Scott Walker On Evolution: 'I Am Going To Punt On That One'

[hadit]

Or He set it in motion and let it do exactly what he wanted it to do.

By that logic, you are saying that god wanted us to have birth defects, die in hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, and floods, kill each other mercilessly, and wanted the universe to be 99.9% uninhabitable. In which case, you are saying that your god is a pretty terrible guy.

Ah, yes, the old "Why would a merciful God allow bad things to happen?" gambit. That's an easy one. Are you truly ignorant of the answer, and do you need me to explain it to you?

Please explain why the so-called God is such a prick that allows so much suffering in the world.

Because if He didn't allow for the consequences of decisions, He wouldn't be just. Now you know and are no longer ignorant.

Really? And who's decision was it to invent birth defects?

They are the result of man's rebellion.

 

[TooTall]

LONDON -- Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) on Wednesday dodged a question about whether he believes in evolution.

Speaking at the Chatham House foreign policy think tank London, Walker was asked: "Are you comfortable with the idea of evolution? Do you believe in it?"

"For me, I am going to punt on that one as well," he said. "That's a question politicians shouldn't be involved in one way or another. I am going to leave that up to you. I'm here to talk about trade not to pontificate about evolution."

More: Scott Walker Dodges Question On Whether He Believes In Evolution

Punt? Well, Scotty, if you have any serious hope of becoming president - you'll have to answer that question. It sounds like you've already signaled that you don't believe in evolution. What about global warming?

How many Presidential candidates won their elections "punting" on simple questions like that?

"Where do you stand on Iran?" I could forgive punting on, though a Prersident better have a pretty spectacular answer. Evolution is academic and meaningless. Answer doesn't ultimately matter as much as the willingness to answer it. Punting just means he has to ask his advisors what he thinks.

The Brit jerk's next question was "boxers or briefs." Same mindset!

 

[hadit]

At least we have real data and observations for evolution. Evolution is probably near the top for creditability within science.

It is still a THEORY.

"Theory" in scientific terms, means more than what it means outside science. An idea named a "theory" has a lot of scientific minds accepting it as fact, even though it is ultimately not absolutely proven.

 

[hadit]

LONDON -- Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) on Wednesday dodged a question about whether he believes in evolution.

Speaking at the Chatham House foreign policy think tank London, Walker was asked: "Are you comfortable with the idea of evolution? Do you believe in it?"

"For me, I am going to punt on that one as well," he said. "That's a question politicians shouldn't be involved in one way or another. I am going to leave that up to you. I'm here to talk about trade not to pontificate about evolution."

More: Scott Walker Dodges Question On Whether He Believes In Evolution

Punt? Well, Scotty, if you have any serious hope of becoming president - you'll have to answer that question. It sounds like you've already signaled that you don't believe in evolution. What about global warming?

How many Presidential candidates won their elections "punting" on simple questions like that?

"Where do you stand on Iran?" I could forgive punting on, though a Prersident better have a pretty spectacular answer. Evolution is academic and meaningless. Answer doesn't ultimately matter as much as the willingness to answer it. Punting just means he has to ask his advisors what he thinks.

The Brit jerk's next question was "boxers or briefs." Same mindset!

Since there are no substantive complaints about Walker, this is the level of smear we can expect to see from now until the nomination.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

At least we have real data and observations for evolution. Evolution is probably near the top for creditability within science.

It is still a THEORY.

"Theory" in scientific terms, means more than what it means outside science. An idea named a "theory" has a lot of scientific minds accepting it as fact, even though it is ultimately not absolutely proven.

Good illustration of the reliability of a scientific theory lies in when we made the first atomic bombs. Very few if any scientific laws involved, but lots of theories. But the theories were sound enough to do it.

 

[TooTall]

At least we have real data and observations for evolution. Evolution is probably near the top for creditability within science.

It is still a THEORY.

"Theory" in scientific terms, means more than what it means outside science. An idea named a "theory" has a lot of scientific minds accepting it as fact, even though it is ultimately not absolutely proven.

When the "Theory of Evolution" is absolutely proven and is no longer a theory I will accept it as fact. Until then, it is an unproven theory.

