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

[Steve]

Your very existence is proof. The sun rise is proof. Love is proof. The perfect combination of temp air water is proof. What is more reasonable. That version or yeah well two blobs of goo in a puddle 1000000000 years ago figured out how if one blob formed a lenses and one formed a retina they can transform light into sight. Oh and then more blobs decided to become a lung and figures out how to transfer air into oxygen in your blood. Oh and then the bloob of goo decided skin would be cool oh and hair is neat. Even Darwin had trouble coming up with why or how the eye was "evolved". To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
His answer was well I have no proof it evolved but it just did. So just as you claim we have "faith". So do you in your faith that all these bloobs of goo formed just the right combination to where we are now

And I disagree it is what it is

In an infinite universe, even if the odds are 1 in a trillion, it would still happen.

But, hey. You're entitled to your beliefs. I think it would be great for my kids to learn more about your faith in school, along with the Muslim faith, the Hindu faith, the Jewish faith and the Buddhist faith. Those are the big five, accounting for about 9 billion people in the world. That's valuable. But, it's still not science.

 

[Flying Crane]

So what about your leap of faith that a bloob of goo in a pond "evolved" into humans

Not quite so simple as that, and that seems to be the problem: you don't want to recognize a level of complexity in all of this, all the various topics that this thread has touched upon, including climate change. You are looking for a very clear, straight-line answer without complexities and very few of those exist. It takes a little reading and contemplation to grasp what is going on with these issues. This is a good example of where you are falling short: First step, little blob. Second step, humans. It didn't happen so quickly and simply as that, but there is huge amounts of evidence that humans did come about thru evolution.

Another example of your desire for a simple explanation: earlier in the thread, when we were discussing climate change, you commented something on the lines of, it seems cool out today, so global warming must be a lie (my paraphrasing what you've said). Again, not so easy as that, not by a long shot. Climate change means that in some places, it will be cooler than the norm. It also includes more precipitation in Antarctica (more moisture in the air as a whole, due to warmer climate overall) which falls in Antarctica where it is still cold enough to freeze, and the ice there in some places grows thicker. But that is actually in line with climate change, it's not a contradiction.

But you need to be able to examine the issues and not look for easy explanations: it's colder today, so climate change is a lie. That's just weak, it's lazy, it's a blatant refusal to consider what is really going on, it's willful and enthusiastic ignorance.

 

[Flying Crane]

Well again we disagree and now we are going round and round so ...............

You raised that argument. The fact that I can turn your argument around and it works perfectly against what you are saying...and so you want to drop it now?

 

[Steve]

Didn't know you were trying to make a point. I spend plenty of time with my family. I'm watching my sons football practice right now. He's the starting running back this year and he is running people over. I'm pretty impressed

Honestly, it sounds like you're getting punchy and should maybe pay more attention to your son's football practice. I wasn't being sarcastic, even though it's clear now you were.

 

[Flying Crane]

Teach the aspects of intelligent design that show the problems with the "theory," of evolution...the human eye example is very popular...and you don't have to mention a deity...teaching evolution as gospel...that is a problem...

I'm not familiar with the eye issue, tho I wouldn't be surprised if Darwin was not in a position to describe it, evolutionarily. Darwin identified and described the process. That doesn't mean he outlined the specific steps in which every critter to ever live, or every body part to ever exist, evoloved into what it is or was. Scientific understanding is ongoing. A famous individual like Darwin didn't make all the discoveries at once and lay it all out for us. You too are looking for quick and simple explanations, and the truth is more complex than that. If you aren't open to considering that fact, then you will never grasp this stuff. It takes thought and reflection, and a willingness to dig a little deeper.

the gaps in knowledge are covered very well in a good science class. You don't need to bring in any theology in order to acknowledge that.

 

[ballen0351]

Honestly, it sounds like you're getting punchy and should maybe pay more attention to your son's football practice. I wasn't being sarcastic, even though it's clear now you were.

Im not getting punchy and Im not being sarcastic. I thought it was cool you were out in the middle of the day with your son. Most people are to busy working to spend real quality time with there kids. Thats all I was saying.

 

[ballen0351]

Not quite so simple as that, and that seems to be the problem: you don't want to recognize a level of complexity in all of this,

No Im the only one that is saying its not that simple. You just assume oh a glob of this and a glob of that came together and poof little trial and error and a few million years here we are. Im saying its almost impossible for that to happen. Look at how complex and intricate a single human cell is hell even lower level then that look at a Mitochondrion. There is no way that can just happen by chance. Its far to impressive and amazingly complicated to have just been by chance.

all the various topics that this thread has touched upon, including climate change. You are looking for a very clear, straight-line answer without complexities and very few of those exist. It takes a little reading and contemplation to grasp what is going on with these issues. This is a good example of where you are falling short: First step, little blob. Second step, humans. It didn't happen so quickly and simply as that, but there is huge amounts of evidence that humans did come about thru evolution.

