Gatyr wrote: JohnnyHopper wrote: No one will cook for them, clean their spiffy uniforms or pay the mortgage. I'm moving in with Choop if Obama takes my maids and parents away.

i've been trying to decide where i want to move to. I'm thinking costa rica...

Obama has proven he is as far to the left as possible. He would probably enjoy a fully armed "civilian force". (Farrakhan comes to mind, armed black panthers roaming our streets, anyone?). We already know criminals possess AK 47's...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,446005,00.html - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,446005,00.html

Patrick has multiple convictions for possession with intent to distribute, is a felon and is prohibited from possessing a firearm, police said.

I bet he voted for obama...

Obama has the entire brain washing machine in full force (media, educators, and celebrities). Indoctrinating the youth to a completely liberal viewpoint, and glossing over histories past attrocities.

The obvious plank of "take from the rich and give to the poor". Choices that we make don't matter, only your economic standing. If yours is bad, then you need Obama to "fix" it by taking from people who have worked to achieve, what used to be called the "american dream", which is now

American Entitlement.

We all deserve free health care,

We all deserve free schooling,

We all deserve free housing, cable tv, and high speed internet, to go along with out free food.

Give me a break. And America is buying this garbage?

Now, Obama calls me Selfish for wanting to Not give the government more of my money...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/obamas-new-atta.html - http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/obamas-new-a tta.html

The most amazing thing is that people pretend that the media doesn't cover most of the issues up...

Why would this not be a story in the "network" news?...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,445865,00.html - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,445865,00.html

So is Obama for Gay marriage or not?

Evidently he is both for and against it... No wonder he has so many supporters. He fills every position... If your against something. So is he, If your for something... So is Obama. Sounds like typical lawyer speak...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/11/obama-on-mtv-i.html - http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/11/obama-on-mtv -i.html

Eville wrote: free enterprise, you have the critical reading skills of an 8 year old tortoise with down syndrome.

Ok, I lol'ed.

Mainly because I was about to post the exact same thing.

For FE - am I to take from your post that you are opposed to all public schooling, including K-12?  And opposed to state support for the state universities?

I can't wait until Wednesday so that FE will finally go away.

Regarding the actual post, I would like to hear this part of the speech in context as well.

Bruce Banner wrote: For FE - am I to take from your post that you are opposed to all public schooling, including K-12?  And opposed to state support for the state universities?

No, I just laugh when people think it is "free".

I don't agree with "public" school forcing liberal views in the classroom. That goes on WAY too much today, starting in kindergarden. (taking the class to a gay wedding), or having them sign gay cards, just this past month.

Those "schools" should have their public funding yanked. Along with most of the liberal colleges that endoctrinate instead of educate.

Even the whole "evolution is fact" thing bothers me...

I think God made me, I didn't come from some magic goo, that turned into a fish, then a worm, then a monkey, then me...

But, hey, after reading some of the posts on here, maybe some people did devolve from monkeys...

FreeEnterprise wrote: Even the whole "evolution is fact" thing bothers me... I think God made me, I didn't come from some magic goo, that turned into a fish, then a worm, then a monkey, then me... But, hey, after reading some of the posts on here, maybe some people did devolve from monkeys...

Seriously, could you possibly get any more off topic? And... it isn't just "liberals" and democrats that beleive in evolution. I would consider myself to be neither and strongly beleive in evolution.

FreeEnterprise wrote: Even the whole "evolution is fact" thing bothers me... I think God made me, I didn't come from some magic goo, that turned into a fish, then a worm, then a monkey, then me...

Why am I not surprised that your understanding of science is on par with your understanding of taxation...

But as to "free" - you are the one that lumped in schooling with your other entitlements.  Because I suspect that most Americans do in fact believe that a function of the government is, and ought to be, to educate the public.  At taxpayer expense.

This, of course, is a redistribution of wealth, for the public good.  That most people can recognize is actually a good thing.

/thread hijack thus complete.

carl_the_sniper wrote: Saying that evolution is true =/= saying that humans came from monkeys. Evolution IS a fact.

What are you basing that on? Hundreds of thousands of fossils and collected evidence or some book magically dictated by an unseen, but omnipotent being?

Yep.  Just like "The Secret" is a theory, Newtonian physics is a (set of) theory, the 9/11 conspiracy is a theory, and general relativity is a theory.

