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

[sealybobo]

If you can't deal with evolution, a most basic tenant of modern biology, you might as well be. He's either being dishonest or stupid, neither are good things.

He sidestepped it like most smart politicians do in hot debates. It is not an exclusively right of left thing.
You do realize that Obama never explained how he would do his hope & change thing in America when he was running.

Your approval of people lying to get elected is noted.

What was the lie?

Not answering honestly.

He said he would punt on the question.
That means he would answer it later and he did.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/02/11/walker-steps-back-from-evolution-punt/
He tweeted-
Both science & my faith dictate my belief that we are created by God. I believe faith & science are compatible, & go hand in hand.

But he's wrong science says the bible does not prove a god exists. And there are many key stories in the bible that are scientifically impossible.

A scientific theory is when an idea graduates. No higher honor. Evolution is a fact.

 

[JoeMoma]

He sidestepped it like most smart politicians do in hot debates. It is not an exclusively right of left thing.
You do realize that Obama never explained how he would do his hope & change thing in America when he was running.

Your approval of people lying to get elected is noted.

What was the lie?

Not answering honestly.

He said he would punt on the question.
That means he would answer it later and he did.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/02/11/walker-steps-back-from-evolution-punt/
He tweeted-
Both science & my faith dictate my belief that we are created by God. I believe faith & science are compatible, & go hand in hand.

But he's wrong science says the bible does not prove a god exists. And there are many key stories in the bible that are scientifically impossible.

A scientific theory is when an idea graduates. No higher honor. Evolution is a fact.

Are Obama and Hillary just as wrong to be Christians as Walker ?

 

[sealybobo]

Your approval of people lying to get elected is noted.

What was the lie?

Not answering honestly.

He said he would punt on the question.
That means he would answer it later and he did.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/02/11/walker-steps-back-from-evolution-punt/
He tweeted-
Both science & my faith dictate my belief that we are created by God. I believe faith & science are compatible, & go hand in hand.

But he's wrong science says the bible does not prove a god exists. And there are many key stories in the bible that are scientifically impossible.

A scientific theory is when an idea graduates. No higher honor. Evolution is a fact.

Are Obama and Hillary just as wrong to be Christians as Walker ?

Just like Obama lied about being anti gay marriage I doubt he takes the bible literally just like most christian cherry pickers.

They may believe in god but not like conservative anti science types do.

And if they are atheists they won't admit it. You can't and win elections. Not yet.

Do you think not one politician in all washington is an atheist? None have come forward.

 

[sealybobo]

We see how harmful a true christian can be. Anti birth control and stem cell research for example.

And they want to cut government programs that help the poor and instead give the money to churches. **** that!

 

[JoeMoma]

What was the lie?

Not answering honestly.

He said he would punt on the question.
That means he would answer it later and he did.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/02/11/walker-steps-back-from-evolution-punt/
He tweeted-
Both science & my faith dictate my belief that we are created by God. I believe faith & science are compatible, & go hand in hand.

But he's wrong science says the bible does not prove a god exists. And there are many key stories in the bible that are scientifically impossible.

A scientific theory is when an idea graduates. No higher honor. Evolution is a fact.

Are Obama and Hillary just as wrong to be Christians as Walker ?

Just like Obama lied about being anti gay marriage I doubt he takes the bible literally just like most christian cherry pickers.

They may believe in god but not like conservative anti science types do.

And if they are atheists they won't admit it. You can't and win elections. Not yet.

Do you think not one politician in all washington is an atheist? None have come forward.

You may very well be right that they are lying.

 

[sealybobo]

Not answering honestly.

He said he would punt on the question.
That means he would answer it later and he did.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/02/11/walker-steps-back-from-evolution-punt/
He tweeted-
Both science & my faith dictate my belief that we are created by God. I believe faith & science are compatible, & go hand in hand.

But he's wrong science says the bible does not prove a god exists. And there are many key stories in the bible that are scientifically impossible.

