scandal on the majesty and awe of the ecclesiastic gentlemen, and loosen their grip on the people.

All that is, perversely for the good. Christ was an outsider. He was not a part of the elite, not part of the status quo. He was an outsider, with no possessions, just a powerful message. That is the role of the Christian. That material things are not an end in life, but freeing ourselves from slavery, and in the process spreading love. The Christian cannot do that if they seek to align with the state. All power corrupts. As Islam says, there is no compulsion in religion. It’s only force is the moral example it sets from among its followers. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at December 12, 2006 6:33 PM
Comment #198910

Steve, Thank you, You greatly made my point.


BTW Don’t ever try to Censor me.

Another common tactic of the far left.

I will at any time at any place use any term that I well Please. That Includes “far left” and “socialist”.

The far left also spouts “free speech” until it is something that they want censored.

Posted by: scottie1321 at December 12, 2006 6:35 PM
Comment #198912

AH but Rocky,,


Number one, I did not advocate teaching children “religion” again the far left tactic of trading my belief for one that sound worse. Right in the middle of the debate.

Number two, almost 85% of the American public believes that “GOD CREATED SCIENCE.”

Number three, to teach that
evolution is one widely held theory,
the big bang is a widely held theory,
creation is a widely held theory,

in a classroom does not

teach “a religion” nor does it
infringe on the rights of the 15 % than does teaching evolution infringe on the rights of the much more than 15% who believe it is a very flawed science.

Just because you think the existance of a creator is hocus pocus does not the rest of us nuts.

Posted by: scottie1321 at December 12, 2006 6:45 PM
Comment #198917

Rhancheck
Would she be seen as not a strong Pres. since she needed or received help from her hubby?

Any smart President will ask advise from a former President. That’s why I don’t think Hilliary would ask advise from Bill. I don’t think she’s smart enough to do that. Or maybe she’s to stuck on herself too.
If it came down to it I reckon I would rather see Obama President than Clinton. I never have trusted her. I’d trust her husband again before I’d ever trust her.
I hope Obama or some other weak candidate gets the nomination. That and a weak Republican might just give an independent or third party candidate a chance.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 12, 2006 7:00 PM
Comment #198918
Number three, to teach that evolution is one widely held theory, the big bang is a widely held theory, creation is a widely held theory,

in a classroom does not

teach “a religion” nor does it
infringe on the rights of the 15 % than does teaching evolution infringe on the rights of the much more than 15% who believe it is a very flawed science.

Unfortunately for your argument, science is not religion. It doesn’t matter how many people “believe” that Evolution is flawed science, because science works through strict intellectual processes. The validity of Evolution has been demonstrated repeatedly in thousands of different ways in hundreds of different disciplines according to the principles of science. That you and others mistakenly believe the opposite does not change this fact.

Evolution is a valid scientific theory. Creationism is called a theory, but it’s by no means a scientific theory. In science, a theory is much different than it is in common speech.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena.

Unfortunately, people often confuse the meanings, so they think evolution is equivalent to creation because creation is also called a theory. However, scientifically, creation is a hypothesis:
a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; “a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory”. And, in fact, the teachings of Creationism lead to conclusions that are in direct contradiction with observed evidence.

So, let’s teach scientific theories in science class and keep religious, untestable hypotheses from uselessly confusing the conversation. After all, there’s valid scientific theory behind Gravity, but not behind Intelligent Falling - so we don’t teach that.

Because Creationism is a religious theory and is in no way a valid scientific theory, teaching it in public schools would be teaching a religion. And, by advocating teaching Creationism in schools instead of teaching actual science, you do “advocate teaching children ‘religion’”, whether you admit it or not.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 12, 2006 7:00 PM
Comment #198920

scottie,

“Just because you think the existance of a creator is hocus pocus does not the rest of us nuts.”

Don’t put words in my mouth pal

Again, you make a vast assumption with half-vast proof.

I did not ever say any where, or at any time that the existence of a creator was hocus pocus, and you can’t prove otherwise.

BTW, that doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that I do think the rest of are nuts.

“Number two, almost 85% of the American public believes that “GOD CREATED SCIENCE.”

No, 85% of the American public believes in God, that is far and away from your statement above, and there is also no possible way you can prove that either.

While you are entitled to your opinion, you aren’t entitled to just make up the facts to fit that opinion.

Posted by: Rocky at December 12, 2006 7:01 PM
Comment #198923

Scottie1321:

That is why there needs to be vouchers for any American to go to any type of school. Here is how I want it to work:

1. You purchase/rent a house or living place.
2. You receive a charter stating where you want your taxes to go.
3. You read and write down the school corporation (public or private) you want to send your children.
4. Mail it and your taxes will go there.

This will prevent the religious from experiencing fascism (definition- to impose your views on others). It will give the public schools competetion.

Posted by: stubborn conservative at December 12, 2006 7:12 PM
Comment #198924

For those who believe that there is a “separation of church and state”, I would say jump on the bandwagon and push for the IRS to get out of the business of the church. The church should be able to operate as an entity separate of the church, right?

Teaching evolution in the public schools is advocating the religion of “Humanism”. Evolution is by all concerned is a theory. So, why not teach the main theories of how the earth came to be, including Creation by a God who always was, is, and always will be.

Posted by: tomh at December 12, 2006 7:14 PM
Comment #198925

stub,

“This will prevent the religious from experiencing fascism (definition- to impose your views on others). It will give the public schools competetion.”

I hope some day you will be able to see the irony in that statement.

Posted by: Rocky at December 12, 2006 7:17 PM
Comment #198926

Lawnboy,

Plug in God created the universe and make your argument make sense. You cannot. Because if he did, all your statements automatically become false. But the exhistance of God is another debate
Since it is a possibility, since God new about the preiodic elements, since he picked them himself, makes creation total science.

I would encourage all to research “evolution” from both sides. you will find at best it is a very flawed theory. A great place to start is the work of Brad Harrub, Phd

Brad Harrub Ph.D.

Anothe Brad Harrub

Look at both sides. Then make a decision.

Posted by: scottie1321 at December 12, 2006 7:20 PM
Comment #198929
The far left groups use the far left courts to pass things like this no matter what the public wants.

85% of the American public consider themselves some sort of Christian.

Wait, so are you saying this vast super-majority of Christians are being persecuted by a small band of antitheists who have absolutely no representation in government, even in the form of a generic atheist? That’s amazing! How do we do it?

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at December 12, 2006 7:28 PM
Comment #198930

Rocky:

No one here can deny it. There is always someone in every organization. Whether religious or political, someone is a fascist in the group. Persuading is not fascism. It is fascism when the voices of opposing opinions are cut off.

Posted by: stubborn conservative at December 12, 2006 7:32 PM
Comment #198931

No Joseph,

That is not at all what I am saying, nor is it what I believe. That is not even what I implied. Again tho you have to trade what I said for something that sounds fascist to distract from the valid point I make and paint me as a religious zealot who wants to shove God in everyones face.

No Joseph what you traded for what I said was not even hinted at.

Cute Story

Posted by: scottie1321 at December 12, 2006 7:38 PM
Comment #198932

Stub,

Contrast this statement,

“This will prevent the religious from experiencing fascism (definition- to impose your views on others).”

With this statement,

“There is always someone in every organization. Whether religious or political, someone is a fascist in the group.”

I would venture a guess then, that there is no escaping fascism, no matter where you go, or what you believe.

Posted by: Rocky at December 12, 2006 7:38 PM
Comment #198933

A FAQ for Athiest

Research yourselves. Don’t just believe blindly. Every one has the ability to Think and Reason.

Posted by: scottie1321 at December 12, 2006 7:42 PM
Comment #198934

Perhaps it’s my … my conservative views on … the right to practice religion that steer me in the ‘right’ direction.

Dana,

please elaborate. How is the non-conservative side doing anything to prevent you from practicing your religion?


Posted by: Steve K


Maybe Steve because practicing her religion means imposing her “pro-life” views on others and forcing others to listen to ear prayers at public functions.

Seriously, you are right. As if a child can’t say a prayer on their own while at school or before the graduation ceremony.

I’m to the point where I believe maybe we should just allow a prayer as long as each religion gets to have their prayer said and the atheist also get to put their 2 cents in.

Maybe if we teach competing views side by side some of these kids would escape from the early religious indoctrination they receive.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFT1Xe5cIL4


Posted by: muirgeo at December 12, 2006 7:45 PM
Comment #198936

What I did imply btw is that the far left likes to use far left judges to further anti God, Anti Religion stance, No matter (and they don’t care what it is) the will of the people.

Posted by: scottie1321 at December 12, 2006 7:48 PM
Comment #198937

As long at there are Tests, there will be Prayer in school!

Great point muireo!

Posted by: scottie1321 at December 12, 2006 7:51 PM
Comment #198938
Teaching evolution in the public schools is advocating the religion of “Humanism”. Evolution is by all concerned is a theory. So, why not teach the main theories of how the earth came to be, including Creation by a God who always was, is, and always will be.

No, Evolution is not a result of the non-existent religion of Humanism. Evolution is science. When teaching science, we should restrict ourselves to science, which is why non-Scientific theories like a particular religious story of creation or the Flying Spaghetti Monster have no place being taught at the same level as an actual Scientific Theory in our Science classes.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 12, 2006 7:52 PM
Comment #198941

See again lawnboy,
your whole argument is bunk if there “is a God”. And on that subject you are highly in the minority.

If God Created the Cell, He created science.

Posted by: scottie1321 at December 12, 2006 7:55 PM
Comment #198942

Furthermore…

If you don’t believe me just watch the comments from here on out about God and those who believe in a Creator from the far lefties.

Disabusing superstitious folk of their myths does not equal advocacy of antitheist legislation. As rabidly antitheist as I’ve been on this site, I have never advocated anything resembling antitheist legislation. It’s simple really, I understand the difference between the realm of public policy and the realm of personal conversations regarding beliefs.

And seriously that “76% of Americans are professed Christians” is a useless stat. It’s not like 76% of Americans actually behave like Christians are supposed to behave. Even the politicians you (ambiguously) accuse of wanting to affect your religious freedom are professed Christians. I’d postulate that 80% of that 76% are just saying they’re Christian to cover their ass. I’d imagine half of all church-goers do so for the business contacts. And maybe 1% have belief systems that resemble Christ’s teachings and actually try to adhere to them.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at December 12, 2006 7:56 PM
Comment #198943
Plug in God created the universe and make your argument make sense.

And despite your claim, my argument is not bunk “if there is a God”. My argument is based on using evidence and logic to lead to logical conclusions, and then validating those conclusions by making predictions and seeing if they are true.

In short, my argument is that Science should be scientific. The existence or absence of God doesn’t affect it.

Since it is a possibility, since God new about the preiodic elements, since he picked them himself, makes creation total science.

What? Because your religion leads you to believe that the creator you believe was involved in creation, then creation is by definition science? Please try again, this time without the circular reasoning.

I would encourage all to research “evolution” from both sides. you will find at best it is a very flawed theory.

I also encourage everyone to research evolution (which requires no quotes), but to base the research on an actual scientific basis.

Don’t look at the work of one flawed scientist - actually look at immense evidence. Brad Harrub’s claims are easily debunked with evidence and logic are used.

Look at both sides. Then make a decision.

I have, and I choose to support the teaching of science in science class.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 12, 2006 8:03 PM
Comment #198944
If God Created the Cell, He created science.

Whether God created science or not does not imply that a particular unsupportable idea is, in itself, scientific.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 12, 2006 8:04 PM
Comment #198948
That is not at all what I am saying, nor is it what I believe. That is not even what I implied.

Really? (my emphasis in the following)

The far left has enough control of the [?] however to effect my religious freedom.
The far left groups use the far left courts to pass things like this no matter what the public wants.
85% of the American public consider themselves some sort of Christian.

Now lets analyze this:

Common Sense - No school can promote any particular religion.

Not common sense - The school cannot recognize that people believe there is a creator. That even defined as a theory, it is just as relevant as evelution.

Really not common sense - The far left would really like it to be taught that God is a myth and that if your parents tell you there is a God they are lying.

They want to take away tax exempt status away. They want to take Christmas away from our school children. All for the perceived offense from a very fractional minority. All because “someone might be offended”.