Not all theories are created equal.

adrenalinejunky wrote: i wouldnt say that is entirely true, somethings will remain theories for the simple fact that they cannot be fully proven, and barring some sort of time viewing or time travel, the theory of evolution is one of those.

Actually, you have that backwards.  From a scientific perspective, a "theory" is something that has lots and lots of evidence supporting it.  Without the evidence, it is merely a "hypothesis."

The theory of evolution is about as well-proven as any other scientific theory - period.  Far more well-proven, for instance, than the theory of gravity that most people seem to take for granted.

From a literal perspective, no scientific theory is ever "fact" - but at some point theories become so well-proven that we can treat them as fact.  Evolution passed that threshold decades ago.

EDIT - Dammit, mbro!

adrenalinejunky wrote: [ i disagree - i didnt say there wasnt a large quantity of evidence concerning evolution, what i am saying is that since we are talking about the past, there really is no way to test or "prove" what did happen exactly, until such point that recorded history would allow us the perspective to witness the indications of such evolution.

This is certainly true - hence my point about "fact" in the literal sense of the word.  Science never proves anything to certainty.  But science can, and does, show us that one explanation is far more likely than any other explanation - and this is what evolution is.  Any scientific theoretician will admit that we do not literally "know for a fact" that evolutionary theory is correct - but, frankly, the same can be said for a bunch of other things that we think we "know."

Evolution is, however, far and above the best explanation we have, and it has been backed up by such massive volumes of evidence that we can safely act on the belief that it is correct.  Life or death decisions are made every day upon far less evidence than we have for evolutionary theory.

On a side note - you are far too focused on "the past."  Science does not divide into past and future, but into known and unknown.  Sometimes the past is known and the future unknown, and sometimes the opposite is true.  Just because we "weren't there to see it" does in no way mean that we cannot gain a great degree of certainty about it.  Does anybody doubt that the civil war happened, for instance?

Mack wrote: Gravity shmavity.  When I fall, it is the invisible hand of God pushing me down.

Fixed before you get the wrath of the Christian right after you.

adrenalinejunky wrote: part of my pre-ocupation with that in particular, is largely due to the fact that i have major issues with what some scientists claim we can determine about the past, or one of a great many other things for that matter, i'm all for studying and learning about things, but have my issues with some of the evidence and conclusions that are drawn from them being layed out "as fact"

Scientists are working stiffs too.  They get carried away with their work and forget the theoretical underpinnings.

It can be annoying as heck to have somebody claim absolute knowledge of anything, but the validity of the science is, of course, unaffected by their obnoxiousness.

adrenalinejunky wrote: but i do not agree that it is so well proven to nearly constitute fact. as i believe there is simply FAR too much we do not know to be making such a bold statement.

We may have to get scientific here, but this depends on what "it" is.  Evolutionary theory is large and complex, and includes a myriad of subtheories and hypotheses.  Many of these are hotly contested; others are not.

So what is the "it" that is not proven enough to be fact?  Common ancestry?  The role of natural selection?  The lack of teleological characteristics?  Something else?

Eville wrote: oldpbnoob wrote: Mack wrote: Gravity shmavity.  When I fall, it is the invisible hand of God pushing me down.  Fixed before you get the wrath of the Christian right after you.   my pushing is australias pulling.

That's ok then, since God only Blesses the USA, so he must reside in our airspace.

adrenalinejunky wrote: some things i have issues with lack of evidence - for instance, the fossil record, i seem to recall we touched on this point a long time ago, my opinion is that even under punctuated equilibrium, we should be uncovering a much larger number of fossils from forms with very slightly differing levels of evolution, instead of the fossil record that we do have. others i have problems with interpretation of evidence, for instance, common ancestry. having similar genetic makeup is something that COULD indicated evolution, but it also could indicate ID, or perhaps something we arent aware of yet. and also for some i have issues with methods used to obtain evidence, for instance - and i know i'm gonna get it for even bringing this up - radiometric dating.

And each of those independently would perhaps give one reason to doubt.

But they are not in a vacuum - they work together and corroborate each other.

Prior to modern genetics and radiometric dating, the phylogenetic trees were devleoped based mainly on examinations of fossils and current species.  Fossils were dated primarily based on stratification.

Based on those limited facts, fairly detailed phyogenetic layouts were devleoped.

