Originally Posted By Disneyman55 Ah, sweet harmony. I am so glad to see nothing has changed in WE in the almost 2 years I have been away. Get online, get curious about ol' Laughingplace (nice new site by the way), go to WE (it's like a magnet), and see the same as before. For the record, every individual up for the Presidential race is so complex that to let one belief or non-belief (especially one so non-important) shape your desire to vote for them is rather shallow. Now if the candidate said, "Jee, not only do I not believe in evolution but I am going to press congress for legislation to outlaw it", then you would have a logical reason to not vote for someone. Gotta love thought police.
Originally Posted By jdub <<...I believe Man did not evolve from a sub species of animals on earth.>> A sub species? >> I still don't believe Man evolved from animals. << I think our resemblance to our forebears (or foreapes) is clear; secondly, I would not remove us from the earthly fray/elevate ourselves beyond our stations so much as to not apply the word "animals" to us as well. In other words, making the question not "did we evolve from animals," but "did we evolve from OTHER animals." Not to veer.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>How is not voting for someone based on their beliefs (which one generally can choose and control) bigotry?<< Actually, mele, I wasn't refering to the opinions about candidates. I was refering to many of the side comments this thread has engendered.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I will also add I have never seen so much willful bigotry expressed on a WE board in some time.<< Good thing you swoop in, as usual, to set the record straight. But thanks for not making it personal by calling posters bigots. Me, I reviewed the thread and am at a loss to see any bigotry. But then, I don't wander WEs looking to point out when people post something they shouldn't.
Originally Posted By utahjosh >>So does that mean you also believe that woman was made from a rib of a man? Also, how do you reconcile dinosaurs with the story of the Bible?<< Good questions. So good that I don't have answers for them. I can guess, though. I think woman being made from a rib of a man could most definitely be a metaphor. Doesn't mean that the entire creation story has to be a metaphor. And dinosaurs? I really don't know. I've heard some say that they lived on another planet, and God used pieces of that planet to create earth, and voila, dino bones. I don't buy that one, myself. I believe God created the earth. I believe the earth is older than 6,000 years. How long were Adam and Eve in the Garden? I don't know! Religion doesn't give all the answers - however I believe it gives the important, eternally significant answers. Sceince doesn't have all the answers, either. Theories have come and gone for thousands of years. I believe some day Science and Religion (ie, God's truth) will come together in perfect balance. That's my 2 cents.
Originally Posted By utahjosh >>So does that mean you also believe that woman was made from a rib of a man? Also, how do you reconcile dinosaurs with the story of the Bible?<< Good questions. So good that I don't have answers for them. I can guess, though. I think woman being made from a rib of a man could most definitely be a metaphor. Doesn't mean that the entire creation story has to be a metaphor. And dinosaurs? I really don't know. I've heard some say that they lived on another planet, and God used pieces of that planet to create earth, and voila, dino bones. I don't buy that one, myself. I believe God created the earth. I believe the earth is older than 6,000 years. How long were Adam and Eve in the Garden? I don't know! Religion doesn't give all the answers - however I believe it gives the important, eternally significant answers. Sceince doesn't have all the answers, either. Theories have come and gone for thousands of years. I believe some day Science and Religion (ie, God's truth) will come together in perfect balance. That's my 2 cents.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Sorry 'bout the double post.<< It's ok. You're still evolving in your use of LP Just kidding - good posts!
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Good thing you swoop in, as usual, to set the record straight.<< And I, in turn, can always count on YOU to point out the error of MY ways. But it's so boring talking about US, isn't it? Specifically, the comments I refer to are: >>Anyone who is that out of touch with reality shouldn't be anywhere near the White House. We've already got one of those.<< (Post #2 and we already get an off topic slam at the President. Nice.) >>I could not vote for someone who is incapable of dealing with reality.<< (Telegram to all parties: The Theory of Evolution is not "reality." It is a theory.) >>You don't vote for someone who is unable to think critically.<< (So rejecting the Theory of Relativity proves that one is unable to think critically? Really? Really? Kind of a mind boggling statement when you, uh, think about it.) >>I think I'm kind of tired of having a President who believes in witchcraft.<< (And ANOTHER off topic slam at the Prsident. And an utterly false one, to boot.) >>Until you actually read about evolution or take the time to learn something about it, it's easy to be so antagonistic towards it.<< (Noted. Anyone antagonistic obviously hasn't read or learned about it. Exactly.) >>I could never vote for a republican - for anything. I feel it's my duty as a good citizen of these united states to stand four-square against this mindset of oppression and willful ignorance.<< (There's that willfull bigotry I refered to...) Then there's the Theory of Evolution itself. The presentation of it has been so twisted and misrepresented here, with nary a peep from the Usual Suspects. Since I apparently am the self appointed Thought Policeman here, I will issue citations: >>Evolution is the fundamental underpinning of all biological science. That's all.<< (No, not at all. But if you want to think so, go right ahead.) >> >>However, maybe people hear "Evolution" and they hear "Man evolved from apes."...<< ...that's part of what evolution is, like it or not.