A scientific theory is when an idea graduates. No higher honor. Evolution is a fact.

Are Obama and Hillary just as wrong to be Christians as Walker ?

Just like Obama lied about being anti gay marriage I doubt he takes the bible literally just like most christian cherry pickers.

They may believe in god but not like conservative anti science types do.

And if they are atheists they won't admit it. You can't and win elections. Not yet.

Do you think not one politician in all washington is an atheist? None have come forward.

You may very well be right that they are lying.

Not possible 100% of them are all religious.

Same way its impossible that 100% of NFL players are all straight. But ask every one of them and they'll say straight.

 

[peach174]

He sidestepped it like most smart politicians do in hot debates. It is not an exclusively right of left thing.
You do realize that Obama never explained how he would do his hope & change thing in America when he was running.

Your approval of people lying to get elected is noted.

What was the lie?

Not answering honestly.

He said he would punt on the question.
That means he would answer it later and he did.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/02/11/walker-steps-back-from-evolution-punt/
He tweeted-
Both science & my faith dictate my belief that we are created by God. I believe faith & science are compatible, & go hand in hand.

But he's wrong science says the bible does not prove a god exists. And there are many key stories in the bible that are scientifically impossible.

A scientific theory is when an idea graduates. No higher honor. Evolution is a fact.

Walker did not say that
He said that faith and science are compatible.

 

[peach174]

What was the lie?

Not answering honestly.

He said he would punt on the question.
That means he would answer it later and he did.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/02/11/walker-steps-back-from-evolution-punt/
He tweeted-
Both science & my faith dictate my belief that we are created by God. I believe faith & science are compatible, & go hand in hand.

But he's wrong science says the bible does not prove a god exists. And there are many key stories in the bible that are scientifically impossible.

A scientific theory is when an idea graduates. No higher honor. Evolution is a fact.

Are Obama and Hillary just as wrong to be Christians as Walker ?

Just like Obama lied about being anti gay marriage I doubt he takes the bible literally just like most christian cherry pickers.

They may believe in god but not like conservative anti science types do.

And if they are atheists they won't admit it. You can't and win elections. Not yet.

Do you think not one politician in all washington is an atheist? None have come forward.

Pete Stark did.U.S. Representative (1973-2013) (D-CA)

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I'm just crushing you're illusion that you're big shot cool enlightened guy that knows better than those brainwashed minions. Yep, it helps to come down a peg.

Speaking of having a big ego...

I know. Your ego was pretty big and unmerited.

Seeing as how I outclassed you; let's watch a repay of the series of knockout punches, otherwise known as the meat of my message that you ignored cos you knew you were finished.

I wouldn't say I'm not arrogant in some fashion or another. When one wades through a lot of crap, one can get a little uppity if not arrogant....
When did I ever say anything remotely close to this: "You are arrogant because you not only believe in god, you believe that yours is the right one, perhaps the only one." This shows the chip on your shoulder that you bring into these types of debates though.
You can believe that I believe in a myth because that's your faith. But don't pretend that your atheism is backed by science; because you know it's not.

You know, atheist churches are popping up for people of your selfish faith.

 

[gtopa1]

Nonsense. You are confusing two issues. One is faith; the other is the workings of a system. That some point to God as the "Ultimate": cause etc is faith. Science is about the nuts and bolts that tie the Universe together. I say the two should NOT be confused, but all you do is confuse them.

Faith is a belief in something not in evidence. Religion has, throughout history, attempted to explain, sans evidence, the nuts and bolts of the universe via dogmatic reasoning, ridiculous parables, and mythology. And when they can't explain it, they conclude that you must have "faith" that they know better than you do. Primarily, it is a god of the gaps argument. Science rejects this kind of reasoning because it doesn't actually explain anything.