Then modern genetics came along, and it was like getting the teacher's edition of the textbook.  Suddenly you could see all the relationships spelled out.  And those relationships turned out to be almost EXACTLY the same phyogenetic relationships as were predicted by the pre-genetic science.

This was a massive confirmation of fossil interpretation.

Then came radiometric dating, which again confirmed the strata-based dating of fossils and other finds, and confirmed the timelines predicted by genetics.

Each of these three sources independently arrived at basically the same result.

And there are others - tectonic history turns out to align perfectly with genetic movement across continents.

Etc.

My point is that focusing on weaknesses in the fossil record as weaknesses in the support for evolutionary theory is a mistake, because the fossil record is only a small piece of the puzzle.

If you read the works of the ID folks, they keep talking about fossils.

If you read a textbook about evolutionary biology, it is all about genetics.  Evolution is a genetic phenomenon, not a fossil phenomenon.  It's all about the genetics.  No gap in the fossil record can undo that - to the contrary, every fossil found supports the genetic theory.

Based on existing learning, scientists were able to not only predict the existence of a feathered dinosaur (which creationists said would never be found), but also to predict more or less what it would look like, where it would be found, and how old it would be.  All of those were borne out.

And yes - all of the evidence for evolutionary theory is also consistent with ID.  And it is consistent with any other theory that adds in a superfluous feature.  ID adds nothing to the table, and there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of the outside influence theorized by ID.  ID is a fine philosphical theory, but that is all it is.  It may be true and correct, but we have no evidence that this is the case.  Zero.

(sorry - as you know, I could go on about this for some time)

I just brought evolution up to prove to Rbl that there would be stuff to talk about after tomorrow...

adrenalinejunky wrote: or perhaps its the other way around - i do see MOUNDS of evidence, but i also see a system of evaluating such evidence which is largely based on bias. ...i personally look at the evidence, and there is nothing to suggest to me that it should support evolution rather then ID, which i'm not neccessarily meaning to imply a God like figure, though that is one of the mostly widely upheld possibilities when speaking of ID.

Bias is always a concern, of course, and I am sure scientists have it in piles.  But here the main bias is a "pro-scientific method" bias.  The evidence put forth by Behe & pals has consistently failed to meet even the basic levels of scientific rigorousocitiness.

As to the existing scientific evidence, you are correct that is supports ID as much as it does conventional evolutionary theory.

But ID is basically "evolution plus".  ID comes in different flavors, but the commons ones basically agree with (or at least don't disagree with) all of current evolutionary theory, but add in the concept of the design - without evidence for the design.

Occam's Razor tells me that I must go with traditional evolution until the ID can prove their kitchen sink.  I am not saying that ID false - I am saying that ID adds nothing, and should therefore be disregarded until it does add something.

adrenalinejunky wrote: i dont really even see a point in argueing evolution vs "evolution plus". i was refering more no non-evolutionary flavors of ID.

Ah.

My familiarity with these are less, but would not any non-evolutionary ID basically just be direct creationism?

adrenalinejunky wrote: pretty much, though not neccessarily adhearing to all preconceptions commonly assosiated with creationism. for instance, maybe we are just a science experiment by advanced aliens who got bored. that would still be intelligent design. i would like to note, that is just an example, i'm not saying i have evidence supporting that particular explanation.

Fair enough.

I have nothing against alternate theories.  My beef is when people try to bring non-science (like ID) into a science discussion.  I like philosophy as much as the next guy, but I do try to not let it touch my science.

brihard wrote: My problem is with the actual use of the term 'evolution', in lieu of the more correct term 'natural selection'. 'Evolution' is merely the perceived improvement of a species as a result of the natural selection process.

I see what you are trying to say, but I have to disagree and clarify.  Natural selection is merely one of many forces causing evolution.  Evolution is the result of a number of things.

*grabs evolution textbook*

Genetic drift, for instance, accounts for more change over time than natural selection.  Sexual selection (which, admittedly, some view as a subset of natural selection), is a major driving force.

And, of course, underlying all of this is genetic mutation and recombination (for sexual species).

Natural selection is one of the contribruting factors of evolution.  Evolution is the result.

DNA disproves the main part of the "evolution" theory.

Secular Humanists, who preach "evolution" (so they can eliminate "God".) realize this, and they are struggling with the facts...