 

[hadit]

At least we have real data and observations for evolution. Evolution is probably near the top for creditability within science.

It is still a THEORY.

"Theory" in scientific terms, means more than what it means outside science. An idea named a "theory" has a lot of scientific minds accepting it as fact, even though it is ultimately not absolutely proven.

Good illustration of the reliability of a scientific theory lies in when we made the first atomic bombs. Very few if any scientific laws involved, but lots of theories. But the theories were sound enough to do it.

It bothers me when people don't understand what a scientific theory is. Doesn't mean the theory is right, but that it has a lot of support.

 

[hadit]

At least we have real data and observations for evolution. Evolution is probably near the top for creditability within science.

It is still a THEORY.

"Theory" in scientific terms, means more than what it means outside science. An idea named a "theory" has a lot of scientific minds accepting it as fact, even though it is ultimately not absolutely proven.

When the "Theory of Evolution" is absolutely proven and is no longer a theory I will accept it as fact. Until then, it is an unproven theory.

And it's fine to express skepticism. Blind acceptance is not the greatest thing, especially when things that were taught in school a few decades ago are now known to be false.

 

[TooTall]

At least we have real data and observations for evolution. Evolution is probably near the top for creditability within science.

It is still a THEORY.

"Theory" in scientific terms, means more than what it means outside science. An idea named a "theory" has a lot of scientific minds accepting it as fact, even though it is ultimately not absolutely proven.

Good illustration of the reliability of a scientific theory lies in when we made the first atomic bombs. Very few if any scientific laws involved, but lots of theories. But the theories were sound enough to do it.

It bothers me when people don't understand what a scientific theory is. Doesn't mean the theory is right, but that it has a lot of support.

Does that mean we get to vote on it? I don't have a problem with scientific investigation of theories. I just find it difficult to relate to apes as my cousins.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Gravity is a scientific theory. Doesn't mean it's unreliable and we shouldn't accept it.

 

[RKMBrown]

At least we have real data and observations for evolution. Evolution is probably near the top for creditability within science.

It is still a THEORY.

"Theory" in scientific terms, means more than what it means outside science. An idea named a "theory" has a lot of scientific minds accepting it as fact, even though it is ultimately not absolutely proven.

When the "Theory of Evolution" is absolutely proven and is no longer a theory I will accept it as fact. Until then, it is an unproven theory.

And it's fine to express skepticism. Blind acceptance is not the greatest thing, especially when things that were taught in school a few decades ago are now known to be false.

My greatest theory is the evolution of theories.

 

[hadit]

Gravity is a scientific theory. Doesn't mean it's unreliable and we shouldn't accept it.

Gravity is something we experience, but don't understand. Evolution is something we try to understand, but don't observe.

 

[hadit]

At least we have real data and observations for evolution. Evolution is probably near the top for creditability within science.

It is still a THEORY.

"Theory" in scientific terms, means more than what it means outside science. An idea named a "theory" has a lot of scientific minds accepting it as fact, even though it is ultimately not absolutely proven.

Good illustration of the reliability of a scientific theory lies in when we made the first atomic bombs. Very few if any scientific laws involved, but lots of theories. But the theories were sound enough to do it.

It bothers me when people don't understand what a scientific theory is. Doesn't mean the theory is right, but that it has a lot of support.

Does that mean we get to vote on it? I don't have a problem with scientific investigation of theories. I just find it difficult to relate to apes as my cousins.

I can understand that. Similarities in DNA do not prove relationship.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"For me, I am going to punt on that one..."

...because, you know, Jesus invented football...

 

[Lakhota]

 

[TooTall]

Gravity is a scientific theory. Doesn't mean it's unreliable and we shouldn't accept it.

"When we are scientifically discussing gravity, we can talk about the law that describes the attraction between two objects, and we can also talk about the theory that describes why the objects attract each other."

Now, tell me about the law of evolution.

 

[Lakhota]

No judicial appointments/nominations for Scotty.

 

[RKMBrown]

No judicial appointments/nominations for Scotty.

You're a fucking moron.