The ONE qst. that should be asked of every GOP candidate

[Wry Catcher]

Another question they could ask the lefties, what part of socialism do you actually disagree with?

Though I'm not one of the mythical lefties, it's the ism part which disturbs me. I like social, as in social democracy and social contract. Social is the counterpoint to Callous Conservatism. The former is inclusive, the latter excludes.

Want proof, that Maryland poster claimed some members of our society were worthless. A corollary to the other callous conservative etho, "I've got mine, fuck the rest of you!"

LOL, you have no problem with "Callous Conservatism" but don't like ism when describing socialism. There's NO social contract when shit is being dictated to you, that's the main problem with socialism and if people don't want to fund every utopian wet dream you can come up with it's callous to you.

Yep, you're a hard core lefty, nothing mythical about it.

1. The ism part was in response to the Q. what don't you like about socialism. My response was over your head, but that is not unexpected.

2. You have no concept of a social contract, someday turn off the AM Dial and read some political economy published in the 17th and 18th Centuries.

3. People like me are tired of funding wall street, and sick and tired of your blather. Since I have never called for, or suggested using violence, to turn back our nation's march into a plutocracy, I can hardly be considered a hard core lefty.

It's your side of the aisle, the Crazy Right Wing, which seems to seek radical and violent solutions to the hate and fear they feel, and their desire to return to an earlier time which they wrongly perceive was golden.

You support a 21st Century form of fascism, a coalition of the very wealthy, industrialists and the power elite controlling not only the Federal Government (Executive, Legislative and Judicial) but state legislatures, governors, city councils and school boards.

You are the problem, not the working poor who demand a fair wage who you hate and fear, not moms and dads crossing our borders seeking a better life for their children, and not liberals or progressives who see injustice and seek to right it.

 

[Boss]

Were we created fully formed or did we evolve from lower life forms as the paleological evidence suggests? Are the musings of a Bronze Age philosopher , or is the fossil record correct?

Should we give up on questions about the origin of the species because those questions are just too hard, or should we use the massive brain pan we are endowed with to search for a better, more complete explanation of the natural world?

A president who throws up his or her hands and gives up on answers would be an irresponsible president at best, a tragic figure to hold such a post at least.

First of all, there has never been any scientific evidence to prove cross-genus evolution. Things do evolve but it's always within their genus. All evidence of evolution is restricted to changes within a genus class and there has never been any evidence of something evolving into another genus class. Speculations abound, people have all kinds of theories and ideas but there is no science to support any of them.

You speak of "Bronze Age philosophers" but in the Bronze Age, Science was a philosophy. The fossil record does not support the theory that we evolved from "lower life forms" ...that is a speculation or "conclusion" of our findings, the fossils cannot speak and tell us from where they came. However, the fossil record is clear about one thing... Humans have always had an intrinsic spiritual awareness. The oldest civilizations ever discovered show signs of human spiritual worship.

If you believe Darwin's theories at all, you have to acknowledge that a fundamental behavioral attribute like human spirituality, is not superficial or unimportant. It would not exist in humans if this were true. Natural selection would have seen to that. We have to assume if any of Darwin's theories are remotely accurate, human spirituality is relevant and important to the species.

...Should we give up on questions...
...A president who throws up his or her hands and gives up on answers...

Being spiritual believers in God is not "giving up" on anything and it doesn't answer any questions. This is one of the most perplexing claims Atheists make and it drives me nuts. "God Did It" doesn't answer or explain anything. Regardless of if "God Did It" there remains the question of HOW it was done. We discover more about that every day. Man did not "invent God to explain the unexplained" as they claim, that's why man invented Science. God (as a spiritual entity undefined) is not invented... If it were, we'd find evidence of man before he invented God, we'd be able to accurately pinpoint when man invented God. However, we find that God (spirituality) has been a part of our lives since we became civilized creatures. Now, man HAS invented specific beliefs around their incarnations of God... we call that Religion. I believe all religions are flawed because they are creations of man and not God.

 

[Wry Catcher]

1. I'm hearing an appeal to ignorance, an informal fallacy, and an effort to shift the burden of proof.

2. Man did not invent science, the essence of science is curiosity; something we can observe in every child from birth until it's beaten out of them by parents and teachers.