No its not simple and even science cant prove where we came from. Your taking a "leap of Faith" that we evolved from well I dont know what you think we evolved from I guess monkeys of some sort.

Another example of your desire for a simple explanation: earlier in the thread, when we were discussing climate change, you commented something on the lines of, it seems cool out today, so global warming must be a lie (my paraphrasing what you've said). Again, not so easy as that, not by a long shot. Climate change means that in some places, it will be cooler than the norm. It also includes more precipitation in Antarctica (more moisture in the air as a whole, due to warmer climate overall) which falls in Antarctica where it is still cold enough to freeze, and the ice there in some places grows thicker. But that is actually in line with climate change, it's not a contradiction.

And you didnt read my posts I believe in climate change I just don't believe its man made. I believe in global warming and I believe it happens after every few hundred thousand years give or take a million. I dont believe that drving a prius or a volt will save the earth. I dot care if you drive them thats fine if enough of you do it demand for gas will go down and will bring my gas prices down. My 78 Bronco with that big V8 is expensive to fill up so its a win for me.

 

[ballen0351]

You raised that argument. The fact that I can turn your argument around and it works perfectly against what you are saying...and so you want to drop it now?

No were just saying the same thing over and over and getting no place. I also didn't bring it up someone else did. I only said the guy didn't need to loose his job and I wasnt opposed to teaching about God in school. Its fine we can go round and round all night I work midnight shift and I'm off so Ill be awake for a long time.

 

[elder999]

For what I hope is the last time:

The fact that you cannot disprove God is what makes God-and "creationism"-an unviable scientific theory-a postulate at best, and just an idea-one that we accept on faith-that's why it's called "faith": you believe in the face of a distinct lack of facts, or in spite of the facts. Evolution is a viable scientific theory in that it can be disproven, and so it is worthy of teaching in schools. It's worth pointing out as well that one doesn't necessarily exclude the other, except for fundamentalists-as in believers that their creation myth is literal fact, rather than allegory, or as in fundamentalist atheists, insisting, at times, on the very same thing.

Lastly, to get back to the original topic, it's discussions like these that demonstrate just how "unmoderate" the proposed choices are as moderators. The fact that such arguments even exist in a political arena makes me ashamed to be a Republican-ashamed to be associated with people who insist upon the irrational as a national directive, and who insist upon denial of the rational as a national directive. That fact alone will see to it that there isn't a viable Republican candidate again in 2016-almost as though by design....

 

[Flying Crane]

No Im the only one that is saying its not that simple. You just assume oh a glob of this and a glob of that came together and poof little trial and error and a few million years here we are. Im saying its almost impossible for that to happen.

and you would be wrong.

Look at how complex and intricate a single human cell is hell even lower level then that look at a Mitochondrion. There is no way that can just happen by chance. Its far to impressive and amazingly complicated to have just been by chance.

It is impressive and amazingly complex, and that's why it takes millions and more years to happen.

No its not simple and even science cant prove where we came from. Your taking a "leap of Faith" that we evolved from well I dont know what you think we evolved from I guess monkeys of some sort.

This again shows how much you don't understand. Anthropological theory does NOT postulate that humans evolved from monkeys or apes. It postulates that monkeys and apes and humans shared a common ancestor at some point in ancient pre-history. That is not the same thing as saying we evolved from monkeys or apes. You don't even understand what science is telling us, yet you want to throw it away.

There is much that science does not yet understand and cannot describe. I am not a religious person. I grew up in a traditional catholic family and I found it stifling and I rejected it wholesale when I left home (actually I rejected it much earlier than that, tho I was forced to practice until I left home), much to my poor mother's frustration. I am not interested in organized religion of any kind, 'cause I tend to feel that it gets quite a lot of it all wrong. But I won't rule out the possibility that a divine creator of some kind exists. Honestly, I'm ambivalent on the subject and I'm certainly not interested in active worship. In my mind, it's possible (tho unclear and uncertain) that a divine creator did in fact start all of this, put it all in motion, and perhaps evolution is her chosen method, and we are allowed to observe that.

However, this notion is absolutely unprovable and deserves to have no place in a science class. Whether or not I or you or anyone chooses to believe in a divine creator is a personal choice because it is unprovable and unmeasurable and unobservable. It is based on tradition and mythology that has been handed down to us. As such, it belongs in the church, or in a theology or comparative religions class. But not in a science class.