What are you trying to imply? I see something about affecting your religious freedom. I get the implication of a little persecution complex as it applies to legislation out of that. There’s using the “far left” courts which sounds like an exaggerated claim to bolster a weak position, especially given your super-majority stat. You go on to discuss teaching Creationism in school, which is another public policy debate. And then the ridiculous premise that “the far left” would want public education to vilify parental promotion of theism. How am I supposed to characterize this? It sounds like you feel persecuted. If you don’t that’s fine. I would still be genuinely curious as to how a 76% super majority could possibly be affected by a small group of radicals with no real representation in government.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at December 12, 2006 8:15 PM
Comment #198949

“What I did imply btw is that the far left likes to use far left judges to further anti God, Anti Religion stance, No matter (and they don’t care what it is) the will of the people.”

I now find myself truly amazed at just how much impact the “far left” has on every American’s lives.

For a tiny minority, I never knew just how insidious they truly are.

Posted by: Rocky at December 12, 2006 8:18 PM
Comment #198952

And scottie, The “Cute Story” to which you link might be very gratifying for you since it tells you what you want to hear. However, it is based on serious misunderstandings of the nature of science and the process of evolution. While you might think this story supports you somehow, it really just shows how far from reality your rhetoric is.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 12, 2006 8:24 PM
Comment #198953

For those who believe evolution is the application of science and origin of man and animal I have several creations for you to explain how they came upon their uniqueness.

mallee bird
rat
quail
eels
spiders
tiger moth
mexican fly
worker bee
prtrait frog
female trap-door spider

Evolution is not an explanation of these species and their peculararities. There are of course many, many more that have things about them that evolution has no explanation for.

Posted by: tomh at December 12, 2006 8:35 PM
Comment #198956

tomh,

Please explain why evolution isn’t a valid explanation for the existence of rats. I can’t come up with a single reason you picked on that animal, because evolution works for rats as well as it does for all animals.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 12, 2006 8:38 PM
Comment #198959

Okay, didn’t see this…

What I did imply btw is that the far left likes to use far left judges to further anti God, Anti Religion stance, No matter (and they don’t care what it is) the will of the people.

Well, at least that answers my question. So you believe that this 76% super majority of Christians are being subverted by a small minority of far left anti-theists by way of the courts and “activist judges” of similar inclination. Okay. It’s still a ridiculous premise. First of all the chances of a judge being anti-theist is probably much less than the 13% of secularists in the populace. I would bet that more than 90% of judges are professed Christians. So now we would have to calculate the odds of finding an activist anti-theist judge in a federal circuit. Well, they would have to be appointed by an activist anti-theist president, right? Clinton? Maybe. Carter? No way. He’s probably the most Christian president we’ve ever had next to John Adams. No, so it must be Clinton who appointed all of these activist anti-theist judges. Now, it would seem to me that the odds would be very low that Clinton, who did quite a lot in the realm of bipartisan policy, would appoint, under review of the Senate, circuit judges who are also actively anti-theist and have them pass. This is what the system is designed to do, to filter out radicals and appoint judges who will, for the most part, tread carefully. So the chances of your premise reflecting reality in any way is practically zero. All in all, your little tale of doom and gloom for religious freedom sounds a lot like hyperbole to me.

The chances might go up to .1% if you include judges for Supreme Courts in all fifty states, though. I’ll give you that.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at December 12, 2006 8:50 PM
Comment #198963
Evolution is not an explanation of these species and their peculararities. There are of course many, many more that have things about them that evolution has no explanation for.

In order to debate effectively, one must state a thesis then follow up with details in support of said thesis. I’m getting only the first part.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at December 12, 2006 9:00 PM
Comment #198964

The teeth of a rat are designed so the top two front teeth go behind the bottom two teeth, at just the right angle to produce self sharpening teeth. What part of evolution produced that result.

My answer; none. The rat was created by the same God that created man.

Posted by: tomh at December 12, 2006 9:00 PM
Comment #198966
What part of evolution produced that result.

The part that created the self-sharpening teeth through a mutation, then passed that mutation to more and more offspring on as it increased the ability of the offspring to survive.

My answer; none.

Well, you’re wrong.

The rat was created by the same God that created man.

And He used evolution to do it in both cases.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 12, 2006 9:08 PM
Comment #198968
I’m to the point where I believe maybe we should just allow a prayer as long as each religion gets to have their prayer said and the atheist also get to put their 2 cents in.

Okay, say I’m a devout Satanist and I want my prayer time at graduation, too. And it’s gonna be loud. ;)

Maybe if we teach competing views side by side some of these kids would escape from the early religious indoctrination they receive.

Something like that, but not with that hint agenda at the end. The best choice is an informed choice. These subjects can easily be covered in world history and philosophy courses. But then again… we don’t really teach those in public schools, do we? Well, if we did, that’s where it would go. Not science as the Creationists would have us believe.

Speaking of which…

Teaching evolution in the public schools is advocating the religion of “Humanism”. Evolution is by all concerned is a theory. So, why not teach the main theories of how the earth came to be, including Creation by a God who always was, is, and always will be.

Ha! I don’t think Humanism means what you think it means. And I don’t think you understand the word “theory” either. At least not as it applies to science. I don’t see why this is so hard to understand. Evolution is a rigorous theory that has produced and will continue to produce myriad scientific applications. Creationism is a philosophical exercise that may reference scientific understanding but ultimately deals with questions and assumptions that do not apply to the theory of evolution or its applications. Worst of all, Creationism promises no real scientific application. It’s only apparent goal is to undermine the theory of evolution.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at December 12, 2006 9:23 PM
Comment #198969

So, tomh, I’m guessing that your list is put together on the criterion of animals that have adaptations that are amazingly well-suited to the animal’s niche.

Since the Theory of Evolution is the understanding of how natural processes lead to animals adapting to their niches (and this is both well-understood and many times proven), there’s probably nothing on your list that causes any problem for evolution.

Since your argument seems to be that good adaptations are proof of an effective designer, how do you explain all the different adaptations that don’t make much sense? Like our appendix? And the fact that there are four different mutations that provide humans with Lactose tolerance (wouldn’t an efficient designer do the right thing only once)?

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 12, 2006 9:25 PM
Comment #198976

Has anyone considered the fact that lack of experience is what this country may need? Our experienced leaders since the 1980’s have failed us. The Republican presidents have lied, The Democrats have stolen. The defecit was erased on the backs of US veterans, by the Arkansas adulterer and his back door dealing crook of a wife. We need new ideas, even if it’s a little idealistic. This nation is hanging it’s head in shame over the current administration and we look back at the criminals who occupied the white house prior to this idiot. We as a nation need something to look forward to. The problem is there is NO leadership in politics. This Obama kid may fail in the white house but, most people that I talk to would rather have an optimistic failure than another failure who lies to everyone and then expects us to accept it.

Posted by: Daniel H at December 12, 2006 10:04 PM
Comment #198981

Easily the best site I’ve seen on the Creation/Evolution issue is TalkOrigin Archives. Its Index of Creationist Claims, which is frequently updated, catalogs an enormous number of Creationist claims and gives a brief summary of the scientific response, heavily referenced.

Posted by: Trent at December 12, 2006 10:28 PM
Comment #198982

I second Trent’s recommendation. It’s a great site.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 12, 2006 10:29 PM
Comment #198983

If someone wants to proclaim a 6,000 year old earth with everything created then exactly like it is now they go against a Jupiter-sized mountain of scientific evidence. God guided evolution, explaining how conveniently perfect everything is.

On teaching religion in schools the problem is that religious people tend to believe that God has/had/will have a hand in everything, leading to different perpectives on most subjects, mostly science and history. Asking them to leave their beliefs at the door is irrational. Creationism serves as a foundation and guide for evolution.

If atheists/agnostics want theists to go to religious schools while paying for both their children’s education and other kids’ education is wrong. Stubborn Conservative got it right. This is not funding religious classes, this is funding education as the parents want it, as the founding fathers intended it.

Lots of people call themselves Christians but aren’t. To claim that a huge majority of the US are good Christians being oppressed by the far left is ignorant. I would say that a very small percentage of the US actually are accurately practicing Christianity.

I don’t really trust Hillary or Obama. Hillary just strikes me as too partisan and Obama has no track record. He cares about global poverty, that’s good though, far more important than gay marriage, and more important than abortion, though this remains a problem. I think if I got to know him (watch a debate, read something he wrote) I’d probably be more inclined to vote for him than most republicans.

Posted by: Silima at December 12, 2006 10:33 PM
Comment #198985

I would encourage all to research “evolution” from both sides. you will find at best it is a very flawed theory. n.

Posted by: scottie1321


That makes NO SENSE. If the theory were flawed you couldn’t have evolved to write such non-sense. Hummmmppphhh!!

Posted by: muirgeo at December 12, 2006 10:45 PM
Comment #198986

Actually, muirgeo, the Theory of Evolution does have some flaws. It’s not perfect, and not all questions have been answered. Unfortunately, people like scottie take the minor holes and unanswered questions and go nuts with them, exaggerating them into problems that seem to imperil the core of Evolution. Of course, the core of Evolution has been established and proven many, many times over, but scottie and his friends just have a lot of fun with the tiny fringe issues.

The real thing is that scottie would have evolved enough to write his nonsense no matter how well defined the Theory is, because Evolution really happened even if we can’t always say exactly how and why for every little case.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 12, 2006 10:53 PM
Comment #198988

Yeah, I don’t see anything so tough about evolution explaining those critters.

The more detailed (though still flawed) evidence provided by the Creationist camp is usually on the cellular level. But even that is merely lazy research. The ultimate flaw of the Creationist Method: when confronted by something that cannot be easily explained, call it evidence of a creator and call it a day.

For example:

My answer; none. The rat was created by the same God that created man.

Though, it’s really not that hard to explain as evidenced by LawnBoy’s comment. So even when faced with such a simple test, Creationism quits and proclaims conclusion. Well, actually, Creationism is a little more strident than this. But it still makes for a great example.

Meanwhile, real science continues to push the envelope of knowledge and pioneer revolutionary advances in applicable technology. If we want to stay in this game, we’ve got to be realistic. As it is, our public schools aren’t effectively teaching science and motivating students to pursue it. Creationism not only isn’t any semblance of a solution to this, it will actually undermine the goal.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at December 12, 2006 11:00 PM
Comment #198994

This thread is like watching two monkeys fight over a spot on a rock. Funny at first. Boring after a few minutes. Using logical arguments to substantiate your ‘faith’ sort of undermines the value of one’s faith does it not? And on the other side, what makes you think you can use logic and scientific reasoning and data to sway the believers of a faith? Do you like banging your head against bricks?

The far right brown shirts (stated that way in honor of the way that contributors to the Red Column like to use ‘far left’) want to force every one to listen to their proselytizing speeches and proclamations. They won’t be happy until they have every non-Christian, forced by circumstance of living in the USA, listening to their prayers and preaching on a daily basis.

Give it up already. Accept that the equivalent of the Taliban is fighting for control of our country.

Posted by: LibRick at December 12, 2006 11:26 PM
Comment #198996

librick
when a major christian denomination calls for all women to cover themselves head to foot, not go anywhere without a male relative and the execution of anyone who disagrees with their wacko theology, let alone religion, your comparison of my religion with the Taliban will have some credibility.

How about if I say: Give it up already. Accept that the equivalent of the bolsheviks is fighting for control of our country. You would probably (hopefully) disagree rather angrily. Now you now how I feel.

Posted by: Silima at December 12, 2006 11:54 PM
Comment #198997

Mutations are rare and are known to weaken rather than strengthen the species.

“Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event”
F.J. Ayala, “Mechanism of Evolution”, Scientific American, September 1978, p.63

“A proportin of favorable mutations of one in ten thousand does not sound like much, but is probably generous, since so many mutations are lethal, preventing the organism from living at all, and the great majority of the rest throw the machinery slightly out of gear”
Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p.41

“After a greater or lesser number of generations the mutants are eliminated”
G.Ledyard Stebbins, Processes of Organic Evolution(1971) pp.24-25

Julian Huxley said it would take 10 to the 3000 power changes to produce just one horse by evolution.
Julian Huxley, Evolution In Action, p.46

Posted by: tomh at December 12, 2006 11:56 PM
Comment #199002

when a major christian denomination calls for all women to cover themselves head to foot, not go anywhere without a male relative and the execution of anyone who disagrees with their wacko theology,…….