No that is not what I asked. He is saying that he disagrees with me about what creationism is. I know what it is, and have argued against it for decades. He apparently believes it is something different so I asked him to tell me what he thinks it is. As for the scientific method, you get an F with your attempt. It is not about refutation. It is about falsification, testing, observation, repetition, verification, and peer review.

noun
1.
an act of refuting a statement, charge, etc.;disproof



You do speak ENGLISH, no?

Science is not about disproving anything. You cannot disprove anything in science. There are no proofs in science, either. Only in mathematics do you have proofs.

Since when has "peer review" had anything to do with it?? Galileo's "peers" reviewed his work and found it lacking. Does that mean that he was wrong?? Of course not!

Peer review is a vital part of the scientific process. Galileo's peers were the scientists of Europe, and the ones who were not under the constraints of the Catholic Church agreed with him. It was the Catholic Church that not only disagreed with him, but threatened his very existence for publicizing his discoveries.

" I know what it is"

Do you?

""The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers" (CCC 283). "

Truth cannot contradict truth!!

Greg

If you are going to recite the catechism, you should recite the entire verse:

The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me."

In science, the truth is what is in evidence. In religion, the truth is whatever they say it is. Simply stating that "These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator" doesn't mean that the creator actually exists. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to support them. Got anything like that? We only have the Church's word for it. And I'm sorry, but personal revelation is, by definition, first person in nature. As such, I am under no obligation to believe one person's (or group's) personal revelation over that of another. It is not objective, and cannot be falsified.

I would not suggest that you conform to anything, but your "belief in" Science is as faith based as any religion. Understand the limits of Science and your faith is limited. It's like having faith in plumbing!! lol

Greg

That's like saying that I must have faith in the force of gravity. If I drop my pen, I know it will fall to the ground. My belief that it will is not faith-based. It is based on empirical evidence through experimentation, repeated ad nauseam. I can demonstrate it, make predictions about it, generate a mathematical theorem of how it works, and have you do the same and thereby, through peer review verify that my findings are valid. Got anything remotely resembling that with your creator? Sorry, you are mistaken.

If you drop it in space will it fall down? I have falsified it!! So your theory is incomplete!!!


Greg

If I drop it in space will it fall? Yes. Space ships orbiting the Earth are falling AROUND it. You should take a class. Zero gravity in Earth orbit is a misnomer. Objects in orbit do not have zero gravity. They are in free fall. There is a huge difference between the two.

You forgot the "to the ground" bit. Mind you; depending on WHERE you drop it it may also fall to the moon, or sun. Please engage ALL the variables in the experiment!!

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

As a scientist, you should've ascertained at least a proximate value of faith by now even if you're not a believer yourself. I don't feel compelled to be a defender of faith just because you're not a believer. However, I have noted that you've applied a certain dogma towards people of faith.

How does one ascertain the "proximate value" of a belief in something not in evidence? Simple. There is no evidence of the thing which is believed, so it has no real value.

There is plenty of evidence that Science has confirmed with Genesis and the word of God.
Starting with the big bang theory and God speaking the Universe into existent. Science has confirmed that there was a beginning. When the Bible was written, most people believed the universe was eternal.
That water covered the whole earth and then God separated the waters from the land.
That there was one land mass, that science has called Pangaea and that Pangaea broke apart during Peleg's time.
Science says that man was not around during the breakup of the super continent Pangaea but the Bible says that it did break up during Peleg's time.
The Bible says the Earth is round and that it is free floating. Science has confirmed it.
God’s word states that there were “channels” and “mountains” in the sea in contrast to the common belief at that time that the bottom of the sea was flat. Science has now proven God’s word to be correct.
God tells us that the stars make noise. Modern man has discovered that stars emit radio waves, which are received on earth as a high pitch.
This is just a handful of many things where Science has proved that the God's written word is true.
So to say that Science and the Bible are not compatible is wrong.

Anyone who tries to use the bible as a science book is a fool. Sorry,. I can't be kind about this. It is NOT a science book.

I did not use the Bible as a science book.
I said Science confirms the Bible.