 

[Uncensored2008]

1. I'm hearing an appeal to ignorance, an informal fallacy, and an effort to shift the burden of proof.

2. Man did not invent science, the essence of science is curiosity; something we can observe in every child from birth until it's beaten out of them by parents and teachers.

You are a moron who holds science a religion to fill the void left by other superstition.

You do not grasp what science is, and your words underscore this.

Of course man invented science. Science is a process for organized discovery. The process of hypothesis, test, adjust, test, repeat; defines science. This did not spring from the head of Gaea or whatever silly god the moronic left follows today. This is a process developed by man.

Let me ask you, the phrase: "Man made global warming is settled science and cannot be questioned - Barack Obama"

Is that science?

 

[Boss]

The thing about science is it's true whether you believe it or not.

Sorry but this isn't so. I know Neal Tyson says it and it sounds smart... it's really not smart at all.

"Science" said heavy things fall faster than slow things... Isaac Newton did not believe the Science was true. "Science" said time was constant... Einstein did not believe the Science was true. All throughout the history of science, indeed, the greatest science discoveries, were the result of scientists not believing the "truth" of Science, challenging the conventional "truths" and discovering Science was WRONG.

Every physics book in America is wrong! They state that the universe is mostly comprised of atoms... that's what science said was true for many years. We now know this is not true. The universe is comprised mostly of dark energy and dark matter of which we know little about.

 

[Nosmo King]

What amazes me is the tacit endorsement for an anti-science President. But, then again, Conservatives hate science.

Why? Because science refutes Conservative values. Science tells us that the myth laid out in Genesis is wrong. Mankind did not magically appear fully formed like a potted geranium. Science tells us that mankind can and does screw up the environment, in spite of what the energy companies tell you. Science tells us that vaccines prevent diseases and should be administered to children to stem the tide of epidemics.

So why put someone who disdains science in charge of the government? To appease the other anti-science morons?

You are a very confused individual. Not all conservatives are even religious. Many liberals are, you can't seem to focus on details. Science doesn't have the answer for life or the universe, why pretend that it does?

Who on the right is opposed to vaccines?

Science doesn't claim to have truths, science and scientists are continually testing theories and laws; religion has faith.

You need to tell that to people like Nosmo, who claim religion is fairly tales and science is truth.

I'm certain he knows.

clearly not. He believes Genesis is afairy tale made up by a Bronze Age philosopher (whatever that means) while Darwinism represents reality.

Darwinism represents clarity

 

[The Rabbi]

You are a very confused individual. Not all conservatives are even religious. Many liberals are, you can't seem to focus on details. Science doesn't have the answer for life or the universe, why pretend that it does?

Who on the right is opposed to vaccines?

Science doesn't claim to have truths, science and scientists are continually testing theories and laws; religion has faith.

You need to tell that to people like Nosmo, who claim religion is fairly tales and science is truth.

I'm certain he knows.

clearly not. He believes Genesis is afairy tale made up by a Bronze Age philosopher (whatever that means) while Darwinism represents reality.

Darwinism represents clarity

LOL!
Darwinism has been debunked in serious scientific circles. There simply isnt the evidence to support it.

 

[chikenwing]

At every scheduled debate for the GOP primaries, each of the candidates should be asked one very simple question....just to separate the sane from the insane:

"Do you believe in creationism or evolution....."

The answer to the above can help dwindle down the number of whomever should even be given a microphone and a podium.

Thats dumber than a bag of hammers,no reliance what so ever.

 

[nat4900]

Thats dumber than a bag of hammers,no reliance what so ever.

Someone must turn on the computer for this moron.

 

[nat4900]

Darwinism has been debunked in serious scientific circles. There simply isnt the evidence to support it.

Yeah, I heard about that "serious scientific circle".....made up by those renowned scholars like Palin, Bachmann, Cain, et al....

 

[hadit]

If we're going to have a litmus test about science, make it a real one, and be sure to include the democrat challengers to the throne as well.

"Do you believe that science, once declared settled by consensus, should be forever immune to challenge?"

 

[The Rabbi]

Darwinism has been debunked in serious scientific circles. There simply isnt the evidence to support it.

Yeah, I heard about that "serious scientific circle".....made up by those renowned scholars like Palin, Bachmann, Cain, et al....