Posted by: Silima

Been there….Done that….NEVER AGAIN….we are the ones who will prevent it…No public prayers in school……GOT IT!!!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Punishing-witches-Laienspiegel.jpg

Posted by: muirgeo at December 13, 2006 12:28 AM
Comment #199003

Earth to blog control… Earth to blog control… come in blog control. We need help getting back on topic.

Hillary vs. Obama, folks!!!!

Posted by: Don at December 13, 2006 12:40 AM
Comment #199007

Well, I will be busy for the next few days but I would like to end with:

Lawnboy tells you not to look at the work of “One Flawed Scientist”.

Critique the messenger first so you don’t look at the message. You will never hear me say “don’t listen to the other side, they are just flawed. Just look at what the guys that support my position say”

I say look at both sides and decide for your self.


Brad Harrub holds an earned B.S. degree in biology from Kentucky Wesleyan College (1993), and an earned Ph.D. (2001) degree in Anatomy and Neurobiology from the University of Tennessee, School of Medicine. Dr. Harrub has received numerous academic honors, including a presidential scholarship, a grant from the Center of Excellence in the Department of Neurobiology, he was listed in Who’s Who among Colleges and Universities, and in 2002-2003 he was listed in the International Who’s Who.

Posted by: scottie1321 at December 13, 2006 1:55 AM
Comment #199009

One more comment;

Lawnboy,

Let the individual reader decide if he if flawed. It is never a good idea to discourage people from looking at ALL the facts.

Posted by: scottie1321 at December 13, 2006 2:02 AM
Comment #199015

I think that to understand the Obamagasm that is going on within the liberal Press, one must read what they are saying. Everyone expects Hillary to be the front runner. In order to prop Hillary up, she needs to beat a credible challenger. She really hasn’t done that in New York after Guilliani dropped out of her previous Senate race due to health issues. Let’s face it, Hillary has only a little more real experience than Obama, unless you want to include baking cookies, picking out place settings, and concealing Rose Law Firm documents in the White House. The Press must, therefore, present Hillary with some healthy competition, but not anyone with real experience in the number two position that might overshadow her. This will give her more credibility as a candidate. It’s pretty plain and simple!!

JD

Posted by: JD at December 13, 2006 2:30 AM
Comment #199017

Ahh one more thing! Lawnboy! I’m adding to your quote:

Unfortunately for your argument, science is not religion. It doesn’t matter how many people “believe” that Evolution is flawed science, because science works through strict intellectual processesdone by millions of different men with different points of view that often disagree with each other even on things we have believed for 300 years. The validity of Evolution has been demonstrated repeatedly in thousands of different ways in hundreds of different disciplines according to the principles of science.

If you believe that all the scientific evidence for evolution all lined up in perfect little rows you do need to do some research. Even the top scientist know and recognize that evolutionary science is far from complete and has many “problems” scientist are still trying to answer. Maybe they will find someday that you were right and I was wrong. Maybe the opposite. Who knows?
But as of now what we know of evolution comes from absolutely no written record (as life wasn’t intelligent enough yet), digging in the dirt, Looking at artifacts, reconstructing from partial skeletons.


Here are some articles on some of the flaws in evolution that scientist are still actively trying to solve and some evidences that have been faked over the years to try to prove evolution.Every thing is fully sourced and published (not just stuff on the net)

And don’t people be tellin’ other people whether or not to read somethin’ or not. It ain’t good manners.

Posted by: scottie1321 at December 13, 2006 2:36 AM
Comment #199020

LibRick


Just go ahead and tell me that the human brain which has a processing capacity of 100 trillion instructions per second wikipedia
and is faster and more efficient and way longer lasting than any computer that man has ever built fell together by accident and did not have some kind of “designer”. Now give me evidence!

Posted by: scottie1321 at December 13, 2006 2:50 AM
Comment #199021

Even the smartest of all only use about 10% of all brain ability ( same wikipedia article) and we think we know everything about the universe when we only went to the moon 40 years ago. For those of you who think we humans are so smart, we have been around for at the least 6-10,000 years, at the mots millions, and we only came up with the internet in the last 15 years. We have all the answers, we do.

Posted by: scottie1321 at December 13, 2006 2:56 AM
Comment #199023

And you ain’t heard me once puttin’ down your sources so don”t be puttin’ down mine!

Good Night. See ya next week!

Posted by: scottie1321 at December 13, 2006 3:08 AM
Comment #199026

Hillary will not run. She has too much baggage. Most people who run for president don’t have even one national scandal to their name. She starts out with a bag full. Add to that what ever gets dug up by both sides in the primary and then the general election. She will be beat by the far left, attacked by her primary opponents, then it will all come back in the general election. I think it stinks but it will happen.

We had better pick a candidate like Dick Ghephart next time. He could have easily won the last election. Those primary voters made a grave mistake for us when they didn’t chose Ghephardt.

You guys on this evolution thing.
I am medical doctor. I also have a major in Oceanography. I studied evolution for years. When I started out in college I was out to prove mom and dad’s belief in God was crazy and that evolution was going to turn them around.

I studied evolution/creation for years. Here are my conclusions.

There is enough evidence to continue looking at evolution as a viable theory. Although one must recognize that this kind of evidence is not like the definite concrete evidence you would find in a court of law. It is fragments and pieces put together to try and fill in a picture of what happened a long time ago. Many many pieces are missing. But we have enough evidence to say this could be possible and to continue research as we do today. Just the fact that research goes on all over the world shows we are still trying to put together the peices.

There are also enough problems that we have not answered. Some of them make it very difficult to put the pieces together as we currently understand evolution. Folks, in 50 years we may be saying that the universe is only 20,000 years old and it did happen by evolution. The estimated age of the earth is a debate that runs all over the map. I read recently of some prominent scientist looking into the big bang happening only 20,000 years ago.


On creation. There is scientific evidence that seems to conflict with many “god” stories. There is also quite a bit of scientific fact that does not at all conflict with a divine creator. Still there is a lot we don’t know.

In conclusion. Some of you want to make this a science versus religion argument. It probably would not be a good idea to mix religion with biology. However alot of the evidence for evolution in our textbooks that stands on real shaky foundations should also not enter into our children’s learning experience. And there is quite a bit of that still in our textbooks.

Where the world came from should be taught in History, not science. Evolution is a science but ‘evolution vs creation’ is a discussion in history and both sides of the issue and the flaws on both sides should be discussed.

Why anyone would be so afraid as to not let our children see both sides this issue is beyond me. You can believe they are smart enough to handle it.

Posted by: grandma at December 13, 2006 4:17 AM
Comment #199028

I disagree with Outside Reports comment that “Obama has not been able to make a crack in the polls”.

While it is true that he trails Hillary by about 20%, he is tied with Al Gore and ahead of everybody else. Not bad for a guy whom almost no one had heard of 2 1/2 years ago.

He has plenty of time left to catch up with Hillary (or, for that matter, fall behind). 2 years is an eternity in politics.

Posted by: Woody Mena at December 13, 2006 5:39 AM
Comment #199030

Oops, I guess he has more like 12-14 mos, not 2 years. But that is still a loooong time.

Posted by: Woody Mena at December 13, 2006 6:11 AM
Comment #199031
Even the smartest of all only use about 10% of all brain ability ( same wikipedia article) and we think we know everything about the universe when we only went to the moon 40 years ago. For those of you who think we humans are so smart, we have been around for at the least 6-10,000 years, at the mots millions, and we only came up with the internet in the last 15 years. We have all the answers, we do.

You won’t find any scientist anywhere who says we know everything about the universe. If a “scientist” tells you we know everything about the universe, he’s selling you something. A boring universe is one small enough to fully explore and fully understand. We do not live in a boring universe.

Are there gaps in evolution theory? Sure. Just as there are gaps in gravity theory. Every scientific theory has gaps. Gaps do not discount a theory, though. Evidence contrary to predictive modeling doesn’t even discount a theory as long as it can provide predictive value in a majority of other cases. Again, see Newtonian gravity. It wasn’t until Einstein that we had a model for gravity that could accurately predict observed phenomenon that we could not with Newtonian gravity. And even that breaks down at the subatomic level. So what do we do about teaching gravity to students?

The only reason the radical religious right wants to “challenge” evolution is because they feel it “challenges” their concepts of the origins and development of man. It may, but that isn’t in the agenda. The only agenda evolution has is, like every branch of science, to expand our understanding of the universe.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at December 13, 2006 8:11 AM
Comment #199033
Mutations are rare and are known to weaken rather than strengthen the species.

tomh, wrong again. Mutations are commons and are often neither helpful or harmful. Sometimes they are very harmful, to the point of causing miscarriage. Sometimes they are very helpful, like the mutation that enables lactose tolerance.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 13, 2006 8:34 AM
Comment #199039

scottie,

If you believe that all the scientific evidence for evolution all lined up in perfect little rows you do need to do some research.

I don’t believe that; see my comment at December 12, 2006 10:53 PM. Joseph’s comment at 08:11 AM about the gaps in the Theory of Evolution is spot-on.

And don’t people be tellin’ other people whether or not to read somethin’ or not. It ain’t good manners.

I didn’t think I was doing that. I was asking you and others to actually look at the Science of the matter instead of focusing on a few fringe crackpots that have been repeatedly discredited.

Critique the messenger first so you don’t look at the message.

scottie, the meaning of critique the message instead of the messenger means I should should critique what you say, not who you are. It doesn’t prevent me from pointing out the flaws when you use an invalid appeal to authority and you pick a really bad authority. But here’s another example of the how bad the pseudoscience is that Harrub peddles.

Just go ahead and tell me that the human brain…fell together by accident and did not have some kind of “designer”. Now give me evidence!

Do a Google search on “Evolution of the brain”; you’ll get plenty of evidence. Here’s the first link from my search.

Your argument using the complexity of the brain has two fatal flaws:

  • This is an argument from incredulity. Complexity only indicates that something is difficult to understand, not that it is difficult to evolve. Evolution, unlike design, is not constrained by requirements for simplicity.
  • Brains come in many different sizes. The sea slug (Aplysia), for example, has only about 20,000 neurons in its entire nervous system. Coelenterates have an even simpler nervous system consisting of a nerve net and nothing even close to a brain. There are innumerable intermediate forms of brains between humans and brainless animals; gradual evolution of the brain presents no challenge.
Posted by: LawnBoy at December 13, 2006 8:55 AM
Comment #199042

Lawnboy,

No offence meant, but there are those out there that can not, or will not listen to logic, because it is must easier to not have to think about it.

Their book has all the answers they desire, and the more evidence you cite, the more they will cling to that book, and it’s easy answers.

That’s not to say that you are wasting your time.

I, for one, enjoy your posts.

Then again we are cognisant of a broader, more infinite, dare I say, diverse, universe.

Posted by: Rocky at December 13, 2006 9:51 AM
Comment #199043

Rocky,

I know you’re very likely right. However, in my responses to tomh and scottie, I’m writing not just to them, but also to other people that are reading this. I don’t like the misinformation that they present, and I’m just trying to do my part not to let harmful and uninformed blather go unchallenged, leaving casual readers with the mistaken impression that their points have validity.

It’s a fool’s errand, of course, but it’s not as painful as some of previous debates. Whatever happened to that guy, anyway?

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 13, 2006 10:03 AM
Comment #199045
You will never hear me say “don’t listen to the other side, they are just flawed. Just look at what the guys that support my position say”
Let the individual reader decide if he if flawed. It is never a good idea to discourage people from looking at ALL the facts.
And don’t people be tellin’ other people whether or not to read somethin’ or not. It ain’t good manners.

I didn’t understand why you were attributing these ideas to me, but I re-read my earlier comments and now understand.

When I wrote Don’t look at the work of one flawed scientist - actually look at immense evidence, I wasn’t clear. It should have been Don’t look only at the work of one flawed scientist - actually look at immense evidence.