And you didnt read my posts I believe in climate change I just don't believe its man made. I believe in global warming and I believe it happens after every few hundred thousand years give or take a million. I dont believe that drving a prius or a volt will save the earth. I dot care if you drive them thats fine if enough of you do it demand for gas will go down and will bring my gas prices down. My 78 Bronco with that big V8 is expensive to fill up so its a win for me.

I'm glad you clarified that, that you do believe it is happening. But what you are refusing to recognize is that what is happening, what is being observed, what is being measured, is a rate of change that has dramatically increased directly from the time of the industrial revolution, and has continued to increase right along with the human-caused increases of pollution, and are at a rate enormously in excess of what happens without those influencing factors. The fact that climate does change naturally is true, but the rates at which it changes, naturally, is much much much much much slower if human-caused pollution were not in the mix. The changes we are seeing now, over the course of decades, would take at least tens of thousands of years, if not more, to happen without those human-caused influences.

You driving a prius? No, of course that won't fix it. But if everyone got rid of their gashogs and their huge SUVs, and started driving cars with much greater fuel economy, if the car manufacturers started MAKING cars with much better fuel efficiency (which they can do but refuse to), and we ALL got on board, that would be a big step in the right direction. That's why this issue needs to be tackled globally, because the efforts of one or two or even a million people aren't enough. EVERYONE needs to work together on it.

 

[Steve]

Im not getting punchy and Im not being sarcastic. I thought it was cool you were out in the middle of the day with your son. Most people are to busy working to spend real quality time with there kids. Thats all I was saying.

Okay. Sorry I misunderstood

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[ballen0351]

For what I hope is the last time:

How could we ever get along without your wisdom. You do know you dont have to comment if its such a bother to you

 

[arnisador]

Your very existence is proof.

Of what? The existence of Zeus? Odin? Ra?

But you may well be right. It's simply not a scientific theory. It could be true--it just can't be science.

The sun rise is proof. Love is proof. The perfect combination of temp air water is proof. What is more reasonable. That version or yeah well two blobs of goo in a puddle 1000000000 years ago figured out how if one blob formed a lenses and one formed a retina they can transform light into sight. Oh and then more blobs decided to become a lung and figures out how to transfer air into oxygen in your blood. Oh and then the bloob of goo decided skin would be cool oh and hair is neat. Even Darwin had trouble coming up with why or how the eye was "evolved". To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. His answer was well I have no proof it evolved but it just did.

Once again you choose the worst possible example--not only is the Darwin quote out-of-context (he went on to show how it might have evolved, having framed this rhetorically as a challenge), but the evolution of the eye has been so well worked out and has happened so often that even Intelligent Designers now largely accept it as an example of evolution (e.g., Michael Behe), not creation.

The science examples you choose demonstrate a lack of familiarity with some basic touchstones of the sciences. How can you have an informed opinion on evolution and such?

 

[elder999]

How could we ever get along without your wisdom. You do know you dont have to comment if its such a bother to you

Frankly, I'm positively amazed that some of you manage to tie your shoelaces without your momma's help,

I'm not at all surprised at those who cannot comprehend my "wisdom." :lfao:

In any case-as I said, the mere fact of arguments like these is enough to demonstrate the bankruptcy of the Republican party-as well as the schism within it; of course, we have "tea Party" Republicans to shout down any voices of reason or moderation within the party-to the point where some would even support a Democrat over the candidate of their own party, for being a so-called "RINO," when such a candidate might represent the best chance for the party to regain the presidency..

I mean, just how moderate a moderator is Rush Gasbag going to actually be towards a Chris Christie-and how likely are he and his cohort to fawn over the utter lameness and unelectability of a Bachmann, a Palin or even a Paul?

(Oh, BTW, pray for Jeb Bush to change his mind....)

 

[arnisador]

Then teach the theory of intelligent design...that doesn't have to be religious in nature.

It does. It posits the existence of the supernatural.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism based on the argument from design and promulgated by the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States.[SUP][1][/SUP] The Institute defines it as the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[SUP][2][/SUP] It is a contemporary adaptation of the traditional theological argument from design for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea".[SUP][3][/SUP] All the leading proponents of intelligent design are associated with the Discovery Institute [SUP][n 1][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP] and believe the designer to be the Christian deity.[SUP][n 2][/SUP]

Scientific acceptance of Intelligent Design would require redefining science to allow supernatural explanations of observed phenomena, an approach its proponents describe as theistic realism or theistic science.

