GOP may have Rush, Hannity and Levin moderate debates...

[Steve]

And where did humans come from?

It's an hour long. But if you want to know, it's all right here. Guess which side of this you're on:

Edit: Just want to emphasize that this video is long, but it's virtually identical to the discussion we're having here. But if you watch it all the way through, it's very interesting. At the very least, it will help inform each of us about what the other side believes to be true.

 

[Flying Crane]

And where did humans come from?

Humans are the result of a very long history of evolution, including a common ancestor with apes and monkeys. Prior to that, the critter that later became humans, went thru a huge series of evolutions, all the way back to the primordial soup.

Prior to that? the earth was inhabited by the very earliest and simplest forms of proto-life, things like amino acids. Prior to that, it was uninhabited. Prior to that, it was free-floating material and atoms that slowly came together under the effects of gravity, and became a planet circling our sun. Prior to that, the sun was born out of atoms, matter, gravity, pressure, and heat, and birthed a solar system.

Prior to that, the universe began in what is commonly termed, "the Big Bang". Prior to the Big Bang, it is unknown what existed and I am not familiar with the theories.

This is what mathematics, physics, astro-physics, biology, chemistry, paeleontology, and the world of sciences has shown us to be true. There is evidence, very strong evidence, to support that series of events.

is it possible that this all was put into action by a supreme being? It's possible. But there is zero evidence to support it. That is a matter of faith, that you are welcome to believe, but not welcome to treat as if it is science.

 

[arnisador]

So it could happen but we just cant discuss it as a possibility.

We can. But not via the methods of science. If you find science's answers wanting then you may well be justified looking elsewhere. Choosing to use science or not to do so is a choice that you might make on any number of grounds; it's just that within science one is limited to the falsifiable.

hypotheses oh you mean a guess or belief kinda like a Leap of faith.

Hypotheses are tested. Ones that fail are weeded out...in science. In religion, land of unicorns and talking snakes, a different method prevails.

 

[arnisador]

And where did humans come from?

This bothers you, but not the question of where Adam and Eve's daughters-in-law came from? You're very selectively applying your criterion of you-must-fill-in-all-the-gaps.

(And that doesn't even touch on the question: If humans came from god, where did god come from? Religion just pushes the question back one stage farther.)

 

[arnisador]

This is what mathematics, physics, astro-physics, biology, chemistry, paeleontology, and the world of sciences has shown us to be true.

Among those other sciences, geology is huge in this--Darwin's work was enabled by then-recent discoveries concerning the layers of the earth and also its age. But in the post-DNA age the argument from biochemistry alone is sufficiently compelling.

 

[Steve]

And let's not even get started on the problem of evil.

 

[granfire]

Sorry matette

During the Middle Ages, the Church founded Europe's first universities, producing scholars like Robert Grosseteste, Albert the Great, Roger Bacon and Thomas Aquinas who helped establish scientific method. During this period, the Church was also a great patron of engineering for the construction of elaborate cathedrals. Since the Renaissance, Catholic scientists have been credited as fathers of a diverse range of scientific fields: Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744–1829) prefigured the theory of evolution with Lamarkism; Friar Gregor Mendel (1822-84) pioneered genetics and Fr Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966) proposed the Big Bang cosmological model. The Jesuits have been particularly active, particularly in astronomy. Church patronage of sciences continues through elite institutions like the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and Vatican Observatory.

and they threatened Galileo and Kopernicus with Excomunication, possibly even the inquisition (to tired to look it up right now)
And Leonardo Davinci and great many of his kind performed anatomy research in secret...
And during a considerable period of darkness knowledge was suppressed by the church, but it might have just been a misogynist thing to burn women at the stake, often the wise women, versed in the healing arts...
The renaissance was not of the church's doing...probably more a case of "hey look what they stashed away" when secularisation took place all over Europe. Wisdom and learning was during this time kept alive in the cultures of the East, Islamic nations, while Europe took a 'breather' between the high culture of antiquity and the re-awakening during the renaissance.
And frankly, at one point you can't keep the lid on it any longer.

 

[ballen0351]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETUVUqHVRQY&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Steve I'll watch that debate later I'm off to work now. I'd urge you to check out Dr Lennox from oxford university. He did a debate with Hawkins that was really interesting. Its long as well but if your seriously interested in the topic of god vs science its pretty good. Here a short clip of Lennox but the debate is good

 

[Steve]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETUVUqHVRQY&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Steve I'll watch that debate later I'm off to work now. I'd urge you to check out Dr Lennox from oxford university. He did a debate with Hawkins that was really interesting. Its long as well but if your seriously interested in the topic of god vs science its pretty good. Here a short clip of Lennox but the debate is good

I will check it out, as well. But once again, I urge you to consider that god vs science isn't the same as god is science. Teaching religion in school is different from teaching religion in science class.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Steve]

So, what's the bottom line here? Do we let partisan hacks moderate debates or not? Do we take them seriously as moderators?

Ballen, would you be okay if the Christian creation story is taught in a class alongside and equally weighted to the stories and mythologies of the other four major religions of the world? Or are you endorsing only creationism and only in science class alongside evolution?

The conversation took so many twists and turns, I'm trying to figure out where we're at.

 

[billc]

Sooo...about those scientists and the IPCC report...

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/21/un-scientists-who-have-turned-on-unipcc-man-made-climate-fears-a-climate-depot-flashback-report/

“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.