I didn’t mean to tell anyone not to look at him, however flawed his logic is. I meant to encourage you and other readers to look beyond that one guy at the rest of the overwhelming scientific evidence. When you look at the actual science of the issue, you will find that Harrub’s claims are easily debunked.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 13, 2006 10:13 AM
Comment #199047

Lawnboy,

He possibly went into information overload?
I don’t think he found enough support for his rantings, and went somewhere else.
Anyway, I do enjoy the banter here, and hope it continues.

Today is moving day for me, so this probably my last post till tonight.

Joseph Briggs,

Please don’t feel slighted, I feel the same about your posts as well.

Posted by: Rocky at December 13, 2006 10:17 AM
Comment #199049

Good luck with the move, Rocky!

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 13, 2006 10:24 AM
Comment #199050

Thanks, I’m going to need it.

Posted by: Rocky at December 13, 2006 10:36 AM
Comment #199051
Joseph Briggs,

Please don’t feel slighted, I feel the same about your posts as well.

Heh. None felt, and thanks. And I post for the same reasons as LawnBoy.

Have fun with the move! :)

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at December 13, 2006 10:42 AM
Comment #199066

Rocky and Lawnboy,

Generally by this point in the thread, not too many are still here so it iwll be difficult to::

“I don’t like the misinformation that they present, and I’m just trying to do my part not to let harmful and uninformed blather go unchallenged, leaving casual readers with the mistaken impression that their points have validity.”


I know you don’t like the info I give out. But you would do well to let the reader decide if it is “harmful”, “uninformed blather” and whether the points “have validity” But that is a distinctly far left attitude.


Again, you will never hear me tell people that your links are “Harmful uninformed blather”. I am confident enough in “the reader” to let him or her decide for themselves. I currently own my third business in my short 38 year life. And I have come to a great conclusion.

People are not stupid and give them both sides of an issue, they can make a decision on their own.
You have said things like :

“I don’t think he found enough support for his rantings, and went somewhere else.”

You can look at all my past post and you will never find me using these tactics.

Actually if you had looked you would have found that Dr. Harrub is not just some crazy scientist who has his small little spot in science.

Any one can research just a little and find he is joined by a rather smart and numerous group of well respected scientist that are challenging the information that we gathered and pieced together over the last 80 years. They don’t just have a few “Blatherings” They have instance after instance of conclusions that the scientific community has gathered that just really does’nt fit together.

You see at one time not too long ago, not but a blink of the eye in human history, the current scientific understanding was that the world was flat. Science had to revisit that theory when they got more info.

If one does just some simple research, using my link, your links to start, or their own Google, one will find that this questioning of our past conclusions is very mainstream in the scientific community. I know you call it “blathering”.

I dont use that tactic with your sources.


If your information is so superior, and mine is so “blathering”, Then why are you guys worried.:

” just trying to do my part not to let harmful and uninformed blather go unchallenged, leaving casual readers with the mistaken impression that their points have validity.”

If my information is so easily debunked then shouldn’t I be the one that is worried and shouldn’t I be the one trying to label your info before the reader goes there on there own?


You again make my point.
ByE

Posted by: grandma at December 13, 2006 1:03 PM
Comment #199070
I know you don’t like the info I give out. But you would do well to let the reader decide if it is “harmful”, “uninformed blather” and whether the points “have validity”

I do hope the reader decides such things, but it’s also true that the reader will have no hope of making an informed choice if the only input is wrong. It’s the whole “Garbage In - Garbage Out” principle - if the only concepts discussed are inaccurate, then how on earth could the reader know what to consider correct?

Again, you will never hear me tell people that your links are “Harmful uninformed blather”.
So perhaps you’re more polite than I am. That doesn’t mean your arguments are any more accurate or valid.
People are not stupid and give them both sides of an issue, they can make a decision on their own.

Which is exactly what I’m trying to do.

You have said things like:

“I don’t think he found enough support for his rantings, and went somewhere else.”

We were talking about another conversation on another day, and an individual who we both know. We weren’t talking about you.

Actually if you had looked you would have found that Dr. Harrub is not just some crazy scientist who has his small little spot in science.

I have looked, and he’s very much wrong. I’ve presented two examples of his error. That you want him to be right doesn’t mean that he is. His statements are wildly inaccurate when compared to those of experts in the actual fields involved.

Any one can research just a little and find he is joined by a rather smart and numerous group of well respected scientist that are challenging the information that we gathered and pieced together over the last 80 years.

And if you follow the links Trent provided earlier, you will see that their claims are inaccurate and easily debunked.

They have instance after instance of conclusions that the scientific community has gathered that just really does’nt fit together.

Not really. What they have are instance after instance of taking facts out of context to support points that are insupportable. They take tiny corner cases and exaggerate the meaning. They take single findings from long ago that have since been discredited and present them as current research. They take a desired conclusion and coerce the evidence around it.

In short, they very rarely are using actual science.

You see at one time not too long ago, not but a blink of the eye in human history, the current scientific understanding was that the world was flat. Science had to revisit that theory when they got more info.

Yes, we fortunately got to the point in human understanding that we no longer allowed a particular religious belief to use political and religious pressure to suppress information and evidence from the real world around us. That was a good thing.

If one does just some simple research, using my link, your links to start, or their own Google, one will find that this questioning of our past conclusions is very mainstream in the scientific community. I know you call it “blathering”.

Grandma, you haven’t provided any links, so it’s hard for me to use that. Anyway, the presence of many people wanting to deny the result of scientific inquiry does not invalidate those results.

If my information is so easily debunked then shouldn’t I be the one that is worried and shouldn’t I be the one trying to label your info before the reader goes there on there own?

In terms of having actual science follow the course of true scientific debate, I’m not worried at all. What I’m worried about is non-experts using political pressure to support a religious belief at the expense of future scientific education. Since that pressure has nothing at all to do with logic based on evidence, I have great reason to be worried, despite the fact that Creationism has no scientific validity.

I’m not sure why you focus on my labeling the opposing argument. If Creationism had any scientific validity, then you should be able to support your arguments no matter what I think of it. However, since you resort to complain about my disagreeing with you instead of trying to defend your ideas, I think you know how weak your arguments are.

Again, please look at the Index of Creationist Claims to see that many of the arguments you find so convincing are really just pseudoscience.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 13, 2006 1:55 PM
Comment #199071

grandma,

Another thing - anti-evolutionists have presented very few actual arguments here to support their claim. However, when they have, we have been able to refute those arguments very easily.

If your complaint is that I’m not addressing your scientific arguments in this debate, the reason is that you guys really haven’t even tried. I’ve read your two comments, and there are no actual claims at all.

Present your reasons for thinking that creationism is scientifically valid, and we’ll point out the scientific flaws.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 13, 2006 2:01 PM
Comment #199077

“The only reason the radical religious right wants to ‘challenge’ evolution is because they feel it ‘challenges’ their concepts of the origins and development of man.”

they may feel that it does, but it does not. i believe evolution to be true, and likely always will. the evidence for dwarfs the shoddy evidence against. i have heard from several religious people that they see no conflict between science and religion (granted, not the majority, but a significant number).

the reason i think many challenge the theory of evolution is because they see some supporters of the theory as trying to use it to confute their religious beliefs. i must say, some of your comments leave that impression.

you do not need to understand how a person can believe in both, simultaneously, in order to respect their beliefs.

“Their book has all the answers they desire, and the more evidence you cite, the more they will cling to that book, and it’s easy answers.”

it is not necessarily an either/or choice.
you need not cleave them from their religion to convince them of the validity of evolution. the more you try, the more they will see *this* as your ultimate goal, rather than affirming evolution.

i would focus on convincing them that such a seemingly diametric view is indeed possible, and not invalid.

here’s an example i heard somewhere, went something like this…

God is all powerful, and he could have easily created man, the world, and the universe (perhaps even exactly as described in the bible), and *then* created the backdrop which is evolution.

thus, evolution is a very real creation of God.

my point: your arguments, you claim, are to convince people of the validity of evolution… yet, one need not first ‘debunk’ the bible in order to achieve this goal.

Posted by: Diogenes at December 13, 2006 2:19 PM
Comment #199079
my point: your arguments, you claim, are to convince people of the validity of evolution… yet, one need not first ‘debunk’ the bible in order to achieve this goal.

Diogenes,

I personally have no interest in trying to debunk the Bible when defending Science and Evolution. And for the many Christians that have decided that the inherent worth of the Bible does not require an adherence to a literal reading of Scripture, I have no problem whatsoever. I also have no problem with those that believe that the Bible is literally true, but acknowledge that the Bible isn’t a valid scientific text to be used in science education.

I run into problems with the remaining group; those that believe that the Bible must be interpreted as literally true, and therefore will claim as false any contrary evidence and observations from the real world. It’s those that want to tear down the successes that science has come up with that I argue with.

For those people that want to prove that science is wrong because it contradicts the Bible, what option do I have if I want to defend scientific inquiry? How should we defend inaccurate claims about Evolution if some people will interpret that as an attack on their religious beliefs?

At no point have I been trying to attack anyone’s religious beliefs; I’ve been trying to rebut pseudoscience and inaccuracy. It’s not my fault that they interpret that as debunking the Bible, but it has become my problem. What should we do about it?

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 13, 2006 2:28 PM
Comment #199080

Grandma,

Most of the criticisms of evolution ARE easily debunked. If you truly are interested, this site does an admirable job of debunking.

This does not mean that scientists do not debate specific aspects of evolution. Although simple in its basics, the theory involves lots of arcane data and evidence that is not simple to understand. These debates can be very fustrating. A creationist can cite a criticism of radiocarbon dating, for example. Then the defender of evolution has to discuss radiocarbon data, explain it to people who do not know much about it, and then explain why sometimes there may be anomolous results and how science determines their causes. While he is doing that, the creationist claims that the human eye, with all its intricate parts, could not have evolved because it needs each of those parts to work. It has irreducible complexity, he claims. So then the scientist has to explain that these individual parts had uses other than the specific uses they eventually had as part of the human eye. He has to cite examples of these parts existing already in the animal kingdom that are not a part of an “eye” structure. Then the creationist claims there is not enough or too much helium in the atmosphere if the planet is billions of years old. So the scientist has to discuss that. If you’ve ever been to a debate between creationists and evolutionists, that’s what is often like. The creationist raises a host of issues and if the scientist is not an expert in a particular one, the creationist scores a point. And when you consider that the public and policy makers are generally not scientists, the whole thing is extremely frustrating.

A scientist has to explain the difference between micro-evolution (which most Creationists accept) and macro-evolution (which they don’t), and then explain how the mechanisms that work in micro-evolution are the same ones that work in macro-evolution. We see micro-evolution all the time; species change according to environment, mating opportunities, etc., etc. Google “micro-evolution” for examples.

A scientist also has to explain what he means by theory. In the popular conception, it’s equivalent to a guess. In science, a theory is a hypothesis that has withstood rigorous testing and examination. It is a not a guess; it is the best available explanation for the evidence. It is not written in stone; theories are overturn when better explanations arise. Creationists often use the public’s misunderstanding of the word theory to their advantage — when they say, we should teach all competing theories, as if Creationism is a theory. It’s not a theory, because it hasn’t survived rigorous testing.

Now, the typical method used by Creationists is to try to poke holes in evolutionary theory. Even if Creationists succeeded in completely debunking evolution, that would not prove Creationism — all it would do is say we need a better theory. Creationism, if it is to be accepted as a serious theory, has to stand on its own merits. It does not follow if evolutionary theory is not an adequate explanation of the evidence that Creationism is. This is another tactic of Creationists: the presumption that if evolution fails that Creationism necessarily is the answer.

When we debate this isssue, what we often are really talking about is science education in schools. Unless Creationism can survive rigorous scientific questioning on its own merits, it has no place in the science classroom. Note that I said science classroom. There are other academic settings where discussion of Creationism could be perfectly valid.

If you look at Creationism (or in its newer incarnation, Intelligent Design), it is not hard to see the agenda at work. Proponents are generally people who wish to get religion into public schools.

This is a debate that puzzles me very much, because of course there is nothing in evolutionary theory that challenges the existence of God. Things work through natural laws, but science makes no claims about who or what established these natural laws. The Catholic Church now recognizes the strength of the theory of evolution.

