On January 10 2012 18:10 Velr wrote: Haha, if not being a religious nutjob is the same as being "left" then your country has serious issues...
It's really good politics, though. At least in 2007, ~60% of the Republican base didn't think evolution was real, in comparison to ~40% of independents and Democrats. If you want to win the Republican nomination, you want to attract as many of that 40% as possible without losing that 60%, then try to go for independents and conservative Democrats in the presidential election. It's pretty much the same trend for global warming as well.
Of course, this means that Huntsman is almost certainly screwed.
That sounds kind of sad to be honest =/ us citizens should start a revolution and overhaul the whole political system to more like European countries system.
On January 10 2012 18:10 Velr wrote: Haha, if not being a religious nutjob is the same as being "left" then your country has serious issues...
It's really good politics, though. At least in 2007, ~60% of the Republican base didn't think evolution was real, in comparison to ~40% of independents and Democrats. If you want to win the Republican nomination, you want to attract as many of that 40% as possible without losing that 60%, then try to go for independents and conservative Democrats in the presidential election. It's pretty much the same trend for global warming as well.
Of course, this means that Huntsman is almost certainly screwed.
That sounds kind of sad to be honest =/ us citizens should start a revolution and overhaul the whole political system to more like European countries system.
The powers that be would never allow it to happen. I assure you, probably a good 35% (at least) of this country would prefer it (if they would actually inform themselves...). Until then, we have the senate, where a tiny minority of our voters has enough representation to block legislation and third parties are practically impossible to get off the ground at a national level.
On January 10 2012 18:08 acker wrote: Huntsman is definitely to the left of Romney. He's the most moderate Republican candidate who's kind of in the contending. Democrat? Probably not. Eisenhower Republican? Maybe.
For example, he tweeted a couple months ago he believes evolution is real and that scientists are trustworthy when it comes to global warming. This is vastly to the left of the positions of the other candidates, who have either completely disavowed one or both of the above positions or have furiously backpedaled on one or both of the above positions without actually disavowing them in their entirety.
Believing that scientists are trustworthy and that evolution is real doesn't make you left wing, right wing, liberal or conservative. It makes you sane.
Honestly, people in general make me want to bang my head against the wall. Bah, what the hell, I'll vent my rage with a couple head kicks in sparring.
On January 10 2012 18:08 acker wrote: Huntsman is definitely to the left of Romney. He's the most moderate Republican candidate who's kind of in the contending. Democrat? Probably not. Eisenhower Republican? Maybe.
For example, he tweeted a couple months ago he believes evolution is real and that scientists are trustworthy when it comes to global warming. This is vastly to the left of the positions of the other candidates, who have either completely disavowed one or both of the above positions or have furiously backpedaled on one or both of the above positions without actually disavowing them in their entirety.
Believing that scientists are trustworthy and that evolution is real doesn't make you left wing, right wing, liberal or conservative. It makes you sane.
Honestly, people in general make me want to bang my head against the wall. Bah, what the hell, I'll vent my rage with a couple head kicks in sparring.
Come on, how does it make you sane? Evolution is still an unproven theory, and while there is a good amount of evidence suggesting its truthfulness, it hardly is the only theory out there that is credible.
And Global Warming hasn't been proven either, although there is evidence to suggest that it exists. I don't know if I necessarily agree with Republicans who say that they are definitely fraudulent, but some people agree with that, so whatever. I do agree with Huntsman though, he's just a logical guy. I could live with Romney as well. If anyone else wins it'll be an easy win for Obama.
On January 10 2012 18:08 acker wrote: Huntsman is definitely to the left of Romney. He's the most moderate Republican candidate who's kind of in the contending. Democrat? Probably not. Eisenhower Republican? Maybe.
For example, he tweeted a couple months ago he believes evolution is real and that scientists are trustworthy when it comes to global warming. This is vastly to the left of the positions of the other candidates, who have either completely disavowed one or both of the above positions or have furiously backpedaled on one or both of the above positions without actually disavowing them in their entirety.
Believing that scientists are trustworthy and that evolution is real doesn't make you left wing, right wing, liberal or conservative. It makes you sane.
Honestly, people in general make me want to bang my head against the wall. Bah, what the hell, I'll vent my rage with a couple head kicks in sparring.
Come on, how does it make you sane? Evolution is still an unproven theory, and while there is a good amount of evidence suggesting its truthfulness, it hardly is the only theory out there that is credible.
I hope that was irony/sarcasm which i didn't get...
Oh please, tell me about these others "credible" theories...
On January 10 2012 18:08 acker wrote: Huntsman is definitely to the left of Romney. He's the most moderate Republican candidate who's kind of in the contending. Democrat? Probably not. Eisenhower Republican? Maybe.