Tom Phillips said it best.

"In truth, creation/design is the scientific position; evolution is unscientific. By definition, science is based upon what we observe in the physical world and logical inference from what we observe.

While microevolution, which is change within a species, is observed and scientific, macroevolution, which is what "evolution" customarily means, is not. It asserts life somehow arose from non-life by chance.

Such "spontaneous generation," disproved long ago, has never been observed. Instead, we always observe that life comes from previous life - and, as Scripture teaches, ultimately from an ever-living God.

Evolution also asserts one life form can change into another, higher form - something also never observed and thus unscientific. Instead, we always observe exactly what Genesis states numerous times: Life reproduces "according to its kind," i.e., cats beget cats, crickets beget crickets, etc. They never change into something else. With microbiology, we understand why.

All life contains DNA, a genetic blueprint containing information. But purely material processes cannot create information, which originates only from a "mind." Evolution proceeds via chance, the antithesis of information. The DNA in simple bacteria has several million specifications; man's has several billion.

The DNA molecule, the most complex structure we know and unquestionably the most efficient copying device, with self-correcting processes, prevents one life form from "changing" into another. We are all copies of a copy of a copy, etc., going back to the very first human parents.

Genesis 3:20 says Eve was "the mother of all the living." Science proved we are descendents of one woman, whose genes are carried by all mankind. Even evolutionists accept the finding that all humans descended from a relatively recent woman whom scientists have taken to calling Eve, based on the DNA in our mitochondria, the cell's powerhouse. Mitochondrial DNA comes unmixed, only from the mother.

The fossil record disproves evolution. If the first life form changed into another, higher form by gradual gene changes, and so on down the line, accounting for all life then, quoting Darwin, "the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great."

The whole world would be awash in the remains of "infinitely numerous connecting links." It isn't. Darwin conceded that fact, calling it "the most obvious and serious objection" against his theory. He attests the "sudden appearance" of species, complete and distinct, in the fossil record - just as if God created all life individually.

Evolution is scientifically preposterous. Laws of probability are real scientific laws. Our DNA is unique because the odds of another person having our exact DNA are so remote we can dismiss that possibility altogether. Likewise with evolution.

Nobel laureate Francis Crick calculated nature's chances of producing one small protein: 1 in 10 to the 260th power. Crick reminds us there are only 10 to the 80th power (1 followed by 80 zeros) atoms in the whole universe; he concludes even the elementary components of life "cannot have arisen by pure chance."

Mathematician Emile Borel states an event will never happen when the odds are less than 1 in 10 to the 50th power.

Sir Fred Hoyle, mathematician and astronomer, calculated nature's chances of producing the 2,000 enzymes found in life: 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power. He states: "The Darwinian theory of evolution is shown to be plainly wrong" and concludes, "Life cannot have had a random beginning . . . but must have come from a cosmic intelligence."

Nobel laureate Ernst Chain said, "To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts."

Albert Einstein said, "I want to know how God created this world." Einstein knew the universe didn't happen by chance.

Atheism and evolution are dead. Science destroyed them. Those claiming evolution is scientific must demonstrate that life can come from non-life by purely material processes and that one life form can turn into another, higher form.

Science demands it. Put up or shut up."

Bro, that is not what is taught in schools...

Evolution according to public education is the creation of the earth... Using the faulty experiment that Benji brought up...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/science/17LIFE.html?ref=us - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/science/17LIFE.html?ref=us

"Enshrined in high school textbooks, the Miller-Urey experiment raised expectations that scientists could unravel life’s origins with simple chemistry experiments. The excitement has long since subsided. The amino acids never grew into the more complex proteins. Scientists now think the composition of air on early Earth was different from what Dr. Miller used, leading some to question whether the Miller-Urey experiment had any relevance to the still-unsolved question of the origin of life."

The Creation of life, and earth is critical to your "world view". Athiest and agnostics, or anyone who is a believer in humanism, MUST PROVE there is no God. Therefore, they have to believe that we just "evolved". Even when science proves otherwise.