It is the job of Creationists to substantiate their theory. Picking at evolution does not substantiate Creationism.

Creationists are a subset of religious folk. Many have no problem in believing that God works through natural processes.

But some insist on a literal reading of the creation account in Genesis. This has its own problems, because which creation account to you go by? Genesis contains in the first few pages two contradictory creation accounts — the one at the beginning of Genesis and the Adam and Eve story. How they contradict has been commented upon for many centuries.

Posted by: Trent at December 13, 2006 2:42 PM
Comment #199083

Sorry folks. I was just hoping Dana would respond to my simple question but unfortunately that has not happened. Like many of the posts on the red side of the blog (yes, it happens on the blue side too), someone posts something that’s important but just doesn’t make sense.

In this case, it was Dana’s complaint that the left is somehow infringing on her “right to practice religion” that I asked about. But she has not returned to explain that.

She could have meant anything by this, but I was focused on the impression that there was a personal aspect to this. The image in my mind is that there is some leftist government official somewhere who is dragging her kicking and screaming from a church pew while she was down on her knees with her rosaries.

But then it all turns into a religion v. science battle.

Merry Christmas
Happy Channukah
Happy Festivus
Happy Kwanzaa
Happy Winter Solstice

Posted by: Steve K at December 13, 2006 3:08 PM
Comment #199085

lawnboy,

don’t get me wrong…i think yall are doing a fine job, by and large. it is a difficult task, as trent suggests, to refute these creationists without causing collateral damage to those who believe their points, but in a different context… i.e., that they do not invariably conflict with the theory of evolution.

my intention was to remind you that there are those out there who might feel slighted if/when you go to far, who would otherwise feel compelled to agree with you… and as someone mentioned, it is those very people to whom you really direct your arguments. my intent was only to ensure that you keep this in mind… unfortunately, i’ve got no easy answer for “what should we do.”

…were it my choice, i would say let them teach whatever they want in their schools - that is, in these communities where the vast majority of people believe in creationism… let them make their own mistakes. when no college will accept these students, when no company will hire them, because their sole explanation for how the world works is akin to “God makes it happen,” the problem will solve itself… they will eventually ‘evolve,’ so to speak.

their is no constitutional guarantee of education… leave it to the states/localities. i know, that’s my answer for just about everything, my one-note tune… but consider it. evolution is the keystone of american democracy; have some faith in your own theory.

:)

Posted by: Diogenes at December 13, 2006 3:12 PM
Comment #199086
“The only reason the radical religious right wants to ‘challenge’ evolution is because they feel it ‘challenges’ their concepts of the origins and development of man.”

[…] the reason i think many challenge the theory of evolution is because they see some supporters of the theory as trying to use it to confute their religious beliefs. i must say, some of your comments leave that impression.

I’m not a biology teacher and I don’t control public school science curriculum. Furthermore, whether or not I wish to prove religion false is irrelevant to the argument. The argument is about whether or not Creationism should be taught in science class. Conflating my personal opinion of religion with my support of evolution is an ad hom as it has no logical bearing on the discussion and is meant to divert the issue into an argument about me.

I may indulge in accusing Creationism proponents of an agenda as well, but at least I state this as a conclusion after detailing why the argument to include Creationism in the science curriculum has no merit, i.e. since Creationism has no scientific merit, there can be no educational or scientific impetus to push for inclusion, therefore the agenda must be of another sort and given the religious activist tenor of Creationist proponents, I can deduce the agenda may be religious in nature. On the other hand, accusing me (or any proponent of keeping Creationism out of science class) of an agenda at the front end, i.e. why they see the need to challenge evolution, does not address the issue: why should Creationism be included in science class?

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at December 13, 2006 3:12 PM
Comment #199088

Happy Festivus to you Steve,

I think the personal grievances has gone well, now on to the feats of strength.

Posted by: andy at December 13, 2006 3:19 PM
Comment #199090

“…whether or not I wish to prove religion false is irrelevant to the argument…Conflating my personal opinion of religion with my support of evolution is an ad hom as it has no logical bearing on the discussion and is meant to divert the issue into an argument about me.”

…and the truth is exposed. this is not an ad hominem attack - it’s not an attack on your character, but rather a (apparently correct) supposition of your intentions… and it has *everything* to do with the argument, and you.

you claim to be defending the theory of evolution, when in fact your primary purpose is clearly to dismantle religion.

it is not enough for a person to recognize evolution, for you - you won’t rest until they agree with you that God has no place in the equation (and doesn’t exist?). that’s how you come off, at any rate.

this is what many suspect you of, and likely, why they refuse to listen. your ultimate intention is to disprove their religious beliefs. they recognize this. if you can’t see that, then you have no chance of convincing anyone of anything.

“I may indulge in accusing Creationism proponents of an agenda as well…I can deduce the agenda may be religious in nature. On the other hand, accusing me (or any proponent of keeping Creationism out of science class) of an agenda at the front end…”

so it is perfectly legit for you to deduce their hidden agenda (your ‘pseudo-ad-hom’), but entirely unfair for them to do the same? hypocrisy.

Posted by: Diogenes at December 13, 2006 3:31 PM
Comment #199091
You see at one time not too long ago, not but a blink of the eye in human history, the current scientific understanding was that the world was flat. Science had to revisit that theory when they got more info.

I just need to point out that this isn’t true. It may very well have been a common misconception among laymen and crackpots but most scientists of old (as early as 340 BCE) knew the Earth was round based on very simple observations (the height of constellations above the horizon at various latitudes, the Earth’s shadow on the Moon, etc.). The belief that the Earth was flat was more of a mythical concept than a scientific understanding.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at December 13, 2006 3:32 PM
Comment #199093
…and the truth is exposed. this is not an ad hominem attack - it’s not an attack on your character, but rather a (apparently correct) supposition of your intentions… and it has *everything* to do with the argument, and you.

And ad hom need not be an attack on character; that is merely a common incarnation. An ad hom is any attempt to divert the argument away from the issue and toward aspects of the other debater. An attempt to frame the issue of why Creationism should be taught in school as a matter of what my personal agenda is is an ad hom for the reasons I noted in my previous comment.

you won’t rest until they agree with you that God has no place in the equation (and doesn’t exist?)

That definitely has nothing to do with why I disapprove of teaching Creationism in science class. (And it isn’t one of my goals, either.)

your ultimate intention is to disprove their religious beliefs.

Again, my “ultimate intentions” have no relevance on why I support teaching evolution and disapprove of teaching Creationism in science class. Bringing them up is a diversion. If you can’t see that then you have no chance of mustering a real counter-argument.

so it is perfectly legit for you to deduce their hidden agenda (your ‘pseudo-ad-hom’), but entirely unfair for them to do the same? hypocrisy.

No. As I said, I am stating this as a conclusion, after argumentation. I do not use my accusation as a reason why Creationism should not be taught in science class.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at December 13, 2006 3:42 PM
Comment #199095

ok, perhaps it was ad hominem when considering the argument you are attempting to make. it is the center piece, however, of my own argument.

i am not arguing the virtues of creationism nor evolution with you. that should have been quite clear. it is, therefore, you doing the conflating - my argument with your own. i am arguing that you will convince no one of your beliefs if you do not respect their own.

you dismiss this point and return to your own argument, where my point, you claim, is irrelevant. if it is so irrelevant, why then do you insist on knowing and using *their* ultimate intentions as proof against them?

“As I said, I am stating this as a conclusion, after argumentation. I do not use my accusation as a reason why Creationism should not be taught in science class. “

yes, in fact you are. in mentioning it, even after the fact, you suggest that their intention is an important aspect of the debate, and thus you provide an invitation for them to do the same.

if you want intent removed from the debate, do not use it to support your position, nor bolster your own convictions, even after the fact. this is hypocritical.

“and for these reasons, the other party is wrong. (on a side note, they’re dumb for thinking that).”

yet you expect an objective reader to disregard the ‘after the fact’ comment in their considerations?

Posted by: Diogenes at December 13, 2006 4:02 PM
Comment #199096

Diogenes,

Where did you get your final quote: “and for these reasons, the other party is wrong. (on a side note, they’re dumb for thinking that)”?

I don’t see it in anyone else’s comments.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 13, 2006 4:10 PM
Comment #199097

“Again, my ‘ultimate intentions’ have no relevance on why I support teaching evolution and disapprove of teaching Creationism in science class. Bringing them up is a diversion. If you can’t see that then you have no chance of mustering a real counter-argument.”

my counter-argument, were i to register one, would follow along the lines of my aforementioned point. the constitution does not state that education is a right, nor that it be administered independently of religion. you state that creationism is not science, and should therefore not be taught in schools as such.

let me say first, that i agree. but it does not matter. they disagree. there is nothing which legally prevents them from doing so. you would deny them federal funding at institutions which choose to do so, based on the premise that providing said funding somehow makes the institution a branch of the government… and of course, religion has no place in government.

churches receive tax breaks. does that mean they are federally funded? does that mean they should not be allowed to teach religion?

you see where the theory falls apart then.

lawnboy,

“I don’t see it in anyone else’s comments.”

it was meant to illustrate my point. you cannot make after the fact claims, then suggest they are not part of the debate. the debate is ongoing.


Posted by: Diogenes at December 13, 2006 4:17 PM
Comment #199098

Diogenes,

Gotcha.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 13, 2006 4:21 PM
Comment #199107
it is, therefore, you doing the conflating - my argument with your own.

No. If you look back on what I quoted from you…

the reason i think many challenge the theory of evolution is because they see some supporters of the theory as trying to use it to confute their religious beliefs.

… it should be clear that I addressed this point directly and not your speculations on my motivations. In other words, given your premise that Creationist activists see evolution as a challenge to their beliefs and are therefore pushing for Creationism in science class (the issue at hand) that this would be an ad hom, and as such irrelevant to the debate.

I do not use my accusation as a reason why Creationism should not be taught in science class.

yes, in fact you are. in mentioning it, even after the fact, you suggest that their intention is an important aspect of the debate, and thus you provide an invitation for them to do the same.

No, in fact, I’m not. I do not say because of the underlying Creationist agenda, we should not teach Creationism in science. It is not stated in support of my position, it is stated as an observation which logically follows the arguments already presented.

Also, I would be happy to see how you could form a conclusion where it logically follows that I am only supporting teaching evolution and not teaching Creationism because of an anti-theist agenda given the arguments I’ve presented in this thread.

“and for these reasons, the other party is wrong. (on a side note, they’re dumb for thinking that).”

yet you expect an objective reader to disregard the ‘after the fact’ comment in their considerations?

Your example is flawed. The “dumb” insult is tacked on and does not logically follow. I made it very clear how my conclusion logically follows the points of my argument.

Honestly, I don’t really care if I convince anyone of anything. If someone reads my arguments but discounts them because they suspect me of a hidden agenda, or simply for being an ass about it, then that is their own character flaw, not mine. I will readily admit that I can be an ass much of the time, but being an ass isn’t against the commenting guidelines. And it has no bearing on the validity of my arguments.

So are you gonna keep focusing on me or what?

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at December 13, 2006 5:20 PM
Comment #199114

Rocky:

“I would venture a guess then, tha there is no escaping fascism, no matter where you go, or what you believe.”

Correct. People should spread their ideas and belief with words, not with the sword.

Posted by: stubborn conservative at December 13, 2006 5:43 PM
Comment #199120

“If you look back on what I quoted… it should be clear that I addressed this point directly and not your speculations on my motivations. In other words, given your premise that Creationist activists see evolution as a challenge to their beliefs and are therefore pushing for Creationism in science class (the issue at hand) that this would be an ad hom, and as such irrelevant to the debate. ” …you

“the reason i think many challenge the theory of evolution is because they see some supporters of the theory as trying to use it to confute their religious beliefs.” …me


ad hom? this *was* my point. not an attack. an observation.

again, i was not arguing about the relevance of such a point in the debate, only that it has some because you made it so by disrespecting the beliefs of those who you would ostensibly be trying to persuade. do you really wish to continue arguing about what the argument was? this is ridiculous.

i tell you what, i already conceded that it was ad hominem in relation to the creationism as science debate (twice now, i think) - but not my own argument… but call it what you want. it matters because you made it matter.