For example, he tweeted a couple months ago he believes evolution is real and that scientists are trustworthy when it comes to global warming. This is vastly to the left of the positions of the other candidates, who have either completely disavowed one or both of the above positions or have furiously backpedaled on one or both of the above positions without actually disavowing them in their entirety.
Believing that scientists are trustworthy and that evolution is real doesn't make you left wing, right wing, liberal or conservative. It makes you sane.
Honestly, people in general make me want to bang my head against the wall. Bah, what the hell, I'll vent my rage with a couple head kicks in sparring.
Come on, how does it make you sane? Evolution is still an unproven theory, and while there is a good amount of evidence suggesting its truthfulness, it hardly is the only theory out there that is credible.
And Global Warming hasn't been proven either, although there is evidence to suggest that it exists. I don't know if I necessarily agree with Republicans who say that they are definitely fraudulent, but some people agree with that, so whatever. I do agree with Huntsman though, he's just a logical guy. I could live with Romney as well. If anyone else wins it'll be an easy win for Obama.
Except it's not like they're even getting behind the secondary theories to those. They turn their heads to the thought that they're notions gained from rather poor processes could be wrong.
Specifically, for global warming, it's happening and it's causing significant climate change. To deny that is simply stupid. However, they don't have to take the environmental approach to combat it, and instead could embrace ideas that fit in their ideal. Something like "reducing government to give people the financial means to adapt to climate change." However, instead they take the completely ridiculous approach of, "nuh uh! ur rong!"
On January 10 2012 18:08 acker wrote: Huntsman is definitely to the left of Romney. He's the most moderate Republican candidate who's kind of in the contending. Democrat? Probably not. Eisenhower Republican? Maybe.
For example, he tweeted a couple months ago he believes evolution is real and that scientists are trustworthy when it comes to global warming. This is vastly to the left of the positions of the other candidates, who have either completely disavowed one or both of the above positions or have furiously backpedaled on one or both of the above positions without actually disavowing them in their entirety.
Believing that scientists are trustworthy and that evolution is real doesn't make you left wing, right wing, liberal or conservative. It makes you sane.
Honestly, people in general make me want to bang my head against the wall. Bah, what the hell, I'll vent my rage with a couple head kicks in sparring.
Come on, how does it make you sane? Evolution is still an unproven theory, and while there is a good amount of evidence suggesting its truthfulness, it hardly is the only theory out there that is credible.
And Global Warming hasn't been proven either, although there is evidence to suggest that it exists. I don't know if I necessarily agree with Republicans who say that they are definitely fraudulent, but some people agree with that, so whatever. I do agree with Huntsman though, he's just a logical guy. I could live with Romney as well. If anyone else wins it'll be an easy win for Obama.
The alternative to evolution being that god created everything. And global warming doesn't exist because certain lobbyists make more money from a lack of regulations that might help/prevent global warming whether it does/does not supposedly exist.
I'd almost convince myself to vote for Ron Paul just because he's a Constitutionalist - it seems to be a dying breed.
This unconstitutional Patriot Act, NDAA imprisonment, et cetera is starting to get ridiculous. It'd be interesting to get someone in office who wouldn't be afraid to veto anything. Or everything.
On January 10 2012 21:22 Switchy wrote: When is the US going to get a president that doesn't talk about god. God should stay home and not be involved in politics, its pathetic.
What Frightens me the most with it, is that religious point of views seem more and more extremist. I don't know if it's just me, or these guys where just hidden before, but man...it's getting worth and worth.
On January 10 2012 21:22 Switchy wrote: When is the US going to get a president that doesn't talk about god. God should stay home and not be involved in politics, its pathetic.
Unlike Europe the USA still has a huge percentage of religious voters. And they are much more convinced of the right of god then almost any other part of the world. Hence why every presidential candidate has to pretend to be a religious christian to have a shot at the white house.
On January 10 2012 21:18 Croaker wrote: I'd almost convince myself to vote for Ron Paul just because he's a Constitutionalist - it seems to be a dying breed.
This unconstitutional Patriot Act, NDAA imprisonment, et cetera is starting to get ridiculous. It'd be interesting to get someone in office who wouldn't be afraid to veto anything. Or everything.
You don't need to be a constitutionalist to be against the Patriot Act or NDAA. You just need to think a little bit critically.
Constitutionalists are basically people who consider the constitution as something you can refer under any circumstances, that should never change, ever.