 

[arnisador]

Do I need too? I believe there is only one God. I believe its the same God for all we just call him by different names and worship him different ways. So the native american God is the same as the Christian God which is the same as the Muslim God. Where the difference happened is when people got involved in the mix and messed up the message

Most people who are religious but not Jewish/Christian/Muslim/Mormon believe that there god(s) are different from yours. What's the basis for teaching your view--Christianity is right and all other religions are misinterpretations of it? How could that possibly be constitutional? Or fair?

 

[arnisador]

So what about your leap of faith that a bloob of goo in a pond "evolved" into humans

Callit a leap of faith if you like, but are science and religion different subjects, or did the Catholic Church put a man on the moon?

Teach the aspects of intelligent design that show the problems with the "theory," of evolution...the human eye example is very popular...and you don't have to mention a deity...teaching evolution as gospel...that is a problem...

Even the IDers have mostly given up on the eye, dude. They're whining on flagella and coagulation now. Ask Breitbart about it.

 

[arnisador]

Well again we disagree and now we are going round and round so ...............

Actually, no--the courts have ruled and creationism/ID can't be taught in science classes. The matter has been settled.

 

[arnisador]

It's worth pointing out as well that one doesn't necessarily exclude the other, except for fundamentalists-as in believers that their creation myth is literal fact, rather than allegory, or as in fundamentalist atheists, insisting, at times, on the very same thing.

We could all be brains in vats, being fed electrical signals that cause us to think these things are happening. Possible, but unscientific if it isn't falsifiable.

Lastly, to get back to the original topic, it's discussions like these that demonstrate just how "unmoderate" the proposed choices are as moderators. The fact that such arguments even exist in a political arena makes me ashamed to be a Republican-ashamed to be associated with people who insist upon the irrational as a national directive, and who insist upon denial of the rational as a national directive.

(You're always welcome over here, dude.)

 

[ballen0351]

and you would be wrong.



It is impressive and amazingly complex, and that's why it takes millions and more years to happen.

again prove it

This again shows how much you don't understand. Anthropological theory does NOT postulate that humans evolved from monkeys or apes. It postulates that monkeys and apes and humans shared a common ancestor at some point in ancient pre-history. That is not the same thing as saying we evolved from monkeys or apes. You don't even understand what science is telling us, yet you want to throw it away.

Point is we have NO IDEA where we came from. We both take a leap of faith yours says we came from a goo farm mine says we came from God

There is much that science does not yet understand and cannot describe. I am not a religious person. I grew up in a traditional catholic family and I found it stifling and I rejected it wholesale when I left home (actually I rejected it much earlier than that, tho I was forced to practice until I left home), much to my poor mother's frustration. I am not interested in organized religion of any kind, 'cause I tend to feel that it gets quite a lot of it all wrong. But I won't rule out the possibility that a divine creator of some kind exists. Honestly, I'm ambivalent on the subject and I'm certainly not interested in active worship. In my mind, it's possible (tho unclear and uncertain) that a divine creator did in fact start all of this, put it all in motion, and perhaps evolution is her chosen method, and we are allowed to observe that.

I was the same way at one time I rejected religion actually my whole family rejects religion. Im the only one that currently believes. It took me many years and my position "evolved" to what it is now. The point still the same and you said it there is much science doesnt know and may never know. So how can you say its evolution and thats it no ifs ands or buts. We cant but my faith is stupid and your faith is science?

However, this notion is absolutely unprovable and deserves to have no place in a science class. Whether or not I or you or anyone chooses to believe in a divine creator is a personal choice because it is unprovable and unmeasurable and unobservable. It is based on tradition and mythology that has been handed down to us. As such, it belongs in the church, or in a theology or comparative religions class. But not in a science class.

I disagree (see the pattern yet)

I'm glad you clarified that, that you do believe it is happening. But what you are refusing to recognize is that what is happening, what is being observed, what is being measured, is a rate of change that has dramatically increased directly from the time of the industrial revolution, and has continued to increase right along with the human-caused increases of pollution, and are at a rate enormously in excess of what happens without those influencing factors. The fact that climate does change naturally is true, but the rates at which it changes, naturally, is much much much much much slower if human-caused pollution were not in the mix. The changes we are seeing now, over the course of decades, would take at least tens of thousands of years, if not more, to happen without those human-caused influences.

You driving a prius? No, of course that won't fix it. But if everyone got rid of their gashogs and their huge SUVs, and started driving cars with much greater fuel economy, if the car manufacturers started MAKING cars with much better fuel efficiency (which they can do but refuse to), and we ALL got on board, that would be a big step in the right direction. That's why this issue needs to be tackled globally, because the efforts of one or two or even a million people aren't enough. EVERYONE needs to work together on it.

But I like my gas hog SUV so Im not goign to get rid of it. Sorry