“Your example is flawed. The ‘dumb’ insult is tacked on and does not logically follow. I made it very clear how my conclusion logically follows the points of my argument.”

flawed or not, anything you say in a debate is thusly acknowledged *by you* as a part of the debate. whether it is a logical conclusion, as you suggest, or not.

this shifts the argument to whether it *is* in fact a logical conclusion… as we see. thus becoming, as i keep telling you, part of the debate… which is *your own doing*!!

you suggest that their intentions are malevolent, as a logical conclusion of your argument… now you’ve brought intentions into the debate, and now they get to question your own.

(by the way; i see you ignored my counter-argument in favor of this new, unrelated argument - whether or not i know what i was arguing. confusing and pointless.)

“Also, I would be happy to see how you could form a conclusion where it logically follows that I am only supporting teaching evolution and not teaching Creationism because of an anti-theist agenda… “

for such an argument as this, the burden of proof is on yourself. you have demonstrated contempt for religion… all those who favor religion will thusly call into question your assertions based solely on this premise alone… fair or not. you do not get to decide what a reader considers pertinent.

and you may be as rude as you wish… but if you don’t care about convincing anyone of anything, then you are wasting *your* time, as well as *mine* (and all those who bother to read our drivel)… which also makes me wonder why you bother posting at all…

“So are you gonna keep focusing on me or what? “

so long as you insist on keeping the focus there… or until i get bored.

Posted by: Diogenes at December 13, 2006 6:18 PM
Comment #199121

In a statement above I quoted proponents of evolution to state that the items in question were in error.

Evolution is a theory. That means it is just some beliefs that some people use some standard, real or unreal, to come to a conclusion. Absolute facts are generally absent. Remember, these are only thoughts based on other people writings or a standard imposed to support their beliefs.

Diogenes is correct that far too often the opposition to Creationist thinking is trying to debunk God and not the way Creationist think or the reason they think that way. There are many people in the many streams of science that do not agree on some of the basic arguments as well as the more complex issues. To consider the Creationists view as non-scientific is an error. There is much in the Creationists view that science has confirmed. There are some basic facts that are almost impossible to call anything but historical facts. For instance. There is no written text older that about 6,000 years. That is basic fact. Science does not even try to say that the written text exists before 6,000 years. Then the questions on both sides of the issue is why is there no written text before 6,000 years. There would be all kinds of responses, but at least it would be examined and some ideas would have to be thrown out for their obvious fallacy, while others could be examined further. That is the purpose of reasearch.

This subject is extremely hard to cover at a site like this because both sides have far too much to put in text than can be done in a manner that is benefical to all.

Posted by: tomh at December 13, 2006 6:26 PM
Comment #199122

Don’t forget that both Galileo and Copernicus were in deep trouble with the Christian church and faced imprisonment and death for trying to prove that the Earth revolved around the Sun!

Now the philosophical decendents of those blind to science, lo, so many years ago, want to intrude upon science again and control what is being discovered. Indeed, they once again insist on forcefully educating the public on their belief system instead of good scientific discovery.

We will, good people of Earth, all come to realize and accept science’s best information over the long haul.

My, how little things have changed in a few hundred years!

Posted by: LibRick at December 13, 2006 6:29 PM
Comment #199123
ad hom? this *was* my point. not an attack. an observation.

Sorry, I just cannot parse what you mean from this.

i was not arguing about the relevance of such a point in the debate, only that it has some because you made it so by disrespecting the beliefs of those who you would ostensibly be trying to persuade.

I’ve let this go, on principle, since I have in the past been quite annoyingly confrontational regarding religion. But I would like you to point to one comment from me in this thread that is disrespectful of religion. What was it that I said in this thread that set you off on this tangent?

Also, I’ve said that I’m not trying to persuade anyone. My factual assertions stand on their own. Who I am and what my motivations are are irrelevant to the issue.

And again, it really doesn’t matter how disrespectful of religion I’ve been in the past given that the issue at hand is whether or not to teach Creationism in science class and how I feel about religion has no bearing on anything within the scope of this issue.

do you really wish to continue arguing about what the argument was?

Until you get it right. I know what the argument was and I stayed focused on that. I can’t help it that you went off on a tangent about me.

(by the way; i see you ignored my counter-argument in favor of this new, unrelated argument - whether or not i know what i was arguing. confusing and pointless.)

You assume quite a lot, don’t you? Could it possibly be that I had other things to do and haven’t gotten to it yet?

for such an argument as this, the burden of proof is on yourself. you have demonstrated contempt for religion… all those who favor religion will thusly call into question your assertions based solely on this premise alone… fair or not. you do not get to decide what a reader considers pertinent.

This is not a conclusion demonstrating how one might logically derive an anti-theist agenda from my arguments.

but if you don’t care about convincing anyone of anything, then you are wasting *your* time, as well as *mine* (and all those who bother to read our drivel)… which also makes me wonder why you bother posting at all…

You certainly don’t have to bother yourself with judgements about what is or is not a waste of my time. I can determine that on my own, thanks. If you have such a lack of imagination that you can’t see value in making statements refuting erroneous assertions regardless of whether or not anyone is convinced, then well, that’s your problem.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at December 13, 2006 6:47 PM
Comment #199124
Evolution is a theory. That means it is just some beliefs that some people use some standard, real or unreal, to come to a conclusion.

No, tomh, that’s not what it means. You have a fundamentally flawed understanding of the definition of the word “theory” when used in the context of science. See comments 198918, 198968, 199031, and 199080 for discussions of what the word actually means.

Absolute facts are generally absent. Remember, these are only thoughts based on other people writings or a standard imposed to support their beliefs.

In fact, the scientific theory of evolution is built upon many, many absolute facts that comprise our knowledge that evolution happened. That evolution happened is a fact; the explanation of the mechanism behind it is the theory. And that theory is not, as you claim, just thoughts imposed to support beliefs. The theory is a rigorous explanation of the mechanism based on millions of facts and data points, and has been many times validated through its predictive power.

Please learn the meanings of the words that are involved in the debate. By continually misusing the terms involved (specifically “Theory”), you show very convincingly that you don’t know what you are talking about.

If you need an authority to support my claim about what a Theory actually is in science, let me know what you would accept.

There is much in the Creationists view that science has confirmed.

No, not really.

There is no written text older that about 6,000 years.
There’s a grain of truth in this, but nothing that supports the idea of Young Earth Creationism.

You’re right that the earliest known writing systems evolved in the 4th millennium BC, which fits within your claim. However, they were not a sudden invention. They were based on old forms of proto-writing that existed in the 7th millennium BC, or 9000 years ago.[Source]

So, a form of writing existed before the date of the creation of the earth that would be found by a strict literalist interpretation of the book of Genesis. While it’s not a “text”, it’s writing. Why would it have to be a “text” to be valid?

That one of the oldest stories in existence came about at roughly the same time as the evolution of writing systems in no way means that the old story in question is literally true or accurate.

Additionally, I notice that you self-servingly restricted the subject to writing. What about painting and sculpture? 70,000 year old cave paintings and 300,000 year old carved figurines have been discovered, blowing the Young Earth date out of the water.

And sadly, this is what you use as “evidence” for Creationism.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 13, 2006 6:55 PM
Comment #199131

LibRick:

I am not for replacing evolutionism with creationism. That is violation of the 1st amendment. The 1st amendment is being violated by schools teaching evolutionism and shutting out creationism. Freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM it. Nothing should be shut out. Everyone should display their opinions and beliefs without using facism. I just want an alternative road without paying hundreds of dollars a month to a kid to private school.

Posted by: stubborn conservative at December 13, 2006 7:24 PM
Comment #199132
The 1st amendment is being violated by schools teaching evolutionism and shutting out creationism.

That’s a curious claim - the 1st Amendment requires that a religious idea be taught alongside scientific ideas in science class.

It’s amazing what people will convince themselves of.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 13, 2006 7:29 PM
Comment #199133

The people doing the dating of items found cannot agree on the dating or the method of dating. They all give different dates. Uranium and Carbon 14 dating are not accurate.

“The belief that species are immutable productions was almost unavoidable as long as the history of the world was thought to be of short duration”
Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species

There are over 20 methods of dating, all of them have sharp defects, therefore making them unreliable.

Lawnboy consider painting and sculpture in the same vein as writing when I mention writing.

Posted by: tomh at December 13, 2006 7:39 PM
Comment #199135
The people doing the dating of items found cannot agree on the dating or the method of dating. They all give different dates. Uranium and Carbon 14 dating are not accurate.

I figured you’d come back with that. I find it curious that you accept the date of 6,000 years old when it suits your purpose, but reject the date of 9,000 years old when that doesn’t suit your purpose. Actually, it’s not curious; it’s just the type of pseudoscience and deception common to these claims.

It’s true that the dating methods have limitations and can be misused. However, when used correctly they are very reliable.

Radiocarbon dating has been repeatedly tested, demonstrating its accuracy. It is calibrated by tree-ring data, which gives a nearly exact calendar for more than 11,000 years back. It has also been tested on items for which the age is known through historical records, such as parts of the Dead Sea scrolls and some wood from an Egyptian tomb (MNSU n.d.; Watson 2001). Multiple samples from a single object have been dated independently, yielding consistent results. Radiocarbon dating is also concordant with other dating techniques (e.g., Bard et al. 1990).
[Source] and [Source]

Notice there that we have tree-ring data back 11,000 years. That’s an absolute fact.

“The belief that species are immutable productions was almost unavoidable as long as the history of the world was thought to be of short duration” Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species
Yes, that was an unavoidable assumption back when we thought the world was of short duration. However, we now know that not to be true. I don’t know why you included this quote.
Lawnboy consider painting and sculpture in the same vein as writing when I mention writing.

Ok, then your earlier claim of There is no written text older that about 6,000 years. That is basic fact. Science does not even try to say that the written text exists before 6,000 years. is plainly and blatantly wrong. If you are including painting and sculpture, then Science very much says that such evidence exists before 6000 years.

And the scientific dating techniques are valid. I provided a link for general radiometric dating and a specific link for carbon dating. I could also provide evidence supporting the validity of the other types of radiometric dating as well, if necessary.

BTW, you never answered why an efficient intelligent designer would use four different mutations to provide beneficial lactose tolerance. Then again, why wouldn’t such a designer give such tolerance to all humans?

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 13, 2006 7:57 PM
Comment #199136

Holy Crap! The crazies are out in full force in this thread. Can anyone say “tyranny of the majority”?

The constitution is quite clear on this subject, and there is no shortage of supporting writings from the framers which clarifies the intended meaning of the establishment claus.

Tomh-

I HIGHLY suggest you read our constitution. Your posts REPEATEDLY demonstrate a lack of even the most fundemental knowledge regarding our most sacred founding document.

And finding a few possible exceptions to a generally accepted theory does not mean the theory is any less correct. It simply means there are more questions to be ansered. This is why “intelligent design” proponants are attacked. They do not use scientific methods, but rather falacious and backwards logic.

Real Science:

If A, then B
A
Therefore B

Pseudo-Science:

If A, then B
Not A
Therefore Not B

The latter should be kept as far from schools as possible. Otherwise I can use that same bullshit logic to require them to stop teaching about plate techtonics, micro-biology, etc., etc.

Lets not open the floodgates just because some people can’t handle their kids being taught something that might conflict with a spiritual belief. Maybe instead of bitching about it to the government, you should spend more time with your kids being honest and proving to them you are also a reliable source of information. Of course, as evidenced by some of the posts in this thread, this might be asking the impossible.

Posted by: Kevin23 at December 13, 2006 7:58 PM
Comment #199137

LawnBoy,

It’s not worth the energy. Folks like tomh think their religion explains everything. What is troubling is not that fact in and of itself, but the intolerance. They believe religion explains everything for everyone else. So they want their religion to rule the rest of our lives. Perhaps if we could find a way to show how they are just like groups like the Taliban, then maybe they will understand what they are doing.

Posted by: Steve K at December 13, 2006 8:03 PM
Comment #199139

tomh,

Here is a detailed discussion of some of the evidence for an old earth. It is true that some dating methods occasionally give anomolous results, but when we have several different dating methods that produce similar results, we can have a high degree of confidence in the dating produced.