 

[Wry Catcher]

Science doesn't claim to have truths, science and scientists are continually testing theories and laws; religion has faith.

You need to tell that to people like Nosmo, who claim religion is fairly tales and science is truth.

I'm certain he knows.

clearly not. He believes Genesis is afairy tale made up by a Bronze Age philosopher (whatever that means) while Darwinism represents reality.

Darwinism represents clarity

LOL!
Darwinism has been debunked in serious scientific circles. There simply isnt the evidence to support it.

What evidence can you offer to prove this point: "Darwinism has been debunked in serious scientific circles"?

The theory of the evolution of species by natural selection has been attacked, but let's be serious, it's a theory; Creationism isn't even a hypothesis, and thus cannot be evaluated by observation.

 

[Boss]

The theory of the evolution of species by natural selection has been attacked, but let's be serious, it's a theory; Creationism isn't even a hypothesis, and thus cannot be evaluated by observation.

Okay.... I assume that you know the difference between a genus and species? A genus is the entire group of species of a particular family of life. It is above species and below family. First you have Life... that is divided into Domains and then Kingdoms... followed by Phylum, Class, Order, and finally... Family. Within the Family are various Genus and they are divided by Species.

Evolution is evident within Species... we see this commonly, we can even manipulate it and we have. New improved Species are formed... again, we've accomplished this with Science and Technology, but it happens in nature as well. No argument there, it is happening, has happened, always will happen. The next level up is the Genus which the species belongs to... There is Z-E-R-O evidence that ANY living organism has ever crossed over and become an entirely new Genus. We have plenty of theories and speculations regarding this, some scientists believe this happened at various times... there is NO evidence to support their belief conclusively... it is all subjective.

Until Science demonstrates that this is even possible, we can't conclude this is the truth, the light and the way. To do so is a matter of personal FAITH in a BELIEF and NOT SCIENCE!

 

[Wry Catcher]

The theory of the evolution of species by natural selection has been attacked, but let's be serious, it's a theory; Creationism isn't even a hypothesis, and thus cannot be evaluated by observation.

Okay.... I assume that you know the difference between a genus and species? A genus is the entire group of species of a particular family of life. It is above species and below family. First you have Life... that is divided into Domains and then Kingdoms... followed by Phylum, Class, Order, and finally... Family. Within the Family are various Genus and they are divided by Species.

Evolution is evident within Species... we see this commonly, we can even manipulate it and we have. New improved Species are formed... again, we've accomplished this with Science and Technology, but it happens in nature as well. No argument there, it is happening, has happened, always will happen. The next level up is the Genus which the species belongs to... There is Z-E-R-O evidence that ANY living organism has ever crossed over and become an entirely new Genus. We have plenty of theories and speculations regarding this, some scientists believe this happened at various times... there is NO evidence to support their belief conclusively... it is all subjective.

Until Science demonstrates that this is even possible, we can't conclude this is the truth, the light and the way. To do so is a matter of personal FAITH in a BELIEF and NOT SCIENCE!

I'm not a scientist but I have taken biology in high school and college, so yes I'm familiar with the taxonomy used in biology.

Let me propose, even though I'm not a scientist, that we can infer the possibility (form a hypothesis) from the ability of stem cells to develop into many different cell types, to over time adapt to changing external conditions, and by mating with other like creatures transform into an entirely new life form.

And consider the caterpillar which one day stops eating, hangs from a twig and radically transforms its body, eventually emerging as a butterfly or moth.

 

[Boss]

Let me propose, even though I'm not a scientist, that we can infer the possibility (form a hypothesis) from the ability of stem cells to develop into many different cell types, to over time adapt to changing external conditions, and by mating with other like creatures transform into an entirely new life form.

And consider the caterpillar which one day stops eating, hangs from a twig and radically transforms its body, eventually emerging as a butterfly or moth.

Stem cells are not 'free radicals' who just go out there and be whatever they please. They come from a specific species and genus classification and that is all they can ever produce. The same with the caterpillar and butterfly... the caterpillar never becomes a hummingbird... doesn't happen in nature... can't happen in nature. You are conflating reproduction with evolution and that is not anywhere close to the same thing. A sperm and egg cell are not "evolving" into humans. That is NOT what Darwinian evolution is proposing or what I am talking about with regard to cross-genus evolution. That is simply a reproductive process that happens all throughout nature with everything that lives and reproduces.