Science confirms the burning of Atlanta during the Civil War. That doesn't mean that there really was a Bret Butler and that he said "frankly, Scarlett, I don't give a damn".

Rhett

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

I said Science confirms the Bible.

Adam and Eve and the garden of Eden? That the earth is 6,000 years old? How does science confirm that?

At some point we became aware that we have human consciousness.

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

I have never said that I believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old.

Then what specifically did you mean by "Science confirms the Bible?"

Read post # 580.

I believe that God took 6,000 years to do his Creation but that does not mean Earth is 6,000 years old.
I believe science, that Earth is billions of years old.
This is the mistake that Creationists make. Just because it took God 1,000 years (one day for him)- for each one of his 6 Creations does not mean that Earth was not billions of years old before.

Really? Then how do you explain the 3.8 billion years between the first appearance of microbes on Earth and the evolution of man?

You realize you didn't come up with a scenario that contradicts what she said, no?

If it took her god 6,000 years to do his creation, it doesn't explain why it took 3.8 billion years before man appeared on the scene after the microbes first appeared. According to her mythos, man is a part of her god's creation, is he not? He's going to need a lot more time that she gives him.

"Need" vs "used".

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

Really? Has science confirmed that Jesus walked on water, and fed 4,000 people with a handful of fish and bread? Has it confirmed that Moses parted the red Sea, or that the Israelites blew their horns and brought the walls of Jericho down? You might as well try to argue that Paul Bunyan actually did drag his axe across the land and created the Grand Canyon for all the silliness you believe is true.

Ever hear of Thixotropy?
Science has proved how the parting of the red sea could have happened as well as the walls of Jericho.
Many who refuse to believe, pick the ones that have not been confirmed yet and dismiss the ones that have.

Jericho has been destroyed at least 9 times by earthquakes along the Dead Sea rift. No need to resort to "the Israelites did it - with a little help from the friendly god". Whether or not the red sea COULD have been parted is irrelevant to whether it WAS parted.

Yes and the ones destroyed by earthquakes, the walls fell out-wards. But the one in the bible says the walls fell inward and archeology has proven that those walls did fall inward not outward. And Science has proved how sound could have done it.

Whether they fell inwards or outwards is irrelevant. The cause of all the destruction was earthquakes on Dead Sea Rift zone, a completely natural phenomenon.

It was also a natural phenomenon that the sound of trumpets can cause them to fall also. But you will just dismiss that fact away.

We were asked that in school many years ago. One answer was "When the soldiers in Jericho heard the trumpets they mounted the walls but, as they were poorly built, they collapsed!!!"

Kid failed.

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

Ever hear of Thixotropy?
Science has proved how the parting of the red sea could have happened as well as the walls of Jericho.
Many who refuse to believe, pick the ones that have not been confirmed yet and dismiss the ones that have.

Jericho has been destroyed at least 9 times by earthquakes along the Dead Sea rift. No need to resort to "the Israelites did it - with a little help from the friendly god". Whether or not the red sea COULD have been parted is irrelevant to whether it WAS parted.

Yes and the ones destroyed by earthquakes, the walls fell out-wards. But the one in the bible says the walls fell inward and archeology has proven that those walls did fall inward not outward. And Science has proved how sound could have done it.

Whether they fell inwards or outwards is irrelevant. The cause of all the destruction was earthquakes on Dead Sea Rift zone, a completely natural phenomenon.

It was also a natural phenomenon that the sound of trumpets can cause them to fall also. But you will just dismiss that fact away.

Yes that is what the mythology claims? And yet we have irrefutable scientific evidence from geology and archaeology that Jericho was destroyed at least nine times by earthquakes (and could well be destroyed again by earthquakes), while we have NO evidence that an iron age musical instruments could have brought those walls down. You people need to grow up and stop believing in fairy tales.