Look, it is always possible to come up up with an explanation for evidence that indicates an old earth, or evolution, or what have you. During the famous debate between the Bishop Samuel Wilberforce and Thomas Huxley, Wilberforce made the claim that god could made fossils much older than they actually were as a test of our faith. Some creationists explain the light arriving at our planet from sources billions of light years away by saing God created the universe with the light already almost at earth. For that matter, Decartes posited that everything we see, hear, or otherwise experience could be the result of demons deceiving us with false sensations (even if so, Decartes claimed, we know we exist because we think, even if we exist in a state of delusion).

We can spin all sorts of possibilities, but at the end of the day, all we can do is work the evidence we have, trust that what we experience reflects reality, and proceed from there. I remember in my undergraduate days encountering someone who was playing with the notion of extreme solipsism — all I said was fine, go stand in front of a speeding car and see what happens.

My presumption is that God, if he exists, does not seek to deceive us and that we were given reasoning minds for a, well, reason.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

Posted by: Trent at December 13, 2006 8:05 PM
Comment #199141

Oh good grief. Evidence to the contrary, I can spell “Descartes.”

Posted by: Trent at December 13, 2006 8:09 PM
Comment #199144
In a statement above I quoted proponents of evolution to state that the items in question were in error.

tomh,

What was this supposed to mean?

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 13, 2006 8:51 PM
Comment #199145

“Sorry, I just cannot parse what you mean from this.”

recall…

“The only reason the radical religious right wants to ‘challenge’ evolution is because they feel it ‘challenges’ their concepts of the origins and development of man.”

here is where you brought intent into the equation… leading to a new argument, which i then took up. my arguments, save where i have strayed to accept your challenges, have been directed at countering this claim.

i don’t understand your confusion. you made the point, i countered it. you attempted to distract me from the point by claiming it was irrelevant to what you were trying to argue (ad hom). perhaps so, but then you should not have said it. and it was not at all irrelevant to my own argument, but rather, the focus thereof… as i have continually stated.

“I’ve let this go, on principle…”

i’m not seeing it, but if you say so.

“But I would like you to point to one comment from me in this thread that is disrespectful of religion.”

it is in your general tone - which you seem unable to recognize. those to whom you speak do.

“This is not a conclusion demonstrating how one might logically derive an anti-theist agenda from my arguments.”

this would be quite difficult, time-consuming, and unnecessary. the point is that people other than myself have perceived this to be the case, and you as much as admitted it (i hadn’t decided myself, until you felt the need to defend such a motivation [regardless of whether or not it was your own], or some such nonsense.)

the pressure is, therefore, on you to demonstrate that you are pursuing anything but…
that is of course assuming you care, which you claim you don’t. (so why ask me to provide evidence, seeing as you don’t?)

if this were a ‘class debate’, you might win the debate against creationism as science… but no one would be convinced who wasn’t already, and many would be offended… so what, even then, would you have won?

in reality, you are doing your cause a disservice by arguing in this manner. others will come behind you attempting to convince these people of the validity of the theory of evolution, and they will likely be less inclined to listen. they will recall that past proponents of evolution were trying to discredit their religious beliefs, and will be automatically suspicious.

“If you have such a lack of imagination that you can’t see value in making statements refuting erroneous assertions regardless of whether or not anyone is convinced, then well, that’s your problem.”

so you don’t care who you convince (as is generally the purpose of such an effort), or how you come across, or who you might offend, or how that might affect how your argument is perceived… i can imagine that you have a lot of ‘interesting’ conversations with yourself… that is, when you are not typing posts to yourself.

“You assume quite a lot, don’t you?”

highly probable.

“Could it possibly be that I had other things to do and haven’t gotten to it yet? “

i wouldn’t know. but then you did have time for this post, no? best of luck with that…

are we done then?

Posted by: Diogenes at December 13, 2006 9:00 PM
Comment #199152

Several comments attributed to me that are made up assumptions on the part of the writer. I will not respond.

Lawnboy

Scientists have concluded that the oldest living thing on earth are the sequoias of California. Fire has not destroyed them. Insects have not destroyed them. Only man cutting them down shows any way they could be destroyed. The sequoias are believed by most authorities to be about 4000 years old. The bristlecone pine is similar in age, but the sequoias are older. This puts the sequoias to have a life beginning at about the time of the Great Flood.

Posted by: tomh at December 13, 2006 9:49 PM
Comment #199153

Kevin23

Where did I mention anything about our Constitution above?

Posted by: tomh at December 13, 2006 9:51 PM
Comment #199154

I am through for tonight. I have a religious excercise to do. It is called addressing Christmas cards.

Good Night All

Posted by: tomh at December 13, 2006 9:55 PM
Comment #199159

LawnBoy,

I see the thread hasn’t progressed much from the point I left it so many hours ago.

To anyone that made the assumption that I was anti-religion from the comments I have made in this thread, you’re wrong. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Frankly, the truth of the matter is I don’t care.

If you worship The God of your choice or a burnt English muffin with jam on it, it doesn’t matter to me.
What does matter to me is that you can’t disprove evolution through the Bible.

Look it is a book written by many authors, it isn’t meant to be scientific, it is meant to be an example of how to live, and let others live as well.

Creationism, ain’t science and shouldn’t be taught as such.
It’s a great story, but it isn’t science.

If somebody came up with a comparative religion class taught to High School students I am okay with that.
While I am not against religion, I am against religious indoctrination in the public schools.

No offence meant to anyone, that’s just my opinion.

Posted by: Rocky at December 13, 2006 10:10 PM
Comment #199161

“I am against religious indoctrination in the public schools.”

Yes! I totally agree.

I am also against anti-religious indoctrination in the public schools.

Posted by: Don at December 13, 2006 10:17 PM
Comment #199162

tomh,

What’s your point about the sequoias? Are you saying that in response to the 11,000 years comment? If so, then your response is inaccurate and insufficient.

The King Clone Creosote bush ring in the Mojave desert is estimated to be 11,700 years old, which is both older than the sequoias and older than you think the earth is.

Additionally, scientists have been able to create an unbroken record of years by matching up currently-living trees with petrified trees. The growing conditions of each year leave a mark in the trees in the size and composition of a ring. Although an individual ring doesn’t specify a year, a combination of thin-thick-middle-thin, etc cycles uniquely identifies the years the tree grew. By matching up these markers in the centuries of overlap between different trees from the same area, we have an unbroken record of tree-ring history stretching back 11,000 years.

This doesn’t even compare to Ice Cores, which give us 160,000 years of annual records.

Everything you’ve thrown at us has been easily and quickly refuted and debunked with a simple Google search. Doesn’t that tell you something?

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 13, 2006 10:24 PM
Comment #199169

tomh,

I think I’ve found the source of your data, and the source of your problem. You’ve been talking very confidently, as though you have a repository of disproofs of evolution. I think I’ve found it. And boy, your position is shaky if that’s what you’re relying on.

By searching for the quotes you used at December 12, 2006 11:56 PM, I found this page: Chapter 10 Mutations. If this really is the site upon which you place your trust, then I feel sorry for you.

For example, the lead item on the main page for the site is about the “London Artifact”, which supposedly shows evidence of the great flood. You’d think that they’d lead with strength, with something that actually says something in their favor. It’s not so. An independent analysis of the “artifact” concludes

Despite some creationist assertions that the hammer is a dramatic pre-Flood relic, no clear evidence linking the hammer to any ancient formation has been presented. Moreover, the hammer’s artistic style and the condition of the handle suggest a historically recent age. It may well have been dropped by a local worker within the last few hundred years, after which dissolved sediment hardened into a concretion around it. Unless Baugh or others can provide rigorous evidence that the hammer was once naturally situated in a pre-Quaternary stratum, it remains merely a curiosity, not a reliable out-of-place artifact.

This is their greatest strength - something with no validity whatsoever.

Also on the front page, they claim that disproving Evolution proves Creationism, based on the following logic

First, the only alternative is clearly disproved by a massive amount of findings.


Second,—and if possible —even more solid, we have the very existence of everything about us! Whether it be the whirling of electrons in the atom, the orbit of our world which mysteriously does not decay and crash us into the sun, or the existence of a living creature.

The first piece of evidence is plainly wrong. They claim that Creationism is the only possible alternative to Evolution, but it’s not. There are the creation stories from all the other thousands of religions, to start with. There’s also the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Last Thursdayism. And even if there weren’t all of those, the potential demolition of one explanation doesn’t necessarily mean that alternate explanations are valid; ideas need to be evaluated on their own. Trent and Kevin and others have noted this point well in this thread.

The other “evidence” is also meaningless. It’s not a scientific argument, it’s just a claim that he’s right because it feels right to him. Although “truthiness” is a popular joke word, it’s not a scientific principle.

Getting past the first page doesn’t get any better for this sad site. I looked at Chapter 4: The Age of the Earth, and every bit of evidence there is a clunker. #6 and #7 claim solar collapse and missing neutrinos, but those claims ignore the relevant absolute facts. #12-14 claim that the rings of the giant planets could be millions of years old. While that is debatable (and probably wrong), it makes the errant assumption that the planets are necessarily as old as the rings. There’s no reason to assume that! #17 trots out a very old bit of pseudoscience about there being not enough moon dust, a mistaken conclusion from a single bad measurement that has been considered obsolete for decades.

I could go on and on, with any chapter from the book. I can see why you think that you have hundreds of examples of how evolution and old-earth are impossible; you’ve been presented with a well-organized collection of invalid claims, discarded obsolete measurements, hand-waving, and lies.

We could go back and forth for days as you trot out one clunker from this list after another, and we knock them down based on actual facts and observations. Sadly, though, I don’t think it would matter. I’ve already answered your previous claims in this thread, showing that every claim about evolution is wrong or misinformed, and showed that there’s lots of data that you just have to simply ignore to maintain your claim. And yet you maintain it, because you want to force science to come to your pre-determined conclusion. That’s not how science works.

I’m not trying to tell you that your religion is wrong, but I think it’s clear that you have your science wrong. And excerpts from a clearly flawed website don’t help you. Compare the claims of that site to the Index of Creationist Claims that Trent linked to above, and you’ll see there just no there there.

(I would have included lots of more links to support my rebuttals of that site, but WB prevented me from having more than 3 links in this comment. However, I can provide citations for the planetary rings and moon dust, etc.)

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 13, 2006 10:54 PM
Comment #199179

You have given your side. You have refuted nothing. When a statement is made and cannot be agreed upon by any sizeable group, it remains a statement. What you have said above is not a consenus of opinion in the scientific community. It is only that some agree. Remember you are talking about theory.

Theory
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena,

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural,

3. contemplation or speculation.

The more correct word to use in this discussion might be hypothesis.

Posted by: tomh at December 13, 2006 11:33 PM
Comment #199188

tomh,

Here’s a site that contains Gallop polling data on the percentage of scientists who believe in evolution, including theistic and naturalistic evolution. (The former believe in evolution but think God guided the process. This is not surprising because nothing in evolution theory precludes God.)

As you can see, 95 percent believe in evolution; only 5 percent believe in creationism. Disturbingly (or encouragingly, depending upon your point of view), the public in general is far, far more likely to believe in creationism.

I was unable to find polling data that distinquished types of scientists.

Here is a quote from an analysis of those who believe in creationism:

Political science professor George Bishop of the University of Cincinnati published a paper in 1998-AUG listing and interpreting 1997 poll data. “Bishop notes that these figures have remained remarkably stable over time. These questions were first asked about 15 years ago, and the percentages in each category are almost identical. Moreover, the profiles of each group has been constant. Just as when these questions were first asked 15 years ago, creationists continue to be older, less educated, Southern, politically conservative, and biblically literal (among other things). Women and African-Americans were more likely to be creationists than whites and men. Meanwhile, younger, better educated, mainline Protestants and Catholics were more likely to land in the middle as theistic evolutionists.”
Posted by: Trent at December 14, 2006 12:19 AM
Comment #199190

Whatever makes you sleep well at night, Tomh.

re: constitution - It was relevant. Read it to find out how. (hint: it has something to do with “tyranny of the majority”)

Anyway, I’ve yet to read a logical argument in favor of creationism that doesn’t begin and end with finding an exception to a general rule and using that as a basis for concluding that the opposite must then be true. That isn’t good logic. Belief is belief, but facts are facts. Question the facts all you want, they can hold up to the criticism. Beliefs are much more sensitive, and because of this, people like Tomh will argue oppression and seek political protection. When there is a majority of like-minded people and fear-mongering acting as a catalyst, it is very easy to use government to impose that will on the minority. Resisting this urge is what the establishment clause of the constitution is all about. Its also what separates us from Iran.