“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

The examples go on, and on...

 

[arnisador]

Sooo...about those scientists and the IPCC report...[...]The examples go on, and on...

...but apparently they come from only one source, www.climatedepot.com. It's a project of CFACT:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFACT

The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) is a conservative Washington, D.C.-based non-profit organization, founded in 1985.

 

[billc]

Research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) & (LINK) McLean’s research revealed that the UN IPCC peer-review process is “an illusion.” McLean’s study found that very few scientists are actively involved in the UN’s peer-review process. The report contained devastating revelations to the central IPCC assertion that ‘it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.” The analysis by McLean states: “The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all.” Repeating: Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis.

...

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/McLean_IPCC_bias.pdf

The IPCC is a single-interest organisation, whose charter presumes a widespread human influence on climate, rather than consideration of whether such influence may be negligible or missing altogether. Though the IPCC's principles also state that a wide range of views is to be sought when selecting lead authors and contributing authors, this rule has been honored more in the breach than in the observance.
More than two-thirds of all authors of chapter 9 of the IPCC’s 2007 climate-science assessment are part of a clique whose members have co-authored papers with each other and, we can surmise, very possibly at times acted as peer-reviewers for each other’s work. Of the 44 contributing authors, more than half have co-authored papers with the lead authors or coordinating lead authors of chapter 9.

 

[ballen0351]

So, what's the bottom line here? Do we let partisan hacks moderate debates or not? Do we take them seriously as moderators?

I think the fact that we even care who a moderator is means the moderator isn't doing his job. A good moderator is someone you don't even know is there. Its about the candidate not the moderator. However if you have no plan on voting for the GOP candidate anyway why you (general you not you Steve personally) care who moderates it.

Ballen, would you be okay if the Christian creation story is taught in a class alongside and equally weighted to the stories and mythologies of the other four major religions of the world? Or are you endorsing only creationism and only in science class alongside evolution?

Id rather see eveloution creationism and the other top ideas taught at the same time since its the same topic. Im not saying they are equal im saying its the same topic and doesnt need to be broken up. I dont care of its mon -thurs on eveloutuon and friday is spent teaching the other ideas.

The conversation took so many twists and turns, I'm trying to figure out where we're at.

I'm in MD your in Washington

 

[arnisador]

I think the fact that we even care who a moderator is means the moderator isn't doing his job. A good moderator is someone you don't even know is there. Its about the candidate not the moderator.

Agreed.

 

[granfire]

I think the fact that we even care who a moderator is means the moderator isn't doing his job. A good moderator is someone you don't even know is there. Its about the candidate not the moderator. However if you have no plan on voting for the GOP candidate anyway why you (general you not you Steve personally) care who moderates it.

It should be like that, but can you see it with that proposed lineup?

 

[ballen0351]

It should be like that, but can you see it with that proposed lineup?

I think the line up is a knee jerk reaction to what many on the right view as left leaning moderators in the last few debates. Id rather just not have a moderator. Post a topic and a time limit when the time limit goes off your mic goes dead and the next person mic turns on. When its you turn again if you dont answer the new topic and keep going back to the old Oh well its your time and you may piss of voters who care about the topic you refuse to answer.

 

[Steve]

I think the fact that we even care who a moderator is means the moderator isn't doing his job. A good moderator is someone you don't even know is there. Its about the candidate not the moderator. However if you have no plan on voting for the GOP candidate anyway why you (general you not you Steve personally) care who moderates it.

Agreed, but the moderator position has become as visible as the host of the Oscars. I mean, after any debate, each side is immediately declaring their candidates the "winner." The eventual loser always blames the moderator.

For what it's worth, I'm as likely to vote GOP as Democrat, although I will freely admit I'm not the same kind of conservative as some around these parts.

Id rather see eveloution creationism and the other top ideas taught at the same time since its the same topic. Im not saying they are equal im saying its the same topic and doesnt need to be broken up. I dont care of its mon -thurs on eveloutuon and friday is spent teaching the other ideas.

I wouldn't mind seeing this as I've outlined before. How it's handled is important, and to whom it's being taught is also important. A class as you describe could be misleading at best if the class isn't well prepared, the students lack the appropriate foundation to understand the material and the context of the discussion isn't made clear.

I'm in MD your in Washington

Roger. Thanks.

 

[Steve]

I think the line up is a knee jerk reaction to what many on the right view as left leaning moderators in the last few debates. Id rather just not have a moderator. Post a topic and a time limit when the time limit goes off your mic goes dead and the next person mic turns on. When its you turn again if you dont answer the new topic and keep going back to the old Oh well its your time and you may piss of voters who care about the topic you refuse to answer.

That'd be a decent format. Only thing that might be lacking is someone to push a politician to answer the damned question and not go off on irrelevant tangents.

 

[ballen0351]

That'd be a decent format. Only thing that might be lacking is someone to push a politician to answer the damned question and not go off on irrelevant tangents.

Even with mods they still talk about what ever they want. Where mods start screwing things up is when the candidate says mr mod I need a min to respond to what he just said and he mods say OK. So screw it if they refuse to answer then everyone that really cares about that particular topic can hold it against them. I prefer the question from the audience style anyway but don't prescreen the question. I want them on their toes. When Putin comes at you at a G whatever summit your not going to have a scripted responce if you can't handle Jane from Orlando how are you going to deal with Kim jong whoever from N Korea