FreeEnterprise wrote: Bro, that is not what is taught in schools... Evolution according to public education is the creation of the earth... Using the faulty experiment that Benji brought up... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/science/17LIFE.html?ref=us - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/science/17LIFE.html?ref=us "Enshrined in high school textbooks, the Miller-Urey experiment raised expectations that scientists could unravel life’s origins with simple chemistry experiments. The excitement has long since subsided. The amino acids never grew into the more complex proteins. Scientists now think the composition of air on early Earth was different from what Dr. Miller used, leading some to question whether the Miller-Urey experiment had any relevance to the still-unsolved question of the origin of life."   The Creation of life, and earth is critical to your "world view". Athiest and agnostics, or anyone who is a believer in humanism, MUST PROVE there is no God. Therefore, they have to believe that we just "evolved". Even when science proves otherwise.

Once again, your links bear no relationship to your claims.

No self-respecting scientist will claim that evolutionary theory addresses the origins of life or the universe.  That's just not what it is about.

FreeEnterprise wrote: Tom Phillips said it best. ...

You know, virtually that entire post describes a straw man that is NOT evolutionary theory.  That whole post was so much nonsense.

Before you bash science, you should understand the science you are bashing.

Reb Cpl wrote: Benjichang wrote: Since there is no scientific evidence whatsoever suggesting that a god exists, I'd say that the burden of proof lies with the people that believe in a creator. What a way to weasel out of a debate.

Yes and no. 

To quote Carl Sagan:  "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." 

Lack of conclusive proof on a subject does not mean that we have to be completely neutral in belief.

The absence of Santa Clause also cannot be proven, yet I feel perfectly comfortable and justified on placing the burden of proof on the Santa proponent,and going with my theory that Santa does not exist.

Say your sick. I mean REALLY sick. Doctors tell you, that you are about to die. No hope.

Do you pray to God for a miracle?

Reb Cpl wrote: Santa Clause isn't as long lived or as world wide a phenomenon as a belief in a higher power is. Shrugging off the idea of a fat guy delivering free stuff is one thing. Shrugging off the idea of a supreme being heading the creation of everything including science in the same theoretical basis is sort of like comparing apples to duct tape.

They are only different if you think they are different, which is obviously a bit circular.

I see the similarities:  An elaborate structure that requires violations of all known physical laws on a massive scale, and which has zero confirmable supporting evidence.

Ghosts, black cats, psychics, Santa Clause, god - they are all the same to me.  Just because one set of beliefs is more elaborate than the others does not make it any more believeable.

Similarly, other superstitions are as widespread as religion - ghosts and fortunetellers, for instance.  Does the widespread nature of these beliefs lend credibility?

Also:

EDIT - brihard, don't you have a war to fight, or did you win that one already?  And FE, you know you are in trouble when junky is pointing out flaws in your anti-evolution rhetoric.

adrenalinejunky wrote: Bruce Banner wrote: And FE, you know you are in trouble when junky is pointing out flaws in your anti-evolution rhetoric. haha... sadly enough its something i've done alot..... i take issue with flawed arguements - whether they try to support or attack my position.

I share your pain.

In any event, there is a variety of learning of observed speciation.  The problem is that critics of evolutionary theory often have a rather specific concept of what "speciation" means, which leads them to be disappointed by the evidence.

Nevertheless, good article http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html - here .

FreeEnterprise wrote: Say your sick. I mean REALLY sick. Doctors tell you, that you are about to die. No hope.   Do you pray to God for a miracle?

I always had an issue with this. If God is all knowing, allseeing, omnipotent and has complete control and a master plan....what good is praying going to do anyways? Going by common Christian beleifs, God has a plan and it is not ours to question. Isn't praying for Him to change His mind questioning Him? Unless you are praying for understanding, than you are wasting your time.

ParielIsBack wrote: oldpbnoob wrote: I always had an issue with this. If God is all knowing, allseeing, omnipotent and has complete control and a master plan....what good is praying going to do anyways? Going by common Christian beleifs, God has a plan and it is not ours to question. Isn't praying for Him to change His mind questioning Him? Unless you are praying for understanding, than you are wasting your time. Well sure...if you look at it from the normal viewpoint of the world.  But that argument isn't actually based in theology.

What theology are you studying/practicing that allows you to question God and the reason he does things? Isn't Christianity specifically based on faith that God exists and knows what he is doing? How many times have you heard to "give God control", "put your fate in God's hands"? Do you really think that self serving prayer will result in Him changing His mind? I look forward to a good explanation on this, as I have never gotten it.