This uber-conservative position doesn't make sense. It's a denial that world changes and that society has to adapt to these changes. Many of America's structural problems come from an outdated constitution. France has had something like 6 constitutions since the US got their independence, and we are thinking about changing it because it's not balanced anymore and was applied to De Gaulle don't apply to Sarkozy. Now, the US constitution was written in a totally different context than we are today, by totally different people, who had completely different ideas than anybody modern person. Think about it: the reason it's written you can have weapons at home is because you could have to fight against Indians. Institutions such as Supreme court don't make any sense anymore (it has an incredible power that is completely non-democratic and illegitimate). Etc etc etc...
Constitutionalists are principled people. If it's written in the Constitution, don't try to find a rational argument, don't try to think critically, just defend it to your death. People defending the right to carry weapons because it's in the Constitution are using an idiotic argument (obviously there are not many other argument to defend the right to buy war weapons...) That's just a way to avoid starting a rational discussion that they would lose anyway.
No wonder why Ron Paul is one of them since he seems to think exclusively through rigid principle without embarrassing himself with looking at the reality of world and the people who live in it. Which is what in my opinion, makes him as dogmatic, dangerous and irrational as, let's say, the Christian fundamentalists of the Tea Party. They have the Bible and the Christian dogma, he has the Constitution and his quasi-religious idea of "liberty", and they all are ready to deny that 2+2 = 4 if it goes against it.
On January 10 2012 18:08 acker wrote: Huntsman is definitely to the left of Romney. He's the most moderate Republican candidate who's kind of in the contending. Democrat? Probably not. Eisenhower Republican? Maybe.
For example, he tweeted a couple months ago he believes evolution is real and that scientists are trustworthy when it comes to global warming. This is vastly to the left of the positions of the other candidates, who have either completely disavowed one or both of the above positions or have furiously backpedaled on one or both of the above positions without actually disavowing them in their entirety.
Believing that scientists are trustworthy and that evolution is real doesn't make you left wing, right wing, liberal or conservative. It makes you sane.
Honestly, people in general make me want to bang my head against the wall. Bah, what the hell, I'll vent my rage with a couple head kicks in sparring.
Come on, how does it make you sane? Evolution is still an unproven theory, and while there is a good amount of evidence suggesting its truthfulness, it hardly is the only theory out there that is credible.
And Global Warming hasn't been proven either, although there is evidence to suggest that it exists. I don't know if I necessarily agree with Republicans who say that they are definitely fraudulent, but some people agree with that, so whatever. I do agree with Huntsman though, he's just a logical guy. I could live with Romney as well. If anyone else wins it'll be an easy win for Obama.
Evolution is not a an "unproven theory" its as close to established scientific fact as you can get. Not that "unproven theory" even means anything in a scientific context since a scientific theory by definition has tons of proof behind it. And please name me one of these other theories that are credible? I bet you can't since there hasn't been any other credible theories for the last hundred years. Its truly depressing that people like you can be so drastically uninformed. What does it say about the American education system when people are a hundred years behind in an entire scientific field?
Evolution also has the plausibility of being testable. If given enough resources, 100,000 years, and an area of land the size of Germany, I'm fairly certain that I would be able to apply selective pressures to force dogs to branch to a new species that would be unable to reproduce with the original dog. Other theories are intelligent design and that's just inserting mystery thing X that we could never hope to identify. I have the chance to experiment with evolution as a framework. That's what makes it scientific and other theories not.
On January 10 2012 21:59 DetriusXii wrote: Evolution also has the plausibility of being testable. If given enough resources, 100,000 years, and an area of land the size of Germany, I'm fairly certain that I would be able to apply selective pressures to force dogs to branch to a new species that would be unable to reproduce with the original dog. Other theories are intelligent design and that's just inserting mystery thing X that we could never hope to identify. I have the chance to experiment with evolution as a framework. That's what makes it scientific and other theories not.
Evolution is a scientific fact. Someone denying evolution does the same than someone denying that the earth is spheric. There is no evidence against evolution, we know perfectly the biological mechanisms that allow it, such as genetic mutations, and we don't have the slightest hypothesis of an alternative model except for the ridiculous superstition of some religious nuts who live in middle age.
On January 10 2012 21:59 DetriusXii wrote: Evolution also has the plausibility of being testable. If given enough resources, 100,000 years, and an area of land the size of Germany, I'm fairly certain that I would be able to apply selective pressures to force dogs to branch to a new species that would be unable to reproduce with the original dog. Other theories are intelligent design and that's just inserting mystery thing X that we could never hope to identify. I have the chance to experiment with evolution as a framework. That's what makes it scientific and other theories not.
Evolution is a scientific fact. Someone denying evolution does the same than someone denying that the earth is spheric. There is no evidence against evolution, we know perfectly the biological mechanisms that allow it, such as genetic mutations, and we don't have the slightest hypothesis of an alternative model except for the ridiculous superstition of some religious nuts who live in middle age.