<< (No, no, no. The Theory of Evolution does NOT state that man evolved from apes. It rather posits that humans and modern apes evolved from a common ancestor. It is an imperfect theory, but is generally agreed as the best construct so far presented to explain a very complex system.) >>They said what bothered them most about anti-evolution proponents was that they had the luxury of ignoring the evidence.<< (As opposed to the pro-Evolutionary proponents who simply dismiss the evidence presented for competing theories as ignorance and superstition.) >>No, man evolved from micro-organisms that later morphed into things like plants, fish, and mammals. Apes ultimately evolved from those organisms, and then came humans.<< (I scarcely know where to start. Morphed? Plants? Apes to humans?) >>If the story of how dogs evolved from wolves and then branched out into all the different breeds in only a few thousand years doesn't convince someone of evolution, you might as well move on to a new subject altogether.<< (Then let's go! Dog breeds are the result of human intervention. Left to their own devices, dogs do not evolve into specialized breeds, but rather devolve into mutts. They are all of the same species, anyway. If anything, human intervention in dog breeding would tend to support [shudder] intelligent design. But not creationism! Thankfully, no one is claiming to have created a dog out of nothing more than mud.) >>Most scientists now believe that evolution of species occurred very abruptly, rather than as a steadily occurring change over a long period.<< (Uh, no. This relatively new theory has been embraced by some, not most. It is basically a backward way of dealing with the fact that after more than a century of diligent search, vast periods of time cannot be accounted for in the fossil record to establish evolution from one species to another.) >>I've seen a lot of science that proves it in a number of species of plants and animals.<< (Within species, evolution is a demonstrable fact, via mutation, natural selection, and adaptation. The Theory of Evolution states that one species can evolve into another. This is the area of such lively debate.) >>When it comes to reconciling the discrepancies between science and religious teachings, one of them has to budge. For those that side with the church, elaborate imaginary constructs that can never be measured or verified have to be accepted whole as 'the gospel truth'. And actual scientific evidence and measurement must be discarded as irrelevant.<< (And for those who side with science, elaborate imaginary constructs that can never be measured or verified have to be accepted whole as 'unverifiable theory,' or 'gaps in the fossil record,' or 'the missing link.' The actual meeting point of religion and science is faith; faith in God or faith in unproven Theory.) >>...the fact that we have hundreds of different breeds of dog from wolves in just a few thousand years is very compelling evidence.<< (Yes, very compelling evidence that evolution within species is the result of outside intelligence. [In this case, human breeders.]) >>Well, considering we've only scratched the surface [of the fossil record], it's understandible that there would be gaps.<< (Just keep repeating that for the NEXT century. It's worked so well thus far.) AND lest anyone think I confine my officious comments only to the True Scientists in our midst, I must comment on this as well: >>The creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 (there are TWO of them, by the way, not one and they contradict each other)...<< (No, no, no. There are two accounts that describe the same events. One is a summary, and the other goes into specific details. There are no contradictions.) And a pleasant good night to all!
Originally Posted By gadzuux -- >> I could never vote for a republican - for anything. I feel it's my duty as a good citizen of these united states to stand four-square against this mindset of oppression and willful ignorance. << (There's that willfull bigotry I refered to...) << Really. Out of your entire laundry list of offending statements you single out mine as being the "willfully bigoted" one? How do you figure? I can cast my vote as I see fit, as can you and everyone else. I can also denounce the opposition party, loudly and clearly, and give a dozen and more reasons why. That's not bigotry, that's politics. You spend too much time worrying about too little.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Really. Out of your entire laundry list of offending statements you single out mine as being the "willfully bigoted" one?<< Actually, there were six comments I specifically cited. >>That's not bigotry, that's politics.<< This argument doesn't really stand in light of the whole comment: >>I am always amazed that so many people willingly declare themselves to be staunch republicans. Or that this GOP pitch even works with the public at all. So not only could I never vote for a candidate that refuted evolution, I could never vote for a republican - for anything. I feel it's my duty as a good citizen of these united states to stand four-square against this mindset of oppression and willful ignorance.<<
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Specifically, the comments I refer to are: >>Anyone who is that out of touch with reality shouldn't be anywhere near the White House. We've already got one of those.<< (Post #2 and we already get an off topic slam at the President. Nice.)" Memo to DlandDug, That's my post and I'm proudly behind it. That you took the time to spotlight it as bigotry says more about you and your self-righteous view of things than anything else. Just when we think you might be over your drawn-out pompous phase, you come in and and not only disagree, which would be fine, but smugly pass judgment as well. It's been what, a few months since one of your posts like this? So you bet, I'd reject in a heartbeat any candidate who rejects evolution. We don't need anyone in the White House who thinks he's God or plays God. We've already got one of those here, too.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I could never vote for a republican - for anything. I feel it's my duty as a good citizen of these united states to stand four-square against this mindset of oppression and willful ignorance." As it is presently constituted? I'm in total agreement. The present day Republican party bears no resemblance whatsoever to the Republican party of even 15-20 years ago. The Christian right has screwed it over.