Posted by: Kevin23 at December 14, 2006 12:26 AM
Comment #199191

tomh - why don’t you read what scientific theory means from wikepedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or 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.

You obviously are set in your mental state and won’t accept any logic that refutes it.

Sad.

Posted by: tonyCO at December 14, 2006 12:45 AM
Comment #199196

Kevin23

The Constitution does not enter into my thinking on this subject. You are beating a horse so dead that only dry bones are being hit.

tonyco

I never use wikepedia. They are extensive in coverage and that is their strength. Their substance is lacking.

Posted by: tomh at December 14, 2006 3:34 AM
Comment #199202
You have given your side. You have refuted nothing.

Then I might as well stop trying to convince you. We have demonstrated that you are incorrect on the meanings of words (Theory). We have demonstrated that you accept statements from a source that has a fundamental lack of understanding of the nature of logic. We have demonstrated that your statements of supposed fact are plainly false (“Science does not even try to say that the written text (or painting or sculpture) exists before 6,000 years.”). We have answered the questions that you thought were difficult for Evolution. We have provided citations and evidence to support our counter-claims.

In short, we have used logic, facts, and reliable resources to demonstrate that your position is untenable. And your response is not to defend your claims with counterargument, but simply that we haven’t refuted you because you refuse to accept that you are wrong.

When you show this much disdain for logic, facts, and evidence, you have taken yourself out of the world of scientific inquiry. Please don’t try to drag our children with you.

I never use wikepedia. They are extensive in coverage and that is their strength. Their substance is lacking.

Actually, many studies have shown that wikipedia is as reliable in scientific matters as the Encyclopedia Britannica. However, since that’s not what you want to believe, it’s obviously wrong, right?

The more correct word to use in this discussion might be hypothesis.

For Creationism, yes. For Evolution, no. Evolution is both a fact and a Theory.

“Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome…. In science, ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.’ I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.”
Stephen Jay Gould

But of course, you don’t want to believe that, so it doesn’t count, right?

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 14, 2006 8:06 AM
Comment #199203

Lawnboy

Substitute my name with yours and you will be correct.

My last word.

Posted by: tomh at December 14, 2006 8:37 AM
Comment #199207

tomh,

No, that’s not true. I’ve actually responded to your claims with counterarguments. I’ve used logic to analyze the claims you’ve made. I’ve brought up facts that run explicitly counter to your claims.

You’ve done none of those things in return.

The only equality is that we each agree with the things that we think are correct. However, I’ve demonstrated that my conclusions are based on facts. You’ve demonstrated that you accept only facts based on the conclusion you want to reach.

Seriously, if logic, facts, and reliable resources are not sufficient to refute a claim you make, what on earth would be?

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 14, 2006 8:51 AM
Comment #199210

tomh,

It is this “My way or nothing” thinking that has this country in the mess it is currently in.

Take off your blinders.

You’ll find there is a much bigger world out there than you ever imagined.

Posted by: Rocky at December 14, 2006 9:37 AM
Comment #199237

Tomh-

“The Constitution does not enter into my thinking on this subject.”

Thanks for playing “State the Obvious”

Unfortunately for you, and fortunately for everyone else, the constitution is not dead, nor does it equate with a bony horse carcass.

Posted by: Kevin23 at December 14, 2006 12:54 PM
Comment #199245

“When there is a majority of like-minded people and fear-mongering acting as a catalyst, it is very easy to use government to impose that will on the minority.”

Actually a ‘majority like-minded’ alone will create opression.

Never forget:

‘Power currupts, absolute power currupts absolutely.’

Also, creationism does not go against religious doctrine nor does evolution.

Current scientific theory for creation is:

The big bang theory as proposed by Stephen Hawkings.

Current evolutionism theory:

Has been proven that man, ape, neanderthal, etc..
are similar but so very apart that it is not certain that man came from ape, and the fastest growing belief according to new findings show that it is most likely ape, neanderthal, etc… came from man.

They are probably the result of mental challenged or chemically imbalanced children outcasted from early society.

Also, conservatives, don’t forget that the bible says that a thousand years is not but a day in God’s eys.

And that there is over a thosuand definitions for what a year is.

And ten times as many defintitions of what a day is.

Seven galactic days is how many earth millenias?

Look it up…

I don’t think the bible is wrong ever, I DO think that man is wrong often, who are we to say we KNOW God and what he does and how he does it, we are man, we really DONT KNOW a darn thing about God, other than what God tells us to know.


Amen

(to whom don”t know, that means ‘so be it’)

Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at December 14, 2006 1:25 PM
Comment #199247

HA!

I just reread the title and realized how far off some of us got from the original topic.

Please alow me the privilage of blogging on the actual subject.

Obama and Hillary (please don’t fool your self by calling her a Clinton) are to VERY different people.

Hillary ahs shown us know awnsers to any problems, only told us that it is okay to have problems. She is like the person you say “my life is going to crap I need a dollar to catch the bus so I can see my dying wife in the hospital”

Just to get the reply “Yes your life is going to crap and I am sure some how you will get a dollar, excuse me while I go shop with this bundle of cash that I don’t know what to do with”.

Sorry if that is offensive, but it is true.

Obama, on the other hand, even as an independent who favors Libertarians and swings right often, I think is a good man with a good soul and an honest intent.

He has shown that he does know what is going on. He does support centralist ideals and I think he is an excellent candidate for president.

He has quite different views than Hillary, don’t get an spinster confused with a dedicated American.

Obama reminds me of men like JFK and Bill Clinton.

I liked them both, Clinton proved himself to be a man of true ideals and centralist views when he went against the Democratic dogma by increasing the restrictions on welfare and promoting capitalism in commy China.

I see that same dedication to the American people and their best interests in Obama.

So, despite my generally despising the actions of Democrats and REALLY REALLY despising the actions of Liberals, I must admit if Obama runs, he has my vote.

Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at December 14, 2006 1:36 PM
Comment #199249

“The only way this Republican would satisfied is if Obama were president. Hillary must be kept away from the power seat, even the Democrats can’t deny it.”

Amen brother, amen.

Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at December 14, 2006 1:40 PM
Comment #199261
Sorry if that is offensive, but it is true.

I’m not sure if it’s offensive; I have no idea what it means.

Hillary (please don’t fool your self by calling her a Clinton)

Very strange.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 14, 2006 2:07 PM
Comment #199388
When a statement is made and cannot be agreed upon by any sizeable group, it remains a statement. What you have said above is not a consenus of opinion in the scientific community. It is only that some agree.

tomh,

I know that you have probably moved on, and that I’m beating a dead horse, but I want to respond to this idea.

Your claim here seems to be that it doesn’t matter that logic and facts have been used to rebut the claims you support; if someone somewhere still thinks that your claims have validity, then the question is unresolved.

That’s not a valid logical, rational, or scientific idea.

In the simplest form, if you say 2+2=5, and I prove mathematically that 2+2=4, your claim is equivalent to finding some math-weak website somewhere that also says that 2+2=5, and then claiming that the question is unresolved. That wouldn’t be true.

Science proceeds as new discoveries are made and new ideas are proven and old ideas are disproven. The peer-review process is necessary to ensure that discoveries are correctly and accurately made and proven or disproven. This might be the source of your idea that complete consensus is necessary. However, your interpretation is wrong. It’s not that everyone, expert or not, has to agree. It’s that the proofs and evidence have to be validated. In the cases of the claims that your favorite website makes against Evolution, they have been definitely disproven, and those disproofs have been repeatedly validated. That your side rejects the results of the scientific process regarding their claims doesn’t mean that there is actual scientific dispute remaining.

A couple other examples of this idea at work are Holocaust deniers and believers in the Moon hoax.

As you may have heard, there was a “scientific conference” in Iran this week focused on presenting disproof of the Holocaust. They had 67 “scholars” from 30 countries presenting their wacky unsupportable ideas. According to your “logic”, the fact that such Holocaust deniers exist calls into question the fact of whether the Holocaust happened; because there are people who deny the facts and have websites that persisently present invalid data, then the Holocaust, a factual event in the lifetime of people living today, is itself in doubt.

Also, there is a movement of people that think that the moon landing was a hoax perpetuated by the U.S. Government on a sound stage somewhere. Of course, these claims are ridiculous and are easily and scientifically debunked. Does the presence of logical, factual, and scientific evidence to prove the moon landing happened mean that these conspiracy theorists have changed their mind and take their invalid claims off their websites? No. Of course not. Whether by ignorance or by malice, they continue to peddle logically and factually invalid claims about the moon landing.

Does the existence of people denying the Holocaust despite the factual evidence mean that the Holocaust is actually in doubt? Does their insistence in retelling disproven stories mean those stories haven’t been disproven? No, of course not.

Does the existence of people denying the moon landing despite the factual evidence mean that the moon landing is actually in doubt? Does their insistence in retelling disproven stories mean those stories haven’t been disproven? No, of course not.

Does the existence of people denying Evolution despite the factual evidence mean that Evolution is actually in doubt? Does their insistence in retelling disproven stories mean those stories haven’t been disproven? No, of course not.

The proof for Evolution is full and complete. The ideas you have presented against that fact have been disproven; follow the logic and facts instead of relying on the sad fact that others out there are willing, through ignorance or malice, to continue to deceive you.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 15, 2006 8:56 AM
Comment #199390

LawnBoy,

Excellent points. Raising Iran’s recent Holocaust denial conference is an excellent example of abuse of research that just maybe — maybe — can penetrate tomh’s thinking.

Posted by: Steve K at December 15, 2006 9:10 AM
Comment #199417

LawnBoy,

“The proof for Evolution is full and complete. “

Actually, it still has a few holes in it, but it is definetely been proven enought to the point that we know evolution DOES exist.

Look at corn.

So, yeah the point you made still stands, just a nuace of sort.

=)

Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at December 15, 2006 1:35 PM
Comment #199435

If A, then B
Not A
Therefore, Not B


It’s beautiful isn’t it? And this stuff actually sells! People can be easily amused.

Posted by: Kevin23 at December 15, 2006 5:10 PM
Comment #199445

If not A, then no B.

If partially A, could be all or less B.

If partially B, could be all or less A.

Total amount of A + B can not exceed total amount of A or B.

This clearly shows us that if multiple people fill a subject with b.s., the total amount of b.s. can never exceed the amount of b.s. one can consume.

Kevin23 you may be on to something!

Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at December 15, 2006 6:25 PM
Comment #199459

Oh gracious. I always prefered word problems, don’t know why. Maybe the connection to the real world makes it easier for me to conceptualize. This is another way of saying that you guys are posting Alphabet Soup to me.

Posted by: Trent at December 15, 2006 7:55 PM
Comment #199532

Lawnboy,

Hillary (don’t fool yourself by calling her Clinton)

Not strange!

Even she admitted in Chicago she is a Rodman! Now that is strange!!

JD

Posted by: JD at December 16, 2006 3:38 PM
Comment #199533

JD,

So, by acknowledging her maiden name, she’s no longer part of the family she married into?

You’re right, it’s not strange. It’s silly and ridiculous.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 16, 2006 4:31 PM
Comment #199535

And JD, her maiden name’s Rodham, not Rodman.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 16, 2006 5:00 PM
Comment #199623

Lawnboy,

Actually, Hillary’s maiden name is Rodham. However, in Chicago, I believe during one of the Conventions there, she called herself a Rodman! After the “Dennis” kind… It was an inside joke guys!

But, you have to admit anyone proud to be a Rodman, even in Chicago, is pretty strange!!

Posted by: JD at December 17, 2006 10:23 PM
Comment #199647

Really?

Ok, that’s crazy. If that really happened, I apologize for missing the joke.

Posted by: LawnBoy at December 18, 2006 9:17 AM
Post a comment