Could the walls of Jericho have fallen from mechanical resonance? In the book of Joshua in the Bible, God told Joshua to have his soldiers march around Jericho once a day for six days. In addition, 7 priests were to walk each carrying a ram’s horn (shofar) and to continually blow them. A number of things are happening here. Marching soldiers in lock step set up a harmonic. If it is the correct resonance for the town’s walls, they would start to vibrate. The shofar has a rich tone. 7 of them blown continually would certain produce a series of vibrations. If they were blown together with the same pitch, then a powerful vibration could have been set up. And the men were to keep quiet. This is important. Just as a crystal glass will not shatter if the high pitched soprano varies her tone, neither would the wall vibrate if there are interruptions to the waves. This was done for 6 days, weakening the walls with the vibrations. On the 7th day, the soldiers marched in lockstep around the city 7 times with the priests blowing their horns. Then there was the sound of one long blast of the shofars and a great shout from the men. The wall collapsed.
Plausible? Absolutely. The walls were made of all the same material, baked mud. Mechanical resonance was from the rhythmic marching of the men and the acoustic resonance was from the sounding of the shofars.

Possible I suppose, but I do like the simpler version.

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

Yes and the ones destroyed by earthquakes, the walls fell out-wards. But the one in the bible says the walls fell inward and archeology has proven that those walls did fall inward not outward. And Science has proved how sound could have done it.

Whether they fell inwards or outwards is irrelevant. The cause of all the destruction was earthquakes on Dead Sea Rift zone, a completely natural phenomenon.

It was also a natural phenomenon that the sound of trumpets can cause them to fall also. But you will just dismiss that fact away.

Yes that is what the mythology claims? And yet we have irrefutable scientific evidence from geology and archaeology that Jericho was destroyed at least nine times by earthquakes (and could well be destroyed again by earthquakes), while we have NO evidence that an iron age musical instruments could have brought those walls down. You people need to grow up and stop believing in fairy tales.

No that is what Scientific experiments in sounds have claimed.
Like I said you would, you dismissed this science.

What science, where? All you've done is make an unsupported claim here. You've provided no science. So of course I am going to dismiss it.

You can dismiss all you want but you have not falsified it!!

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

WTF are you babbling about?

Yes, I understand the dogma. If he is so perfect, why is his "creation" so poorly designed?

God of the gaps argument, as I've pointed out countless times. Never argue this point with a geologist because you will lose every time. I have fossils stored at the National Museum. What about you? Have you ever even collected one? Would you know what it is if you found one? And how it relates to other fossils? You should watch the PBS show "Your Inner Fish". I highly recommend it.

So does that mean you have the fossils of the intermediates that prove for example one certain species of lizard has evolved into certain species of bird?
I have not seen any in the Museums or the Universities that house them in their archives.
And yes I can tell some, of certain fossils (not all of them, because I am not an expert in the field) but if I found one I could more than likely tell from what species from the ones I do know.
You don't need to be an expert to find and know ancient fossils.

That you believe that there is an intermediate fossil that demonstrates a lizard evolving into a bird only demonstrates how utterly uninformed you are wrt to not only paleontology, but the theory of evolution. Creationists have often made the assertion, for instance, that there is no fossil demonstrating a cat evolving into a dog. Indeed, there isn't because if there were, that would DISPROVE evolution. Same goes for your claim. Birds aren't descendants of lizards. They are descendants of theropod dinosaurs.

So sorry I should have said reptile instead of lizard.

So does your Museum have the theropod fossils that has evolved?
There is none found yet.
This is why they are going to explanation of the different types of eggs theory because they don't have the fossils.
How the shape of eggs can help explain the evolutionary history of birds -- ScienceDaily

And you'd still be wrong. Dinosaurs are not reptiles, though they are descended from them. Please don't try to tell me by business. First of all I don't have a museum, though I used to curate at the Louisville Museum of History and Science (now the Louisville Science Center). Transitional fossils between theropods and birds have, in fact, been found. Otherwise, no one would have made the connection between birds and theropods. Duh.