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I've got a real issue for anyone who claims what I belive in is "witchcraft". Frankly, completely discounting the beliefs of hundreds of millions of humans around the World over the past 2,000 years is about as ignorant as completely ignoring the facts of evolution. It it impossible to believe that something...someone...triggered the Big Bang? Well, for me it isn't. I think Matthews pigeon-holed the respondents.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad To the original post: Evolution is a theory, not a law. It is as illogical to blindly believe in it as it is to blindly dismiss it. There are many things that evolution does not explain. For example the gaps in the fossil record just to name one. Scientifically speaking I doubt many of our presidents or even you readers here on LP have the proper education to make a truly informed decision on evolution. I know that I don't, and I am certain that this candidate doesn't. I would bet that the majority of our past presidents did not believe in evolution and we have had some great ones.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<So you bet, I'd reject in a heartbeat any candidate who rejects evolution. We don't need anyone in the White House who thinks he's God or plays God. We've already got one of those here, too. >>> This surprises me. Again I would bet dollars to doughnuts that the majority of our past presidents did not believe in evolution. Until it becomes a law, I neither believe in, nor discredit it.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<Until it becomes a law, I neither believe in, nor discredit it.>>> I would think that most lawyers would see the logic in that.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad ^ ^ ^ And I am speaking of the laws as defined by science, not the courts. lol Sorry I think I flubbed that last post.
Originally Posted By ecdc First, very well said, SPP. Second, the reason why I posted earlier about the scientists who also called themselves Christians is because I knew we could count on posts that said "evolution is a theory" and "science had lots of theories that have now been proven false", etc. These are, of course, red herrings. Only those who have never read about evolution, or studied it outside of trying to show why it can't be true, could use these arguments - and that's exactly what scientists who study evolution will tell you. Again, anyone who knows little or nothing about any topic has the luxury of complaining about it without knowing the facts. I say that as someone who has been guilty of this way of thinking plenty of times. I know little about Islam, for example, yet have felt free to postulate on its supposed violent temperament, its history, etc. Finally, I've made this comment before, but perhaps it's time to trot it out again. Those who argue against evolution do a very good job of presenting the scales as if they're equally balanced. "Hey, it's a theory. I respect your position but, you know, science is really flawed too." They present the argument as if there's just as much evidence for evolution as their is against it. As I've said before, it's a fairly common tactic of proponents of ideas that have little merit behind them, particularly conspiracy theories. The reality is, the *overwhelming* scientific consensus and evidence points to evolution being correct. There is not spirited debate still raging in the scientific community over evolution's veracity; you won't open up scientific journals and find articles debunking or challenging the overall theory of evolution. Of course, as new discoveries happen and new research is done, previous ideas about evolution are revised. That's the nature of scientific theories. But *all* of these new discoveries and research only confirm the reality of evolution, despite critics misguided attempts to say "See, it changes all the time - you just can't trust it!" In short, nothing has contradicted the theory, only expanded the understanding of it. In science, evolution is considered a theory - it conforms to the scientific definition of a "theory". But that word takes on new meaning in the hands of intelligent design proponents who want to debunk evolution. Suddenly, the word is a pejorative - "It's just some crackpot theory" - as if it can be lumped alongside other "theories" about faking the Apollo moon landing, the Loch Ness monster, or 9/11 conspiracies. In reality, there are many scientific "theories" that are universally accepted as true. But because these theories don't appear to directly challenge religious beliefs or Biblical accounts, no one raises an eyebrow. But they are also technically "theories". The Wikipedia article on "theory" actually does a very nice job of distinguishing between the common use of the word and the scientific use: "In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them. In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation."
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Scientific theory, even scientific "fact", is limited by our ability to recognize and explain things. For a long time it was scientific "fact" that there were just nine planets in the solar system. Then oops... when our technology got better we realized that Pluto wasn't really a planet after all. Did the physical reality change? No; just our ability to properly understand and interpret it. There are many instances where the universe does not conform to scientific theories. When that happens scientists will try to come up with some explanation for the anomaly. Hmmmm... the universe isn't following the rules here. What should we do? Oh I guess we'll call it a Black Hole and say the rules don't apply there. Kind of like Microsoft and their "features". Our knowledge of the universe and how it works is truly quite limited. Is "Black Hole" really a better explanation than "Oh... that is heaven. No one from outside can see it."? I’ll certainly accept that fact that evolution happens. Am I prepared to say it explains EVERYTHING? I think I would be pretty foolish if I did.
