Republicans Against Science

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Flopper, Aug 29, 2011.

  1. Flopper
    Offline

    Flopper Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    15,269
    Thanks Received:
    2,701
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    Washington
    Ratings:
    +5,323
    Jon Huntsman Jr., a former Utah governor and ambassador to China, isn’t a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination. And that’s too bad, because Mr. Hunstman has been willing to say the unsayable about the G.O.P. — namely, that it is becoming the “anti-science party.” This is an enormously important development. And it should terrify us.

    Mr. Perry, the governor of Texas, recently made headlines by dismissing evolution as “just a theory,” one that has “got some gaps in it” — an observation that will come as news to the vast majority of biologists. But what really got peoples’ attention was what he said about climate change: “I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. And I think we are seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change.”

    That’s a remarkable statement — or maybe the right adjective is “vile.”



    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/opinion/republicans-against-science.html
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 29, 2011
  2. ClosedCaption
    Offline

    ClosedCaption Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Messages:
    47,832
    Thanks Received:
    6,009
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +17,309
    You can tell when someone knows jack shit about the topic they are discussing
     
  3. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,940
    Thanks Received:
    5,212
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,684
    Until we see the actual first organism that started evolution then it is a theory.

    You won't believe in God unless you see him, likewise I won't believe in evolution unless I see "Organism #1".
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,941
    Thanks Received:
    4,791
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,807
    Just like a supreme being and after life are theories.
     
  5. Missourian
    Offline

    Missourian Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2008
    Messages:
    16,281
    Thanks Received:
    4,799
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Missouri
    Ratings:
    +8,124
    I'd say a theory that can't explain how life formed where there was no life has a pretty big frickin' hole in it.
     
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2011
  6. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    Hmmmm....

    Not a dime's worth of difference? :eusa_think:
     
  7. oreo
    Offline

    oreo Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    12,499
    Thanks Received:
    1,964
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    rocky mountains
    Ratings:
    +4,176

    Here's some more science for Mr. Huntsman--who I believe supported cap n tax.

    I apologize, I neglected to mention that this report was from
    November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in
    The Washington Post 88+ years ago_
     

    Attached Files:

    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2011
  8. ClosedCaption
    Offline

    ClosedCaption Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Messages:
    47,832
    Thanks Received:
    6,009
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +17,309
    You ever seen a dinosaur?
     
  9. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    30,218
    Thanks Received:
    4,681
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +13,483
    I don't have a problem with the "spark of life" concept creating basic protein building blocks. But the tracing of descendency is NOT "settled science" as previous posters have noted. Go to the Science forum

    http://www.usmessageboard.com/4056732-post78.html

    and look at the "tree of life" link that I was given to PROVE we know how we ascended from slime mold. We can't even trace the lineage. Which would be a neccessary scientific pre-requistite for proving that Darwinian theory and ONLY Darwinian was the prime mover behind all that Genetic engineering.. Why not cosmic rays? Or foreign DNA from meteorites?

    Science my ass.. It's lack of humility and too much hubrous on the part of secular humanists who THINK that they understand the details of Greenhouse theory or the ascent from slime..
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2011
  10. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    Sentience-out-of-protoplasm evolution is, by its very definition, still just a theory...That is a semantic fact.

    Now, I believe that you were saying something about someone who doesn't know jack shit about the topic they are discussing?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2011

Share This Page