The origin of birds

You're wrong. Dinosaurs are a branch of "reptiles" BECAUSE THEY DESCENDED FROM THEM. Birds are a branch of dinosaurs. This means birds are reptiles, more specifically this means birds are dinosaurs.

Only if humans are apes!!

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

WTF are you babbling about?

Yes, I understand the dogma. If he is so perfect, why is his "creation" so poorly designed?

God of the gaps argument, as I've pointed out countless times. Never argue this point with a geologist because you will lose every time. I have fossils stored at the National Museum. What about you? Have you ever even collected one? Would you know what it is if you found one? And how it relates to other fossils? You should watch the PBS show "Your Inner Fish". I highly recommend it.

So does that mean you have the fossils of the intermediates that prove for example one certain species of lizard has evolved into certain species of bird?
I have not seen any in the Museums or the Universities that house them in their archives.
And yes I can tell some, of certain fossils (not all of them, because I am not an expert in the field) but if I found one I could more than likely tell from what species from the ones I do know.
You don't need to be an expert to find and know ancient fossils.

That you believe that there is an intermediate fossil that demonstrates a lizard evolving into a bird only demonstrates how utterly uninformed you are wrt to not only paleontology, but the theory of evolution. Creationists have often made the assertion, for instance, that there is no fossil demonstrating a cat evolving into a dog. Indeed, there isn't because if there were, that would DISPROVE evolution. Same goes for your claim. Birds aren't descendants of lizards. They are descendants of theropod dinosaurs.

So sorry I should have said reptile instead of lizard.

So does your Museum have the theropod fossils that has evolved?
There is none found yet.
This is why they are going to explanation of the different types of eggs theory because they don't have the fossils.
How the shape of eggs can help explain the evolutionary history of birds -- ScienceDaily

And you'd still be wrong. Dinosaurs are not reptiles, though they are descended from them. Please don't try to tell me by business. First of all I don't have a museum, though I used to curate at the Louisville Museum of History and Science (now the Louisville Science Center). Transitional fossils between theropods and birds have, in fact, been found. Otherwise, no one would have made the connection between birds and theropods. Duh.

The origin of birds

You're wrong. Dinosaurs are a branch of "reptiles" BECAUSE THEY DESCENDED FROM THEM. Birds are a branch of dinosaurs. This means birds are reptiles, more specifically this means birds are dinosaurs.

We are really just Primal Slime on 'Roids???

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

If you can't deal with evolution, a most basic tenant of modern biology, you might as well be. He's either being dishonest or stupid, neither are good things.

He sidestepped it like most smart politicians do in hot debates. It is not an exclusively right of left thing.
You do realize that Obama never explained how he would do his hope & change thing in America when he was running.

Your approval of people lying to get elected is noted.

What was the lie?

Not answering honestly.

But he also did not answer dishonestly. When there is no answer, there is no lie.

Qui tacet consentire

Greg

 

[JoeMoma]

He said he would punt on the question.
That means he would answer it later and he did.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/02/11/walker-steps-back-from-evolution-punt/
He tweeted-
Both science & my faith dictate my belief that we are created by God. I believe faith & science are compatible, & go hand in hand.

But he's wrong science says the bible does not prove a god exists. And there are many key stories in the bible that are scientifically impossible.

A scientific theory is when an idea graduates. No higher honor. Evolution is a fact.

Are Obama and Hillary just as wrong to be Christians as Walker ?

Just like Obama lied about being anti gay marriage I doubt he takes the bible literally just like most christian cherry pickers.

They may believe in god but not like conservative anti science types do.

And if they are atheists they won't admit it. You can't and win elections. Not yet.

Do you think not one politician in all washington is an atheist? None have come forward.

You may very well be right that they are lying.

Not possible 100% of them are all religious.

Same way its impossible that 100% of NFL players are all straight. But ask every one of them and they'll say straight.

I was referring to Obama and H. Clinton specifically, not all politicians.

I do suspect that many of the politicians are atheists.