And who might lead the 1st economic and military power in the world.
On January 10 2012 22:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 10 2012 21:59 DetriusXii wrote: Evolution also has the plausibility of being testable. If given enough resources, 100,000 years, and an area of land the size of Germany, I'm fairly certain that I would be able to apply selective pressures to force dogs to branch to a new species that would be unable to reproduce with the original dog. Other theories are intelligent design and that's just inserting mystery thing X that we could never hope to identify. I have the chance to experiment with evolution as a framework. That's what makes it scientific and other theories not.
Evolution is a scientific fact. Someone denying evolution does the same than someone denying that the earth is spheric. There is no evidence against evolution, we know perfectly the biological mechanisms that allow it, such as genetic mutations, and we don't have the slightest hypothesis of an alternative model except for the ridiculous superstition of some religious nuts who live in middle age.
And who might lead the 1st economic and military power in the world.
I know. It's depressing. I have to say that if anybody else than Romney gets to the second round, he will be roflstomped by Obama. Someone like Santorum would scare the shit out of every moderate centre-right wing voter. As for Ron Paul, I can't imagine him winning in a zillion year.
On January 10 2012 21:59 DetriusXii wrote: Evolution also has the plausibility of being testable. If given enough resources, 100,000 years, and an area of land the size of Germany, I'm fairly certain that I would be able to apply selective pressures to force dogs to branch to a new species that would be unable to reproduce with the original dog. Other theories are intelligent design and that's just inserting mystery thing X that we could never hope to identify. I have the chance to experiment with evolution as a framework. That's what makes it scientific and other theories not.
Evolution is a scientific fact. Someone denying evolution does the same than someone denying that the earth is spheric. There is no evidence against evolution, we know perfectly the biological mechanisms that allow it, such as genetic mutations, and we don't have the slightest hypothesis of an alternative model except for the ridiculous superstition of some religious nuts who live in middle age.
If you're advocating "the scientific way", then don't call evolution a scientific fact and compare it to the earth being spherical.
Evolution is a theory, just like physics theories explaining gravity, electro magnetic waves etc. are theories. We observe different phenomena, like the force that works between objects with a mass which we call gravity, or in this instance: That animals and life forms are not the same in the present, compared to what we can gather of information on how they were like in the past. The only thing that is a fact is the observation - we then make a theory to try to explain our observations.
A theory is flawed, or 'wrong', if we can find evidence that does not fit into its model, but conversely we can never 'prove' that it is correct in every instance because we cannot observe every instance. I don't really see the big fuzz about politicians saying evolution is a theory - because it is, and currently we don't have any observation that it cannot explain.
I wish people would look a bit beyond this matter in these elections though, it's not like someone who doesn't accept evolution as the leading theory is automatically unfit to be president, because believe it or not, it seems the US has more pressing issues right now.
Oh, dear evolution debate , I don't approve going offtopic so I'll spoiler + Show Spoiler +
Making something scientifically proven does not mean it makes it correct . It simply makes it testable under certain environments , under certain premises. But science constantly changes , we have now the hots for quantum theories , probably in the future it will evolve , and we'll say ... Newtonian physics is wrong ... quantum physics is wrong .. blabla now this is the model we use . Plus in 2012 , we cannot separate different sciences so they fit our causes ... no you can't separate math from physics , biology form physics , and so on .. This is what it does ... and anyways ... the current scientific paradigm basically requires you to grant them the 1 pass , and that is , believe in magic once ... and then we can start from there . What sells me the idea of intelligent loving design is .... I refuse to believe that out of a cold ruthless dead machine we came about ... and anyways the chance of us being here , by science , is lower than winning the lottery 10 times in a row .... So , yeah ... Also the most intelligent people I've met are not atheists , they are extremly humble , and they know that whatever paradigm they official support right now , they can never be sure of the "truth" , whatever that might mean . What I'm saying , I believe no model is correct , and whoever starts to mock anything is simply stupid , not smarter than the creationist fundamentalist .... If a model is preposterous , an intelligent person would simply ignore it and move on ... Oh well ... That's about it ... And saying you can run a state without religion .... I can't imagine such a thing ... the state itself is kind of a father figure that resembles some things in religion , not to mention to justice system has it's roots in religion.
And about Dr Paul completely denying evolution and being a strong christian . You know , special experiences are real , maybe he had some crazy "god" experience ... That's not something uncommon or crazy , take 5 grams of shroom and meet God , or whatever you wanna call it.. And also , there's been evidence that there are people with specific biology who makes them able to have psychadelic experiences without taking drugs so ... Who knows what happened to the guy :D , at least he's extremly peaceful and reasonable about it , not like Rick wanting to ban CONTRACEPTIVES LOL
EPT