Again... NO Scientific evidence proves conclusively that any genus evolved from another genus. It's just not there and we can't reproduce such a process in any controlled lab environment. There are people who THEORIZE this... they point to inconclusive test results that are subjective in nature and don't "prove" anything conclusively. They use fossils to say... here something appeared and over there a while later, something else appeared that looks like it... so it must have been evolution happened. It's all a FAITH-BASED belief in something.

Within a genus, there has been plenty of evolution happening pretty much the way Darwin claimed... but this only BOLSTERS the magnitude and intelligence of God, to create such a versatile thing as life that can adapt and change with environment to thrive and continue.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Let me propose, even though I'm not a scientist, that we can infer the possibility (form a hypothesis) from the ability of stem cells to develop into many different cell types, to over time adapt to changing external conditions, and by mating with other like creatures transform into an entirely new life form.

And consider the caterpillar which one day stops eating, hangs from a twig and radically transforms its body, eventually emerging as a butterfly or moth.

Stem cells are not 'free radicals' who just go out there and be whatever they please. They come from a specific species and genus classification and that is all they can ever produce. The same with the caterpillar and butterfly... the caterpillar never becomes a hummingbird... doesn't happen in nature... can't happen in nature. You are conflating reproduction with evolution and that is not anywhere close to the same thing. A sperm and egg cell are not "evolving" into humans. That is NOT what Darwinian evolution is proposing or what I am talking about with regard to cross-genus evolution. That is simply a reproductive process that happens all throughout nature with everything that lives and reproduces.

Again... NO Scientific evidence proves conclusively that any genus evolved from another genus. It's just not there and we can't reproduce such a process in any controlled lab environment. There are people who THEORIZE this... they point to inconclusive test results that are subjective in nature and don't "prove" anything conclusively. They use fossils to say... here something appeared and over there a while later, something else appeared that looks like it... so it must have been evolution happened. It's all a FAITH-BASED belief in something.

Within a genus, there has been plenty of evolution happening pretty much the way Darwin claimed... but this only BOLSTERS the magnitude and intelligence of God, to create such a versatile thing as life that can adapt and change with environment to thrive and continue.

Does that explain a mule? Sorry, couldn't resist.

The taxonomy used by biologists is a construct of humanity, that single cell life can evolve into a human being over millions of years or that an ever lasting God created man is a debate not worth having: Cogito ergo sum, "since we both doubt, we think; since we think we exist".

With apologies to Rene Descartes for my misuse of his famous phrase.

I can't get my arms around string theory, or imagine how far is up. Thus I default to pragmatism and think of what is, and what could be in the secular world; I did a fair share of arguing the number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin as a college freshman.

 

[The Rabbi]

You need to tell that to people like Nosmo, who claim religion is fairly tales and science is truth.

I'm certain he knows.

clearly not. He believes Genesis is afairy tale made up by a Bronze Age philosopher (whatever that means) while Darwinism represents reality.

Darwinism represents clarity

LOL!
Darwinism has been debunked in serious scientific circles. There simply isnt the evidence to support it.

What evidence can you offer to prove this point: "Darwinism has been debunked in serious scientific circles"?

The theory of the evolution of species by natural selection has been attacked, but let's be serious, it's a theory; Creationism isn't even a hypothesis, and thus cannot be evaluated by observation.

http://www.uv.mx/personal/tcarmona/files/2010/08/King-and-Jukes-19691.pdf

 

[bodecea]

And that has what to do with their ability to run the country?

Well, creationists are too stupid, for one.

 

[Boss]

And that has what to do with their ability to run the country?

Well, creationists are too stupid, for one.

Actually, everyone is a 'creationist' unless you are an imbecile. We exist, we didn't always exist, something 'created' us. You may believe random circumstances happened and something came from nothing, culminating in a universe full of possible life because of happenstance.... I may believe we came from some source of intelligence we don't comprehend physically. The question of whether we were 'created' is already answered... we were. By what and how? That IS The Question. YOU don't have the answer and neither do I... so why do we argue?